|
For FW 190 Pilots
I know that this is a well known whine - that the FW190 is incorrectly moddeled but here is some evidence to support my moaning reg the FW190 vs the Spit V on some maps.
Ie how you can be outclimbed, and out accelerated. "SPITFIRE VB VERSUS FW 190A Theaccount below is taken from the comparative trial of the Spitfire VB with the [captured] Focke-Wulf 190, flown by the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford in July 1942. TheFW190 was compared with a Spitfire VB from an operational squadron, for speed and all-round manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000 feet. The FW 190 is superior in speed at all heights, and the approximate differences are as follows - At 1,000 ft the FW 190 is 25-30 mph faster than the Spitfire VB At 3,000 ft the FW 190 is 30-35 mph faster than the Spitfire VB At 5,000 ft the FW 190 is 25 mph faster than the Spitfire VB At 9,000 ft the FW 190 is 25-30 mph faster than the Spitfire VB At 15,000 ft the FW 190 is 20 mph faster than the Spitfire VB At 18,000 ft the FW 190 is 20 mph faster than the Spitfire VB At 21,000 ft the FW 190 is 20-25 mph faster than the Spitfire VB Climb:The climb of the FW 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the FW 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the FW 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000'. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the FW 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it. Dive: Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the FW 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages. Manoeuvrability. The manoeuvrability of the FW 190 is better than that of the Spitfire VB except in turning circles, when the Spitfire can quite easily out-turn it. The FW 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be most useful during combat. When the FW 190 was in a turn and was attacked by the Spitfire, the superior rate of roll enabled it to flick into a diving turn in the opposite direction. The pilot of the Spitfire found great difficulty in following this manoeuvre and even when prepared for it, was seldom able to allow the correct deflection. A dive from this manoeuvre enabled the FW 190 to draw away from the Spitfire which was then forced to break off the attack. " I think that this information relates to a Fw190 A3 that has wing racks fitted, maybe im wrong but if not the stats here are representative of an unclean FW190 so it would actually be a bit faster if it was flown clean. Any body got a link for the Flug Werk Fw190 that shows it flying? |
Here is a comparison against the Spit IX
"InJuly 1942 a Spitfire IX was flown in a comparative trial against a Focke-Wulf 190A which had fallen into British hands when its pilot landed by mistake at Pembrey RAF base at in Wales. The trial showed that there was a remarkable similarity in performance. The following are extracts from the official report. SPITFIRE IX VERSUS FW 190A TheFW190 was compared with a fully operational Spitfire IX for speed and manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000 feet [7620 metres]. At most heights the Spitfire IX is slightly superior in speed to the FW190 - the approximate differences in speed are as follows: At 2,000 ft [610 m] the FW 190 is 7-8 mph [11-13 km/hr] faster than the Spitfire At 5,000 ft [1524 m] the FW 190 and the Spitfire are approximately the same At 8,000 ft [2440 m] the Spitfire IX is 8 mph [13 km/hr] faster than the FW 190 At 15,000 ft [4573 m] the Spitfire IX is 5 mph [8 km/hr] faster than the FW 190 At 18,000 ft [5488 m] the FW 190 is 3 mph [5 km/hr] faster than the Spitfire IX At 21,000 ft [6400 m] the FW 190 and the Spitfire are approximately the same At 25,000 ft [7622 m] the Spitfire IX is 5-7 mph [8-11 km/hr] faster than the FW 190 Climb:During comparative climbs at various heights up to 23,000 feet [7012 metres], with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two aircraft although on the whole the Spitfire was slightly better. Above 22,000 feet [6707 m] the climb of the FW 190 is falling off rapidly, whereas the climb of the Spitfire IX is increasing. Dive: The FW 190 is faster than the Spitfire IX in a dive, particularly during the initial stage. This superiority is not as marked as with the Spitfire VB. Manoeuvrability: The FW 190 is more manoeuvrable than the Spitfire IX except in turning circles. The superior rate of roll of the FW 190 enabled it to avoid the Spitfire IX by turning over into a diving turn in the opposite direction. The Spitfire IX's worst heights for fighting the FW 190 were between 18,000 and 22,000 feet [5486-6707m] and also