PDA

View Full Version : FW-190A-5 files for 1st time since 1943



jarink
12-02-2010, 08:00 PM
Not too many details for now, but I'm sure we will be hearing more from this bird in the near future!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Fighter Heritage Collection's announcement on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=477343128665&set=a.115249348665.100226.13883518665)

Metatron_123
12-02-2010, 08:16 PM
Simply wonderful! Original engine too eh?

I want to see some of these German warbirds/replicas in a quality movie!

Kurfurst__
12-03-2010, 06:00 AM
Absolutely wonderful news, I am not sure but I believe there's no original 190 flying around, only replicas? This one says its from 1943, anybody knows the story behind the plane?

Xiolablu3
12-03-2010, 06:04 AM
Every one I have seen flying before in a modern video has had a Russian Radial Engine.

Thats awesome.

Note the quotes below from the pilot 'This is one WW2 fighter which lives up to its high reputation.'

JarheadEd
12-03-2010, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Absolutely wonderful news, I am not sure but I believe there's no original 190 flying around, only replicas? This one says its from 1943, anybody knows the story behind the plane?

Here You go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jueDXiuU6aM

BMW Start up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1DYiPJAunA

DKoor
12-03-2010, 08:22 AM
Lovely bird... always nice to see originals up there again, although they should really look after this one since it's unique.

Jaws2002
12-03-2010, 01:22 PM
"The plane is very light, fast, and responsive,” reported Hinton. “This lived up to the history books".
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

ROXunreal
12-03-2010, 01:49 PM
My biggest aviation related wish (that does not directly include me, of course) was that an 801 190 flies again. It's such a great thing that one is finally flying again more or less the same as it was when it was made.

Kurfurst__
12-03-2010, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by JarheadEd:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Absolutely wonderful news, I am not sure but I believe there's no original 190 flying around, only replicas? This one says its from 1943, anybody knows the story behind the plane?

Here You go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jueDXiuU6aM

BMW Start up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1DYiPJAunA </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah! Its THAT one! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Thanks a lot! Its great she flies again! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Glykol02
12-03-2010, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Metatron_123:
Simply wonderful! Original engine too eh?

I want to see some of these German warbirds/replicas in a quality movie!

No film like that in sight.
The only one I remember is the short scene of a real 109 apearing in this short film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvXQJEY6-vk

GBrutus
12-03-2010, 03:18 PM
I had no idea they were so far along with this restoration. Fantastic to see a real Fw 190 take to the skies again. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

RegRag1977
12-03-2010, 04:40 PM
Thanks for posting this Jarink, this IS fantastic news! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

DrHerb
12-03-2010, 05:29 PM
That's freakin' awesome! Cant wait to see vids of her flying.

stalkervision
12-03-2010, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
"The plane is very light, fast, and responsive,” reported Hinton. “This lived up to the history books".
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Not the way the fw-190 in Il-2 flies IME. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Xiolablu3
12-03-2010, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
"The plane is very light, fast, and responsive,” reported Hinton. “This lived up to the history books".
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Not the way the fw-190 in Il-2 flies IME. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course it does, it is one of the lightest on the controls, fastest in the game and very responsive.

He obvously doesnt mean that the FW190 was 'light' (in weight) as it was quite heavy for a WW2 fighter plane unless compared to the big heavy US fighters.

Spitfires, Yaks, La5's and Bf109's were much much lighter.

C.W.M.V.
12-04-2010, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
"The plane is very light, fast, and responsive,” reported Hinton. “This lived up to the history books".
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Not the way the fw-190 in Il-2 flies IME. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Quoted for truth!

Xiolablu3
12-04-2010, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by C.W.M.V.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
"The plane is very light, fast, and responsive,” reported Hinton. “This lived up to the history books".
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Not the way the fw-190 in Il-2 flies IME. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Quoted for truth! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quoted by people who have no idea how to get the best out of it and would be better using biplanes. (cos htey turns best, doent htey?)

Jaws is primarily a Fw190 pilot, lets ask him his K/D ratio on servers shall we? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Choctaw111
12-04-2010, 07:31 AM
That is awesome!
Simply incredible.

VW-IceFire
12-04-2010, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by C.W.M.V.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
"The plane is very light, fast, and responsive,” reported Hinton. “This lived up to the history books".
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Not the way the fw-190 in Il-2 flies IME. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Quoted for truth! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quoted by people who have no idea how to get the best out of it and would be better using biplanes. (cos htey turns best, doent htey?)

Jaws is primarily a Fw190 pilot, lets ask him his K/D ratio on servers shall we? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Xiola is the one who we should be quoting for truth. The FW190 in IL-2 is exceptionally light at the controls and one of, if not the most, responsive aircraft in game.

Bankoletti
12-04-2010, 10:30 AM
And yet, in IL-2 its dogfighting abilities are atrocious (when it was historically considered more maneouverable than spitfire) and has a climbrate on a par with some twin engined medium bombers (when its historical climb rate was comparable to the one of SpitIX).

It is a deadly BnZer tho. A plane that's easiest to score obscenely high K/D ratios in.

Bremspropeller
12-04-2010, 10:37 AM
Finally a proper warbird http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

thefruitbat
12-04-2010, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by Bankoletti:
And yet, in IL-2 its dogfighting abilities are atrocious (when it was historically considered more maneouverable than spitfire)

It is much more maneouverable that the spit in some aspects of flight, such as high speed. I guess you read that quote and want to believe that this applies across all flight regimes....


It is a deadly BnZer tho. A plane that's easiest to score obscenely high K/D ratios in.

and there is the crux. Guess what, in WWII dogfights didn't resemble the turn and burn treetop mess that is il2 public servers...

Now I do think that the FW's energy retention is off, as well as its acceleration being to low and its climb angle being wrong, but i certainly don't expect to be turning and burning with spits in it.

and as you point out, you don't need to, to get obscene K/D ratios in it.....

Xiolablu3
12-04-2010, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Bankoletti:
And yet, in IL-2 its dogfighting abilities are atrocious (when it was historically considered more maneouverable than spitfire) and has a climbrate on a par with some twin engined medium bombers (when its historical climb rate was comparable to the one of SpitIX).

It is a deadly BnZer tho. A plane that's easiest to score obscenely high K/D ratios in.

If theres one thing I guess we could criticize and agree on, its the low speed handling, it does feel sluggish in the low speed range.

i will also agree that its climb rate in IL2 doesnt tally with the RAF when compared to the Spitfire Vb 1941, although I think thats because the Spitfire Vb 1941 in IL2 is too slow, but with a too high climb rate, IIRC? Also we dont have a 1942 Spitfire IX Merlin 61 which that test was comparing it too, we have the 1943 merlin 66 model which had a much ebtter climb rate.

However I do think you are misinterpreting 'more manouverable.'

The RAF doc's state 'The FW190A is more manouverable than the Spitfire **except in turning circles where it is easily outturned by the Spitfire**'

Manouverability is defined as 'being able to change direction very quickly and easily', which is essentially roll rate, and light responsive controls across the speed range, I believe'? (ready to be corrected on this as to what 'manouverability' is actually defined as in teh dogfighting world. But i know, in my admittedly limited wisdom of air combat (I have never flown a fighter!), its certainly not all to do with its turning circle.

Its all a case of using the Fw190 to its strengths, which means Top speed, Dive speed, firepower and roll rate. It was never a great horizontal turnfighter, unless you ask Gaston, that is. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bankoletti
12-04-2010, 02:07 PM
Yup, the definition of "maneouverability" is a case for debate.

I wouldn't equal maneouverabity with a roll rate tho. In my opinion (just an opinion, I might be very wrong) when you have a dogfight duel of two fighters, the more maneouverable one is easier able to come into a favourable position to shoot an opponent down from initially equal position (like a level headon). It's a combination of acceleration, roll rate, turn rate, energy retention etc etc.

Now if I'm anywhere close to the real meaning of "maneouverability" here, than there exists some level of discrepancy between reality and IL-2, since in IL-2 simulation Fw 190 has practically no chances of outmaneouvering a spitIX in a dogfight, given the skill of both pilots is equal.

But then again, I fully agree with fruitbat - we many times tend to forget that aerial combat in WW2 looked a lot more like a sneaky backstabbing than a chivalry knight dueling.

VW-IceFire
12-04-2010, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Bankoletti:
And yet, in IL-2 its dogfighting abilities are atrocious (when it was historically considered more maneouverable than spitfire) and has a climbrate on a par with some twin engined medium bombers (when its historical climb rate was comparable to the one of SpitIX).

It is a deadly BnZer tho. A plane that's easiest to score obscenely high K/D ratios in.
Sigh.... This has been discussed to death. Maneuverability is more than just turn rate. The FW190 in both game and in real life is more maneuverable than the Spitfire except in turn rate. I find the Spitfire largely unresponsive to my inputs but in the FW190 I'm very much at home and the plane does exactly what I want it to.

Depending on the model of FW190 the climb rate is extremely good. Although many make the mistake of making a sharp climb in combat which burns off a lot of energy. None of the planes present are 100% perfect but that's pretty much impossible to have anyways (philosophically). Everything I read suggests our FW190 is actually quite close to the real one which is pretty good in my book. Understanding how it should fly is perhaps something else http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bankoletti
12-04-2010, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Maneuverability is more than just turn rate.

Noone claimed anything opposite. In my opinion there's a whole lot of other characteristics that contribute more to the maneouverability than turn rate. Acceleration, roll rate and roll acceleration, energy retention, power loading to name just a few. Turn rate (connected strongly with wing loading) comes distantly behind all these - in my book.


Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Depending on the model of FW190 the climb rate is extremely good.

"Extremely good"?! Well, compared to what? B-17, maybe. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Besides, I know (or "understand" if you will) very well how to fly the Fw 190. It's possible to rack kills up like there is no tomorrow when you fly this plane right and it gives you a very high chace of survival. That's not questionable at all. But, why oh why, when someone expresses a slightest doubt about historical accuracy of some aircraft modelling, the patronizing gang comes down at him yelling:"Learn how to fly!" It's a Pavlov dog of this forum, it seems. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Wildnoob
12-04-2010, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bankoletti:
And yet, in IL-2 its dogfighting abilities are atrocious (when it was historically considered more maneouverable than spitfire) and has a climbrate on a par with some twin engined medium bombers (when its historical climb rate was comparable to the one of SpitIX).

It is a deadly BnZer tho. A plane that's easiest to score obscenely high K/D ratios in.

If theres one thing I guess we could criticize and agree on, its the low speed handling, it does feel sluggish in the low speed range.

i will also agree that its climb rate in IL2 doesnt tally with the RAF when compared to the Spitfire Vb 1941, although I think thats because the Spitfire Vb 1941 in IL2 is too slow, but with a too high climb rate, IIRC? Also we dont have a 1942 Spitfire IX Merlin 61 which that test was comparing it too, we have the 1943 merlin 66 model which had a much ebtter climb rate.

However I do think you are misinterpreting 'more manouverable.'

The RAF doc's state 'The FW190A is more manouverable than the Spitfire **except in turning circles where it is easily outturned by the Spitfire**'

Manouverability is defined as 'being able to change direction very quickly and easily', which is essentially roll rate, and light responsive controls across the speed range, I believe'? (ready to be corrected on this as to what 'manouverability' is actually defined as in teh dogfighting world. But i know, in my admittedly limited wisdom of air combat (I have never flown a fighter!), its certainly not all to do with its turning circle.

Its all a case of using the Fw190 to its strengths, which means Top speed, Dive speed, firepower and roll rate. It was never a great horizontal turnfighter, unless you ask Gaston, that is. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not Gaston and I know very well the Fw 190 was an excellent dogfighter. The plane was not capable of match the light fighters in a "knife fight" and prolonged climbs but was very capable in other regimes. I already read a lot of it, and in my last book Fw 190 Aces of the Eastern Front the pilots never mentioned any difficult to enter in maneuvered combat with the lighter Russian planes.

Our Fw 190 at least in the 4.09m is very bad. Lack of accelaration and with more drag than it actually should have according to a discussion with informations presented in a mod forum. People who think the Fw 190 was just a "hunter" are simply wrong. Unfortenately real life is real life and games are games.

VW-IceFire
12-04-2010, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Bankoletti:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Maneuverability is more than just turn rate.

Noone claimed anything opposite. In my opinion there's a whole lot of other characteristics that contribute more to the maneouverability than turn rate. Acceleration, roll rate and roll acceleration, energy retention, power loading to name just a few. Turn rate (connected strongly with wing loading) comes distantly behind all these - in my book.


Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Depending on the model of FW190 the climb rate is extremely good.

"Extremely good"?! Well, compared to what? B-17, maybe. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Besides, I know (or "understand" if you will) very well how to fly the Fw 190. It's possible to rack kills up like there is no tomorrow when you fly this plane right and it gives you a very high chace of survival. That's not questionable at all. But, why oh why, when someone expresses a slightest doubt about historical accuracy of some aircraft modelling, the patronizing gang comes down at him yelling:"Learn how to fly!" It's a Pavlov dog of this forum, it seems. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One does have to question the persons ability to fly if their FW190 is climbing like a B-17. It doesn't... :/

ROXunreal
12-04-2010, 07:09 PM
Yes, lets make fun of metaphors now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I think that his point was somewhere along the lines that probably the only conventional fighter that climbs worse than a 190 is the P-47. Which is true. You won't be able to outclimb a spit or a yak or a 109 or a lavochkin or a p-39 or many more of the more common fighters, regardless of "how good you are."

Skill won't make you go beyond a technical limitation.

thefruitbat
12-04-2010, 07:37 PM
You won't be able to absolute out climb them, but you can out shallow climb quite a few of them, particularly most contemporary spits.

Any plane that has a faster top speed, can out shallow climb any plane thats slower, simply because it can still climb, all be it at a reduced rate, at the slower planes top or near top speed whereas all the slower plane can do is fly level.

This results in vertical and horizontal separation being achieved, and leaves the following plane with a problem, either to climb at best climb speed, but reducing its manoeuvrability due to its lower speed, or to disengage, and hope the faster plane does not come back.

In combat, one rarely wants to be climbing at there best climb speed, as these speeds are generally around the 260-280km/h mark, and thats not a speed i want to be going in a combat zone.

Also, altitude plays a big factor, whilst at one altitude the difference in climb rates may be marked, at others they can be much closer, even reversed. If you look around, there plenty of examples, where one plane can out climb another at one altitude, only for the roles to be reversed at another altitude.

In game, even though the stock fw190a4, above 5000m can still be ever so slightly out climbed by the stock spitVb (which climbs to well) and where the absolute difference is around 0.5m/s, the fw's huge speed advantage over 5000m+ (around 70km/h TAS), nullifies this 'absolute' climb advantage in actual combat, and as long as the fw pilot doesn't pull needless hard turns and stays fast, he is free to orchestrate the fight, and force the spit into only being able to react and hope for a mistake.

Fight the same fight in the fw, between 2000-4500m, where the fw only has a small comparative speed advantage and the spit has a big climb advantage then you're in trouble, and personally I'd be shallow climbing away and saying goodbye, if I was flying seriously. If he wanted to follow up to 5000m+, happy days.

Climb is not as straightforward as it seems at first glance, like so many other things in this game.

Bankoletti
12-05-2010, 05:16 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

One does have to question the persons ability to fly if their FW190 is climbing like a B-17. It doesn't... :/

You appear to have misread or misinterpreat my post yet again. I have stated, literaly, that Fw 190 climbs extremely good compared to the B-17. Not that it climbs like B-17.

You, on the other hand, stated, that Fw 190s climb rate is extremely good without any reference compared to what. Now find me 1 (one) contemporary fighter that the Fw 190 outclimbs, or using your words, has an "extremely good climb rate" compared to it. Just one. La, Yak, Spit, Mustang, Lightning... all climb better. So let me repeat my question again: When you stated that Fw 190s climb rate is extremely good, you ment that compared to what?



Originally posted by thefruitbat:
You won't be able to absolute out climb them, but you can out shallow climb quite a few of them, particularly most contemporary spits.

Any plane that has a faster top speed, can out shallow climb any plane thats slower, simply because it can still climb, all be it at a reduced rate, at the slower planes top or near top speed whereas all the slower plane can do is fly level.


While that's of course true, it only works against silly opponents. A smart spitfireIX pilot will slow down to its best climb speed and outclimb a Fw 190 with ease. Fw 190 will from that point on stay below the Spit. Yes, Fw 190 got his @ss saved, but he can't endanger the spit either. This technique might work for an 190A pilot against an inexperienced SpitV, which is a lot slower and can't climb as well at high speeds due to the reasons you portrayed nicely, but the bitter truth of IL-2 is that the optimal climb rate of Fw190A is somewhere on a par with the one of SpitV. Now I don't even dare question historical accuracy of this since I don't want to deal with the mob crying:"Learn how to fly!" again.

And secondly, Fw 190 speed isn't that much superior to the speed of SpitIX, so even if you try the shallowest climb at highest speeds, spit will climb nearly as good if he decides to follow you. Now the difference in climb is so small, that overheating issues and/or spits better altitude performance will soon start to prevail. Bottom line I'm trying to make - Fw 190A can't effectively outclimb a SpitIX at any speed (and, just to be clear, I wouldn't expect one to do so historically!).

VW-IceFire
12-05-2010, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by Bankoletti:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

One does have to question the persons ability to fly if their FW190 is climbing like a B-17. It doesn't... :/

You appear to have misread or misinterpreat my post yet again. I have stated, literaly, that Fw 190 climbs extremely good compared to the B-17. Not that it climbs like B-17.

You, on the other hand, stated, that Fw 190s climb rate is extremely good without any reference compared to what. Now find me 1 (one) contemporary fighter that the Fw 190 outclimbs, or using your words, has an "extremely good climb rate" compared to it. Just one. La, Yak, Spit, Mustang, Lightning... all climb better. So let me repeat my question again: When you stated that Fw 190s climb rate is extremely good, you ment that compared to what?



Originally posted by thefruitbat:
You won't be able to absolute out climb them, but you can out shallow climb quite a few of them, particularly most contemporary spits.

Any plane that has a faster top speed, can out shallow climb any plane thats slower, simply because it can still climb, all be it at a reduced rate, at the slower planes top or near top speed whereas all the slower plane can do is fly level.


While that's of course true, it only works against silly opponents. A smart spitfireIX pilot will slow down to its best climb speed and outclimb a Fw 190 with ease. Fw 190 will from that point on stay below the Spit. Yes, Fw 190 got his @ss saved, but he can't endanger the spit either. This technique might work for an 190A pilot against an inexperienced SpitV, which is a lot slower and can't climb as well at high speeds due to the reasons you portrayed nicely, but the bitter truth of IL-2 is that the optimal climb rate of Fw190A is somewhere on a par with the one of SpitV. Now I don't even dare question historical accuracy of this since I don't want to deal with the mob crying:"Learn how to fly!" again.

And secondly, Fw 190 speed isn't that much superior to the speed of SpitIX, so even if you try the shallowest climb at highest speeds, spit will climb nearly as good if he decides to follow you. Now the difference in climb is so small, that overheating issues and/or spits better altitude performance will soon start to prevail. Bottom line I'm trying to make - Fw 190A can't effectively outclimb a SpitIX at any speed (and, just to be clear, I wouldn't expect one to do so historically!). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok I'll bite.

Perhaps I did misinterpret but the essential meaning I'm taking is that you think the plane is a poor climber. If you're saying anything else then comparisons to medium or heavy bombers are probably not the best thing to be saying. Especially with the inherent lack of tone that we have with the internet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Let's go with the FW190A-5 versus contemporary opposition that is available to us in game. LaGG-3, La-5, Yak-9, Spitfire V and IX, P-38 and P-47.

LaGG-3: Outclimbs all LaGG-3 series slightly.

La-5: Outclimbs the La-5 above 3000 meters. Outclimbs the La-5F above 1000 meters. Unable to outclimb the La-5FN which outclimbs it to about 4000 meters.

Yak-9: On par with the Yak-9 except a weird blip in the Yak's climb performance around where the supercharger stages are changed where the Yak-9 is a better climber. Then the FW190 is a better climber above 4500 meters. Easily out climbs the Yak-9D and most other Yak-9 models until the Yak-9U which is vastly superior.

Spitfire V: A mixed bag here. The V initially has poorer climb and then increases it's climb rate and does better than the FW190 around 4000 meters at which point it falls off and the two are somewhat even with slight advantage to FW190 on boost but off boost the Spitfire has the advantage.

Spitfire LF.IX: Getting out of the range of contemporary now but nonetheless the LF.IX is superior at climbing through most of the range.

P-38J: The P-38 has a generally better climb but it's fairly even on the graph. Slight advantage to the P-38.

P-47: Versus the D-10 the FW190 is a better climber. Versus the other models the P-47 gets successively better. The D-27 with high boost far outstrips the FW190 in climb.

All stats taken from IL-2 Compare which as well all know is a decent basis of comparison although it isn't perfect nor does it tell the whole story. But my point that the FW190 climbs extremely well, I feel, is justified. It's competitive or superior to aircraft that it is pitted up against. Make the same comparison for the FW190D-9 and it is superior or on par with most of it's contemporaries. It's rarely the best throughout the altitude and speed range but it's always giving an extremely good showing.

As for speed and climb angles. You can easily leave a Spitfire V behind. Even if he slows down to best climb speed the Spitfire V doesn't hold energy as well in a zoom nor does it have the engine power to make up for it (which the IX does). So the FW190 goes into a fast climb, leaves the Spitfire behind, the FW190 then achieves sufficient separation to turn around and have another go at the Spitfire. So long as the FW190 pilot can engage and disengage at will he has a huge advantage and the Spitfire doesn't have the climb superiority to make up the difference.

In a 1vs1 I admit that it's more difficult but as soon as it's 2v2 or greater then whatever advantage the Spitfire has is greatly diminished.

The Spitfire V is very much inadequate against the FW190A series which is what the RAF found which is one of the reasons they rushed the IX into production skipping the somewhat superior design of the VIII and getting as many V airframes fitted with Merlin 60s as possible.

I hope we're all clear now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
12-05-2010, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bankoletti:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

One does have to question the persons ability to fly if their FW190 is climbing like a B-17. It doesn't... :/

You appear to have misread or misinterpreat my post yet again. I have stated, literaly, that Fw 190 climbs extremely good compared to the B-17. Not that it climbs like B-17.

You, on the other hand, stated, that Fw 190s climb rate is extremely good without any reference compared to what. Now find me 1 (one) contemporary fighter that the Fw 190 outclimbs, or using your words, has an "extremely good climb rate" compared to it. Just one. La, Yak, Spit, Mustang, Lightning... all climb better. So let me repeat my question again: When you stated that Fw 190s climb rate is extremely good, you ment that compared to what?



Originally posted by thefruitbat:
You won't be able to absolute out climb them, but you can out shallow climb quite a few of them, particularly most contemporary spits.

Any plane that has a faster top speed, can out shallow climb any plane thats slower, simply because it can still climb, all be it at a reduced rate, at the slower planes top or near top speed whereas all the slower plane can do is fly level.


While that's of course true, it only works against silly opponents. A smart spitfireIX pilot will slow down to its best climb speed and outclimb a Fw 190 with ease. Fw 190 will from that point on stay below the Spit. Yes, Fw 190 got his @ss saved, but he can't endanger the spit either. This technique might work for an 190A pilot against an inexperienced SpitV, which is a lot slower and can't climb as well at high speeds due to the reasons you portrayed nicely, but the bitter truth of IL-2 is that the optimal climb rate of Fw190A is somewhere on a par with the one of SpitV. Now I don't even dare question historical accuracy of this since I don't want to deal with the mob crying:"Learn how to fly!" again.

And secondly, Fw 190 speed isn't that much superior to the speed of SpitIX, so even if you try the shallowest climb at highest speeds, spit will climb nearly as good if he decides to follow you. Now the difference in climb is so small, that overheating issues and/or spits better altitude performance will soon start to prevail. Bottom line I'm trying to make - Fw 190A can't effectively outclimb a SpitIX at any speed (and, just to be clear, I wouldn't expect one to do so historically!). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok...

Perhaps I did misinterpret but the essential meaning I'm taking is that you think the plane is a poor climber. If you're saying anything else then comparisons to medium or heavy bombers are probably not the best thing to be saying. Especially with the inherent lack of tone that we have with the internet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Let's go with the FW190A-5 versus contemporary opposition that is available to us in game. LaGG-3, La-5, Yak-9, Spitfire V and IX, P-38 and P-47.

LaGG-3: Outclimbs all LaGG-3 series slightly.

La-5: Outclimbs the La-5 above 3000 meters. Outclimbs the La-5F above 1000 meters. Unable to outclimb the La-5FN which outclimbs it to about 4000 meters.