below 3,000 feet [914m]. The initial acceleration of the FW 190 is better than that of the Spitfire IX under all conditions of flight, except in level flight at altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage. The general impression of the pilots involved in the trials is that the Spitfire Mark IX compares well with the FW 190. Providing the Spitfire IX has the initiative, it undoubtedly stands a good chance of shooting down the FW 190." This comparison is flown against the same Fw190 I think , not an A6 or later faster A series. What is important here is that the findings state "LITTLE DIFFERENCE WAS FOUND BETWEEN THE TWO AIRCRAFT ALTHOUGH ON THE WHOLE THE SPITFIRE WAS SLIGHTLY BETTER." So with a clean A6 climb up to 25,000 ft or so should be almost exactly the same. On the previous post it mentions that the FW190 climbs at a steeper angle than the Spitfire. IF this was reflected in the game the Fw190 would be a hell of a lot more effective, not that it isnt already ; ) but still why is this the case? it is blatantly undermoddeled |
Eric Brown's 'Wings of the Luftwaffe', comes to the same broad conclusion- the spitfire and fw where extremely closely matched, with the FW edging in every respect except for turn rate. I know nothing of course, and to be honest I dont really know how the fw and spit rate together in FB.
interestingly brown also mentions that the fw had a markedly better forward view than the spit, which he said was due to its nose down attitude in flight, now obviously me looking at some photos in a book doesnt compare to Olegs vast knowledge but general each fw picture in flight the pilots head was above the level of the fascia, ie looking above and level with instruments which would suggest that the view in fb is too low, ie the pilot should see more out over the nose to be fair tho, i am far from qualified to speak on such issues ps. i can lend u the book roland- seeing as u only live up the road now! |
that'd be great man, ive just come in after a rough nite out and found that our tutor has bailed on us. So im doing something constructive and moaning about FB.
Whats ur email address and i'll send u my number Reg the planes the Me 109 is very closely matched with the Spit too, Most 'good' books come to the conclusion that it was truely down to the pilot the planes were so similar in performance. A K series 109 is a good match against an XIV , got a good book charting the design and production of the F series 109 through to K and experimental models and it states the K series was designed to match the Spit XIV in speed and climb ect. About the game I think the main difference between the real Fw190 ( apart from view) is the climb performance and acceleration. I remember reading that it is due to the FB engine not being able to handle weight and mass effectively - the Fw190 is a heavy plane. But I dont see how they couldnt have offset this if the alredy have addmitted there is a problem by upping the climb values. Surely there is a table for each aircraft that has its in game attributes ect. |
Hi,
According to a long thread on UBI, it's suggested that the RAF comparision of 190A3 and Spit Vb is flawed and was doctored by the British for political reasons so as to expedite the development of the IX. Also, Oleg pointed out that the climb tests relates to zoom climb whereas you can see that the report makes the distinction between zoom and continuous climb. Oleg has also said that no changes will be occurring with any of the Antons in the upcoming patch but that the Dora may see it's acceleration reduced. Save your breath, chaps. It's not going to get any better for 190 drivers. Cheers, Norris |
I think this reoprt compares a Merlin 61 Spit IX with the FW. The Merlin 61 was clearly inferior to the 66 and 70, which were the main models and which are the ones we have in FB.
Dunno about the Spit Vb, but having a 1800hp powerplant dragging a 3600kg plane should give similar climb like having a 1400hp powerplant dragging a 2800kg plane (or so). FW 190A's are by far the worst planes in FB in this regard, using only about 40% of engine power for climb, while other planes go up as high as 60%. |
So is this thread saying that the Spit is better than the 190 at the moment. I have to say that the FW190 is the best plane in the game, way ahead of the spit (this is my personal view), but the FW-190 has to be flown 'right', and is not a t&b flyer (although I have done). Once the 190 has altitude, it is a devestating weapon, and I'll always climb into it's cockpit ahead of the spitfire (as long as the teams are even ( :( ) , and the planeset has it available.