Yak-9: On par with the Yak-9 except a weird blip in the Yak's climb performance around where the supercharger stages are changed where the Yak-9 is a better climber. Then the FW190 is a better climber above 4500 meters. Easily out climbs the Yak-9D and most other Yak-9 models until the Yak-9U which is vastly superior.

Spitfire V: A mixed bag here. The V initially has poorer climb and then increases it's climb rate and does better than the FW190 around 4000 meters at which point it falls off and the two are somewhat even with slight advantage to FW190 on boost but off boost the Spitfire has the advantage.

Spitfire LF.IX: Getting out of the range of contemporary now but nonetheless the LF.IX is superior at climbing through most of the range.

P-38J: The P-38 has a generally better climb but it's fairly even on the graph. Slight advantage to the P-38.

P-47: Versus the D-10 the FW190 is a better climber. Versus the other models the P-47 gets successively better. The D-27 with high boost far outstrips the FW190 in climb.

All stats taken from IL-2 Compare which as well all know is a decent basis of comparison although it isn't perfect nor does it tell the whole story. But my point that the FW190 climbs extremely well, I feel, is justified. It's competitive or superior to aircraft that it is pitted up against. Make the same comparison for the FW190D-9 and it is superior or on par with most of it's contemporaries. It's rarely the best throughout the altitude and speed range but it's always giving an extremely good showing.

As for speed and climb angles. You can easily leave a Spitfire V behind. Even if he slows down to best climb speed the Spitfire V doesn't hold energy as well in a zoom nor does it have the engine power to make up for it (which the IX does). So the FW190 goes into a fast climb, leaves the Spitfire behind, the FW190 then achieves sufficient separation to turn around and have another go at the Spitfire. So long as the FW190 pilot can engage and disengage at will he has a huge advantage and the Spitfire doesn't have the climb superiority to make up the difference.

In a 1vs1 I admit that it's more difficult but as soon as it's 2v2 or greater then whatever advantage the Spitfire has is greatly diminished.

The Spitfire V is very much inadequate against the FW190A series which is what the RAF found which is one of the reasons they rushed the IX into production skipping the somewhat superior design of the VIII and getting as many V airframes fitted with Merlin 60s as possible. You're absolutely right that the IX changes this balance versus speed and climbing and it isn't until the A-9 or more likely the D-9 that the balance versus Spitfire IX is somewhat redressed. In fact the IX is generally better in both climb and speed which makes it a very dangerous opponent leaving the FW190 only with it's slightly more precise handling and roll rate. Probably not enough to deal with a well flown Spit IX.

Anyways, I hope we're all clear now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
12-05-2010, 09:01 AM
Absolutely agreed.

A SPitfire Vb is usually meat on the table for any good Fw190A pilot.

he cant do anything expcept turn, and if the Fw190A refuses that competition, then hes helpless.

The SPitire LF 1942m and 1943 models are a little more even, as was meant to be the case. They were made to be fast at low level and clipped wings to SPECIFICALLY, bring the Spit V somehwre near the class of the Fw190A at low lvel. These are much better than the Spitfire Vb 1041's as those were optimised for high altitude, The LF's are optimised for low.

But still, they should not present too much trouble for a good Fw190A pilot. How the luftwaffe fought in pairs and 4's just makes the Fw190A even more formidable. The slower Spitfires really dont have many options at al;l in this scenario as the Fw190A's can drag and bag to their hearts content, Whereas any Spitfire attempting the same thing will be caught by the Fw190A very soon.

RegRag1977
12-05-2010, 12:05 PM
I really would like to see videos of good Fw190A pilots flying vs contemporary Spit and winning 1 vs 1, so that i can learn the tricks!

Call me stupid, but i never managed to win on a regular basis vs Spits and similar while dogfighting (i mean energy dogfighting) in a Fw190A, while i can do it quite good with Tempest or Stangs (which is my main ride). I must really be missing something, or maybe is it some kind of Würger complex http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif .

BTW Having lots of "hunter" kills or team kills and then run away is not a problem for me (in fact i think it's a clever tactic)...I was led to think that this was the only way to fly the Anton in IL2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Could anyone of you guys post a link to a video you know, where one could see how to fly a 190A in a dogfight and win, that would make my day!

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

Wildnoob
12-05-2010, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
In fact the IX is generally better in both climb and speed which makes it a very dangerous opponent leaving the FW190 only with it's slightly more precise handling and roll rate. Probably not enough to deal with a well flown Spit IX.

Anyways, I hope we're all clear now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
You mean flying high right?

In the online reality of low and medium altitude were it has it's best performance I found the Fw 190 very on pair even with it's disadvantages.

Xiolablu3
12-05-2010, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by RegRag1977:
I really would like to see videos of good Fw190A pilots flying vs contemporary Spit and winning 1 vs 1, so that i can learn the tricks!

Call me stupid, but i never managed to win on a regular basis vs Spits and similar while dogfighting (i mean energy dogfighting) in a Fw190A, while i can do it quite good with Tempest or Stangs (which is my main ride). I must really be missing something, or maybe is it some kind of Würger complex http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif .

BTW Having lots of "hunter" kills or team kills and then run away is not a problem for me (in fact i think it's a clever tactic)...I was led to think that this was the only way to fly the Anton in IL2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Could anyone of you guys post a link to a video you know, where one could see how to fly a 190A in a dogfight and win, that would make my day!

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

Really, reg, if its a Fw190A4 vs Spitfire Vb 1941, then just zoom around at high speed doing zoom climbs and never getting slow, and you cant really lose.

Only if you bleed off your speed from trying to turn too tight are you really in much danger.

I remember nights on Ukdedicated2's channel '42 map made by JTD where Fw190A's and 109F4's zoomed around to their hearts content vs Spitfire Vb's and Hurricanes. It actually got extremely challenging to be a Spitfire Vb on that map.

Almost like 'dare I be a fighter on the red side and go against the odds?'

Red could still win that map, but it meant the SPitfires keeping the Fw190's and 109F4's off the RAF bombers long enough for them to destroy the German coastal targets. And if you were red, a fighter pilot and lost sight of the actual mission goal and went solo dogfighting, you were more than usually toast.

Great map that one btw, many great memories of Fw190A's zooming around the skies at high speeds, with Spitfires trying to draw them into close dogfights.

WTE_Galway
12-05-2010, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RegRag1977:
I really would like to see videos of good Fw190A pilots flying vs contemporary Spit and winning 1 vs 1, so that i can learn the tricks!

Call me stupid, but i never managed to win on a regular basis vs Spits and similar while dogfighting (i mean energy dogfighting) in a Fw190A, while i can do it quite good with Tempest or Stangs (which is my main ride). I must really be missing something, or maybe is it some kind of Würger complex http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif .

BTW Having lots of "hunter" kills or team kills and then run away is not a problem for me (in fact i think it's a clever tactic)...I was led to think that this was the only way to fly the Anton in IL2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Could anyone of you guys post a link to a video you know, where one could see how to fly a 190A in a dogfight and win, that would make my day!

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

Really, reg, if its a Fw190A4 vs Spitfire Vb 1941, then just zoom around at high speed doing zoom climbs and never getting slow, and you cant really lose.

Only if you bleed off your speed from trying to turn too tight are you really in much danger.

I remember nights on Ukdedicated2's channel '42 map made by JTD where Fw190A's and 109F4's zoomed around to their hearts content vs Spitfire Vb's and Hurricanes. It actually got extremely challenging to be a Spitfire Vb on that map.

Almost like 'dare I be a fighter on the red side and go against the odds?'

Red could still win that map, but it meant the SPitfires keeping the Fw190's and 109F4's off the RAF bombers long enough for them to destroy the German coastal targets. And if you were red, a fighter pilot and lost sight of the actual mission goal and went solo dogfighting, you were more than usually toast.

Great map that one btw, many great memories of Fw190A's zooming around the skies at high speeds, with Spitfires trying to draw them into close dogfights. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Historically about right.

Remember the Typhoon was saved from early scrapping because it was the only thing the Brits had that had a hope in hell of catching the new 190s conducting scud running jabo missions with impunity all over south east Britain. The Spitfires were totally left in the weeds.

Bankoletti
12-05-2010, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Perhaps I did misinterpret but the essential meaning I'm taking is that you think the plane is a poor climber.

Yup, you are right. I still maintain the plane is a poor climber.


Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
If you're saying anything else then comparisons to medium or heavy bombers are probably not the best thing to be saying. Especially with the inherent lack of tone that we have with the internet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I ment exactly what I wrote. Writing exactly and factually what you think is very important on the internet especially because of the lack of tone. About heavy bombers I wrote that Fw 190 climbs a lot better. About medium bombers I wrote that 190 climbs comparable to some (explanation below).


Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Let's go with the FW190A-5 versus contemporary opposition that is available to us in game. LaGG-3, La-5, Yak-9, Spitfire V and IX, P-38 and P-47....
.
.
.
All stats taken from IL-2 Compare which as well all know is a decent basis of comparison although it isn't perfect nor does it tell the whole story.

Thank you for reading the IL-2 compare data out loud, but as you have concluded yourself, it's not the whole truth, in some cases it's far from it. Climbing ability is one such case (together with turning). One aspect alone left out in IL-2 compare is overheating. Fw190 is one of the worst overheaters in the sim, certainly the worst one among these you picked for the comparison, which effectively deprives it of ability to climb at max power for prolonged time periods. Just as an example.

I'd expect one to use test data from the game and not some data from a program that comes from who know where. Interestingly, I've done some climb testings a while ago in the sim itself.

Test was time to altitude - starting wiht engine off on the ground (Crimea map), climbing as fast to 5km as possible (default weapons, 50% fuel).

Here are the results:

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
Spit VIII 4:20
La-5FN 4:39
P-51C (25%fuel) 4:52
Spit Vb 4:57
P-38J 5:07
I-16 type 24 5:10
Yak-9 5:10
La-5F 5:13
P-39N-1 5:21
Tempest 5:22
P-51C (50%fuel) 5:26</pre><span class="ev_code_RED"><pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
A-20C 5:30</pre></span> <span class="ev_code_YELLOW"><pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
Fw 190 A5 5:31
Fw 190 A8 5:37</pre></span><pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
P-40M 5:51
Lagg-3 (66) 5:56
P-47D-10 6:06</pre><span class="ev_code_YELLOW"><pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
Fw 190 A4 6:13</pre></span>

I have the tracks of all these tests if you are interested. If you can considerably improve time to altitude of Fw 190 versions in this test, then I'm all ears! But until then I have a hard time accepting this:"But my point that the FW190 climbs extremely well, I feel, is justified. It's competitive or superior to aircraft that it is pitted up against."

My earlier medium bomber remark was in fact refering to the A-20C, which outclimbs any Anton (apart from maybe the A-9, which I haven't tested)!


Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
As for speed and climb angles. You can easily leave a Spitfire V behind. Even if he slows down to best climb speed the Spitfire V doesn't hold energy as well in a zoom nor does it have the engine power to make up for it (which the IX does). So the FW190 goes into a fast climb, leaves the Spitfire behind, the FW190 then achieves sufficient separation to turn around and have another go at the Spitfire.

I don't think we are on the same wavelength here. If SpitV has better sustained climb rate (and it obviously does), than it will outclimb (as in "climb higher") than the Fw 190. Even if Fw 190 separates and comes back later, a good Spitfire pilot will be higher by then. A Fw190A can only outclimb a SpitV if the Spit pilot is naive enough to follow it in a shallow climb.


Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
In a 1vs1 I admit that it's more difficult but as soon as it's 2v2 or greater then whatever advantage the Spitfire has is greatly diminished.

No doubt about that, but it's taking us away from our initial discussion about whether the Fw190 is a good or bad climber.


@Xiolablu3,

Interestingly, I find SpitV LF even easier than the ordinarly SpitV - but I never enter a combat area below 6km. At these altitudes ordinary SpitV is much better (although still completely outclassed by the Fw190A) than the MkV LF, which you literally can toy with flying any german fighter, even the 109E (at and above 6km of course). It's a monster at low altitudes, no doubt about that, being in my experiece very similar to the MkIX performance wise from the deck up to about 2 or 3km altitude, but I'm somehow really not interested in low alt turn and burn rollercoaser thingy.

Wildnoob
12-05-2010, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Bankoletti:
Even if Fw 190 separates and comes back later, a good Spitfire pilot will be higher by then.

Don't forget the fuel.

RegRag1977
12-05-2010, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RegRag1977:
I really would like to see videos of good Fw190A pilots flying vs contemporary Spit and winning 1 vs 1, so that i can learn the tricks!

Call me stupid, but i never managed to win on a regular basis vs Spits and similar while dogfighting (i mean energy dogfighting) in a Fw190A, while i can do it quite good with Tempest or Stangs (which is my main ride). I must really be missing something, or maybe is it some kind of Würger complex http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif .

BTW Having lots of "hunter" kills or team kills and then run away is not a problem for me (in fact i think it's a clever tactic)...I was led to think that this was the only way to fly the Anton in IL2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Could anyone of you guys post a link to a video you know, where one could see how to fly a 190A in a dogfight and win, that would make my day!

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

Really, reg, if its a Fw190A4 vs Spitfire Vb 1941, then just zoom around at high speed doing zoom climbs and never getting slow, and you cant really lose.

Only if you bleed off your speed from trying to turn too tight are you really in much danger.

I remember nights on Ukdedicated2's channel '42 map made by JTD where Fw190A's and 109F4's zoomed around to their hearts content vs Spitfire Vb's and Hurricanes. It actually got extremely challenging to be a Spitfire Vb on that map.

Almost like 'dare I be a fighter on the red side and go against the odds?'

Red could still win that map, but it meant the SPitfires keeping the Fw190's and 109F4's off the RAF bombers long enough for them to destroy the German coastal targets. And if you were red, a fighter pilot and lost sight of the actual mission goal and went solo dogfighting, you were more than usually toast.

Great map that one btw, many great memories of Fw190A's zooming around the skies at high speeds, with Spitfires trying to draw them into close dogfights. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, no doubt about that, in many vs many, the advantage is on the side of those who have speed, nothing new here...

I think anyone who at least played a few times online knows the "Brute Force factor" when a pack of Antons enters the area...

This brute force phobia turn-and-burn pilots experience then, is also (and maybe mainly) due to their inability to fight in any other way than pointing directly at the first target, and also their inability to work in team and sustain a team effort in an hostile environment (not only talking about inferior types like MkV here but also superior designs, ie late war Russian ac).
Turning as hard as you can (what i mostly see) to avoid danger when there are better things to do cannot be compared to a tactic. Note that I'm not saying Fw190 pilots master team tactics, often they are far from doing so, what i'm saying is that their opposition seem to be worst at it.

Well anyway what i was really interested in was to watch a video in which one could see a 1 vs 1 dogfight between a Fw190A and a Spitfire, not a MkV especially, which anybody agrees is the weakest Spit compared to its opposition, but still the best looking Spit of them all BTW... Rules: Start at same level, no advantage, one Spit vs contemporary FW190A.

1 vs 1 tells much more about AC relative performance and abilities than anything else, IMHO that is.

Imagine an engineer building an aircraft and then saying: the aircraft i'm selling you will give all it's performance and fighting abilities, but only if used in packs: damn Germans, they know how to run a business (more ac= more money http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif) Or maybe we should consider the Fw190A as an inferior type that can hold the fight if well flown, in team, against inferior opposition not playing in team; or that can have kills when used as a hunter with altitude advantage.

Well, i'll take any video, would be cool to have the link to Jtd's Fw190 dogfight a Spit V, there's always something to learn from a good pilot's track! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RegRag1977
12-05-2010, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RegRag1977:
I really would like to see videos of good Fw190A pilots flying vs contemporary Spit and winning 1 vs 1, so that i can learn the tricks!

Call me stupid, but i never managed to win on a regular basis vs Spits and similar while dogfighting (i mean energy dogfighting) in a Fw190A, while i can do it quite good with Tempest or Stangs (which is my main ride). I must really be missing something, or maybe is it some kind of Würger complex http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif .

BTW Having lots of "hunter" kills or team kills and then run away is not a problem for me (in fact i think it's a clever tactic)...I was led to think that this was the only way to fly the Anton in IL2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Could anyone of you guys post a link to a video you know, where one could see how to fly a 190A in a dogfight and win, that would make my day!

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

Really, reg, if its a Fw190A4 vs Spitfire Vb 1941, then just zoom around at high speed doing zoom climbs and never getting slow, and you cant really lose.

Only if you bleed off your speed from trying to turn too tight are you really in much danger.

I remember nights on Ukdedicated2's channel '42 map made by JTD where Fw190A's and 109F4's zoomed around to their hearts content vs Spitfire Vb's and Hurricanes. It actually got extremely challenging to be a Spitfire Vb on that map.

Almost like 'dare I be a fighter on the red side and go against the odds?'

Red could still win that map, but it meant the SPitfires keeping the Fw190's and 109F4's off the RAF bombers long enough for them to destroy the German coastal targets. And if you were red, a fighter pilot and lost sight of the actual mission goal and went solo dogfighting, you were more than usually toast.

Great map that one btw, many great memories of Fw190A's zooming around the skies at high speeds, with Spitfires trying to draw them into close dogfights. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Historically about right.

Remember the Typhoon was saved from early scrapping because it was the only thing the Brits had that had a hope in hell of catching the new 190s conducting scud running jabo missions with impunity all over south east Britain. The Spitfires were totally left in the weeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a P51 enthusiast, i always wondered how the early allison powered P51 would have done against the Fw190A. Had the RAF already some of them at the time?

How would they compare, i mean they seemed to have the same advantage disadvantages (speed, and low performance as altitude increased?)

WTE_Galway
12-05-2010, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by RegRag1977:


As a P51 enthusiast, i always wondered how the early allison powered P51 would have done against the Fw190A. Had the RAF already some of them at the time?

How would they compare, i mean they seemed to have the same advantage disadvantages (speed, and low performance as altitude increased?)

First operational use of the Allison MkI Mustangs was May '42.

Jaws2002
12-05-2010, 09:18 PM
FW-190 is a Bad A$$ Mofo in game. At least it was when I stoped playing Il-2, about two years ago.
The only issue i think it has, is how the game translates it's engine power into thrust.
The 190's are decent climbers above 340-350km/h. Below that speed the engine is not able to maintain the RPM for some reason. This would make sense if we talked about a jet. It doesn't make sense for a prop plane.
The 190's can dance with everything out there at higher speed, where the engine works right, or on a "downhill" fight where you assist the engin thrust with the energy generated by weight.
The moment you have to use the engine, at lower speeds, to sustain the turn, or to accelerate, you are toast. The plane behaves exactly like going uphill and forgeting to downshift.
This, in my opinion, is the single big problem with how this aircraft is modeled. I think the prop pitch or the Komandogerate is just modeled wrong and it "forgets" to adjust the pitch at lower speeds.

Other than that, the plane is a butcher. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

VW-IceFire
12-05-2010, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by Bankoletti:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Perhaps I did misinterpret but the essential meaning I'm taking is that you think the plane is a poor climber.

Yup, you are right. I still maintain the plane is a poor climber.


Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
If you're saying anything else then comparisons to medium or heavy bombers are probably not the best thing to be saying. Especially with the inherent lack of tone that we have with the internet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I ment exactly what I wrote. Writing exactly and factually what you think is very important on the internet especially because of the lack of tone. About heavy bombers I wrote that Fw 190 climbs a lot better. About medium bombers I wrote that 190 climbs comparable to some (explanation below).


Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Let's go with the FW190A-5 versus contemporary opposition that is available to us in game. LaGG-3, La-5, Yak-9, Spitfire V and IX, P-38 and P-47....
.
.
.
All stats taken from IL-2 Compare which as well all know is a decent basis of comparison although it isn't perfect nor does it tell the whole story.

Thank you for reading the IL-2 compare data out loud, but as you have concluded yourself, it's not the whole truth, in some cases it's far from it. Climbing ability is one such case (together with turning). One aspect alone left out in IL-2 compare is overheating. Fw190 is one of the worst overheaters in the sim, certainly the worst one among these you picked for the comparison, which effectively deprives it of ability to climb at max power for prolonged time periods. Just as an example.

I'd expect one to use test data from the game and not some data from a program that comes from who know where. Interestingly, I've done some climb testings a while ago in the sim itself.

Test was time to altitude - starting wiht engine off on the ground (Crimea map), climbing as fast to 5km as possible (default weapons, 50% fuel).

Here are the results:

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
Spit VIII 4:20
La-5FN 4:39
P-51C (25%fuel) 4:52
Spit Vb 4:57
P-38J 5:07
I-16 type 24 5:10
Yak-9 5:10
La-5F 5:13
P-39N-1 5:21
Tempest 5:22
P-51C (50%fuel) 5:26</pre><span class="ev_code_RED"><pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
A-20C 5:30</pre></span> <span class="ev_code_YELLOW"><pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
Fw 190 A5 5:31
Fw 190 A8 5:37</pre></span><pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
P-40M 5:51
Lagg-3 (66) 5:56
P-47D-10 6:06</pre><span class="ev_code_YELLOW"><pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
Fw 190 A4 6:13</pre></span>

I have the tracks of all these tests if you are interested. If you can considerably improve time to altitude of Fw 190 versions in this test, then I'm all ears! But until then I have a hard time accepting this:"But my point that the FW190 climbs extremely well, I feel, is justified. It's competitive or superior to aircraft that it is pitted up against."

My earlier medium bomber remark was in fact refering to the A-20C, which outclimbs any Anton (apart from maybe the A-9, which I haven't tested)!


Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
As for speed and climb angles. You can easily leave a Spitfire V behind. Even if he slows down to best climb speed the Spitfire V doesn't hold energy as well in a zoom nor does it have the engine power to make up for it (which the IX does). So the FW190 goes into a fast climb, leaves the Spitfire behind, the FW190 then achieves sufficient separation to turn around and have another go at the Spitfire.

I don't think we are on the same wavelength here. If SpitV has better sustained climb rate (and it obviously does), than it will outclimb (as in "climb higher") than the Fw 190. Even if Fw 190 separates and comes back later, a good Spitfire pilot will be higher by then. A Fw190A can only outclimb a SpitV if the Spit pilot is naive enough to follow it in a shallow climb.


Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
In a 1vs1 I admit that it's more difficult but as soon as it's 2v2 or greater then whatever advantage the Spitfire has is greatly diminished.

No doubt about that, but it's taking us away from our initial discussion about whether the Fw190 is a good or bad climber.


@Xiolablu3,

Interestingly, I find SpitV LF even easier than the ordinarly SpitV - but I never enter a combat area below 6km. At these altitudes ordinary SpitV is much better (although still completely outclassed by the Fw190A) than the MkV LF, which you literally can toy with flying any german fighter, even the 109E (at and above 6km of course). It's a monster at low altitudes, no doubt about that, being in my experiece very similar to the MkIX performance wise from the deck up to about 2 or 3km altitude, but I'm somehow really not interested in low alt turn and burn rollercoaser thingy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm impressed by the amount of work you've put into this. The numbers are interesting but, just like my "reading out loud" the IL-2 compare charts, the numbers are still somewhat artificial. I suppose if it's a straight up, rolling start interception type mission then the FW190 isn't going to be the best climber. From start there is some weird acceleration issues that the IL-2 engine doesn't seem to be able to do quite right (this is my one beef with the way it's modeled).

Personally I'm more interested in combat performance. Once you're up and going the climb rate is, as I said before, is very good relative to the opposition. From a standing start it may not be but that's not the whole picture either.

I think we've each said our piece... I sense a fair bit of sarcasm and I'm not really interested in arguing this out any further. If anyone else wants to feel free http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Peace.

JtD
12-05-2010, 10:56 PM
Fw 190 A4 6:13

Couldn't resist:

5:38

Xiolablu3
12-06-2010, 03:15 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fw 190 A4 6:13

Couldn't resist:

5:38 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And here we have absolute evidence (if any was ever needed) that it is the pilot and not the plane. Over 30 secs difference.

Xiolablu3
12-06-2010, 03:20 AM
Originally posted by RegRag1977:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RegRag1977:
I really would like to see videos of good Fw190A pilots flying vs contemporary Spit and winning 1 vs 1, so that i can learn the tricks!

Call me stupid, but i never managed to win on a regular basis vs Spits and similar while dogfighting (i mean energy dogfighting) in a Fw190A, while i can do it quite good with Tempest or Stangs (which is my main ride). I must really be missing something, or maybe is it some kind of Würger complex http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif .

BTW Having lots of "hunter" kills or team kills and then run away is not a problem for me (in fact i think it's a clever tactic)...I was led to think that this was the only way to fly the Anton in IL2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Could anyone of you guys post a link to a video you know, where one could see how to fly a 190A in a dogfight and win, that would make my day!

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

Really, reg, if its a Fw190A4 vs Spitfire Vb 1941, then just zoom around at high speed doing zoom climbs and never getting slow, and you cant really lose.

Only if you bleed off your speed from trying to turn too tight are you really in much danger.