When I see threads of stats, and I don't include this here because I find this forum to be very understanding, and it usually doesn't end up with "this report said, that report said,no..no...this report said..." etc,etc I get three posts down and give up. I have tried many planes, I love (and still have a soft spot) for the P-47, but when it comes down to shear fun and bangs-per-buck, the 190 will always make me smile. Fly it, try it, love it! :fluffle: |
"Best" plane, hard to say. Can we agree on "very good"?
Got 90 kills in a Fw, got killed 5 times, twice AAA, twice stupidity and once in a dogfight. So I don't think it's anywhere as bad as some people think it is. |
Hi,
Without wanting to go over it yet again...... IMO, the 190 is the best plane in the game if you place a priority on personal survival. Other planes may permit you to kill planes more quickly (better armament...except, maybe, A8/A9) but the 190 is more likely to get you home in one piece. I'd never say that the 190 was bad; rather, it has some "problems" relative to other aircraft: a. It's said that you are ok in the 190 if you stay fast and you maintain your altitude. This, obviously, becomes a problem when you have planes which can reach altitude before you can/maintain an unrealistically high speed because of some (perhaps a-historical) modelling issue (read: overheat, lack of). b. The 190 has some well publicised issues regarding fuel bugs. I have no problems with being outclimbed by a P51, La-7 etc. What does get on my nerves is being absolutely outclimbed by a 1941 Spitfire Vb when you're in an A5 or A6. Most people trash the 190 because they expect to fly it like a 109. The 190's turning circle is absolutely ideal because it compliments the extension required to achieve it perfectly ;) Without knocking what we have, I've come to the conclusion that the server settings encourage people to get the best plane to climb with then to sit at alt using F6 to pick you out - something less likely to happen in cockpit on/no externals servers. Cheers, Norris |
I like the Focke Wulf A/F best of all the Focke Wulf's :D.
|
"What is important here is that the findings state "LITTLE DIFFERENCE WAS FOUND BETWEEN THE TWO AIRCRAFT ALTHOUGH ON THE WHOLE THE SPITFIRE WAS SLIGHTLY BETTER." So with a clean A6 climb up to 25,000 ft or so should be almost exactly the same. On the previous post it mentions that the FW190 climbs at a steeper angle than the Spitfire. IF this was reflected in the game the Fw190 would be a hell of a lot more effective, not that it isnt already ; ) but still why is this the case?"
I do feel that the FW190 is a good plane and I fly it exclusively - map permitting. I also feel I use correct tactics. What I was pointing out is that the climb is undermoddeled which has been mentions hundreds of times. I have also heard that it is due to the game physics that it is like this, therefore it has been agreed that it is not a correct representation of its true climb performance. I also know about ideal climb speed - 400k or so and also climb angle. What is apparent looking at the quote is that it states the FW190 had a steep climbing angle. This is the opposite of the plane we fly in game which bleeds speed at even a slight AOA. My point is that if the climb performance was historically accurate the plane in the game would be even much more effective- we would be able to manuver more in the verticle more which is what Fw 190 pilots did against horizontally manuvering enemy planes. Whereas at the moment it is impossible to outclimb a Spitfire - any version in an A series 190. |
Quote:
The Spit IX in the comparism trial was driven by a Merlin 61 at 15 inch boost. This plane ist about 1000ft/min slower in climb and about 25mph slower in level flight (low alt) than the Spit IX Merlin66 and Merlin70. This means that the Spit IX should climb about 1000ft/min better than the FW. Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
From a conversation I had with someone who said they were 'close' to Oleg, the reason why the 190 is not modelled correctly (prolly posted this somewhere before, too) is because the Il-2 game engine cannot handle proper acceleration modelling. This translates to the fact that certain aircraft can never be modelled correctly so no matter how much data is pushed towards Oleg; he cannot do anything about it until, perhaps, BoB comes out (pirates permitting). Best to just dwell on the fact that the 190 is an acquired taste and you can still be effective in something that is undermodelled. Cheers, Norris |
"HELLO! Do you happen to read replies to your postings?"