I remember nights on Ukdedicated2's channel '42 map made by JTD where Fw190A's and 109F4's zoomed around to their hearts content vs Spitfire Vb's and Hurricanes. It actually got extremely challenging to be a Spitfire Vb on that map.

Almost like 'dare I be a fighter on the red side and go against the odds?'

Red could still win that map, but it meant the SPitfires keeping the Fw190's and 109F4's off the RAF bombers long enough for them to destroy the German coastal targets. And if you were red, a fighter pilot and lost sight of the actual mission goal and went solo dogfighting, you were more than usually toast.

Great map that one btw, many great memories of Fw190A's zooming around the skies at high speeds, with Spitfires trying to draw them into close dogfights. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, no doubt about that, in many vs many, the advantage is on the side of those who have speed, nothing new here...

I think anyone who at least played a few times online knows the "Brute Force factor" when a pack of Antons enters the area...

This brute force phobia turn-and-burn pilots experience then, is also (and maybe mainly) due to their inability to fight in any other way than pointing directly at the first target, and also their inability to work in team and sustain a team effort in an hostile environment (not only talking about inferior types like MkV here but also superior designs, ie late war Russian ac).
Turning as hard as you can (what i mostly see) to avoid danger when there are better things to do cannot be compared to a tactic. Note that I'm not saying Fw190 pilots master team tactics, often they are far from doing so, what i'm saying is that their opposition seem to be worst at it.

Well anyway what i was really interested in was to watch a video in which one could see a 1 vs 1 dogfight between a Fw190A and a Spitfire, not a MkV especially, which anybody agrees is the weakest Spit compared to its opposition, but still the best looking Spit of them all BTW... Rules: Start at same level, no advantage, one Spit vs contemporary FW190A.

1 vs 1 tells much more about AC relative performance and abilities than anything else, IMHO that is.

Imagine an engineer building an aircraft and then saying: the aircraft i'm selling you will give all it's performance and fighting abilities, but only if used in packs: damn Germans, they know how to run a business (more ac= more money http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif) Or maybe we should consider the Fw190A as an inferior type that can hold the fight if well flown, in team, against inferior opposition not playing in team; or that can have kills when used as a hunter with altitude advantage.

Well, i'll take any video, would be cool to have the link to Jtd's Fw190 dogfight a Spit V, there's always something to learn from a good pilot's track! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But thats not how WW2 fights worked at all, the adverseries never arrived at exactly the same level and tried to close in dogfight it out (and if they did then the one with the better turning circle will usually win)

Just for eg. Pilot Accounts
S/L Colin Gray, with No. 81 Squadron flying Spitfire IXs in North Africa,
commented on a 3 April 1943 ***Just as I completed my turn I saw another aircraft coming towards me at
high speed, and as he flashed past I recognized a 109G2. He also
obviously recognized me as hostile because he immediately pulled into a
screaming left-hand turn and attempted to dogfight. This was a big
mistake because there was no way a 109 could turn inside a Spitfire. It
took only a few minutes to get on his tail and a short burst with cannon
and machine-guns produced much smoke, glycol, and large chunks falling
off. The pilot immediately pulled up and bailed out, but we were still
close to the ground, and although his parachute appeared to stream, it
did not open before the poor beggar hit the ground.***

WW2 pilots generally tried to get above their enemy and surprise them.

If you are looking for 'magic tricks' which will let the FW190 outturn a Spitfire, then you are really playing with fire. Scissors is about the best option for a plane with a faster roll rate if you have a Spitfire on your tail, and even this is a dice with deth and to be used in last resort.

There is a way of using the roll rate to outurn the Spitfire, but it relies on the Spitfire doing what you want it to, and him being a bad shot too. SOmeone posted a track of it a while back.
You are better off flying away froim the Spitfire and finding an easier target, or coming back later IMHO. I am 99% sure that is what Hartmann would have done in his Bf109 if he met a Spit at equal level in his Bf109. (And not because I think the Spitfire is the better aircraft, but because he was HArtmann and he has more sense than to enter into a dogfight with equal odds.)

Much of the FW190 legend comes from exactly how the Luftwaffe pilots used them through 1941-42. They were very careful to husband their resources and only attacked when they had an advantage. Galland has been praised for how he used his forces tactically throught this period.
If the RAf had offered him an equal, 50:50 combat with a Spit vs a FW190 in 1941 he would have rightly refused thinking the English were crazy. Hartmann got these 'offers' all the time on the Eastern front from the Russians and ignored them all.

However if you are saying, this is a game, I dont care about historical things, give me an unrealistic way too get an advantage over a Spitfire V, in an equal 50:50 dogfight, with our Fw190A4, then I have no idea and will leave you to it. (But still read with interest http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

Bankoletti
12-06-2010, 04:39 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fw 190 A4 6:13

Couldn't resist:

5:38 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey thanks for that. It really seems I messed something up here. I've done these tests a while ago (4.08 if I remember correctly) but I doubt anything changed from back then flight modelling wise. I did a quick re-test and got a value similar to yours.

This still, however, leaves 190 climb on a par with A-20C and behind nearly all contemporary fighters, especially SpitV, which is a shame considering the famous quote from the British when they were comparing SpitVb and captured 190A3:"The climb of Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire Vb at all altitudes. 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 Fw 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25.000 ft."

That said, I don't really think Fw 190 is "porked" all that much, even in this form it still completely dominates the SpitV in the sim. It's probably a combination - Fw190 should climb a little better, but SpitV should likely climb a lot worse.


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
But thats not how WW2 fights worked at all, the adverseries never arrived at exactly the same level and tried to close in dogfight it out (and if they did then the one with the better turning circle will usually win)

I wouldn't agree with this assessment. I'd say the more maneouverable one was more likely to win, not the one with the better turning radius (given both pilots were of equal, reasonably high skill). And as already said in this thread, there is a whole lot more to maneouverability than just turning. It just happens that Spit in IL-2 is extremely good at all or most of these other characteristics as well, and this makes it such a deadly 1v1 plane. In my opinion acceleration, energy retention, zoom climb, roll rate, roll acceleration all come before turn rate when combining them into a "maneouverability". One plane that I consider more maneouverable than the Spitfire, but slightly worse at turning for example is Yak-3. When a skilled Yak-3 pilot combines superior roll rate with decent turning, good energy retention and fantastic acceleration in a maneouver like a rolling scissors, then even a SpitfireIX will have a hard time staying on its tail. Outmaneouvering isn't just outturning (which is the favourite method of doing so for inexperienced pilots). Scissors, for example, work very well in Yak-9 or Yak-1B against the feared Bf-109G-2. Many 109 pilots get sucked into scissoring fight (instead of utilizing superior climb and keeping E advantage), because they aren't expecting it.

On the other hand - I agree fully with your remarks about Hartmann. One of his famous quotes is:"I never pursued an enemy once he started evasive maneouvering."

RegRag1977
12-06-2010, 05:03 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

But thats not how WW2 fights worked at all, the adverseries never arrived at exactly the same level and tried to close in dogfight it out (and if they did then the one with the better turning circle will usually win)

Just for eg. Pilot Accounts
S/L Colin Gray, with No. 81 Squadron flying Spitfire IXs in North Africa,
commented on a 3 April 1943 ***Just as I completed my turn I saw another aircraft coming towards me at
high speed, and as he flashed past I recognized a 109G2. He also
obviously recognized me as hostile because he immediately pulled into a
screaming left-hand turn and attempted to dogfight. This was a big
mistake because there was no way a 109 could turn inside a Spitfire. It
took only a few minutes to get on his tail and a short burst with cannon
and machine-guns produced much smoke, glycol, and large chunks falling
off. The pilot immediately pulled up and bailed out, but we were still
close to the ground, and although his parachute appeared to stream, it
did not open before the poor beggar hit the ground.***

WW2 pilots generally tried to get above their enemy and surprise them.

If you are looking for 'magic tricks' which will let the FW190 outturn a Spitfire, then you are really playing with fire. Scissors is about the best option for a plane with a faster roll rate if you have a Spitfire on your tail, and even this is a dice with deth and to be used in last resort.

There is a way of using the roll rate to outurn the Spitfire, but it relies on the Spitfire doing what you want it to, and him being a bad shot too. SOmeone posted a track of it a while back.
You are better off flying away froim the Spitfire and finding an easier target, or coming back later IMHO. I am 99% sure that is what Hartmann would have done in his Bf109 if he met a Spit at equal level in his Bf109. (And not because I think the Spitfire is the better aircraft, but because he was HArtmann and he has more sense than to enter into a dogfight with equal odds.)

Much of the FW190 legend comes from exactly how the Luftwaffe pilots used them through 1941-42. They were very careful to husband their resources and only attacked when they had an advantage. Galland has been praised for how he used his forces tactically throught this period.
If the RAf had offered him an equal, 50:50 combat with a Spit vs a FW190 in 1941 he would have rightly refused thinking the English were crazy. Hartmann got these 'offers' all the time on the Eastern front from the Russians and ignored them all.


Hey thanks Xiolablu, i know all this very well, and i'm not trying to prove you wrong or something, what i was really looking for was some techniques to "sustain" an energy dogfight in a Fw190A vs a Spitfire (not only the relatively weaker MkV).
It seems like it is in the end impossible to sustain the fight against a Spit (or likes) in a Fw190A, in the game ( what is more a game without pilot fatigue modelled) you don't have any other possibility than team tactics which gives good results, but mainly because the "turner" opposition is generally worst at it, or the kill-and-run (Hartmann obviously) technique aka Hunter technique i mentionned in a previous post:

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif hey guess what, these are the tricks i use when flying the Antons! I just misinterpreted the previous posts: i thought some people were saying that there was actually another way to fight with the 190, i mean to sustain an energy dogfight...

Don't get me wrong, in fact, the Fw190 is not a bad aircraft in game, but it seems like, at least to me, that there is no way to sustain a fight (energy fight) even with what would be an height advantage with another ac, what seems to be your point too. I guess we can agree on that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

What you say about the tactical use of the Fw190A is interesting, in fact the Luftwaffe used the very same tactics with the 109, without the RAF pilot having such a trauma about the Messerschmitt. 109 also used to attack with height/speed advantage, their pilots also knew they would be outurned in close quarter combats.

My guess is that because of the better range of the 190, they could energy fight for a longer time, which was crucial in a real world where pilot fatigue is a key factor, a world where turning endlessly means certain death. The 109 would disengage earlier (less fuel capacity), maybe before fatigue could affect the "turning" RAF pilots.

If the game 190a is a good representation of the real 190 my guess is then that in fact it was historically largely overrated, and that the "only" big things about it was its speed and light controls(less fatigue), superior range and the way it was used tactically.
Apart from that, the Fw190 legend was in fact just an example of very common war time hysteria due to RAF pilots rather poor physical condition and tactics training at the time, that is actually what is so difficult to understain by Fw190A virtual pilots, flying in a virtual environment where life has no value, where range is not so important due to smaller maps, and where of course fatigue is not even modelled.

Bankoletti
12-06-2010, 05:29 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I think we've each said our piece... I sense a fair bit of sarcasm and I'm not really interested in arguing this out any further. If anyone else wants to feel free http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Peace.

Hey, no offense ment at all, but I couldn't resist a bit of sarcasm, sorry about that. It just bursts out of me whenever we are having any of the "historical accuracy" debates and someone jumps right in with "learn how to fly" (which is a completely unrelated topic anyway). Just as an interesting side note - I remember having a discussion waaaay back in 2001 or 2002, in the beginning years of IL-2, when Fw190A break up speed was lower than the breakup speed of Yak-1. Yak 1 could thus outdive a Fw190. When we were discussing this (maybe on this very forum, can't remember anymore), some geniuses jumped right in and started their:"Noobs, don't try to outdive a Yak-1, learn how to fly a Fw190 instead!" You see what I mean?

I only stumbled about your remark that Fw 190 in IL-2 1946 climbs "extremely good", when in my experience it climbs worse than most of the fighter opponents (and I never claimed it should be much different, Fw 190 was never known as an exceptional climber in reality either, contemporary Bf109 besting it usually).

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

Wildnoob
12-06-2010, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by RegRag1977:
what i was really looking for was some techniques to "sustain" an energy dogfight in a Fw190A vs a Spitfire (not only the relatively weaker MkV).

This is the problem. It was possible and was done. The fw could dogfight as long as it did not entered in a low speed turninfight. The Germans and even Allied pilots all agreed with this.


in a real world where pilot fatigue is a key factor

It really was man. Especially in the case of the Fw we know very well how have the controls lighter.