Hmm last time I checked yes, do you read the origional post and all the replies or just your posts? Im not talking about an IX my origional post referred to the VB - climbing angles ect. Do you take pleasure in being obtuse ? Also this is not a thread reg the Spit or its manifold pressure I appreciate you are mentioning it to put it in to context but the simple fact remains the FW A series can be out climbed far too easily. "You don't think that there is a tiny chance the maximum climb is about correct, while some other planes are grossly overmodelled?" What is the chance that Oleg would correctly model a Luftwaffe plane? and incorrectly model virtually all Red planes... If as you say it may be other planes are overmoddeled then that gives us the same situation - FW190's perfom adversley when compared to their direct contemporaries. "I also know about ideal climb speed - 400k or so and also climb angle. What is apparent looking at the quote is that it states the FW190 had a steep climbing angle. This is the opposite of the plane we fly in game which bleeds speed at even a slight AOA." Where did I say AOA and climb are the same? |
Quote:
Quote:
Well, keep the faith. |
Quote:
|
Hey Norris , what did the thread reg the RAF exaggerating the performance of the FW190 to speed up the introduction of the Spit IX say?
Did it sound like it was the truth? I know in times of war it can be usefull to exagerate an enemy's equipment to further funding for your own armies but I'd have thought the drastic losses sufferd by the RAF against the Fw190 when it 1st appeared would have been enough. |
Can we close this thread now please? It's starting to look like the Ubi Forum
:thwak: I new deep-down it was too good to be true :wall: |
^ hehe...too true. Although we haven't had that Copperhead tit turn up and announce that anyone who flies the 190 is a goose-stepping Nazi...yet ;)
Roland: I did have an opinion on the RAF report but I don't anymore - there's no point. I wouldn't say whether I believed it or not except that I've seen that report published in quite a few places, has been endorsed by respected aviation historian Dr Alfred Price (author of books on the Spitfire and FW190) and is supported by the RAF's increased losses during that year of the war. At no point have I seen anyone speculate on it being incorrect apart from in the UBI forum where, as we know, it's just a pissing contest. I'm a hypocrite at heart because I'd like to think we'd get something realistic in FB (after all, Oleg talks of nothing else but realism) which causes me to whine when things contradict what I've read BUT I've come to the conclusion that it's impossible to know precisely what these aircraft were capable of because most of them are gone and we will never know how they operated in the field....from information that can be trusted. As I said in UBI, you can discount pilot accounts because they are mostly anecdotal; you can discount a good deal of test reports because they may have a political agenda and you cannot use ideal design figures for aircraft that have been knocked around and tweaked in the field. Perhaps the only way to find a happy medium is if it were possible to obtain, say, a comparision of aircraft tested under the exactly the same conditions by the RAF, USAF, VVS and LW independently then take an average of the like-for-like results obtained. Of course, this is not possible. I'll could contradict myself some more now and support what JtD said in that the planes ain't modelled properly. However, how do we know this is the case if we don't have any accurate information in the first place? So, your best bet is to bin anything that you obtained from a report/book, even if endorsed by a respected historian etc, and use Il-2 compare instead. Even that isn't correct but it's roughly what you get served up in the game and it's the only realistic way of comparing planes which can determine your tactics. It may well be the best representation of WW2 air combat about but I've come to realise that I've deluded myself in thinking that I can apply tactics from what I've read IRL to it (and that, in itself, is another contradiction). Use Il-2 compare and worry not until BoB arrives. Cheers, Norris |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.