As Hauptmann Heinz Lange, an ace with 70 victories said:

I believe the Fw 190 was more manoeuvrable than the Messerschmitt — although the latter could make a tighter horizontal turn, if you master the Fw 190 you could pull a lot of Gs [g force] and do just about as well. In terms of control and feel, the 109 was heavier on the stick.

K_Freddie
12-06-2010, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by RegRag1977:
I really would like to see videos of good Fw190A pilots flying vs contemporary Spit and winning 1 vs 1, so that i can learn the tricks!
Eishhhh!! some olllddd tracks IL2 V4.09 (No Mods) (http://www.vanjast.com/IL2Movies/FW190Tracks.zip).
Two spit offline playing around, and one other online.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

JtD
12-06-2010, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fw 190 A4 6:13

Couldn't resist:

5:38 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And here we have absolute evidence (if any was ever needed) that it is the pilot and not the plane. Over 30 secs difference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say it is parameters. Maybe manual pitch vs. auto.

JtD
12-06-2010, 08:26 AM
Hey thanks for that. It really seems I messed something up here. I've done these tests a while ago (4.08 if I remember correctly) but I doubt anything changed from back then flight modelling wise. I did a quick re-test and got a value similar to yours.

Good to know. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


This still, however, leaves 190 climb on a par with A-20C and behind nearly all contemporary fighters, especially SpitV, which is a shame considering the famous quote from the British when they were comparing SpitVb and captured 190A3:"The climb of Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire Vb at all altitudes. 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 Fw 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25.000 ft."

So you have ONE quote that says that, but there is a load of technical data that says otherwise. Also, if you check the data behind that statement, you will easily find that it contradicts the statement. Furthermore, the data is contradicting itself. So my advice to you: Forget that it exists. It is bull****.

The Spitfire Vb, using 12lb boost/3000rpm, will be climbing with around 18m/s up to 4500m, the Fw 190A-4 at 1.42 ata/2700rpm around 18m/s up to about 1000m and around 14m/s up to about 6000m. The relation is similar with climb settings, while the actual numbers are lower. The Fw 190A-4 does not outclimb the Spitfire Vb. Nor does the A-3 with a lower engine rating.

Xiolablu3
12-06-2010, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fw 190 A4 6:13

Couldn't resist:

5:38 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And here we have absolute evidence (if any was ever needed) that it is the pilot and not the plane. Over 30 secs difference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say it is parameters. Maybe manual pitch vs. auto. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very modest, but just the same thing. You knew, Bank didnt.

Wildnoob
12-06-2010, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
because there was no way a 109 could turn inside a Spitfire.

The problem is this is just not correct with the reality.

A Daidalus guy posted this some time ago:

Peter Düttmann (II./JG 52, Knight's Cross holder) rememberes his first encounter with a Yak-3 in such a way, that he was surprised that it could follow his 109 in a zoomclimb. He still downed the aircraft (because the soviet pilot made a mistake) and simply adapted his tactics so that he entered combats with Yaks at a higher speed than before.

This is the problem with people. They think the planes are just numbers. This is not truth. Many times the ansewer is just a correct tactic and things became totally different. So I don't belive in things regarding the superiority of some plane or another until all tactical, and not only numerical, considerations are made.

Xiolablu3
12-06-2010, 09:40 AM
Hi, I didnt post it for Colin Grays opinion,

Just to show how dangerous close in dogfighting could be. it is purely Colin Grays experience that he wrote..

But Just for your information, most of the turn times tested by the various flight organisations (Tsagi, Rechlin, RAE etc) show the CONTEMPORORAY Spitfire having the lower turn time that the Bf109. But I know it will be close, particularly at low speeds.

But lets not turn this thread into a Spitfire vs Bf109 turning argument, its been done to death. I concede that the Bf109 could often outturn the Spitfire in the hands of a good pilot if we can leave it at that?

Bankoletti
12-06-2010, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This still, however, leaves 190 climb on a par with A-20C and behind nearly all contemporary fighters, especially SpitV, which is a shame considering the famous quote from the British when they were comparing SpitVb and captured 190A3:"The climb of Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire Vb at all altitudes. 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 Fw 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25.000 ft."

So you have ONE quote that says that, but there is a load of technical data that says otherwise. Also, if you check the data behind that statement, you will easily find that it contradicts the statement. Furthermore, the data is contradicting itself. So my advice to you: Forget that it exists. It is bull****. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, this sounds much more what one would expect. I did trust the source above however, especially because it was done by the British on a captured enemy plane and they'd recognize it as superior. Besides it's not just one source, there's more. When comparing captured Fw 190A to the P-38F, the report states:"The climb of P-38F is not as good as that of the Fw 190 up to 15.000 ft. Above this height the climb of the P-38F improves rapidly until at 20.000 ft it becomes superior. The best climbing speed for the P-38F is about 20mph less than that of the Fw 190 and the angle is approximately the same. The initial rate of climb of the Fw 190 either from level flight or a dive is superior to that of the P-38F at all heights below 20.000 ft and above this height the climb of P-38F becomes increasingly better." Now we don't have P-38F in the sim, and even if would, it could have turned out that the sim reflects this perfectly, but on the other side maybe it wouldn't, so it would be interesting so see climb data for a real P-38F and compare it with the Fw 190 in the sim.

When British compared a captured Fw 190 A with a Spitfire MkIX (Merlin 61) they reported:
"Climb - During comparative clmbs at various heights up to 23.000 feet, with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two aircraft although on the whole the Spitfire IX was slightly better. Above 22.000 feet the climb of the Fw 190 is falling off rapidly, whereas the climb of the Spitfire IX is increasing. When both aircraft were flying at high cruising speed and were pulled up into a climb from level flight, the Fw 190 had a slight advantage in the initial stage of the climb due to its better acceleration. This superiority was slightly increased when both aircraft were pulled up into the climb from a dive."

The point of all this quotes is only to show that the impression I got does not emerge from only one report, it's more. Interestingly, Russians on the other hand found a Fw 190 to be an atrocious climber, being easily outclimbed by virtually every russian fighter at low altitudes, even by a Lagg-3.

So, could you share some more evidence (the one you are mentioning) about SpitVb (different boosts if possible) having higher climb rate than a Fw 190A (3 or 4)? I hope this question is not giving an impression of skepticism, it's rather emerging from a genuine curiosity, and would, as I said earlier, only confirm what one would expect. I have never stated that the Fw190 was an exceptional climber historically and that it should climb much better than it does in IL-2 sim. I merely answered to someone stating that it is a very good climber in this sim trying to show it really climbs bad compared to the opposition - with no intention whatsoever to state its climbrate should be considerably improved. I rather suspect the climb rate of some of the opponent planes might be too high.

Oh, and one more thing, why does that quote contradicts itself?

BTW thanks for being able to hold a mature discussion with no patronizing "learn how to fly, n00b" kinda attitude.


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
I'd say it is parameters. Maybe manual pitch vs. auto.

Very modest, but just the same thing. You knew, Bank didnt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did a mistake with one plane, and admited it. Climb rate is still very low (remember it wasn't me who stated it that it's "extremely good" nor did I ever state that it should be).

Don't you think if I didn't know about manual prop pitch I'd miss the A-5 and A8 too? While you might be able to get slightly better result than 5:30, I hardly doubt you can improve it for 30+ seconds. And even if you somehow do, then there is no doubt in my mind you'd be able to improve the climb rate of other listed contenders too, so the relative climbing performance would stay approximately the same.


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
But thats not how WW2 fights worked at all, the adverseries never arrived at exactly the same level and tried to close in dogfight it out (and if they did then the one with the better turning circle will usually win)

I have to disagree. Not even the better turning rate, let alone the better turning circle would win, but the plane that's more maneouverable. Maneouverability ? turning ability. Dogfighting ? turnfighty merry go round. You can dogfight without prolonged turning. As already mentioned, scissoring (flat or barrel) is just one such example. A plane with worse turning performance can still be more maneouverable. But turn fighting is of course the most popular method of dogfighting at less skilled pilots and newcomers - which tend to consider the turning rate (or circle) as not only the most important but the only factor of maneouverability.

In my opinion there are many other characteristics that are more important when determining maneouverability than turn rate. Acceleration, roll rate, roll acceleration, energy retention just to name a few. The thing is that good turners in this sim are usually also exceptionally good at energy retention and acceleration and not really bad at roll either - all this combined makes them so good at dogfighting. An example of a matchup where a worse turning plane in IL-2 is, in my opinion, more maneouverable than an opponent is Yak-3 vs SpitIX. A skilled Yak-3 pilot can outscissor a pursuing SpitIX (rolling scissors, so it stays out of Spits gunsight) and come to its tail. Combination of impressive roll rate, good energy retention, fairly good turn and excellent acceleration enables it to outmaneouver a SpitIX despite having (slightly) worse turning radius (and turning circle). SpitIX will have great difficulty in following a Yak-3 during a rolling scissors (note: I'm speaking about full winged Spit, clipped version might already be more maneouverable and superior to Yak-3 in this regard, since it has considerably better roll rate and not much worse turning rate). And that's exactly how skilled Fw190 pilots were outmaneouvering early Spits - which lead the Brits to introduce clipped version - not so much to improve speed, but much more to improve roll rate so they could stay on a Fw190 dancing infront and around them.

In IL-2 for instance you can easily outscissor an ace level SpitIXc even with a Fw 190A4, beginning with a spit on your tail at ground level.

K_Freddie
12-06-2010, 11:23 AM
I want charts and formulae.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Xiolablu3
12-06-2010, 11:26 AM
I agree with you, bank, in some of the things you are talking about I agree 100%. I didnt mean to 'get at you' with the 'Bank didnt know', comment. However I do think that turning circle plays a very large part in a close in dogfight. Particulalry with all other things being close to equal.

Being manouverable in the rolling sense is a great way to avoid other aircraft but (purely IMHO), I would say that turning circle plays the largest part in a close in dogfight, just becuase it allows th ebetter turner to circle around quicker onto the other planes tail without a lot of complicated moves. Of course the other plane has to play ball too, and if that other plane is a Fw190A he would have to be mad to keep turning. But thats what we are talking about here, a close in dogfight. If it was me in the Fw190 vs a Spit V, I would put my nose down and extend, not get suckered into a turn fight.

PLanes must turn sharply and quickly in a dogfight in order to get into an attacking position behind the other plane.

The plane with the fast climb and turn is the one with the best advantage in a close in dogfight, purely IMHO.

Of course none of us know for real, (and I love the fact that you dont claim to know for fact (IMO) as none of us have flown these WW2 fighters and know for sure, anyone who hasnt flown these birds is really just making an educated guess from the evidence he has gathered (some more educated than others! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)) so we may just have to agree to disagree here! I am sure there are plenty who agree with you and will say I am wrong.

JtD
12-06-2010, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Bankoletti:

Actually, this sounds much more what one would expect. I did trust the source above however, especially because it was done by the British on a captured enemy plane and they'd recognize it as superior. Besides it's not just one source, there's more. When comparing captured Fw 190A to the P-38F, the report states:"The climb of P-38F is not as good as that of the Fw 190 up to 15.000 ft. Above this height the climb of the P-38F improves rapidly until at 20.000 ft it becomes superior. The best climbing speed for the P-38F is about 20mph less than that of the Fw 190 and the angle is approximately the same. The initial rate of climb of the Fw 190 either from level flight or a dive is superior to that of the P-38F at all heights below 20.000 ft and above this height the climb of P-38F becomes increasingly better." Now we don't have P-38F in the sim, and even if would, it could have turned out that the sim reflects this perfectly, but on the other side maybe it wouldn't, so it would be interesting so see climb data for a real P-38F and compare it with the Fw 190 in the sim.

You need to know the boost settings of the P-38F they are referring to. This plane had a lot of reserves. But looking at conservative figures the climb rate would be in the range of 13 m/s at sea level and 10 m/s at 7500m. Compared to that, the 190 outclimbs it.


When British compared a captured Fw 190 A with a Spitfire MkIX (Merlin 61) they reported:
"Climb - During comparative clmbs at various heights up to 23.000 feet, with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two aircraft although on the whole the Spitfire IX was slightly better. Above 22.000 feet the climb of the Fw 190 is falling off rapidly, whereas the climb of the Spitfire IX is increasing. When both aircraft were flying at high cruising speed and were pulled up into a climb from level flight, the Fw 190 had a slight advantage in the initial stage of the climb due to its better acceleration. This superiority was slightly increased when both aircraft were pulled up into the climb from a dive."

The climb rate of the Spitfire IX with the Merlin 61 engine at maximum continuous settings was tested at about 16 m/s in low gear and 13 m/s in high gear. This is indeed comparable to the figures achieved with the climb rating on a Fw 190A-3, which is given by Focke Wulf with 16 m/s in low gear and 12.5 m/s in high gear. However, the Spitfire still has an edge at medium altitude, where it is still using low gear while the Fw is in high gear already.


So, could you share some more evidence (the one you are mentioning) about SpitVb (different boosts if possible) having higher climb rate than a Fw 190A (3 or 4)?

I would recommend you to go through this web page:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/

It contains a lot of data not only on the Spitfire, but also on a lot of other planes.


Oh, and one more thing, why does that quote contradicts itself?

The data is contradicting itself, not the quote. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif If you follow the link above to the Fw 190A-3 performance, you can find the Fw 190 Report No. 234 - the numbers shown there were used as a basis for the assessment that the Fw outclimbs the Spitfire V. If you look at the climb chart you can see that the climb rate is better at medium altitudes than it is at low altitudes, which is impossible given that the engine produces considerably less power higher up than down low. It is also contradicting all other data, plenty of which you can find on that site, too. So the climb rate measured at low altitude contradicts the climb rate measured higher up. Also the climb rate measured at lower boosts contradicts the climb rate measured at higher boosts.
Also, the data contradicts the statement since the climb rate of the Spitfire V was given with 3250 ft/min up to 15000 ft, decreasing to 17000 at 25000 ft.

K_Freddie
12-06-2010, 12:56 PM
Oleg has decreed - It's the pilot, not the plane.

..and so shall it be http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Wildnoob
12-06-2010, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
Oleg has decreed - It's the pilot, not the plane.

..and so shall it be http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

In RL of course it was. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

PhantomKira
12-06-2010, 03:17 PM
Knowledge is power.

And back on topic: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif YIPPIE! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bankoletti
12-07-2010, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
The Spitfire Vb, using 12lb boost/3000rpm, will be climbing with around 18m/s up to 4500m,...
....

Originally posted by JtD:
The climb rate of the Spitfire IX with the Merlin 61 engine at maximum continuous settings was tested at about 16 m/s in low gear and 13 m/s in high gear.

Are you basically saying that historically a SpitVb (Merlin 45, 12lb, 3000rpm) outclimbed a SpitIX (Merlin 61) from the deck up to 4.500m?

What engine and boost settings do our stock Vb and Vb LF have modelled?


Originally posted by JtD:
I would recommend you to go through this web page:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/

It contains a lot of data not only on the Spitfire, but also on a lot of other planes.

Yeah, I know about this site and if memory serves me well that's the place where I got that evaluations I quoted earlier. But I must admit I never really studied the numbers - I was more interested in historical comparative trials and rechecking these comparisons in IL-2 simulator. Thanks for pointing out that this is not enough in order to have a serious and factual discussion.


Originally posted by JtD:
The data is contradicting itself, not the quote. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif If you follow the link above to the Fw 190A-3 performance, you can find the Fw 190 Report No. 234 - the numbers shown there were used as a basis for the assessment that the Fw outclimbs the Spitfire V. If you look at the climb chart you can see that the climb rate is better at medium altitudes than it is at low altitudes, which is impossible given that the engine produces considerably less power higher up than down low. It is also contradicting all other data, plenty of which you can find on that site, too. So the climb rate measured at low altitude contradicts the climb rate measured higher up. Also the climb rate measured at lower boosts contradicts the climb rate measured at higher boosts.
Also, the data contradicts the statement since the climb rate of the Spitfire V was given with 3250 ft/min up to 15000 ft, decreasing to 17000 at 25000 ft.

Yup, indeed looks iffy at the first sight. But still, climb appears to go in line with boosts and RPM, no? The higher the boost and RPM, the higher climb - up to 25.000ft.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
Height Rate of climb R.P.M Boost (lb/sq_in)
0-4.000 2760 2350 3.5
" 3050 2450 4.5
8.000 2250 2450 1.9
10000-17.500 2750 2350 3.5
" 3280 2450 4.5
25.000 1900 2450 0
32.800 500 2450
</pre>

We even have two double measurements - 0-4.000 and 10.000-17.500 (the ones marked with ") and both appear to produce consistent results (meaning, better for a similar margin than the lower boost climb), no? Higher boost and rpm - better climb. These two double measurements appear to have been performed in order to find out the maximum climb rate (at 4.5 boost and 2450 rpm), whereas other climb rates were measured at lower boost and rpm settings. The only oddity I see is that the higher boost climb is slightly better at higher altitude. But then this might be the whole point, although it's "only" about 7% larger.

Bankoletti
12-07-2010, 06:18 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Being manouverable in the rolling sense is a great way to avoid other aircraft but (purely IMHO),

Yes, in IL-2. In reality, you could outscissor a plane with similar speed, not only avoid one coming at you with 300kph higher speed. Apart from already mentioned case of Fw190s outscissoring Spits (and consequently earning the title of being the "more maneouverable"), Hellcats were doing the same to Zeros at high speeds, because particularly their ailerons were nearly frozen. If you try this in IL-2, you will bleed your speed off very fast and become slow where Zero will eat you alive.


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I would say that turning circle plays the largest part in a close in dogfight, just becuase it allows th ebetter turner to circle around quicker onto the other planes tail without a lot of complicated moves.

Absolutely no offense ment - but I believe that's precisely the kind of belief that costed the Japanese their air war. They were building fighters that were extremely good turners (at slow speeds), but were on the other side outmaneouvered (at high speeds of course) in a close dogfights by virtually any US fighter due to frozen controls, especially ailerons (speaking of course about Zeros and Oscars here). But again, I'm speaking about history. In IL-2, purely in my opinion, turn rate is more important and contributes more to the maneouverability than it did in reality. Probably also because people do not hesitate from entering a turn fight in a computer simulaton, while in reality this was an extremely hazardous thing to do - no "refly" button there.

JtD
12-07-2010, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by Bankoletti:

Are you basically saying that historically a SpitVb (Merlin 45, 12lb, 3000rpm) outclimbed a SpitIX (Merlin 61) from the deck up to 4.500m?

It would, as long as the Spit IX is only using 12lb / 2850 rpm. It will not produce more power but is slightly heavier. However, the Merlin 61 had 15 lb of boost available, in case of which it would climb slightly better than the Spit V at 12lb.


What engine and boost settings do our stock Vb and Vb LF have modelled?

Performance wise it is odd, but the game says it is a Merlin 45 at 16lb of boost. But that's just the label, and I wouldn't draw any conclusions. Performance is really, really odd.


Yeah, I know about this site and if memory serves me well that's the place where I got that evaluations I quoted earlier. But I must admit I never really studied the numbers - I was more interested in historical comparative trials and rechecking these comparisons in IL-2 simulator. Thanks for pointing out that this is not enough in order to have a serious and factual discussion.

Text means you're using other peoples findings and opinions, numbers mean you form your own. I'm a big fan of numbers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Regarding the climb rates of the Fw, some engine power figures of the BMW 801C:
- low gear, WEP: ~1550hp
- low gear, Climb: ~1450hp
- high gear, WEP: ~1350hp
- high gear, Climb: ~1250hp
There is no reason for the plane to improve climb rate by ~300ft/sec (~80hp) at low level and by ~550ft/sec (~150hp) at high level with a gain of 100hp in each case. In particular the 550ft/sec look fishy because getting 150hp out of 100hp input is pretty much impossible as far as physics are concerned.

So either the British readings are wrong, or they mistreated the engine. No matter what, both options invalidate the test result.

Kwiatos
12-08-2010, 05:11 AM
Originally posted by Wildnoob:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bankoletti:
And yet, in IL-2 its dogfighting abilities are atrocious (when it was historically considered more maneouverable than spitfire) and has a climbrate on a par with some twin engined medium bombers (when its historical climb rate was comparable to the one of SpitIX).

It is a deadly BnZer tho. A plane that's easiest to score obscenely high K/D ratios in.

If theres one thing I guess we could criticize and agree on, its the low speed handling, it does feel sluggish in the low speed range.

i will also agree that its climb rate in IL2 doesnt tally with the RAF when compared to the Spitfire Vb 1941, although I think thats because the Spitfire Vb 1941 in IL2 is too slow, but with a too high climb rate, IIRC? Also we dont have a 1942 Spitfire IX Merlin 61 which that test was comparing it too, we have the 1943 merlin 66 model which had a much ebtter climb rate.

However I do think you are misinterpreting 'more manouverable.'

The RAF doc's state 'The FW190A is more manouverable than the Spitfire **except in turning circles where it is easily outturned by the Spitfire**'

Manouverability is defined as 'being able to change direction very quickly and easily', which is essentially roll rate, and light responsive controls across the speed range, I believe'? (ready to be corrected on this as to what 'manouverability' is actually defined as in teh dogfighting world. But i know, in my admittedly limited wisdom of air combat (I have never flown a fighter!), its certainly not all to do with its turning circle.

Its all a case of using the Fw190 to its strengths, which means Top speed, Dive speed, firepower and roll rate. It was never a great horizontal turnfighter, unless you ask Gaston, that is. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not Gaston and I know very well the Fw 190 was an excellent dogfighter. The plane was not capable of match the light fighters in a "knife fight" and prolonged climbs but was very capable in other regimes. I already read a lot of it, and in my last book Fw 190 Aces of the Eastern Front the pilots never mentioned any difficult to enter in maneuvered combat with the lighter Russian planes.

Our Fw 190 at least in the 4.09m is very bad. Lack of accelaration and with more drag than it actually should have according to a discussion with informations presented in a mod forum. People who think the Fw 190 was just a "hunter" are simply wrong. Unfortenately real life is real life and games are games. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You definitly should check and try UP 2.01 NEW FM's planes. There are new FM's for all Fw 190s where they have corrected acceleration, zoom climb, energy retention.

Also other Western Fronts planes have NEw FM's like Spits, 109s, P-51 etc.



Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hey thanks for that. It really seems I messed something up here. I've done these tests a while ago (4.08 if I remember correctly) but I doubt anything changed from back then flight modelling wise. I did a quick re-test and got a value similar to yours.

Good to know. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


This still, however, leaves 190 climb on a par with A-20C and behind nearly all contemporary fighters, especially SpitV, which is a shame considering the famous quote from the British when they were comparing SpitVb and captured 190A3:"The climb of Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire Vb at all altitudes. 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 Fw 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25.000 ft."

So you have ONE quote that says that, but there is a load of technical data that says otherwise. Also, if you check the data behind that statement, you will easily find that it contradicts the statement. Furthermore, the data is contradicting itself. So my advice to you: Forget that it exists. It is bull****.

The Spitfire Vb, using 12lb boost/3000rpm, will be climbing with around 18m/s up to 4500m, the Fw 190A-4 at 1.42 ata/2700rpm around 18m/s up to about 1000m and around 14m/s up to about 6000m. The relation is similar with climb settings, while the actual numbers are lower. The Fw 190A-4 does not outclimb the Spitfire Vb. Nor does the A-3 with a lower engine rating. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exacly you got the key.

Different is climb comparsion between Spt VB at +9lbs (nominal power) and Fw 190 A-3/A-4 at 1.32 Ata and different is Spit VB +12 lbs ( WEP) and Fw 190 at 1.42 Ata ( emergency power) - where Spit VB had adventage at medium alts where superchagers of Fw 190 lose efficnelty between supercharger gear ratio).

You could easly check it in IL2 Compare for UP 2.01 for NEW FM's planes ( Spit VB +12 lbs vs Fw 190 A-3 and A-4 1.42 Ata).

Wildnoob
12-08-2010, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
You definitly should check and try UP 2.01 NEW FM's planes. There are new FM's for all Fw 190s where they have corrected acceleration, zoom climb, energy retention.

Interesting. And the Fw can dogfight if not in a low speed turninfight?

Xiolablu3
12-08-2010, 07:28 AM
The point is to try and keep your speed up in a dogfight when using a FW190. Try and stay in the vertical and use its high dive speed too zoom climb when climbing.

Basically zoom around at high speeds.

JtD
12-08-2010, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:

Exacly you got the key.

I don't think we're on the same page, so I don't think you can assess what I got and what not.


Different is climb comparsion between Spt VB at +9lbs (nominal power) and Fw 190 A-3/A-4 at 1.32 Ata and different is Spit VB +12 lbs ( WEP) and Fw 190 at 1.42 Ata ( emergency power) - where Spit VB had adventage at medium alts where superchagers of Fw 190 lose efficnelty between supercharger gear ratio).

You could easly check it in IL2 Compare for UP 2.01 for NEW FM's planes ( Spit VB +12 lbs vs Fw 190 A-3 and A-4 1.42 Ata).

Yeah, that's a good joke. Folks who believe in 18m/s climb rate at altitude for the Fw 190A also believe in Nazi flying saucers.

Wildnoob
12-08-2010, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
Yeah, that's a good joke. Folks who believe in 18m/s climb rate at altitude for the Fw 190A also believe in Nazi flying saucers.

http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/AE/day1923NAZIUFO.jpg

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



Nahhh, joking mate. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WTE_Galway
12-08-2010, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by Wildnoob:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Yeah, that's a good joke. Folks who believe in 18m/s climb rate at altitude for the Fw 190A also believe in Nazi flying saucers.

http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/AE/day1923NAZIUFO.jpg

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



Nahhh, joking mate. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If there is a movie ... it must be true ....



<span class="flash-video"><object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"
codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0"
height="385"
width="640"
><param name="allowScriptAccess"
value="never"
></param><param name="wmode"
value="transparent"
></param><param value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xn4DW1uvsAE?fs=1&hl=en_US"
name="movie"
/><param value="true"
/><param value="always"
/><embed allowScriptAccess="never"
type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"
wmode="transparent"
height="385"
width="640"
src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xn4DW1uvsAE?fs=1&hl=en_US"
/></object></span>

bracknell1989
12-08-2010, 05:32 PM
bah.
Take a squadron or a flight of 190 A3s against a flight of spitfire Vs and the 190 will win every time. Why was the 190 so impressive? Easy when bounced or in any way surprised they could flip over in the blink of an eye and dive away or change direction quickly enough so the spit cannot get shot in. Other types were more not as light on the controls. For the most part fights were fast crowded affairs. It's not like IL2 where a Spit can just sit on a 190s tail all day and wait for the engine to overheat - he'd be downed in seconds.

190s suffered badly when they encountered faster types and could not get away. They had to stay and slog it out. Or at low altitude where the room for manoeuvres was very restricted.

Bremspropeller
12-09-2010, 05:44 PM
It's not that the 190 was completely outcalssed, just because some fighters could turn tighter, neither was there any specific problem with fighters being faster in level-flight.

It's about what the man behind the stick can do.
And according to Ernst Schröder, who flew among JG300, most (experienced) pilots didn't fear any fighter in the sky - they knew the 190 (we're speaking of mid and late-war Antons here!) was technologically advanced enough to hold it's own against any fighter.

Surviving air-combat has many factors among it -the most important one is luck - sheer luck.
It's funny how people have a hard time getting over that.

Wildnoob
12-10-2010, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
It's not that the 190 was completely outcalssed, just because some fighters could turn tighter, neither was there any specific problem with fighters being faster in level-flight.

It's about what the man behind the stick can do.
And according to Ernst Schröder, who flew among JG300, most (experienced) pilots didn't fear any fighter in the sky - they knew the 190 (we're speaking of mid and late-war Antons here!) was technologically advanced enough to hold it's own against any fighter.

Surviving air-combat has many factors among it -the most important one is luck - sheer luck.
It's funny how people have a hard time getting over that.

+1

JtD
12-10-2010, 10:54 AM
"It's about what the man behind the stick can do."

In 1944 the average guy in the Fw could do less than the guy in the P-51 or Spitfire. Would be nice if he had a faster plane so that he could dive away from trouble, just like the guys did in 1942, eh?

Bremspropeller
12-10-2010, 01:20 PM
He could do it - just not all the way down, but anyway:
The tactic of diving away isn't exactly gonna save your day when you're basicly just diving into a lower floor of the fighter-umbrella.

It's not that the Spitfires in '42 wouldn't follow or buzz around at low altitude, had they had the numerical superiority of 1945.

It wasn't the performance-gap that killed the Luftwaffe, it was the numbers.

JtD
12-11-2010, 03:15 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:

It wasn't the performance-gap that killed the Luftwaffe, it was the numbers.

I'd say the Luftwaffe would have been in a far better shape than it was if the Allies had been throwing 1/1/1942 planes at them for the rest of the war.

Bremspropeller
12-11-2010, 05:18 AM
Quality means little, when outnumbered 10:1 and more.

JtD
12-11-2010, 05:23 AM
Lack of quality gets you outnumbered 10:1 eventually.

Bremspropeller
12-11-2010, 05:28 AM
No, lack of production-capability, lack of tactics, and lack of other stuff (pilots, cleverness within the OKL and oil) gets you where the Luftwaffe was in 1945.
None of those are airframe-quality related.

Certain qualities enabled the allies to put up a fighter-umbrella that was hard to bust.
Those qualities do not include fast dashing- or diving-speeds, however.

Xiolablu3
12-11-2010, 06:37 AM
The massive resources of 3 world powers (at the time, not saying Britain is a word power now), helps a lot.

JtD
12-11-2010, 07:41 AM
It's always interesting that there are people who honestly think that technical evolution did not matter. Pretty much contradicts everything that happened at the time and the opinion of about everyone involved back then, but so what, it's on the internet now, so it has to be right.

RegRag1977
12-11-2010, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
"It's about what the man behind the stick can do."

In 1944 the average guy in the Fw could do less than the guy in the P-51 or Spitfire. Would be nice if he had a faster plane so that he could dive away from trouble, just like the guys did in 1942, eh?

Actually it was the Spit pilots that were in trouble when they faced the Fw190A in 1942. Total air to air domination was what the 1942 average Fw190A pilots achieved against similarly trained pilots.

And given the map size and the fuel limitation, diving away was not such a stupid mistake, even when used by Spitfire pilots. Pilots just had to learn when to do it, exactly the same way they would do with any other combat maneuver.


Not because one can see an Oleg Maddox Fw190A diving to avoid trouble (ie dogfight) ingame that the same thing happened for real IMHO. Clearly many of us simers are too much influenced by the dynamics of the virtual combat, and by the rules of the virtual world.

Anyway, any fighter pilots WILL die in combat eventually, if he doesn't that's because the war was not long enough to counter the luck factor. Only if one side have superiority in numbers and total superiority over an air space, can a pilot begin to think rationally that he has good chance to come back home and survive war.

BillSwagger
12-11-2010, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Quality means little, when outnumbered 10:1 and more.

Not that numbers don't make a difference to the outcome of an engagement, but I think the roll of the aircraft will also determine the outcome of the engagement.
There are examples of lopsided match-ups favoring the Luftwaffe by some 50 planes, but if the majority of those planes are sent to intercept bombers then a relatively smaller number of escort planes will show to be more effective against slim odds.
The outcome of 8 escort fighters attacking 50 interceptors resulted in the dispersement of their formations which would make bomber interception much more difficult.
The results speak very little for fighter quality or pilot skill. Tactical advantage is usually the deciding factor and explains why planes of relatively primitive quality can still be successful against more advanced contemporary aircraft.
Unfortunately for the 190, its technological advances could not keep it from sucking wind at higher altitudes where post 1943 allied planes were very much at home.
Pilot skill and quality of production didn't make up for the limitations of an airframe or its components.


Bill

RegRag1977
12-11-2010, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Quality means little, when outnumbered 10:1 and more.

Not that numbers don't make a difference to the outcome of an engagement, but I think the roll of the aircraft will also determine the outcome of the engagement.
There are examples of lopsided match-ups favoring the Luftwaffe by some 50 planes, but if the majority of those planes are sent to intercept bombers then a relatively smaller number of escort planes will show to be more effective against slim odds.
The outcome of 8 escort fighters attacking 50 interceptors resulted in the dispersement of their formations which would make bomber interception much more difficult.
The results speak very little for fighter quality or pilot skill. Tactical advantage is usually the deciding factor and explains why planes of relatively primitive quality can still be successful against more advanced contemporary aircraft.
Unfortunately for the 190, its technological advances could not keep it from sucking wind at higher altitudes where post 1943 allied planes were very much at home.
Pilot skill and quality of production didn't make up for the limitations of an airframe or its components.


Bill </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The role of an aicraft?

I would agree, war has to be fought with what you have at the moment you are fighting. The German did very well with their Blitzkrieg strategy. The strategy was clever and succeed against all the European continental opposition:
the Luftwaffe was designed to serve this general strategy and did it very well.

There where it did not work anymore was when the German were too far in an relatively poor developped country and had to stretch their supply lines, where the means of communication were very poor and not reliable. Extreme weather was also an aggraving factor.The Russian well understood this and took advantage of it. There was no way a few even well adapted aircraft could change this IMHO.

In the Western skies, it is rather the fact that the allies had to face a fraction of the Luftwaffe only(Eastern front), and of course the incredible mass production capabilities, the increasing numbers of fresh pilots, the daily daylight bombing portected with long range escort fighters: well, the United States really gave a new dimension to the word strategical when it comes to air forces.

IMO no European country, even not fighting on another front, could have sustained such a massive superiority in numbers, had they Spitfires or Mustangs too.

Metatron_123
12-11-2010, 10:12 AM
Don't forget that even the Me-262 couldn't save the Germans.

I'm always surprised that people overlook the fact that Germany was facing 3 world powers and try to blame the defeat of the Luftwaffe on a specific plane, or screw.

K_Freddie
12-11-2010, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by RegRag1977:
well, the United States really gave a new dimension to the word strategical when it comes to air forces.

You give to much credit... In the ETO the Mosquito did a better strategic job.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Xiolablu3
12-11-2010, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by RegRag1977:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
"It's about what the man behind the stick can do."

In 1944 the average guy in the Fw could do less than the guy in the P-51 or Spitfire. Would be nice if he had a faster plane so that he could dive away from trouble, just like the guys did in 1942, eh?

Actually it was the Spit pilots that were in trouble when they faced the Fw190A in 1942. Total air to air domination was what the 1942 average Fw190A pilots achieved against similarly trained pilots.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is absolutely false. The German pilots were on the defensive, with far fewer resources. Galland husbanded his resources well, and only attacked when he had the advantage.

Yes, as in the battle of Britian, the defending forces had the advantage, and could choose when to attack.

But they were almost always on the defensive, and facing far larger numbers of Attacking RAF fighters.

There are many paralells with teh Battle of Britain 1940. The same problems the Germans faced at this time, are the same problems the RAF faced in 1941-early 1942.

Engine trouble over France meant a lost plane and pilot. Slight damage over France, the same thing. Whereas the Germans could belly land or glide to an airbase and be fighting the same day. Much like the RAF in the Battle of Britain.

Galland has been praised for his 'Dowding/Park' type battle that he fought through this period. But always remember who was attacking and who was defending. A common RAF complaint at this time was - 'Why doesnt Jerry stay and fight?' Dieppe is one exception when the Germans stuck and fought it out in this period - but really they didnt have a choice. To them it was a large operation threatening their very presence in France. Usually they used hit and run tactics, which worked very effectively against the slower Spitfire V's.

RegRag1977
12-11-2010, 03:02 PM
I see, i did not explain myself clearly enough, my fault!

So in a technical point of view, in 1942, Fw190A had a hard time vs Spit MkV, and all the reputation of the Fw190 was overexagerated?

What do you think?

If this is what you meant, well, i would disagree. For the amount of ressource available, you're right http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif , but in 1942, the German had the technical advantage with the Fw190A, and what i meant is that when comparing the two aircraft: the average FW190A pilots clearly dominated the RAF opposition showed at the time, the Fw190A actually stayed in fight unlike the hit and run tactics you mentioned (you are maybe confusing BF109 and Fw190 here): this is AFAIK the reason of the RAF Fw190 Trauma.

Bremspropeller
12-11-2010, 03:34 PM
It's always interesting that there are people who honestly think that technical evolution did not matter.

So which technical evolution do you think was so incredibly groundbreaking, it cut the Luftwaffe from winning the war?

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

JtD
12-11-2010, 04:35 PM
In a war of attrition, it is the small things that sum up.

You of course know that the logistic problems the Luftwaffe faced could have been solved by converting to 1915 Fokker E.III's. Easy to fly, mostly none strategic materials and a ridiculously low fuel consumption of low grade fuel. Wonder why the Luftwaffe did not upgrade to that, if plane quality did not matter.

Bremspropeller
12-11-2010, 04:41 PM
Congratulations on failing to impress me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

JtD
12-11-2010, 04:46 PM
Stating the obvious is hardly ever impressive.

Bremspropeller
12-11-2010, 04:52 PM
Obviously stating the obvious obviously looks different - like actually stating the obvious - which you obviously didn't. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif