FW190 FM Change

[swiss]

What is exactly you changed?

[pupo162]

so far i have only noticed the engine overheat changes. but thats general.

someone was saying that its top speed had been reduced.

[SturmKreator]

they nerfed a lot all of the 190 speed, for example, in 4.10.1(Still FM oleg)
the fw190d9 could reach 730 km/h at 5000-6000 meters, now only reach 670-680 m/h and the fw190d9late reach 695 km/h at 5500 meters.

I wasnt tested now, but with IL-2 compare 4.11 you know all the changes, at least expect with this nerf, they put the real acceleration, bnz characteristics, becouse now, the mustangs, p47 are overkill.

[Robo.]

This is a quote from the 4.11 guide:

Fw 190

''For the whole series handling and performance have been changed.
A new model has been made, a fully rated A-4. The derated model is now simulated by using the same engine with a limited throttle. (88 percent)

The A-5 and A-6 no longer have the erhöhte Notleistung. The A-5 1.65ata boost system onlyworks at low altitude now.

The D-9 1944 has been modelled to 1900hp version performance, the D-9 45 remains with the 2150hp MW50 injection performance.

The Ta 152 H-1 now has working GM-1 injection.''

Basically, the whole Fw 190 family has been re-done to match the characteristics of the real thing more precisely, also several mistakes have been fixed as described in the above paragraph. (e.g. versions with WEP)

I agree the information is rather vague but I believe that any 190 jockey will notice and appreciate these changes. This doesn't mean the plane is better now, it simply feels different by a margin. Best thing to do is go and give it a shot and check the loadouts, too. ;)

[EAF331 Starfire]

I did a lot of testing in the A-4 and A-4 1.65 ATA (due to bug in the A-4 throttle max of 88%) yesterday and the changes are big!

First of all it does not feel so stiff in the control. In the 4.10.1 all the Fw190 feel very stiff in their controls.

The don't bleed energy like they use to.

Now you have a chance against a Spitfire Vb in a A-4.
In QMB a veteran Spitfire Mk. Vb (1942) I am consistenatly able to hold my own; I would say that survival are 70/30 to the 190A-4. This is new for me. The Spitfire IXc (1942) are a real challenge and survival feels like 40/60.
In the 4.10.1 you had to dispatch the Spit IXc in within the first pass in a 1vs1.

The Spit Vb still turn better but at a price. Engine overheat.

Landing in the Fw190A have become a challenge. It seems to be without drag and will not drop speed even with gear and flaps fully out.


BTW: EAF is an allied Sqd so this change is not welcome seen from an egotistic point of view:rolleyes:. I must be a traitor since I love it :grin:

[Robo.]

I did a lot of testing in the A-4 and A-4 1.65 ATA (due to bug in the A-4 throttle max of 88%) yesterday and the changes are big!

The 88% is not a bug, it's a feature as stated in the guide. ;)

[schnorchel]

with such change(top speed has 30-40km/h decreasing at altitude regarding to compare data), LW cannnot fly on east front after 1943 anymore. no chance to deel with Las, yaks from altiude to bottom. at beginning bf109, now Fw190......., I am tired, I'd better focus on other things from now on.

[SturmKreator]

with such change(top speed has 30-40km/h decreasing at altitude regarding to compare data), LW cannnot fly on east front after 1943 anymore. no chance to deel with Las, yaks from altiude to bottom. at beginning bf109, now Fw190......., I am tired, I'd better focus on other things from now on.

when I come back to my city I will provide some info from dietmar hartman book, Im sure TD have wrong data.

[28_Condor]

I would to see the references for these changes... its is possible? ;)

[jermin]

Will not upgrade until the hotfix comes out. A few questions:

1. Do we still need Manual Prop. Pitch to get better acceleration in Antons?

2. Is there any improvement in Antons' low-speed (0-150 km/h) acceleration performance?

[SturmKreator]

If the Kommandogerät now work properly, then we should have the advantage in manouver fight, we should have the advantage in acceleration, and finally the PP works wellm if not we are screwed

[Robo.]

Will not upgrade until the hotfix comes out. A few questions:

No problem. You can run both 4.10.1 and 4.11 simultaneously, though...

Hotfix out btw: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=29039

1. Do we still need Manual Prop. Pitch to get better acceleration in Antons?

No.

2. Is there any improvement in Antons' low-speed (0-150 km/h) acceleration performance?

Yes.

[Corsican Corsair]

The A-5 and A-6 no longer have the erhöhte Notleistung

In the real Fw 190 A-5/A-6 Flugzeug-Handbuch (december 43), the "erhöhte Notleistung" is used below 1 km flight altitude by Jabo with de-rated engine. Then the two option should be proposed... ;)

[JtD]

That's what the 1.65 ata Fw 190A-5 is for.

[Corsican Corsair]

That's what the 1.65 ata Fw 190A-5 is for.

Roger! Out... :rolleyes:

[Nicholaiovitch]

Just a quick question to those that clearly know the FW190...

Anybody know the correct syntax to create a skin folder for the new FW190-A4 1.42ATA?

If anyone has access to the air.ini they no doubt have it....I have tried various entries without success.

Sorry to hijack your thread...but you chaps seem to know these machines.

Nicholaiovitch

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Anybody know the correct syntax to create a skin folder for the new FW190-A4 1.42ATA?

Fw-190A-4FR

[MicroWave]

Just a quick question to those that clearly know the FW190...

Anybody know the correct syntax to create a skin folder for the new FW190-A4 1.42ATA?

If anyone has access to the air.ini they no doubt have it....I have tried various entries without success.

Sorry to hijack your thread...but you chaps seem to know these machines.

Nicholaiovitch

Ah, we forgot to add void for that one. I believe we made the same mistake for some planes in the previous patch...
Anyway, the answer to your problem is:
Fw-190A-4FR
as in fully rated, I suppose.

[Nicholaiovitch]

Thank you so much Caspar and Microwave....

Great work you have produced for the Community.

Nicholaiovitch

PS. Back to your thread chaps.....sorry to have interrupted things.

[mmaruda]

Can someone please explain to me why the 190s don't slow down at all? Landing is a pain when you're going in level flight, full flaps and gear, 0 throttle and still do around 300km/h and it does not go any slower. The damn thing just doesn't seem to produce any drag. Doesn't look too realistic to me, especially the 0 throttle approach and landing.

[JtD]

This is because the Kommandogerät reduces prop pitch to minimum as you throttle back. A windmilling prop is one of the biggest drag sources, and this way it is eliminated. You will get equally poor deceleration from other clean, heavy planes if you reduce pitch to 0% while landing. Try the P-51 with 0% pitch, it's hardly any different.

[mmaruda]

So I assume manual pitch is the solution, since you generally want that 100% pitch in case stuff goes bad, right? :)

[Zorin]

So I assume manual pitch is the solution, since you generally want that 100% pitch in case stuff goes bad, right? :)

Use your rudder and/or circle before landing. How hard can it be to adapt?...

[swiss]

Combine manual PP and slip.
I even use manual PP to land the 109 - it's an excellent airbrake.

I suggest you guys fly, or better; land the Arado234 a bit more. :cool:

[mmaruda]

I have no trouble landing the plane, it's just weird how it doesn't slow down the way it use to. The 109 also has Kommandogerät and does not suffer from this.

[EAF331 Starfire]

The 88% is not a bug, it's a feature as stated in the guide. ;)

Thanks Robo ;)
For not letting me look like a fool for reporting a feature as a bug :grin:

[Kittle]

I have always spent the majority of my IL2 time flying for the Luftwaffe or the US Navy. With the previous, my aircraft of choice was the 109G-6A/S. This is the pinnacle of 109 development IMHO, as she still has some of the maneuverability of her predecessors, and the gun package of her successors. This was the case, until 4.11 that is!!! I took the up rated 190A-4 out for a spin, and fell in love. I had always read pilot accounts of the 190 and the previous FM just didn't jive with what was stated. Maneuverability and Fw190 go hand in hand in those accounts, but didn't in IL2. The 190 is now a real fighter. You still don't want to hang her on a wing at low alt with no speed, just like any other fighter. But with some E, she will turn like nobodys business. Your first few circles in an angles fight will surprise you, she doesn't buffet at the slightest elevator movement. The flight is smooth and you can really get maximum performance out of her. I am about to start a new career as a 190 pilot, and my namesake will be proud with the multitude of aircraft I destroy in it!!!

[jermin]

I have no trouble landing the plane, it's just weird how it doesn't slow down the way it use to. The 109 also has Kommandogerät and does not suffer from this.

Good point.

[mmaruda]

One more thing about this - Kommandogerät was a kind of automatic gearbox, keeping the engine RPM within optimal values to avoid overheating the engine. If I throttle back fully, the engine goes to low RPM, why would the prop pitch go down? There is no risk of overheating.

@Kittle, I'm no expert on WWII war-birds, but all those people who used to complain about the 190s just couldn't fly them right. The accounts say it was a manoeuvrable and fast fighter, true. But manoeuvrable is subjective. It was manoeuvrable for a boom and zoom fighter which it was, at high speed and high altitude with insane roll-rate. All that was true with the previous versions of the game, if anyone thought otherwise, they were probably doing it wrong. If you get into a turn fight with a spit, you're dead meat. Now... well the 190s seem more like the Lavockins now, overpowered.

One has to understand that the way most people play the game, was not the way Luftwaffe pilots flew, the manuals said clearly, pilots are advised not to get into a fight unless from an advantageous position (high and fast). Boom and zoom was the German doctrine since WWI.

[Kittle]

Just flew the non-boosted A4 in a couple career missions. I found that in a fight, I can cut the throttle in a dive and gain speed like I chopped the prop pitch too. The way it seems to me, the pitch and throttle are connected. You reduce power, pitch is reduced to match. Honestly, I am not as skilled at CEM as I need to be, so I don't know if this is proper or not.

I can say, the flying a fight ability has been multiplied 2 fold. I got 4 kills in the first two mission. One of which was on an I-16 that avoided my first burst during a bounce. He made a sharp right hand turn, and I followed at high speed. I stayed right with him and nailed him with a deflection shot a 170 meters. Total for this scramble, 2x I-16, 1x Yak-7B.

Next mission, we met 8 P-39N-1s at 3000 meters or so. Again, with my speed high enough, I could turn inside any P-39 that avoided my initial attack. Used the sun and the lower read blind spot to sneak up on and explode in midair the only kill I got on this mission, I really love the new spotting routines. You know when you are behind a rookie, as they might just fly straight and level when under attack, twitching the wings while freaking out!!! ;) You also know when you meet a vet, the flight pairs that split up to sandwich you when you attack them. Yeah, IL2 is going to see a lot more play time from me, that's for sure!!!

@ mmaruda - You are correct about the tactical doctrine for the LW in WWII. What I was referring to is the pilots saying that, under the right circumstances, they could turn with and inside any soviet fighter aircraft. I am not talking about a fur ball here either, I am talking about BnZ. When you make your attack, if the enemy sees you, maneuver becomes necessary. I could not coax the 190 around more then 90 degrees of turn at speed before. If I eased her enough to not have an accelerated stall, the turn rate was so bad it wasn't usable for me in BnZ. Now, if my quarry sees me during the attack and breaks, I can stay with him long enough to kill him and not loose all my E. Granted, I am not going to try to dogfight I-16s at 200km/h on the deck and expect to win. But I can stay with their 300 km/h turn when I am at 500km/h with no problem, just how it should be IMHO :)

[pupo162]

One more thing about this - Kommandogerät was a kind of automatic gearbox, keeping the engine RPM within optimal values to avoid overheating the engine. If I throttle back fully, the engine goes to low RPM, why would the prop pitch go down? There is no risk of overheating.


because, and im not really an expertee on the matter, the behavior you are trying to describe is the one of a CSP. in A CSP as you lower the throttle, the engine revs will try to keep up in the assigned value by reducing the blade angle. in the kommo.thing.rat, thsi is not the case. in 100% the engine will always try to go for the best REV solution to your current speed / attitude. and if you lower the throttle, it will no longer try to get the maximum but a relative to the performance. so if you are at 50% throttle, it will try to for the best settings to that power, but since 50% is a cruise, they will go for the best settings for cruise. its like in a automatic car. if you go 50% throttle, the engine will shift gears very soon as if you were driving very calmly in a manual car, but if you got full throttle, it will behave like a race car and go to maximum REV's before shifting.

[jermin]

I would say the deacceleration performance of Fw-190 is overmodeled and its acceleration performance (especially at low speed) is undermodeled. Before 4.11, 50% power can hardly push forward an A9 with radiator closed and boost enabled on the ground. And that was nearly 1000hp.

Dora has the same power ouput as A9 and not so diffenrent weight and areodynamical setup. But it climbs, accelerates and turns much better.

I haven't tried late-war Antons yet. So I was only talking about previous games.

[mmaruda]

I'm still not convinced to the 190s. I always loved this plane, spent more time with it than anything else in IL-2. I admit it's a killer now, but before 4.11, it was a killer as well, just less forgiving in a dogfight. As for the manoeuvrability vs. Russian planes, I think the discussion here is a bit pointless. The German pilots on the eastern front got insane amounts of kills. There were several reasons for this:
1. they counted the planes destroyed on the ground
2. kill confirmation was not as rigorous as in the RAF - the British had to have a witness to officially get a kill, and if 2 guys shot the same plane, each would get half a kill, with the Germans, both pilots would get a kill - it was a policy that generated great propaganda.
3. the most important reason, the Soviets had mostly crap pilots in crap planes made out of plywood and mama Galina's knickers. The test numbers were good, but production quality was terrible. Many planes would simply fall apart in high G manoeuvres. That's why the Germans had absolutely no problems outfighting the Soviets.

Now, IL-2 is sort of a propaganda game when it comes to Russian gear - all planes comply with the official numbers and don't suffer random failures. It's hard to say how the planes handled in real life, since all accounts are not objective. Americans will praise the Mustang, British will say Spitfire was the best, Russians still claim that La-7 was the best fighter in the war (I recommend watching Wing of Russia - great documentary on their aviation with a ton of propaganda :D) and so on.

Still, I think something is not right with the 190 - at least with the way it bleeds speed, or rather doesn't. I'm not good at finding legit data on the net, but what we need is some hard data on the plane's performance and the changes that were made in the sim.

[Pursuivant]

2. kill confirmation was not as rigorous as in the RAF - the British had to have a witness to officially get a kill, and if 2 guys shot the same plane, each would get half a kill, with the Germans, both pilots would get a kill - it was a policy that generated great propaganda.

Do you have a source you can cite for this claim?

My understanding is that the Luftwaffe set high standards for claiming kills, with visual confirmation by a second source being required in order to claim a kill, and that only one pilot/crew could claim a kill in the case of shared kills. (The exception was that against Allied heavy bombers, pilots could get credit for both knocking a plane out of formation and for actually shooting it down.)


3. the most important reason, the Soviets had mostly crap pilots in crap planes made out of plywood and mama Galina's knickers. The test numbers were good, but production quality was terrible. Many planes would simply fall apart in high G manoeuvres.

IL2 actually models this to some extent. For example, the various versions of LaGG-3 model problems with plywood & resin construction. What isn't modeled, for any of the planes in the game, is reliability. This aids both Axis and Allied pilots, since many planes on both sides were known to have problems with various systems (e.g., engine fires on early production B-29, poor quality airframes for late war Bf-109, crummy engines in late war Japanese planes).

It's also possible to have bad engines, bad airframes or other problems even on planes known for their reliability. For example, a fair number (3-10%) of B-17s launched on any mission had to scrub due to mechanical issues.


That's why the Germans had absolutely no problems outfighting the Soviets.

There's also factors such as early war Soviet tactical doctrine, lack of reliable radios (or any radios) in many Soviet planes, more experienced German pilots for the first couple of years of the war, and the fact that German fighter pilots got the bulk of their kills against light bombers and ground attack aircraft. But those are unimportant . . .

[SturmKreator]

@mmaruda The FW190, before patch 4.11 was far away close from reality, if you read anything else without count wikipedia, like dietmar hartman books(the best of 190) you should learn a lot.

The books descrive every part of the plane, was a fast plane, hard to take off and land, this plane had a insane manouverability at high speeds, you could outturn any allied fighter at high speed (over 450 TAS), and if you want break the combat and run, becouse you accelerate more faster and reach your top speed more faster, you are able to use the emergency power for 30 min, that mean the maximum engine output for 30 min.

The plane had high load wing, so taking off and landing mean you require more carrer to do the job.

Many FW190 pilots use the plane in horizontal fights at high speeds, but was not advisable.

I am not tested the game now, but in two weeks i will arrive to my home, and make a complete review from this plane, but I can say with all the security, the FW190 before 4.11 was the biggest joke from oleg team. They make every FM with russian data, so you could expect planes more OP than other cause the allied propaganda.

[mmaruda]

Regarding Luftwaffe kill confirmation - can't cite anything ATM, as it's been long since I've read anything on WWII planes. But if you read the last interview with Erich Hartman, he mentions, that his score was questioned at some point in the war (if confirmation was rigorous, why would anyone question and on what grounds?), so they sent a guy with him to report on his combat flying and he confirmed that Hartman actually was THAT good (again why would they need to do that if confirmation was rigorous?). On another occasion, Hartman mentions that he went behind three IL-2s and shot one in the radiator, the Russians panicked and the whole flight crashed into one another - Hartman states that this counted as 3 kills (though he actually only fired at one, which is what he would get by RAF standards).

Anyway, this is not the issue here. I agree that the 190 was a great plane and manoeuvrable at high speeds (450TAS as mentioned seems legit), the thing is, now it's quite manoeuvrable even at 300km/h at 1000m and just seems a bit odd. Not to mention it won't slow down. :D

[swiss]

(though he actually only fired at one, which is what he would get by RAF standards).


sure. :rolleyes:

[MadCat242]

Regarding Luftwaffe kill confirmation - can't cite anything ATM, as it's been long since I've read anything on WWII planes. But if you read the last interview with Erich Hartman, he mentions, that his score was questioned at some point in the war (if confirmation was rigorous, why would anyone question and on what grounds?), so they sent a guy with him to report on his combat flying and he confirmed that Hartman actually was THAT good (again why would they need to do that if confirmation was rigorous?). On another occasion, Hartman mentions that he went behind three IL-2s and shot one in the radiator, the Russians panicked and the whole flight crashed into one another - Hartman states that this counted as 3 kills (though he actually only fired at one, which is what he would get by RAF standards).

To support your claim that the current Fw 190 overmodelled you are starting that silly old "the Germans were known for overclaiming"-discussion again? :-x
/facepalm

[ZaltysZ]

Not to mention it won't slow down. :D

Look at prop pitch indicator (it looks like clock). It explains a lot why FW190 does not want to slow down with throttle cut on approach and why FW190 is sluggish on taxing.

[Robo.]

I'm still not convinced to the 190s.

Can you please provide any numbers / charts, or did you commit any in-game testing tu support this statement?

1. they counted the planes destroyed on the ground

No they did not, Abschuss was Abschuss.

2. kill confirmation was not as rigorous as in the RAF - the British had to have a witness to officially get a kill, and if 2 guys shot the same plane, each would get half a kill, with the Germans, both pilots would get a kill - it was a policy that generated great propaganda.

Also untrue, the Germans were actually very strict about confirming aerial victories. Please have a look at the amount of unconfirmed victories (e.g. reported but not accounted for) or just read some kill reports.

3. the most important reason, the Soviets had mostly crap pilots in crap planes made out of plywood and mama Galina's knickers. The test numbers were good, but production quality was terrible. Many planes would simply fall apart in high G manoeuvres. That's why the Germans had absolutely no problems outfighting the Soviets.

This is true somehow in the very early stage of war, but the Russian side certainly improved on tactics and pilot quality. Anyway, this has got nothing to do with the Fw 190. Btw try to find Russian isights on German fighters on Eastern Front and see if they have had greater deal of respect of 190 or 190 ;)

As for the Kommandogeraet, it's not really to be described as 'automatic gearbox' :-P, but I believe it is certainly modelled better than it was in 4.10.1

[swiss]

Dear Team DT
I really started to love the new fm(chapeau!), however this "zero drag aka cant slow down" feature doesn't feel too right, to be honest.

I just thought; what if you increase the drag for flaps. Wouldn't this solve most the problem?
Maybe even exponentially for landing flaps.

:confused:

[jermin]

Have tried the new A4 in the Alex Server in Russia. I failed to see any improvement upon the A4 in 4.10. The new FM has changed the butcherbird for worse.

[fruitbat]

Have tried the new A4 in the Alex Server in Russia. I failed to see any improvement upon the A4 in 4.10. The new FM has changed the butcherbird for worse.

Then you really don't notice much, its acceleration has changed for the better, by bucket loads.

[mmaruda]

Yeah, but's insane now - you can slightly climb at 60% throttle and it's accelerating! Still all the 190's are crap against late war russian Yaks na La-5/7s regardless of altitude.

Just one more thing on slowing down on landing, prop pitch and all, yeah right, tried it with engine off - still hard to slow down (full gear, flaps, radiator), it's as if flying in space. No way to touchdown sooner than in half runways, unless you want to frog jump and crash. The FM generally feels good, but something feels wrong about it, when you compare with other planes.

[IceFire]

Yeah, but's insane now - you can slightly climb at 60% throttle and it's accelerating! Still all the 190's are crap against late war russian Yaks na La-5/7s regardless of altitude.

Just one more thing on slowing down on landing, prop pitch and all, yeah right, tried it with engine off - still hard to slow down (full gear, flaps, radiator), it's as if flying in space. No way to touchdown sooner than in half runways, unless you want to frog jump and crash. The FM generally feels good, but something feels wrong about it, when you compare with other planes.
I agree about the landing. I hadn't noticed this in previous tests but when I went to look specifically for it I was surprised at how difficult it was to slow down. Prop pitch, engine off, it was still going quite fast. Very odd for sure.

That said the FW190D-9 and A-9 have always (except in the very early IL-2 Forgotten Battles days) been competitive in late war scenarios. Doesn't matter if I have a Yak-3, Yak-9U or La-7 I've always held a great degree of respect for a FW190 as they are dangerous foes. Particularly with a good pilot employing some boom and zoom techniques. Difficult to defend from that... even with the best Russian fighters.

[Mustang]

Fw 190 A-4

In July 1942, the A-3 was replaced on the production lines by the newer Fw 190A-4 version.
The main difference was an BMW 801 D-2 engine adapted to use with a MW 50 system for short period engine power increase by injection of a water-methanol (methyl alcohol CH3OH) mixture in the proportion of 1:1.
In this way it was possible to raise engine power to 2100 kW for 10 minutes, after which a high probability of engine failure prevented longer use.
Due to delays in MW 50 device production, this system was not mounted on the Fw 190A-4 engines, which had the capability to accept this system.
It was not used and only A-8 and later series planes would use the advantages of this invention.

Another difference in the A-4 variant was the replacement of the FuG 7a radio set by the more modern FuG 16z.
A less important change was that the vertical line antenna mount was placed on the fin; this made it easier to distinguish between A-4 and A-3 versions. In the case of the A-2 and A-3 versions, it is often difficult to tell them apart.

During production, in some Fw 190s another modification was applied.
In place of the ventilation slots, engine cowling shutters controlled from the cockpit were installed.
The pilot could precisely control the engine temperature by regulation of the shutters.

Most Fw 190A-4 planes were used with reduced armament, without MG FF cannons.
Trials with different variants of armament and equipment, generally with Umrustbausatz kits produced the following versions:

Fw 190A-4/U1 - bomber-fighter with an under-fuselage mounted ETC 501 bomb rack and reduced armament (without MG FF cannons). As a result of small deliveries of BMW 801 D-2 engines in the autumn of 1943, several dozens of these planes got older C-2 version engines

Fw 190A-4/U3 - bomber-fighter with armament as in the U1 version, but with BMW 801 D-2 engine. Planes for night operation got a landing light, mounted in the leading edge of the left wing root. Designation was later changed to F-1 and in the future the plane was developed as a new attack Fw 190F version

Fw 190A-4/U4 - reconnaissance fighter with two Rb 12.5/7x9 cameras and without MG FF cannons

Fw 190A-4/U8 - long range fighter-bomber with two drop tanks of 300 litre capacity each, mounted under the wings (on the VTr-Ju 87 racks produced by Weserflug company, with duralumin fairings); bombs were placed on the under-fuselage ETC 501 rack. In an attempt to reduce weight, only two MG 151/20 E cannons were retained. This modification was a prototype of a new fighter-bomber Fw 190G version and its first variant (G-1) simultaneously. There also existed a transitional variant similar to the U8 (probably in one copy) with modernized V. Mtt-Schlos type racks for underwing fuel tanks; armament: 2x1 MG 17 and 2x1 MG 151/20E.



Fw 190 A-8

A new model with different equipment.
Most important were parts of the MW 50 injection system, used for short term engine power boost. A cylindrical tank of 118 litres capacity was mounted in the rear fuselage.
In an emergency, it could be used as additional fuel tank.

The MW 50 tank installation shifted the centre of gravity backward and, as a cure, the under-fuselage mounted ETC 501 bomb rack was moved 20 cm forward. This rack became a standard from the A-8 model.

The plane was equipped with a FuG 16 ZY radio set that despite the circular radio navigation antenna Morane antenna, was mounted under the left wing.

The outstanding element for differentiation between the A-7 and A-8 is also the Pitot head moved from mid-wing leading edge to right wing tip.

The Fw 190A-8, like previous models, could be equipped with different Rustsatz kits: R1, R2, R3, R4, R6, R7, R8, R11, R12; but R1, R3 and R4 were abandoned shortly thereafter and generally R2, R6, R7 and R8 kits were used. Some of the R11 and R12 modifications produced in small quantities had small differences in the equipment (e.g. MG 131 machine guns tube was covered by a plate for reflection limitation, some got more the more efficient BMW 801 TU engines and FuG 125 Hermine radio navigation device).

Apart from the previously described variants, A-8/F-8 series airframes were often used for different armament and equipment testing. These planes also tested several different engines. Unfortunately, only a small part of the documentation concerning these tests survived, making it impossible to describe in detail all of the modifications and resolve some the contradictory information. In spite of this, we know of the following armament modifications:

SG 113 Zellendusche - 3-tube battery based on the MK 103 cannons mounted in the rear fuselage. Firing was made by a photosensor impulse. - SG 117 Zellendusche - 6-tube modification of the previously described battery.

Rohrblock 108 - similar construction with 7 tubes based on the elements of the MK 108 cannon, fired by photosensor impulse. Probably, it consisted only of MK 108 cannons barrels with a single cartridge; after firing of the first barrel others were fired automatically by the recoil force of previous barrel. This kind of armament was used for bombers interception and was tested on the Fw 190A-8 (W.Nr. 733713), prototype designation V74.

SG ...? Harfe - set of 3-4 15-barrel, unguided 20 mm missile launchers mounted in the rear fuselage on both sides. At least one prototype plane had such armament and was presented to Gen. Adolf Galland.

Ruhrstahl X-4 (Ru 334) - wire-guided rocket missiles mounted on underwing racks, probably of the ETC 503 type. This armament was developed for destroying ground targets (tanks) and for bombers fighting (different warhead). It was tested on the F-8 version plane.
From 1944, production of fighter planes was sharply increased in the so-called Jagernotprogramm. This required higher production coordination and development of a cooperative network. As a result, the Fw 180 A-8 was produced in mass numbers in nearly all Focke-Wulf affiliated factories (production started also in Cottbus, Sorau, Poznan). A licence was sold to the NDW (Norddeutsche Dornier Werke) factory in Wismar. Smaller factories performed repair work and recycled the planes withdrawn from service units. They also produced smaller aeroplane parts. Special coordination committees secured efficient work systems and continuous parts delivery.



Fw 190 A-9

Next and last production series of the A version aircraft was the Fw 190A-9. Previously, it was thought this plane would have been powered by a 1765 kW (2400 hp) BMW 801 F engine. But the BMW factory had not started production of these engines in time and, as a replacement, the 1470 kW (2000 hp) BMW 801 S engine was used.

These engines were delivered as a power unit BMW 801 TS together with a more efficient radiator and bigger circular armoured oil tank mounted in front of the engine. The cowling length increased by some 30 mm. A more efficient, 14-blade fan replaced the previous 12-blade unit for more efficient cooling. Also, the thickness of the armour on the oil tank increased from 6 to 10 mm.

A new broad-chord wooden propeller with a diameter of 3500 mm should have been used to match the increased engine power. The new propeller was manufactured by Heine or Schwartz companies, but for unknown reasons the majority of the A-9 planes (as opposed to F-9) had the metal VDM 9-12176 A propellers, as used in the previous version.

Fw 190 A-5

On the basis of data collected during tests of the experimental Fw 190A3/U1, Blaser's designer team became convinced that the planned additional armament would move the plane centre of gravity forward.
The best solution to offset this was to move the engine forward. This was done with a 15 cm steel tube engine mount extension.
This change (new engine mount) was introduced on the all production lines. It also led to an increase of the plane length to 9.10 m and gave life to the new Fw 190A-5 variant that from November 1942 replaced previous the A-4.

The A-5 also introduced small changes in the equipment (e.g. a new electrical artificial horizon and modernized oxygen respirator, and wide use of the FuG 25a IFF device).
Radio equipment in the rear fuselage section was slightly moved back and the compartment cover was enlarged. Standard armament did not change and it remained 2x1 MG 17, 2x1 MG 151/20 E , 2x1 MG FF.
Proper airframe design provisions meant that the Fw 190A-5 plane was prepared from the beginning to accommodate a large number of Umrustbausatz kits:

Fw 190A-5/U1 - similar (with extended engine mount) to A-4/U1 airplane, temporary powered by a BMW 801 C-2 engine

Fw 190A-5/U2 - long range fighter-bomber plane adapted to the night operation; it was fitted with anti-reflective strips over engine exhaust pipes on both sides. Mounted under the fuselage, an ETC 501 bomb rack for 250 or 500 kg bombs was added, additional fuel was placed in two external tanks of 300 l capacity each mounted under the wings on V.Mtt-Schloss (Verkleidetes Messerschmitt Schloss) shackles. In the wing leading edge an EK 16 camera and a doubled landing light were installed; the MG FF cannons were deleted in this modification.
Based on this version, a night fighter with FuG 217 Neptun J-2 radar was built. However, number of planes built is unknown; the only known specimen of this variant had no bomb rack, camera or landing lights.

Fw 190A-5/U3 - fighter-bomber with the ETC 501 bomb rack and without MG FF cannons. After a change of designation this was serially produced as Fw 190F-2. There was also a desert variant with dust filters designated as A-5/U3/tp (F-2tp).

Fw 190A-5/U4 - reconnaissance fighter fitted with two Rb 12.5/7x9 mm cameras and reduced armament (2x1 MG 17 and 2x1 MG 151/20 E); produced also in a desert variant designated A-5/U4/tp.

Fw 190A-5/U8 - long range fighter-bomber with two underwing mounted external fuel tanks (capacity 2x300 litres) and an under-fuselage mounted ETC 501 bomb rack; armament consisted of only two MG 151/20 E cannons. It was developed into Fw 190G-2 plane and later serially produced.

Fw 190A-5/U9 - experimental plane with heavier armament, it was fitted with 2x1 MG 131 13 mm machine guns in place of MG 17 guns in the fuselage; in the wings the MG FF cannons were replaced by MG 151/20 E cannons. Only two were built (W.Nr. 150812, and 150816).
The W.Nr 150816, BH+CF plane was later used as test bed for more powerful BMW 801 engine versions.

Fw 190A-5/U10 - experimental plane (only two built W.Nr. 150861 and 150862). It was used as a test bed for a strengthened wing adapted to serial application of heavier armament, generally 20 and 30 mm cannons.
Armament consisted of 2x1 MG 17 in the fuselage and 4x1 MG 151/20 E in the wings, later become a standard for A-6 version.

Fw 190A-5/U11 - attack aircraft with two 30 mm Rheinmetall-Borsig MK 103 cannons mounted in underwing pods; only one plane existed (W.Nr. 151303, RG+ZA). This kind of armament became later standard as Rustsatz 3 (R3) kit.

Fw 190A-5/U12 - proposal for heavier armament consisting of six MG 151/20 E cannons. They were mounted under the wing in two additional WB 151/20 pods with two cannons in each pod; complete armament could be 2x1 MG 17, 2x1 MG 151/20 E and 2x2 MG 151/20 E. It was also a model for Rustsatz 1 (R1) kit for Fw 190A; two planes (BH+CC, W.Nr. 150813 and BH+CD, W.Nr. 150814) with such armament were completed.

Fw 190A-5/U13 - three prototypes (V42, W.Nr. 151083, GC+LA; V43, W.Nr 150817, BH+CG and V44, W.Nr. 150855) built, long range fighterbomber with two underwing V.Fw Trg. (Verkleideter Focke-Wulf Trager) bomb racks, adapted for carriage of 300 litre capacity fuel tank or 250 kg bomb.
The plane was equipped with an automated pilot device and application of knifes for barrage balloons lines cutting on the wing leading edge was considered; one plane was experimentally equipped with a lacunar exhaust flame damper (GC+LA?). Armament consisted of two MG 151/20 E mounted in the wing roots. Plane was later produced under designation Fw 190G-3.

Fw 190A-5/U14 - torpedo plane adopted for transportation of one aerial torpedo LT F 5b mounted on the under-fuselage ETC 502 rack; plane had an enlarged fin (similar to Ta 152) and heightened tail wheel strut to eliminate the possibility ground contact by the torpedo; armament consisted of only 2x1 MG 151/20 E cannons. Two planes were tested TD+SI, W.Nr. 150871 and TD+SJ, W.Nr. 150872.

Fw 190A-5/U15 - experimental plane adopted for transportation of the unpowered Blohm und Voss 246 Hagelkorn (LT 950) flying bomb for destroying of naval targets, radio controlled by an Askania company produced ALSK 121 device. Extensively tested during second half of the 1943, later in the test program an A-8/F-8 series plane (W.Nr 130975) was also included, but tests were cancelled shortly after it was found that because of poor construction, the BV 246 had frequent defects.

Fw 190A-5/U16 - prototype of a fighter plane with heavier armament (W.Nr. 130975), for destruction of bomber formations. The MG FF cannons were replaced by heavier 30 mm cannons Rheinmetall-Borsig MK 108. This armament was later standardized as the Rustsatz 2 (R2) kit.

Fw 190A-5/U17 - fighter-bomber with under-fuselage mounted ETC 501 bomb rack and four underwing mounted ETC 50 bomb racks (2x2 50kg bombs). With A-5/U3, this variant was a model for the Fw 190F attack aircraft; basic version for the later Fw 190F-3/R1 variant. Armament was standard without MG FF cannons. Also used in a desert modification.
Finally, in response to the intensifying of the Allies' bombing, numerous Fw 190A-5/R6 planes belonged to units operated in Reich defence system (Reichsverteidigung) have been found.

As an interesting detail, we must mention the existence of a Fw 190A-5 plane with external turbosupercharger inlets. The engine cowling with these inlets was proposed as an alternative, but was not used widely because of higher induced aerodynamic drag.

There exists also a photograph of an A-5 fighter from a II./JG 54 unit deployed to the Eastern Front temporary adopted to bomber missions by four (2x2) under-fuselage mounted ETC 50 bomb racks.

In the autumn 1943, one A-5 plane (W.Nr. 157347) were used as the V45 prototype for tests of the GM 1 system that by injection of pressurized nitrogen monoxide as an oxidant to increase engine efficiency at high altitudes. This device was later standardized as the Rustsatz 4 (R4) kit.

In connection with the planned 1765 kW (2400 KM) BMW 801 F engine production to be used for A-9 and A-10 series planes, in December 1943 Focke-Wulf was ordered to prepare an A-5 airframe (W.Nr. 410230) as the V34 prototype for tests with the experimental BMW 801 V 85 engine; however, we have no evidence that the engine was supplied and mounted on that particular Fw 190 plane. Serial production of BMW 801 F engines never started and A-9 series planes had TS/TU engines mounted.



Fw 190A-6

The main difference of this variant from the previous was the standardized mounting of MG 151/20 E cannons.
For this to be possible, it was necessary to redesign the wing for the heavier cannon mount and carriage of a larger ammunition box.
Experience obtained during Fw 190A-5/U9 and U10 tests was incorporated in this type.
Reinforcements and sockets were made in such a way that serially produced wings would be adapted for internal installation of either 20 or 30 mm cannon ammunition boxes or for installation of underwing armament with the ammunition box installed inside the wing.
Proper electrical connections were also provided for the cannons.

The manufacturer started serial production of the FuG 16 ZE radio with an additional radial antenna for radio navigation purposes placed under the rear fuselage. This antenna was used also in the some A-5 planes.

Standard Fw 190A-6 armament consisted of 2x1 MG 17 machine guns and 4x1 MG 151/20 E cannons. Some planes mounted ETC 501 bomb racks for transportation of an additional fuel tank (300 l capacity), these were not distinguished by separate designation.

Unlike other versions, models with different armament or equipment received designations as Rustsatz kits. A lot of these designations had not been previously used:

Fw 190A-6/R1 - attack fighter with armament increased to six cannons and two machine guns (2x1 MG 17, 2x1 MG 151/20 E and 2x2 MG 151/20 E), by mounting of the WB 151/20 underwing pylons with cannons. This modification was based on the A-5/U12 version. In spite of previous plans, only a few planes with this armament were in Luftwaffe service units (e.g. in JG 11).

Fw 190A-6/R2 - equivalent to the A-5/U6 model, armament: 2x1 MG 17 machine guns, 2x1 MG 151/20 E and 2x1 MK 108 cannons; not serially produced.

Fw 190A-6/R3 - equivalent to the A-5/U11 model, armament: 2x1 MG 17 machine guns, 2x1 MG 151/20 E and 2x1 MK 103 cannons; not serially produced.

Fw 190A-6/R6 - plane with standard armament and the addition of W.Gr. 21 missile launchers.

Fw 190A-6/R2/R6 - plane adapted for destruction of bomber formations, with increased armament and missile launchers, only one prototype, V51 (W.Nr. 530765), built. Total armament consisted of 2x1 MG 17, 2x1 MG 151/20 E, 2x1 MK 108 and 2x1 W.Gr. 21.

Fw 190A-6/R7 - armoured fighter with standard armament; in service with Reich defence units; often with additional 300 l capacity fuel tank mounted on the ETC 501 bomb rack.

Fw 190A-6/R8 - the Rustsatz kit made by application of both R2 (MK108 ) kit and R7 kit (armour), often machine guns in the fuselage were removed; efficient as a fighter against American bomber aircraft.

Fw 190A-6/R11 - all weather and night fighter, with anti-reflection strips, landing light, autopilot device PKS 12 and heated windscreen windows. Some planes mounted a FuG 217 Neptun J-2 radar. Generally, these planes used dropable fuel tanks mounted on the ETC 501 bomb rack.

Fw 190A-6/R12 - the Rustsatz kit created by application of both R2 and R11 kits. Apart from this modification, one or two planes experimentally mounted more the higher power BMW 801 TS engine with three blade wooden VDM propeller with blades of larger area.
The aircraft with code letters VO+LY had an additionally armoured radiator and oil tank; it's armament was reduced to two MG 151/20 E cannons mounted in the wing roots.





.

[Robo.]

Yeah, but's insane now - you can slightly climb at 60% throttle and it's accelerating!

60% throttle is about 0.9ata on a 1.42ata A-4 version and the acceleration is not happening for me, not even in straight flight. I tried all variants but could not confirm your statement. The acceleration and KG operation is modelled better as it was in 4.10.1 imho hence the more lively Wuerger.

Still all the 190's are crap against late war russian Yaks na La-5/7s regardless of altitude.

This all depends very much on tactics.

Just one more thing on slowing down on landing, prop pitch and all, yeah right, tried it with engine off - still hard to slow down (full gear, flaps, radiator), it's as if flying in space. No way to touchdown sooner than in half runways, unless you want to frog jump and crash. The FM generally feels good, but something feels wrong about it, when you compare with other planes.

Yes, the FW 190 is also different to other planes - it has got Kommandogeraet. It is perfectly possible to land this plane normally (beginning of the runway). I agree it might produce more drag with flaps out and landing gear down (but this is the case for every plane in Il-2), I prefer to land in manual prop pitch mode, just to double check if we're all using prop pitch to brake the plane on landing approach (as you mention that even with your engine off it's still a bit too fast etc. - well it bloody should be in that case!)

With your propeller on 'coarse' low throttle setting or with your engine off you simply don't brake at all. What we need to do is to watch the propeller setting gauge (looks like a watch) and have it manually set as fine as possible = as close to 12:00 as possible with your throttle (MFP) way down, slow down and land at some 250km/h. That is with 100 percent prop. pitch, not 0. I am not sure how exactly the KG and manual mode worked and if that's correct in game, but I'd assume there might be some problem with manual PP at the moment.

Slow down to some 300km/h, prop pitch 100, low throttle, land.

@Mustang - what is your point exactly?

[[URU]BlackFox]

Just my two cents about landing... If you take the time it takes to make a landing approach, any plane in Il-2 behaves like it should. What was irrealistic is that "dive landing" approach that people tend to use in dogfight servers.

I generally get criticism even from my squad mates for my long approaches, but I almost never fail landings, since I got plenty of time to correct and touch the ground with less than -5 m/s vertical speed.

About the rest of the issue... we are having an internal "riot" in my squad about this FM stuff, so Team Daidalos gave us something to talk about at least :D.

BTW, I must confess that the changes introduced seem fine to me up to now. Not only the 190 or the F4U have been altered, every plane has to be flown in a different way now. It's like a new game.

[Kittle]

With Blackfox here. I have flown all the aircraft that have had 'controversial' changes and I have no complaints. The instantaneous turn rate of the 190 and F4U have been improved. Straight line acceleration isn't a big issue to me, since I spend most of my time climbing or diving. I have no complaints. A proper landing approach is a must to get a good gauge of how the aircraft handle in that part of flight, run the pattern like you should ;)

[Mustang]

@Robo


Fw 190 A-4

In July 1942, the A-3 was replaced on the production lines by the newer Fw 190A-4 version.
The main difference was an BMW 801 D-2 engine adapted to use with a MW 50 system for short period engine power increase by injection of a water-methanol (methyl alcohol CH3OH) mixture in the proportion of 1:1.
In this way it was possible to raise engine power to 2100 kW for 10 minutes, after which a high probability of engine failure prevented longer use.
Due to delays in MW 50 device production, this system was not mounted on the Fw 190A-4 engines, which had the capability to accept this system.
It was not used and only A-8 and later series planes would use the advantages of this invention.

Fw 190 A-8

A new model with different equipment.
Most important were parts of the MW 50 injection system, used for short term engine power boost. A cylindrical tank of 118 litres capacity was mounted in the rear fuselage.
In an emergency, it could be used as additional fuel tank..




erhöhte Notleistung boost not is MW 50 .

FW 190 A4 No boost
FW 190 A5 No boost
FW 190 A6 erhöhte Notleistung boost
FW 190 A7 erhöhte Notleistung boost
FW 190 A8 MW 50 boost
FW 190 A9 MW 50 boost
FW 190 D9 1944 erhöhte Notleistung boost
FW 190 D9 1945 MW50 boost

Its a fact
IMHO.

.

[Mustang]

MW50 - Water / Metanol tank
erhöhte Notleistung boost - spray gasoline into the supercharger.

FW 190
A4
A5
A6
A7

Dont use MW50 is OK

But about erhöhte Notleistung boost...

[_1SMV_Gitano]

AFAIK Erhöhte Notleistung was used on the A-8 and A-9(?), but not in earlier fighter subvariants.

Low altitude C3 boost was used only on some fighter-bomber variants...

[kennel]

So there is some incorrect infomation in our airplane books? I have encyclopedia of WWII planes stating 190A4 had mw50 boost?
Also states that LA5 1942 engine had a carbareta instead of direct fuel injection, dunno if it suffered from -ve g cut out though.

[IceFire]

So there is some incorrect infomation in our airplane books? I have encyclopedia of WWII planes stating 190A4 had mw50 boost?
Also states that LA5 1942 engine had a carbareta instead of direct fuel injection, dunno if it suffered from -ve g cut out though.

The FW190A-4 was, to the best of my understanding, the first model of FW190 equipped that would be able to take advantage of MW50 boost. But that feature was never used operationally until much later and certainly not in the earlier A-4/5/6.

[kennel]

Thanks for clearing that up, there is alot of info & its difficult to find out real world performance.

[II/JG54_Emil]

So there is some incorrect infomation in our airplane books? I have encyclopedia of WWII planes stating 190A4 had mw50 boost?
Also states that LA5 1942 engine had a carbareta instead of direct fuel injection, dunno if it suffered from -ve g cut out though.

I second that

[Mustang]

Sorry, A5 / A6 had "boost" - improving at any height IMHO.

FW 190 A5 - 10-7-1942


http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h448/totoloco1/5.jpg


ZOOM


http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h448/totoloco1/6.jpg



FW 190 A5/A6

http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h448/totoloco1/1.jpg

http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h448/totoloco1/2-1.jpg

http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h448/totoloco1/3-1.jpg

http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h448/totoloco1/4.jpg

[Jumoschwanz]

with such change(top speed has 30-40km/h decreasing at altitude regarding to compare data), LW cannnot fly on east front after 1943 anymore. no chance to deel with Las, yaks from altiude to bottom. at beginning bf109, now Fw190.

This is not true. The 4.11 190A8 and 190D9 are just as fast or faster than the La7 at 5000 meters altitude and only 10km/hr slower at sea level. The Yak3 is 30km/hr slower than either at those altitudes and the 1944 109s are all faster than the Yak3 and the La7.

The first 4.11 plane I flew online was the FW190A8 and I did not have any problems landing it, it is much easier to land now than it was when Forgotten Battles first came out nine years ago!

The only thing I thought was sort of odd was that the 44' 190D9 does not seem to be faster than the A8 at 5000 meters where I thought that at high altitude it was supposed to be a little bit faster. But I am not a history major or the best test pilot out there.....

[IceFire]

This is not true. The 4.11 190A8 and 190D9 are just as fast or faster than the La7 at 5000 meters altitude and only 10km/hr slower at sea level. The Yak3 is 30km/hr slower than either at those altitudes and the 1944 109s are all faster than the Yak3 and the La7.

The first 4.11 plane I flew online was the FW190A8 and I did not have any problems landing it, it is much easier to land now than it was when Forgotten Battles first came out nine years ago!

The only thing I thought was sort of odd was that the 44' 190D9 does not seem to be faster than the A8 at 5000 meters where I thought that at high altitude it was supposed to be a little bit faster. But I am not a history major or the best test pilot out there.....
You didn't have trouble getting it to slow down? I've been using my tried and tested FW190 landing techniques that I've relied on for years and I do find it is now rather difficult to get it under 300kph on my final approach. I'll have to adjust a bit... but it does seem a bit... extreme? I honestly hadn't noticed until someone pointed it out so I may be extra sensitive.

[AndyJWest]

The Fw 190 does seem reluctant to lose speed, but I've always slowed to about 230 kmh or so before dropping the gear and flaps anyway - a curved approach help a lot with visibility too.

[JtD]

Engine settings in game are historical:
A-4: derated 1.42 ata by limited throttle, max. 1.35 ata 2450 rpm (basically combat setting)
A-4FR, A-5, A-6: 1.42 ata / 2700 rpm (=Notleistung setting)
A-5 1.65 ata: 1.65 ata/2700 rpm 1st gear, 1.42 ata/2700 rpm second gear (C3 Einspritzung)
A-8: 1.58 ata /2700 rpm 1st gear, 1.65 ata/2700rpm second gear (erhöhte Notleistung)
A-9: 1.65 ata/2700 rpm, (Notleistung for -TS engine, it's not a -D any more)

[OberstDanjeje]

Notleistung isn't emergency power?
I'm a bit curious why TD removed the 110% power on the A-4 FR, ecc

[Robo.]

Notleistung isn't emergency power?
I'm a bit curious why TD removed the 110% power on the A-4 FR, ecc

I believe that's because you now get full MFP/RMP at 100%.

The 110% was a bit of nonsense anyway... As for the other changes and erhöhte Notleistung, it seems to be in good match with historical reality accorting to what JtD wrote.

[zipper]

...

With your propeller on 'coarse' low throttle setting or with your engine off you simply don't brake at all. What we need to do is to watch the propeller setting gauge (looks like a watch) and have it manually set as fine as possible = as close to 12:00 as possible with your throttle (MFP) way down, slow down and land at some 250km/h. That is with 100 percent prop. pitch, not 0. I am not sure how exactly the KG and manual mode worked and if that's correct in game, but I'd assume there might be some problem with manual PP at the moment.

Slow down to some 300km/h, prop pitch 100, low throttle, land.



I'm a pilot and it would surprise me very much if the power-computer-thingy would have the prop in any other position than fine (low pitch) below 50% throttle. Seriously. Hydraulic CSP governors lose control below 50% and their props drop to fine pitch (as do American electrics, can't say for other electrics but I would expect the same). One big reason for this, beside the mechanical limitations of the system, is if you need to suddenly tap full power the prop is right there waiting for it.

As for flaps, beside reducing stall speed and decreasing stall pitch angle probably the biggest thing they do for fighters of this era is create drag, and the highest drag flap there is is the split flap. It has always felt to me that split flaps perform no differently than other flaps in the game. Just my opinion.

[Nicholaiovitch]

You didn't have trouble getting it to slow down? I've been using my tried and tested FW190 landing techniques that I've relied on for years and I do find it is now rather difficult to get it under 300kph on my final approach. I'll have to adjust a bit... but it does seem a bit... extreme? I honestly hadn't noticed until someone pointed it out so I may be extra sensitive.

Could I add +1 to this post from IceFire.

I have no intention of adding to the posts on whether the FM for the the 190's is more realistic or better in terms of RL as I just do not have the knowledge that some of you at TD have.

However, in terms of general handling and the drag curve especially in the landing configuration, the 190 does not in any way resemble a relatively high wing loading a/c.

I would hope that a future change in the drag curve could maintain what TD is trying to achieve in terms of fighting ability but also correct the now unrealistic drag with gear and flaps in the landing configuration.

Nicholaiovitch

[JtD]

The Kommandogerät reduced rpm to 400-500 at 0% power. Seems to be a good enough match in game.

I think I have to repeat myself - try landing another heavy, clean plane with 0% pitch (say P-47, P-51). The Fw 190 is nothing out of the ordinary.

[Jumoschwanz]

You didn't have trouble getting it to slow down?

When I am landing any aircraft in IL2 I figure a big part of it is slowing the aircraft down, so I drop landing flaps and gear as soon as my speed is low enough so they will not break off.

When flying online combat no one wants to spend a lot of time landing, they want to get down and get back up quickly. Once in a great while I will do a drawn-out text-book landing just to show myself how well I can still do it, but that is not too often. I would bet that in WWII there were many situations when pilots did not like dawdling around landing at low altitude and speed also?

I will line myself up with the strip as best I can, drop flaps and gear as soon as I can on the approach. Usually the gear will not break if your speed is below 400-350km/hr somewhere. If I do not think I will be able to touch down at 200km/hr then I will scrub off some speed with a hard S turn or some other E-burning slow maneuver. If I am going so fast when I drop the gear that it breaks then that too is the ground crew's problem to fix the pancake damage.

The FW190 was a hot plane with a high take-off and landing speed wasn't it?
I have never taken the time to see how fast I could touch it down without it disintegrating and blowing up, but it might be fun to try landing at 250, then 300km/hr etc. and find out what the limit is....

Addition: I never used much or any flaps taking off in the 190, it was always faster not to and it always seemed the aircraft was pretty easy to lift off the ground at 200km/hr. So it makes sense that if you try to land at over that speed the aircraft will try to stay in the air. I don't know why I always tried to take off and land at around 200km/hr no matter what I was flying, it just seemed to always work well. If I had a lot of time and enjoyed it more, I might land slower or use flaps on take off.

The jamming the flaps on landing was bad advice as it just makes it harder to land. If I am taking the time to actually land, of course you want to raise the flaps as soon as you touch the ground.

I will admit that often on dogfight servers where I want to spend the most time in the air with ammo and fuel to try and meet victory conditions before time runs out, I will skip landing altogether and either pancake the aircraft in, or just bail and get a new plane. Points-whores will not like that idea though.....

[TheGrunch]

+1 Jumo. Also, personally, if I find I am too high or too fast I usually just go into a drastic sideslip until I am not. Not an answer to anyone's questions about the realism of the 4.11 FM but it certainly solves the problem. I haven't actually flown it yet in 4.11 so I can't really comment, but maybe people are just used to the 190 decelerating too quick? I dunno, probably time to try it out. :)

[Snake]

Side slip on final approach is the most effective maneuver to do if u want to drop speed faster than usual. Just try it and you'll see the effect. I've used it all the time for my landing and never had any kind of problem about slowing down to the right landing speed.

[mmaruda]

I finally got used to the new FM, no problems with landing (I can actually land better now). The trick is to begin your approach early to loose speed so when you level over the strip you are at 200-220kph. Still I think flaps should produce a bit more drag with this plane since compared to other aircraft, they have a minimal effect on speed.

[Nicholaiovitch]

The Kommandogerät reduced rpm to 400-500 at 0% power. Seems to be a good enough match in game.

I think I have to repeat myself - try landing another heavy, clean plane with 0% pitch (say P-47, P-51). The Fw 190 is nothing out of the ordinary.

Would you agree it is a big change to the old drag curve prior to 4.11?

Nicholaiovitch:!:

PS This is I believe an FM discussion and not one on how to land!

[JtD]

Would you agree it is a big change to the old drag curve prior to 4.11?No, I wouldn't.

[IceFire]

When I am landing any aircraft in IL2 I figure a big part of it is slowing the aircraft down, so I drop landing flaps and gear as soon as my speed is low enough so they will not break off.

When flying online combat no one wants to spend a lot of time landing, they want to get down and get back up quickly. Once in a great while I will do a drawn-out text-book landing just to show myself how well I can still do it, but that is not too often. I would bet that in WWII there were many situations when pilots did not like dawdling around landing at low altitude and speed also?

I will line myself up with the strip as best I can, drop flaps and gear as soon as I can on the approach. Usually the gear will not break if your speed is below 400-350km/hr somewhere. If I do not think I will be able to touch down at 200km/hr then I will scrub off some speed with a hard S turn or some other E-burning slow maneuver. If I am going so fast when I drop the gear that it breaks then that too is the ground crew's problem to fix the pancake damage.

The FW190 was a hot plane with a high take-off and landing speed wasn't it?
I have never taken the time to see how fast I could touch it down without it disintegrating and blowing up, but it might be fun to try landing at 250, then 300km/hr etc. and find out what the limit is....

Addition: I never used much or any flaps taking off in the 190, it was always faster not to and it always seemed the aircraft was pretty easy to lift off the ground at 200km/hr. So it makes sense that if you try to land at over that speed the aircraft will try to stay in the air. I don't know why I always tried to take off and land at around 200km/hr no matter what I was flying, it just seemed to always work well. If I had a lot of time and enjoyed it more, I might land slower or use flaps on take off.

The jamming the flaps on landing was bad advice as it just makes it harder to land. If I am taking the time to actually land, of course you want to raise the flaps as soon as you touch the ground.

I will admit that often on dogfight servers where I want to spend the most time in the air with ammo and fuel to try and meet victory conditions before time runs out, I will skip landing altogether and either pancake the aircraft in, or just bail and get a new plane. Points-whores will not like that idea though.....
Even in dogfight servers I prefer to do a proper landing... not so much for the points but for the sense of completion. Oddly I sometimes find people watching my carrier landing approaches as apparently I do it fairly well. That is to say that most people crash into the deck or superstructure so I'm a cut above catching a wire and pancaking on the deck :D

I do the rudder slide or some S turns to try and bleed off speed as well... maybe I was having a bad night the last time I tried it but it did seem harder than usual. I'll fly a proper mission and see what the experience is at the end.

[Nicholaiovitch]

No, I wouldn't.

OK....I would agree that this issue is very subjective.

The fact is that several chaps have pointed out that the drag in the approach configuration with gear and full flaps is not really very realistic (this is apart from the issue of deceleration and nothing to do with prop pitch).

The basis for drag on approach with any a/c is to fly at 1.3VS in the approach config. and a 3deg (maybe slightly more for a high performance fighter) with stable power.

With the current drag profile of the FW190 this gives a very low power setting not representative of the wing loading and drag that this a/c should generate.

This is the limit of my knowledge and I certainly believe that the chaps at TD know a lot more than I do. However, I and few others also believe that this feature needs a little work to make it better.

That's all. Have fun!

Nicholaiovitch:)

[JtD]

A quick comparison between 4.101 and 4.11:
Fw 190A-5, 0% throttle, auto pitch, 100% fuel, standard load out, rads closed, flaps and gear down, gliding at 250IAS

4.101: ~20 m/s descent, 1450 rpm
4.11: ~15 m/s descent, 700 rpm

same thing engine off, prop at 0% pitch

4.101: ~16 m/s descent
4.11: ~16 m/s descent

-> It's the prop.

[II/JG54_Emil]

A quick comparison between 4.101 and 4.11:
Fw 190A-5, 0% throttle, auto pitch, 100% fuel, standard load out, rads closed, flaps and gear down, gliding at 250IAS

4.101: ~20 m/s descent, 1450 rpm
4.11: ~15 m/s descent, 700 rpm

same thing engine off, prop at 0% pitch

4.101: ~16 m/s descent
4.11: ~16 m/s descent

-> It's the prop.

1+!

[Jumoschwanz]

Just something interesting I noticed right away while flying the FW190A:

I was missing many shots that I thought I should be making so I adjusted my convergence out further and seemed to be hitting as well or better than ever.

Weapons seem to be stronger to me, or maybe some aircraft are easier to damage now. When hitting IL2 Sturmovik and other eastern front aircraft with the 190A it seems they often go down in one firing pass.

Funny how in another post on this forum someone said their FW190As weapons seemed to be much weaker.

If the flight model was changed I am not sure how that would change the requirement for weapons convergence, it may not or maybe the attitude of the aircraft at speed is different, I might just be a crazy old man......

[WTE_Galway]

Weapons seem to be stronger to me, or maybe some aircraft are easier to damage now. When hitting IL2 Sturmovik and other eastern front aircraft with the 190A it seems they often go down in one firing pass.



Though of course a well flown up-gunned A8 always could do that.

[Epsilon Eridani]

Back too prop Pitch, which has apparently become important now, though I always was manipulating it for what seemed best performance, then 100% in combat, but I digress, I read that you should lower prop pitch when landing. I looked for document, as I read these pages, and waited for next to load, but could not find, and I digress again.

Game is way better, gonna Take 190 up for spin, see if I can shoot down 16 b-17's by my self in QMB.

Thanks TD ~S~

[IceFire]

Just something interesting I noticed right away while flying the FW190A:

I was missing many shots that I thought I should be making so I adjusted my convergence out further and seemed to be hitting as well or better than ever.

Weapons seem to be stronger to me, or maybe some aircraft are easier to damage now. When hitting IL2 Sturmovik and other eastern front aircraft with the 190A it seems they often go down in one firing pass.

Funny how in another post on this forum someone said their FW190As weapons seemed to be much weaker.

If the flight model was changed I am not sure how that would change the requirement for weapons convergence, it may not or maybe the attitude of the aircraft at speed is different, I might just be a crazy old man......
I call this the placebo effect :)

A new patch comes out and random occurrences that they would have otherwise written off are now considered features/changes/modifications to the way things used to be.

I don't think anything has changed regarding weapons. Maybe you were having an off day... or your preferred firing distance has changed over time.

When people go looking for changes people will often find them even if they aren't there. Nobody is immune :)

[Luno13]

A new patch comes out and random occurrences that they would have otherwise written off are now considered features/changes/modifications to the way things used to be.

I don't think anything has changed regarding weapons. Maybe you were having an off day... or your preferred firing distance has changed over time.

When people go looking for changes people will often find them even if they aren't there. Nobody is immune

Yup, been there, done that, lol :cool:

BTW: I've noticed that the maximum RPMs for FW-190s is supposed to be 2700. However, this corresponds to about 80% power in the D-9 (which I just flew, haven't tested others yet). At 100% power, the engine sounds like it's about to blow up.

So does this 80% correspond to max power, and 100% to emergency power?

[OberstDanjeje]

I'm quite sure 2700 it's only for the A version ;)

[Snake]

Just something interesting I noticed right away while flying the FW190A:

I was missing many shots that I thought I should be making so I adjusted my convergence out further and seemed to be hitting as well or better than ever.



So what's your convergence settings now?

[[URU]BlackFox]

Talking about convergence in general... Is vertical convergence considered in the game?

I made a few tests and it seems the bullets have the same vertical angle when fired, despite having a convergence of 100 or 1000 meters. For a ballistic trajectory, there should be a different vertical angle also I believe.

But then again... I'm not a physics expert, so comments are welcome.

[swiss]

BlackFox;383918']Talking about convergence in general... Is vertical convergence considered in the game?

Sure.

Go tanks busting with a bk, open fire at 1k, change settings an see what happens.
;)

[Jumoschwanz]

I did end my statement with the possibility I was a crazy old man.

My real reasoning was that if your favorite aircraft's flight model was changed, that it might throw off your aim for a while, maybe until you got used to it at least. Could happen. Changing the convergence might be something I happened to do at the same time I automatically adjusted to something else, a coincidence.

I always was a fan of really close convergence and shot taking, but that can have it's disadvantages. If you get used to always taking shots while very close to your opponent, you run the risk of collisions and also of having your aircraft damaged or destroyed if their aircraft explodes in a spectacular fashion.

In light of this for some time I have been trying to remember to take shots earlier which not only gives more time to make them but gives the possibility of landing more hits. For years I had my convergence at 150m, but I thought it would be fun to try and stretch it out by 50 or 100 meters.

190A shotmaking:

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Jumoschwanz#p/u/0/AqIvrh7tdQY

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

BlackFox;383918']Talking about convergence in general... Is vertical convergence considered in the game?

Yes it is. Its the same as horizontally range.

[sagittario]

I finally got used to the new FM, no problems with landing (I can actually land better now). The trick is to begin your approach early to loose speed so when you level over the strip you are at 200-220kph. Still I think flaps should produce a bit more drag with this plane since compared to other aircraft, they have a minimal effect on speed.

At the end of all the flight model as regards the landing is right and what is the procedure?


Thank's

[[URU]BlackFox]

Yes it is. Its the same as horizontally range.

I've seen that bullets fall as they fly... but if convergence is set to... say 1000m, shouldn't the bullets describe an arc above the reticle, so as to cross the sight at 1000m?

I haven't seen this effect in the game, that's why i'm asking. It's an important factor when fighting against level bombers.

Again, I may be mistaken, just trying to confirm.

[jermin]

They do fly in an arc.

[[URU]BlackFox]

Ok, me bugging again. I can be a nuisance, I know.

But please bear in mind that i'm just concerned about the things that could be improved in a future release. So this is not plane criticism, I really appreciate the work TD has done so far and I'm confident that the game will get even better thanks to them. And of course I'm ready to aacept that I'm wrong on this one.

What I see in the game is this:
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa451/URU_Fox/Foros/impacto.jpg

What I think it should be is this:
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa451/URU_Fox/Foros/geschossflugbahnFW190A6.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/dieg777/fw5.jpg

But again, I have been wrong so many times that once again won't have much impact :D.

[Pursuivant]

They do fly in an arc.

Yes. You can easily see this if you look at tracks of planes firing low muzzle-velocity guns from a stationary view.

For that matter, you test it yourself. Aim directly at a non-maneuvering target 600 meters out at your 12 o'clock level. Shoot a long burst. Quickly switch to exterior enemy view (Ctrl-F2). Watch the bullets pass beneath your target.

Or just fly straight, slow and level over water. Shoot your guns. Watch as the bullets hit the water.

[Herra Tohtori]

Well, considering the longest distance that you can set your convergence in the game is 1000 metres, the bullets won't rise all that much above the aiming line at that time.

If you want the maths, here goes:

The muzzle velocity of most weapons in the game is somewhere between 500-1000 m/s:

540 m/s for MK108
720 m/s for MG151/20
850 m/s for Browning .303-cals
890 m/s for Browning .50-cals
960 m/s for MG151/15

The bullet drop distance is simple to calculate:

y = ½ g t²

where

g = 9.80665 m/s²

t = bullet travel time

Notwithstanding the drag that the bullet experiences, which slows its velocity, we can still get some guidelines by assuming that the bullet travels at its muzzle velocity the entire way from the muzzle to the target.

So if we look at the slowest projectile here, MK108 grenade, and assume that the average velocity is something in the order of 500 m/s, we can determine that the travel time for 1000 metres convergence is two seconds.

Now we substitute this in the equation to determine how much the bullet falls during this time:

y = ½ * 9.80665 m/s² * (2 s)² = ½ * 9.80665 * 4 m = 19.6 metres

Now, to get how much higher the bullet must arc, you can divide this by two since the bullet first goes up, then down.

So, with the MK108 cannon, firing at level attitude to 1000 metres distance at 1000 metres convergence, the projectile should have peak altitude about 10 metres higher than the aiming line.

At 500 metres distance, 10 metres deviation above the aiming line is not easy to see, in fact on the computer screen it is not very many pixels; a single seat fighter aircraft's wingspan (or length) are of the same order of size, so there's your measure stick.

Note that the MK108 cannon is rather slow and you probably stand no chance of either hitting anything at that distance, or to accurately see the projectile arcing higher than the aiming line because the recoil will probably throw your sight around quite a bit.

With the faster projectiles, the effect is even less pronounced. The MG151/15 cannon projectile should pass the distance of 1000 metres in close to one second, and in that time, the projectile drop is only about five metres, and the peak altitude above aiming line is half that - 2.5 metres or close to that.

With MG151/20 projectile, you have muzzle velocity of 720 m/s; using nice round numbers we can say the average velocity for the projectile might be something around 700 m/s. That translates to about 1.43 seconds of flight time; rounding up let's say 1.5 seconds. 1.5 seconds gives a bullet drop of about 11 metres, and thus the peak altitude would be around 5.5 metres above aiming line.


Now, I don't know exactly HOW much the drag affects projectiles in distances below 1000 metres. If it's modeled physically accurately, then the heavier projectiles should technically retain their speed better while the smaller projectiles would decelerate faster due to their higher dragcoefficient/mass ratio (small stones have lower terminal velocity than big stones of same shape and density), but I don't think it will have that much of an effect on this rudimentary mathematics.

The point is, since maximum convergence distance is 1000 metres, the projectiles won't arc very much above the line of sight, with exception of the slowest projectiles. The situation would be different if you could set convergence to, say, 2000 or 3000 metres, but then this would only be useful if we had an A-10 Warthog in the game with its GAU-8 cannon...:grin:

[[URU]BlackFox]

I see now. Thanks a lot for the explanation. I really thought the vertical correction was more significant.

[MadCat242]

@Black Fox:
Thats quite funny since you posted those documents. :-)
See the 2nd one? That part with "Größte Höhe über Visierlinie" (75; 84; 82cm).
This translates into "max height (of bullet's flightpath) above your line of (aiming) sight.
Those MG rounds pass the LOS the 1st time at 30m and the 2nd time (when falling down) at 500m. Between 30m and 500m the max height above the LOS are those 75cm.

Since this is obviously not a conv of 1000m it isn't that much and pretty much reflects what Herra Tohtori said.

[[URU]BlackFox]

I don´t speak German. And some characters I just couldn't type in my keyboard (which is spanish, BTW, I'm from Uruguay). So the graphical message is the one I coul get. And curves seem to be greater than RL trajectories.

Anyway, I got a free physics lesson and now I understand better how it works. So in all, it was a good deal for me :D.

[sagittario]

I found this note in web. I hope this help other people.:grin:
I resolve my problem about landing procedure.
Remember prop pitch set to auto and power at 20-30%. Altitude for landing circuit 400/500 m
Warning! the stall occours at left side below 160 km/h.


---Landing---
Lower Flaps and Gear under 300 km/h
(162 kt). Approach Speed is 210 km/h
(113 kt). Speed at Treshold should be
190 km/h (103 kt). Flare to Threepoint
attitude before touchdown. After
Touchdown use Rudder to keep the
Aircraft straight. Don't forget to release
Tailwheel lock ( Ctrl-l) before taxiing off
the Runway.

[K_Freddie]

I've been out of practice for a bit, but the main differences in the FM I notice are
(Offline quick missions)
- The Yak3 not cannot get away that easily any more in any form of combat move. the FW is not bleeding too much energy.
- I can cruise in to land at around 200 (20% throttle) and the controls are still very light, and touch down (nearly 3 point - need more practice) at around 180.
This seems about right as the white flap/gear markers on the speedo are at around 220

It's still not a problem to throw around the sky, at any speed. I must just repair my pedals to test the finer points of 'airmanship' ;)

[Erkki]

One quick note about the muzzle speeds - different types of ammo dont have same muzzle speeds. You can see this best with MG151/20 where the tracer APIT round flies a clearly more curved path and drops more per distance than the explosive shells. The weapons are apparently zeroed for the HE shells, too.

[Shardur]

Notwithstanding the drag that the bullet experiences, which slows its velocity, we can still get some guidelines by assuming that the bullet travels at its muzzle velocity the entire way from the muzzle to the target.


If I'm not mistaken [URU]BlackFox actually posted Images with graphs of the real numbers.

If those numbers are correct (which I have to assume at this moment) the bullet of a MG151/20 in the wingroot of a FW190A aimed at a spot 550m away starts out about 120cm below the aiming line, crossing it for the first time at 135m distance, then actually climbs up to 84cm above the aiming line (2.04m traveld upwards) where it will be at around 350m distance, before falling back to the aiming line and meeting it a second time at 550m.

This numbers actually show that Herra Tohtoris simplified math isn't far off for (relative) short distances. However if the distance becomes longer the projectile becomes slower and the drag becomes less marginal.

[Erkki]

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/298414-Finnish-MG-151-20-ballistic-test%28s%29-Forums

MG151/20 ballistics for different shell types. Notice the gun isnt a factory fresh one but already seen some use.

[Mustang]

1) I agree with the new FW 190 FM. ;), Thanks Great Work.

But..
Y lose my boost, and lose speed . ( I like the new 190 FM I must repeat thats )

2)But... The speed corresponds to the tests of luftwaffe ?-
Is only a question.

3)With the new overheat system ..the radiator setting, is a big problem.


4)***The FW 190 Have build a enclosed engine + radiator oil system enclosed too + Cooling Fan , ( For extra cooling :... I AM a genius :P )
I open full radiator and I lose 20 Kms/H.
Like luftwaffe test is correct !

5)**** In the La 5 FN I open full the radiator and I lose only 10 -15 Kms/H
I think must be 45 / 50 Kms/H - (La 5 FN manual)

Sorry but.
If that is true my FW maybe can run out from LA s 5.

From La 5 FN Manual

My apologies if I'm wrong ...

?




http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h448/totoloco1/img042.jpg

.

[Z1024]

There are several problems with d9:

1) Both initial and MW50 versions are late 1944 (September and November respectively), so their titles or captions should be adjusted.
1945 Doras were the D11 and D13

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fw190 :
Early D-9s reached service without the MW 50 installation, but in the meantime Junkers produced a kit to increase manifold pressure (Ladedrucksteigerungs-Rüstsatz) that increased engine output by 150 PS to 1,900 PS, and was effective up to 5,000 m (16,400 ft) altitude. It was fitted immediately to D-9s delivered to the units from September, or retrofitted in the field by TAM. By the end of December, all operational Doras, 183 in total, were converted.[50] From November 1944, a simplified methanol water (MW 50) system (Oldenburg) was fitted, which boosted output to 2,100 PS. By the end of 1944, 60 were delivered with the simplified MW 50 system or were at the point of entering service.

2) They do overheat very quickly and badly at 100% with boost at any altitude and speed even with the fully opened radiator,even in a 750-800km/h shallow dive between 5 and 2km which doesn't feel right.
They overheat much faster than Antons, Mustangs, p47s, LAs, and just about any other plane except for late Spits and 109s.

3) D9 45's engine after about 15-20 min of flying quickly overheats and dies in a matter of 10-15 sec. Even if you didn't use MW50 most of the time.

4) MW50 Dora's top speed is indeed lower than in any source I was able to find (about 710km/h) by about 20km/h

I'm all for realism, but if you alter(or should I say cripple?) one plane, please do the same to the competition.

According to many sources even La7s had some difficulties catching same age Antons(let alone Doras) in a shallow dive. But in the game it's a piece of cake. Even in d9 45 it is difficult to get away from La7s and even from i185m71 joke-plane, because they don't overheat as badly as Dora does, so while D9 45 is slightly faster, with all other things equal it will overheat much faster than la7 so you won't be able to maintain or increase separation, and since La7s also happens to be more maneuverable - there is nothing you can do (well maybe bail).

[JtD]

The D-9 with MW50 has been labelled 1945 since ages, and as it is a plane representative for D-9's in 45 there's little reason to change it. The MW50 kit was a rare item at best by late 1944.

If you have a problem with overheating, I suggest you try not to use WEP all the time, or fly the plane at higher altitudes where the lower outside temperatures help it to cool the engine. Diving at full throttle is a bad thing too, it was outright forbidden in the pilot manual. You're over-revving the engine. 3300 was the absolute limit, check how your rpm's are in the dive.

How much data do you have on the D-9 with MW50?

[Z1024]

The D-9 with MW50 has been labelled 1945 since ages, and as it is a plane representative for D-9's in 45 there's little reason to change it. The MW50 kit was a rare item at best by late 1944.
Sorry but that's doesn't mean it can't be corrected. Many server owners use these dates/years to compile planesets.


If you have a problem with overheating, I suggest you try not to use WEP all the time, or fly the plane at higher altitudes where the lower outside temperatures help it to cool the engine. Diving at full throttle is a bad thing too, it was outright forbidden in the pilot manual. You're over-revving the engine. 3300 was the absolute limit, check how your rpm's are in the dive.

The problem is that not only it overheats quickly, but that it just dies after about 10 min of flying (radiator always fully opened) in a usual busy open pit server mode.
As an experiment I flew a mission mostly @ 80% using full throttle only in climbs, Didn't engage MW50 whatsoever and yet after ~10 min I got an overheat warning (while going full throttle) an in a matter of seconds (maybe 10) the engine started squeaking. If at this stage you don't drop below 70% or something - the engine will die completely within maybe another 30sec.
If you reduce to 50-70% you can still make it to the field if its not too far and you don't get shot down by some uber la7.

No other plane behaves like that. Usually you don't have to act immediately to prevent engine failure. It shouldn't be hard to replicate, I get this every time I use Dora, especially the MW50 version (and survive 10-15 min, which is most of the time). So this makes d9 barely flyable. And that was one of the most popular 1944+ planes.

How much data do you have on the D-9 with MW50?
Only what's in Wikipedia, but most websites mentioning Dora list the same specs and data.

[JtD]

Sorry but that's doesn't mean it can't be corrected. Many server owners use these dates/years to compile planesets.
Exactly, and that's why 1945 is the better choice.

I just flew a fuel tank empty with the D-9 1945. No troubles. Keeping radiator open and air speed up, I only once overheated at around 4000m when climbing from sea level to 8000m at 110% power throughout. So I'm still guessing you're over-revving the engine. If you can provide a track, it would help.

Wikipedia figures aren't always the most reliable. For instance, 710 km/h at 11000m is not a figure any D-9 ever attained.

[K_Freddie]

I think there's a lot of pilot error (lack of education) involved here.

a) I fly the anton 9s vs spitIX+25lbs (all '44) with reasonable difficulty and almost at full power = 50/50 outcome
b) Then again with the dora9 vs spitIX+25lbs (all '44) with little or no difficulty mostly at full power = 25/75 in my favour.

All scenarios < 1000m, never had and overheat... I mean not one ??
All Difficulty = Full Real ;)
:cool:

[Z1024]

Exactly, and that's why 1945 is the better choice.
Sorry, I'm not following you here? How is it a better choice to put a 1944 German plane in 1945 if the war ended for them after only 4 months of 1945?

And then this late 1944 is pitted against mid/late 1945 planes?

For instance according to this Russian resource:
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/la7.html

Лишь в июне - июле 1944 года в НИИ ВВС удалось провести первые испытания трех синхронных мушек Б-20. Они выявили, что при выбросе гильз в воздух из зализов крыла случались повреждения консолей крыла и хвостового оперения. Машину доработали, сделав выброс гильз под фюзеляж, и в сентябре вновь испытали в НИИ ВВС. В серийное производство трехпушечный вариант пошел летом 1945 г.

The 3 cannon version of La-7 went into production in summer of 1945, but in the game it is available in 1944!
By the way the the max speed for La-7 according to Il2 Compare is 682km/h - that is the result achieved by the prototype "Эталон" plane (actually 680), and I doubt that average new plane coming off the factory lines would show the same performance. Wikipedia article for La-7 lists a more realistic figure of 661km/h @6000m for the 1945 production model.

So given all that I can't help but notice the performance specs look somewhat biased towards soviet planes...


I just flew a fuel tank empty with the D-9 1945. No troubles. Keeping radiator open and air speed up, I only once overheated at around 4000m when climbing from sea level to 8000m at 110% power throughout. So I'm still guessing you're over-revving the engine. If you can provide a track, it would help.

Try Crimea, between 100 to 300m , just fly straight, MW50 + 110% radiator fully open. I get the "overheat" message in ~1:50min.


Wikipedia figures aren't always the most reliable. For instance, 710 km/h at 11000m is not a figure any D-9 ever attained.

Well okay, The top speed figure for D9 is varies between 680 and 705 km/h @~6000m depending on the source. So that's close to 710 albeit not at 11k, and I agree that figure did look a bit strange - could be some experimental model with GM-1 boost?

Speaking of speeds and reliable sources, according to Il2 compare the top speed for D9 is pretty close in the game(~692km/h @ 5500m), however sea level figures look a bit low:

This article has some authentically looking reports and figures:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190d9test.html

So if you have a loot at this figure from that article:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190d-9-levelspeed-comp-metric.jpg
You can see that its sea level speed should be around 610km/h and in I2 Compare it is ~610km/h.
By the way, during my tests I could't make it go faster than 575km/h (normally like 560) without making a very shallow dive, but in a La-7 I managed to reach ~600 (605 in IL2 Compare)...
Anyway. back to the graph, between 0 and 1500m IL2Compare figures are 10-20km/h lower than on this graph. Furthermore, between 1500 and 2300m in Il2Copmare the speed drops, while on the report diagram it stays between 645 and 655km/h. At 3000m the difference between the report and il2 compare is 20-25km/h (640 vs ~660-665)
These graphs are given for 3250rpm - and this was allowed for 30 min.
Measured results of these captured planes show for example that D9 should be able to go at least 665km/h @6150m for at least 30min. I'm pretty sure you can't do that in the game without blowing the engine.I'm saying at least, because they were not in the perfect shape, not just off the production line with the brand new engine. And if you are using "Эталон" figures for La-7, Why not use the FockeWulf figures on that graph with the engine gap sealed, no ETC504 rack? I'm not even suggesting using the one with C3 fuel ;) BTW that C3 one - that's with the ETC 504 thingy. Drop it and you probably can expect 710km/h @ 6k...

[Z1024]

I think there's a lot of pilot error (lack of education) involved here.

a) I fly the anton 9s vs spitIX+25lbs (all '44) with reasonable difficulty and almost at full power = 50/50 outcome
b) Then again with the dora9 vs spitIX+25lbs (all '44) with little or no difficulty mostly at full power = 25/75 in my favour.

All scenarios < 1000m, never had and overheat... I mean not one ??
All Difficulty = Full Real ;)
:cool:
Vanilla I2 upped to patch 4.11.* - the latest?
Full power + MW50? Like I said - I create a quick mission, fly straight MW50+max power with open radiator and get an overheat under 2min. Full real as well (well, at least engine wise). What am I possibly doing wrong here?
I'd love to see a track of you managing to maintain 110%+MW50 at sea level for more than say 5min and not get an overheat with some notes on how you achieve that?

[MadBlaster]

Vanilla I2 upped to patch 4.11.* - the latest?
Full power + MW50? Like I said - I create a quick mission, fly straight MW50+max power with open radiator and get an overheat under 2min. Full real as well (well, at least engine wise). What am I possibly doing wrong here?
I'd love to see a track of you managing to maintain 110%+MW50 at sea level for more than say 5min and not get an overheat with some notes on how you achieve that?


To measure the time to overheat, you should really start from take-off when the "virtual" engine of the D-9 is cold with rad open, then see how long it takes. Not when the engine is already warm. Also keep in mind each map is modeled different temperature, effects of cooling from airspeed.

Think about it. 3250 is very high rpms even today for piston engine. This isn't even water cooled! High rpms creates more heat and that will break down the oil/lubricant chemical bonds and then the engine damage. Learn to use force of gravity in combination with your engine, this will get you your speed in any plane. Use the high rpms to get torque at your low speeds for acceleration, then lower the rpms and atas to keep it cool when your moving fast.

[JtD]

Regarding the speed figures from ww2aircraftperformance. You'll see the effect of the engine gap. This was not sealed in real life. In performance calculations it was assumed sealed, because the model wasn't exact enough. So tests with gap sealed as well as Fw performance calculation show higher speeds than were attainable with the real D-9. So for reasonable real life performance, take the green line (Fw Flugmechanik, 15.12.44), and subtract 10-15 km/h for the effect of the engine gap.

3250 rpm were allowed for 30 mins max., unless the engine exceeded temperature limits.

[Z1024]

Regarding the speed figures from ww2aircraftperformance. You'll see the effect of the engine gap. This was not sealed in real life. In performance calculations it was assumed sealed, because the model wasn't exact enough. So tests with gap sealed as well as Fw performance calculation show higher speeds than were attainable with the real D-9. So for reasonable real life performance, take the green line (Fw Flugmechanik, 15.12.44), and subtract 10-15 km/h for the effect of the engine gap.

If you are basing your La7 FM on the "эталон"(prototype) La7, why not use the FW's figures with the sealed engine gap?
The real life La7s that saw combat would surely be noticeably slower than the prototype?

So if you choose top stats for FMs that green line would be a good model for the 44 Dora, and the C3 line would be a good model for D9 45.

In reality, the Il2 compare figure @2000m is 625km/h and FW data shows at least 650km/h. Even the captured D9 (sealed gap) shows 645km/h.
And finally, even the captured 190 with the gap not sealed shows 630km/h.

So across the board FW190D9 MW50 figures are (often way)lower than it was in reality, while La7s(for example) is represented by the prototype model (so it was in the perfect shape for those trials when they got 680km/h) or even slightly better (Il2 Compare shows 682km/h). Many Russian sources(not just Wikipedia) state La7s top speed was 661km/h. So why 682km/h? That's even more than the prototype's figure!

Is it just me of this does indeed look biased?


3250 rpm were allowed for 30 mins max., unless the engine exceeded temperature limits.
If 3250 was allowed for 30 min max that kinda gives a ballpark estimate of the engine endurance, doesn't it? Why would they allow it for 30 min if engine overheated in under 2min and died in 5 even with the open radiator while going ~600 km/h? That doesn't make any sense.

And what about the 1944 vs 1945 issue - why the 1944 D9MW50 is in 1945 plane set but 1945 La7(3 cannon version) is in 1944?

[Z1024]

To measure the time to overheat, you should really start from take-off when the "virtual" engine of the D-9 is cold with rad open, then see how long it takes. Not when the engine is already warm. Also keep in mind each map is modeled different temperature, effects of cooling from airspeed.

There is no ground take off in QMB. It always starts mid-air. Are you sure quick missions start with the warm engine?
Either way, in my tests(on the Crimea map, 100m alt) D9 MW50 overheats in 1:05m, La7 in 1:30 and Spit 25lbs in 1:55m. (all closed/auto radiator)

So 4.11 Dora is seriously crippled not only top speed wise, but also engine endurance wise as well.

Another interesting observation - the spit flew full 19 mins @110% before the engine died and it didn't show any signs of damage until maybe 12min into flight. D9 died in ~3:30 and La7 in 4:30. I understand that the time to failure is not fixed in this new patch, but still, these are the figures I got.


Think about it. 3250 is very high rpms even today for piston engine. This isn't even water cooled! High rpms creates more heat and that will break down the oil/lubricant chemical bonds and then the engine damage.
Sorry but Jumo213A IS liquid cooled and it was rated for 30 min at that rpm.
Now that might look high, but Junkers engineers allowed that, so they probably knew their engine better and knew what they were doing.

Learn to use force of gravity in combination with your engine, this will get you your speed in any plane. Use the high rpms to get torque at your low speeds for acceleration, then lower the rpms and atas to keep it cool when your moving fast.
I just leave pitch at auto and control in with the throttle.
My problem is not that it overheats, but that water cooled Dora overheats faster than air cooled La7 and much faster than water cooled Spitfire 25lbs.
This is not correct, besides, MW50 should actually cool the engine, and increase its efficiency.

[csThor]

*Cough* Select "Scramble" in QMB and you get your take-off. ;)

[Z1024]

*Cough* Select "Scramble" in QMB and you get your take-off. ;)

Where is that? I can't see anything called "Scramble" in the QMB

[csThor]

There must be a dropdown menu to choose the type of mission. That list includes a scramble type mission.

[Z1024]

There must be a dropdown menu to choose the type of mission. That list includes a scramble type mission.

Oh, the "Target" menu. Not very intuitive :) Thank you, much appreciated :)

[MadBlaster]

There is no ground take off in QMB. It always starts mid-air. Are you sure quick missions start with the warm engine?
Either way, in my tests(on the Crimea map, 100m alt) D9 MW50 overheats in 1:05m, La7 in 1:30 and Spit 25lbs in 1:55m. (all closed/auto radiator)

So 4.11 Dora is seriously crippled not only top speed wise, but also engine endurance wise as well.

Another interesting observation - the spit flew full 19 mins @110% before the engine died and it didn't show any signs of damage until maybe 12min into flight. D9 died in ~3:30 and La7 in 4:30. I understand that the time to failure is not fixed in this new patch, but still, these are the figures I got.


Sorry but Jumo213A IS liquid cooled and it was rated for 30 min at that rpm.
Now that might look high, but Junkers engineers allowed that, so they probably knew their engine better and knew what they were doing.


I just leave pitch at auto and control in with the throttle.
My problem is not that it overheats, but that water cooled Dora overheats faster than air cooled La7 and much faster than water cooled Spitfire 25lbs.
This is not correct, besides, MW50 should actually cool the engine, and increase its efficiency.


- you can always use full mission builder to make your own mission and take off from the ground.

- okay, so it's water cooled. whatever. 30 minutes, whatever. it's virtual. there is no water, there is no air, there is no plane. it is all pretend.;)

- iirc, the 213 is modified/beefed up 211. the 211 had much lower rpm power band. the point is 3250 is a high rpm for piston engine, creates a lot of heat no matter water cooled or not, and you can't expect to cruise around in your plane like that. that's not what the high rpm part of the power band is for.

- even if there is a cooling effect from mw50 and the engine is water cooled, it is not enough to overcome the additional heat caused by running the engine at 3250 rpms! eventually, there is no more heat exchange with the oil, radiator water and outside air. The engine just keeps getting hotter and bad things start to happen to the engine.

-i forgot to mention, to engage the mw50, your supposed to reduce your throttle first or you get engine damage. unless they changed that in 4.11. but I fly up3 rc4 based on 4.10.

[JtD]

Il-2 compare date is not corrected to standard conditions, full throttle altitudes are lower than they are in real life data corrected to standard conditions. This effects speeds.

I have no intention of discussing the La-7 in a Fw 190 flight model topic.

Time limits and temperature limits are separate limits, they are about as related as dive and load limits.

You should install 4.11.1.

[Z1024]

Il-2 compare date is not corrected to standard conditions, full throttle altitudes are lower than they are in real life data corrected to standard conditions. This effects speeds.
What are the standard conditions then and what is the value of IL2Compare if they are not indicative of the il2 plane specs?

I can't achieve even the il2 compare speeds in a FW - usually 25-30kmh slower. In a La-7 the it is only 5kmh slower.


I have no intention of discussing the La-7 in a Fw 190 flight model topic.

Fine, I might create a new topic.

I am using 4.11.1m

[[URU]BlackFox]

I can't achieve even the il2 compare speeds in a FW - usually 25-30kmh slower. In a La-7 the it is only 5kmh slower.


I made a few tests of the Fw-190A-9 in the Smolensk map (that's where the flight data from Il2Compare applies, so I just flew a QMB mission there), and with rad closed, full power, a little rudder to compensate, elevator trim + a little joystick, and manual pitch to get between 2600-2700 RPM, I got a TAS (I know what you see inside the cockpit is IAS) of ~605 Kmph at ~1500m (and I'm not a very good pilot so someone with a better touch and knowledge can surely do better). So the numbers in Il2Compare can be achieved IMHO.

Wether some planes reach max speed faster, or can do it without so much manhandling is a different subject and I'm not qualified to have an opinion there.

Anyway, the Fw-190 feels quite different from previous versions of the game, and I'm having a blast flying it (and suffering it greatly when it's on my 6).

[Z1024]

BlackFox;430448']I made a few tests of the Fw-190A-9 in the Smolensk map (that's where the flight data from Il2Compare applies, so I just flew a QMB mission there), and with rad closed, full power, a little rudder to compensate, elevator trim + a little joystick, and manual pitch to get between 2600-2700 RPM, I got a TAS (I know what you see inside the cockpit is IAS) of ~605 Kmph at ~1500m (and I'm not a very good pilot so someone with a better touch and knowledge can surely do better). So the numbers in Il2Compare can be achieved IMHO.

Wether some planes reach max speed faster, or can do it without so much manhandling is a different subject and I'm not qualified to have an opinion there.

Anyway, the Fw-190 feels quite different from previous versions of the game, and I'm having a blast flying it (and suffering it greatly when it's on my 6).

That's good but I was mainly talking about D9 Late @ sea level. According to IL2 Compare A9 should go 610km/h at 1500 so you're pretty close. Not sure if manual pitch should be required given that German planes had a komnandaggregat or something - basically a controller or governor - some difficult German word.
Anyway, try the same with D9 Late at sea level. I couldn't achieve more than 570km/h (should be ~600). In La-7 however I was able to reach ~600 pretty easily (Il2Cmp figure is 605)

[[URU]BlackFox]

I tested it but going down to sea level was a little difficult in Smolensk. I just followed a river that went fairly straight on, and found that in Fw-190D_Late, with rad closed, pitch auto, WEP on, no cockpit (to see TAS), I got a sustained ~590Kmph speed. Still short of the figures in Il2Compare, but better than the 570 you mentioned.

Reaching that speed was, however, really painful in level flight, and the overheat message appeared quite fast. The engine went on for several minutes without losing AtA or RPMs, so maybe the message comes in too quickly. I never fly in this conditions when in combat, so I have hardly seen the overheat message before, and have no idea about it's accuracy.

About the La, I didn't have the time to test it in the same manner. Maybe I can today after work.

[K_Freddie]

I apologise for my 5000+ hrs of combat flying experience..
Non the less I have real life stuff to attend to

[Z1024]

It looks like when you take off from the ground it does not overheat very quickly. I could climb for at least 3-4 min with 110% + MW50 without getting an overheat message.
Haven't tested other planes.
However if I fly QMB or on a server with airstart - it does overheat very quickly - quicker than most other planes (actually all I've tested). And this doesn't look right because Germans allowed 3250rpm for 30min and MW50 for 10 min at a time, which is longer than La7's WEP mode (5min) for example, yet Dora overheats sooner in the game. Liquid cooled engines (such as D9s Jumo213A) enjoy more uniform cooling than the radial engines (such as La7s ASh-82FN) It is more difficult to arrange the airflow to cool both the front and back sets of cylinders. The back one overheats more. And yet in the game D9 overheats faster than La7 which did have these problems with quick overheating in the WEP mode.

But my main problem with D9, like I said earlier - is that its engine dies after ~10-15 min of intense/combat mode flight. This happens ONLY to D9s - at some point it displays the overheat message and then quickly dies. This is not a MW50/boost related issue as I flew a mission without engaging it even once and it still died the same way. I don't think I over-rev the engine because I use auto pitch and even in a full powered dive when the plane approaches 900km/h the RPM indicator still shows around 3200 (maybe 3250) - and I never exceed maybe 850 in a dive, and usually reduce the throttle to zero when diving faster than 750.
This behavior is new in 4.11 (and still exists in 4.11.1). It only happens to D9s - Antons, 109s, Spit, Ki84 - I fly them all in the same way and never have this problem with those planes.
Something was changed in the D9s FM or the bigger change to engine overheat model affected only Doras in this way.

[K_Freddie]

.. and I never exceed maybe 850 in a dive, and usually reduce the throttle to zero when diving faster than 750.

:eek:...
I never push them beyond 600... and never had an overheat.
You're probably pushing too hard ;)

This track (vanilla 4.11.1) might give you an idea.. You'll notice that the Temps gauges hardly move ! (excuse the slip.. have no pedals at the mo)

[Z1024]

:eek:...
I never push them beyond 600... and never had an overheat.
You're probably pushing too hard ;)

This track (vanilla 4.11.1) might give you an idea.. You'll notice that the Temps gauges hardly move ! (excuse the slip.. have no pedals at the mo)

Thanks for the track, but what was it supposed to prove? That you can fly a D9 without going into overheat if you fly mostly under 80% and never use boost? But I already know that.
BTW that tactics might work with rookie-level AI but try that vs semi-competent online pilot in a spit and you'll get shot down in no time. There is no way you can dogfight a co-E spit in a d9. And it gets worse in an open pit environment because it removes SA issues - all these visual clues, and 360degree view help immensely.

PS. what was wrong with the right ammo counter?:)

[K_Freddie]

As far as I remember those were Ace AI... although I found it strange that the 1 and 2 went off on a tangent. I never fly offline with anything other than Ace AI as there's no challenge.

As for online, the same type a/c management still applies as you have to keep 'cool' :grin:.

One thing a lot of people get wrong with this game, is that you don't have to be at top speeds/revs 100% of the time to win a fight, you just have to have a better brain and flying capabilities. Once you get that right you'll never have an overheat, or very few of them, and will lose a lot less online DFs even when the odds are stacked against you.

Also flying on anything else other than a 100% server is a waste of time for the FW, as all the usable advantages are negated.

;)

[jermin]

Dogfighting Spits in a Fw-190? If you fly like that online, you'll be dead in less than 1 minute.

BTW, even Ace AI are 10 times more inferior than an experienced human player.

[K_Freddie]

This KI should have outperformed me in a A9, of all things - This plane's a deadweight compared to a Dora.. but what you see on paper is not the same in the air. Results could have been better thanks to the p38 :grin:

I had a similar spit track but seemed to have conveniently lost it, but this old track makes the point. ;)

[schnorchel]

The main issue for top speed of German plane is that you need several mins to get thesepeed which is 20-30km/h lower than il2compare top speed value. But for Las they are very easily and very quickly to get top speed.this game is dying.

[Z1024]

The main issue for top speed of German plane is that you need several mins to get thesepeed which is 20-30km/h lower than il2compare top speed value. But for Las they are very easily and very quickly to get top speed.this game is dying.

Yep, exactly. And by the time you reach that speed your'e in the serious overheat territory...

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

The whole game is dying, because two of the racer planes do not feel the way, that you imagine. Yep, understood.

[II/JG54_Emil]

The whole game is dying, because two of the racer planes do not feel the way, that you imagine. Yep, understood.

That´s the attitude, Casper!!!
Great effort.

[K_Freddie]

In a way Casper is correct.
There was a lull in activity with the great expectations of Clod, but this has not proven to be what it's worth.
There should have been a larger swing back to IL2 and TD's updates, but this has not been as much as expected, probably for numerous reasons, but I'd say these are tops..

- Age ... Time has moved on (profound statement :grin: )
- Modding... IL2 lost it's standard 'baseline' that everyone could trust online. While extras, effects and maps are a great help. Interfering with the FMs and DMs in an uncontrolled way simply reduced that online atmosphere of competition, which was the main draw-card of IL2.

[kennel]

I thought Casper was being sarcastic to the comment made by another poster. Maybe he is sick & tired of all of the bs.

After all if you contribute your time to a passion & sombody takes a very -ve approach to that most people generally crack the sh@ts

[Fenrir]

The sense of indignant entitlement that seems to hang round any Il-2 forum like a bad smell is really starting to grate.

Caspar has every right to be sarcastic - his and his teams efforts are done for no financial gain and a massive amount of hard graft, and what thanks do they get? Criticism, insults and belittlement of their toil.

You think they pull flight model data from thin air? Make it up as they go along? They use sources that have documentable historical authenticity - now if these were cherry picked at the time by the people who compiled the report and the data does not truly represent an aircraft of the line then that is not their fault; it certainly does not mean that gut reaction, estimated opinion or some highly subjective feeling should be used to 'correct' it. After all, in that situation, whose opinion is correct?

And remember a lot of the figures being quoted come from secondary sources, books whose authors are no doubt thorough researchers but often who have pulled figures from other secondary sources. Unreliable at best.

Find a verifably original document of a tested front-line VVS aircraft in fighting trim with all the figures you desire and THEN present your opions to the TD chaps. Otherwise all your typing is nothing but mere conjecture.

[II/JG54_Emil]

Caspar has every right to be sarcastic ...
If we want a constructive discussion, sarcasm won´t get us nowhere.
Sad enough to have flaming forum trolls, but flaming developers is not acceptable.

You think they pull flight model data from thin air? Make it up as they go along? They use sources that have documentable historical authenticity - now if these were cherry picked at the time by the people who compiled the report and the data does not truly represent an aircraft of the line then that is not their fault; it certainly does not mean that gut reaction, estimated opinion or some highly subjective feeling should be used to 'correct' it. After all, in that situation, whose opinion is correct?

I want to believe you are correct, I would be sure if sources were presented, which is not the case. As long as this is not presented it is thin air.
Asking questions must legitimate and is scinetific method.
Flaming about is ruining the work of the developers team.

So my plea to everyone on the forum is -if cannot say anything construcive, don´t say anything.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Of course it was sarcasm. It one way to tell people, that they said something stupid, without being to honest about it.

Most FM discussions are about late war uberplanes, again and again. That shows me, what kind of spirit that is, where the attitude is, and that tells me where the oppinions come from and that tells me, how I can judge it.

I didn't say, the stock FMs are holy and correct - and especially not in case of the La's (Haha!). But its not only the late war planes, its everywhere in the game, lots of planes need to be revised and more over: reseached with care!
FM's are gonna be looked at, one after another. There are some quite good informations about La-7 over at one or two other threads in this forum. Thats a good thing - so no sarcasm there. But 'the game is dying' because of what? Sorry, that won't get something different from me.

[Z1024]

You think they pull flight model data from thin air? Make it up as they go along? They use sources that have documentable historical authenticity - now if these were cherry picked at the time by the people who compiled the report and the data does not truly represent an aircraft of the line then that is not their fault;
And how do you know all that exactly? Are you affiliated with 1C/the original Maddox team or TD or know what their processes are? Or you just believe in that without any factual evidence?

I'm sure for some aircraft no test data is available or it is incomplete so they just had to do their own modelling, and/or use estimated/predicted performance figures or even plausible guesstimating (and nobody blames them for that). (Lershe, Ta183? they were never built, let alone tested)
We do appreciate their work and we are grateful for it. Personally I find the 6DOF support fantastic.
I would't say the game is dying either. It is still the best WW2 Air Sim.
But there is always room for improvement - including the FM department.


it certainly does not mean that gut reaction, estimated opinion or some highly subjective feeling should be used to 'correct' it. After all, in that situation, whose opinion is correct?

This is not gut reaction/feeling, we give figures to support our observations, and use very basic and general logic (the "if a>b and b>c then a>c" kind). For example we've established that in the game FW190D9 MW50 overheats and its engine fails faster than La7s even though Junkers allowed max power setting for 30min and MW50 for 10min at a time and La7 pilots were allowed to use max power for 5min. So you'd kinda expect D9 should take longer to overheat than La7 but this is not the case in the game.

And remember a lot of the figures being quoted come from secondary sources, books whose authors are no doubt thorough researchers but often who have pulled figures from other secondary sources. Unreliable at best.
If you believe some source is unreliable - you need to specify which one, and why. Otherwise this sentence is meaningless and has no substance.

Find a verifably original document of a tested front-line VVS aircraft in fighting trim with all the figures you desire and THEN present your opions to the TD chaps. Otherwise all your typing is nothing but mere conjecture.
In case you were addressing me - see my earlier posts comparing the data pulled from test reports and FW figures with the Il2 compare figures.
And I am using sources that at least look reliable: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=434326#post434326

[K_Freddie]

Reliable sources or not.. One thing that can be more or less factual and is represented in the game (and improving over time) is the relative performances of each aircraft, it's advantages and disadvantages - this has always seemed to fit the bill, and quality control of these features are important, if you do not want to destroy the online game.

Sure minor hiccups here and there, but essentially it has taught those who have taken the time to know their favourite a/c, how to fly it to it's max. In this, IL2 has been more satisfying than any other flight sim.

:grin:

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

And how do you know all that exactly? Are you affiliated with 1C/the original Maddox team or TD or know what their processes are? Or you just believe in that without any factual evidence?


A legitimate question. We choose those sources, that - as we do think - have the best documentable historical authenticity. But we never tested such planes ourself, of course, so we cannot be sure 100%. Telling so would be a lie.
Sometimes we very eagerly discuss internally, which source is the best. Sometimes we even have to do reasonable estimations, if sources are impossible to get. We are normal people, we are 'also cooking only with water' - as we say in germany.
But we are very careful with what we use as source and what not - be assured.

[II/JG54_Emil]

A legitimate question. We choose those sources, that - as we do think - have the best documentable historical authenticity. But we never tested such planes ourself, of course, so we cannot be sure 100%. Telling so would be a lie.
Sometimes we very eagerly discuss internally, which source is the best. Sometimes we even have to do reasonable estimations, if sources are impossible to get. We are normal people, we are 'also cooking only with water' - as we say in germany.
But we are very careful with what we use as source and what not - be assured.

Excellent.
It would be great to reference these sources or even better to quote them.
Then the endless discussions will most likely stop.

[IceFire]

Of course it was sarcasm. It one way to tell people, that they said something stupid, without being to honest about it.

Most FM discussions are about late war uberplanes, again and again. That shows me, what kind of spirit that is, where the attitude is, and that tells me where the oppinions come from and that tells me, how I can judge it.

I didn't say, the stock FMs are holy and correct - and especially not in case of the La's (Haha!). But its not only the late war planes, its everywhere in the game, lots of planes need to be revised and more over: reseached with care!
FM's are gonna be looked at, one after another. There are some quite good informations about La-7 over at one or two other threads in this forum. Thats a good thing - so no sarcasm there. But 'the game is dying' because of what? Sorry, that won't get something different from me.

I'd love to see a furious argument about the Avia B.534, J8A, or Cr.42 :)

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Excellent.
It would be great to reference these sources or even better to quote them.
Then the endless discussions will most likely stop.

I bet, they would rise up instead. Talking about FMs is one thing, talking about sources the next. They would be questioned anyway. It would be like opening a can of worms. In the end we would have to deliver proving stuff for all we change - order to stop discussions - as long as the change doesn't please anyone.

However, thats not up to me, as I do not own the references about FMs (I'm a cockpitmaker guy). :(

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

I'd love to see a furious argument about the Avia B.534, J8A, or Cr.42 :)

LOL, me too! :grin:

[ElAurens]

LOL, me too! :grin:

This, by multiple orders of magnitude.

The early war aircraft are so fascinating, and the interwar designs more so.

The last of the biplanes were very competitive with the early monoplanes at their time of introduction, and some of the early monoplane designs were simply brilliant in their day (as short as it was). For instance you can make a very valid argument that the PZL P11 was the best fighter in the world when it was introduced, the same for the I 16 as well. If the world economy had been better in the mid 30's, my beloved Curtiss Hawk 75 could have been flying in numbers in 1935.

It was an amazing era of innovation in aviation, all over the globe, and focusing on 1944 blinds you to some great aircraft designs that set the standards for what was to come.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Well said.

[JtD]

Excellent.
It would be great to reference these sources or even better to quote them.
Then the endless discussions will most likely stop.

References 1 (http://www.luftfahrt-archiv-hafner.de/)
References 2 (http://airandspace.si.edu/research/arch/collections/captured.cfm)
References 3 (http://www.deutsches-museum.de/archiv/)
References 4 (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/)
References 5 (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss/183-3336179-4335822?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=focke+wulf+fw+190)

Going through just 100000 pages of the above sources should give anyone a fairly accurate impression of the Fw 190. While the discussions would hardly stop, they at least become interesting and useful.

[Shardur]

How do you afford all those documents and books? Do you actually have to spend hundreds of bugs to get good data?

I'd gladly spend some of my free time studying the technical specs and performance data of fighter aircraft, but I'm a student and I can't afford all the reference data.

[JtD]

It's expensive but even more time consuming. Someone has to go through the pages and find out what's useful and what's not. But I guess for the TD members who do the research, it is a hobby anyway. There's also good support from a few community members.

Imho, it never hurts to read something. In the worst case it is junk, but then one at least knows where some folks get their funny ideas from.

[1984]

Junkers allowed max power setting for 30min and MW50 for 10min at a time and La7 pilots were allowed to use max power for 5min.

you not right...

m-82a have 5-7 min "forsazh" (in fact, sometimes, pilots used forsazh 10 and more min if this was need and sometimes kill engine, of course:))...

forsazh for m-82a = nominal power m-82f, so la-5f's have good perfomance with 550-560 km/h at SL for good plane and without any really hard time limits (in tests F have some problems with cooling cylinders, but if you see "problems", this not mean problems not solved)...

m-82fn can work on forsazh 10-15 min - this have in ALL la-5fn and la-7 manuals and you can see this here - "Взлетный режим - не более 10 мин" and "Температура головок цилиндров - 250° (не более 15 мин)" (http://www.airpages.ru/ru/la7_10.shtml)...


EDIT

after all i read FN-manual again, some things remembered, do some little research and what can say now - m-82fn, like m-82f, can work on forsazh all time of flight if aircraft have good cooling of engine (like with full or just open all "radiators" or in winter)... all veterans talk about this too...

10 min max for critical oil T and 15 min max for critical cylinders T from manual, with or without some cooling, this is limits for one use without serious after-effects...

and phrase "Взлетный режим - не более 10 мин" - maybe this is what i write about temperatures, maybe it's + and next thing - resource of m-82fn was 100 hours (or something like this), and engine only 6 hours from 100 can work on forsazh... of course, can more, but in this case engine need to be repaired or he not work good all 100 hours... so, this is cautions for long life of engine and cautions for one sort of pilots ("культура эксплуатации двигателя")...

so, something like this... maybe i somewhere little wrong, maybe no (i think no), sorry for mistake if what...

[Nicholaiovitch]

In response to several posts concerning the new drag profile of the FW190 and the suggestion that a test be carried out, I have produced the following results of deceleration rates and ROD's in the landing config. versus the Bf109

They are in no way scientific, but do show that there may be an issue with the current coefficient of drag setting applying to the whole flight envelope including rates of descent in the landing config.

I do believe that the current settings provide a good dogfighting FM and in no way would it be necessary to change that. However, some tweaking of the drag coefficient to produce more drag in the landing config. may add to realism as currently it does seem to be a little in error.

Nicholaiovitch:-)

Here are the results of the suggested tests:-

Please note error in ROD:- Should be "mpm" (metres per minute) not "mps" (metres per second)

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn134/Nicholaiovitch/IL-2/FW190_drag01.jpg

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn134/Nicholaiovitch/IL-2/FW190_drag02.jpg

[JtD]

Thanks for going the length to do the testing and preparing the results in an attractive way.

It appears that compared to real life procedures for the 109, the 109 is totally off the mark, the 190 being more reasonable. We get a glide ratio of ~1/3 for the 109 and ~1/5 for the 190.

[badatflyski]

start-Notleistung= emergency combat power (1/42ATA)
steig/kampfleistung= climb/continous max power (1/32ATA)

now about the REAL boost on A5 and forward:

The following text has been copied from a private Forum several years ago but it seems i fracked up the file and only have a part of the whole text.:evil:
Source (http://www.white1foundation.org/)

801D boost or C3-Einspritzung
Increasing Knock Limited Performance in the BMW801D2
Part 1
Throughout the war, the BMW801D2 was continually developed to keep
pace with the performance of the allied fighters faced by the FW-190
equipped Geschwaders. The engine became a reliable workhorse and made
the FW-190 one of the best performing low altitude fighters of the war.
It began its design lifecycle with a top shaft output of 1670PS at
Start u Notleistung at 1st Gear supercharger full throttle height and
gained 150 PS by wars end at the same settings. Additional boost systems
raised this power output to over 2100PS. The BMW801D2 was developed to
the limits of its potential and even beyond a point when other motors
such as the BMW802 showed greater promise for a similar effort.
The Achilles heel however continued to be high altitude performance.
This article in two parts will discuss the 4 major systems used to
increase knock-limited performance in the BMW801D2 above the engines
normal Start u Notleistung rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June of 1942 BMW completed a theoretical investigation in the potential
development of the motor. Without any major change to the motor it was
possible to increase shaft power output at full throttle height by 40PS
at Start u Notleistung and 110PS at Steig u Kampfleistung. With some major
changes it was possible to get a shaft output of 2000PS without additional
knock limiting performance enhancements. It was determined that the motor
had the potential for developing between 2000PS-2200PS by injection of
knock limiting agents such as water or alcohol water mixtures.
Work began immediately on putting the theory into practice.
Prototype motors were constructed and work began on improving the power
output of the motor at all levels. By July 1942 BMW had constructed several
prototype motors to begin laboratory bench testing. BMW801D2V15 achieved
1950PS shaft output without ram or knock limiting performance enhancements
during this phase. In the quest for attaining the full potential of the
BMW801D2 three knock limiting agent injection systems and one method of
oxygen enrichment of the charge were shown to be practical or worthy of
further investigation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
C3-Einspritzung, The Bomber and Attack Pilots Insurance
The first system to see operational adoption was the injection of C3 fuel
as a knock limiting agent directly into the left side of the supercharger
intake.
Motors were modified with stronger pistons adopted from the BMW801E/S
development. These new pistons became the production standard on all
BMW801D series motors in June 1943.

On the 10th of April 1943 the first flight testing of the new system began
with a 25-minute flight in the low altitude portion of the 1st gear
supercharger and resulted in 8 minutes of the systems use.
By the 22nd of April 1943 test flights were using the system as long as 15
minutes and at manifold pressures as high as 1.8ata between 3.5km and
7km altitude.
Initial flight-testing was completed on the 17th of May 1943.
The flight test results concluded however that the system produced 2050PS
in the 1st Gear Supercharger and that a manifold pressure of 1.65ata could
be used reliably. As the pressure fell off with altitude however,
the standard fuel pump was not able to provide sufficient quantities of fuel
to allow the system to develop additional power in the 2nd Gear Supercharger.
The engine cooling was also not sufficient enough for the system to be used in
climbing flight. The fuel pump could not deliver enough fuel to the left hand
supercharger intake to keep cylinder temperatures within operational limits at
climbing speeds. It was felt that a further 50PS of thrust power could be
gained by changing the propeller reduction gearing to a more suitable ratio
in order to fully exploit the new power gains of the motor. The initial
testing was completed and the findings compiled by the 19th of July 1943.
It is interesting to note that JG54 begins reporting experience with the
new system in 23 July 1943. This point..(text missing)



So, there are actually 2 different versions
Phase1: Low alt 1.58ATA (1000m max with standard fuel-pump) from june43 to end 43
Phase2: Full 1.65ATA on both Charger's gears from End 43.
And this system was as it seems used on all versions afterwards;)

[Nicholaiovitch]

Thanks for going the length to do the testing and preparing the results in an attractive way.

It appears that compared to real life procedures for the 109, the 109 is totally off the mark, the 190 being more reasonable. We get a glide ratio of ~1/3 for the 109 and ~1/5 for the 190.

Tests of Glide ratio (clean) of the BF109G2 are well within published criteria.

- Stable flight, 260-270kph (best L/D speed), radiator closed, engine "Off" gives 1minute 42sec to lose 1000m (same conditions as in previous test)

- This gives the Bf109G2 FM a glide ratio of 12.78:1 (as published on the net)

- Test of the Fw190A4 with 4.11 FM (same L/D speed quoted) and same conditions gives 1minute 56sec to lose 1000m.

- This gives the Fw190A4 new FM a glide ratio of 16.52:1.......Is that correct?

Nicholaiovitch:)

[JtD]

Wait - 270 km/h = 75m/s.
Bf 109 - 102 seconds to lose 1000m - 7650m distance / 1000m altitude = 7.7
Fw 190 - 116 seconds to lose 1000m - 8700m distance / 1000m altitude = 8.7

You had me scared there for a minute, 16.5 would be way too high. Even 12.8 sound like a very good figure for a plane like the 109.

[Nicholaiovitch]

Wait - 270 km/h = 75m/s.
Bf 109 - 102 seconds to lose 1000m - 7650m distance / 1000m altitude = 7.7
Fw 190 - 116 seconds to lose 1000m - 8700m distance / 1000m altitude = 8.7

You had me scared there for a minute, 16.5 would be way too high. Even 12.8 sound like a very good figure for a plane like the 109.

Oops....sorry JtD...I was still calculating ROD and got my sums mixed up....however....have a look at this:-

http://www.adlerhorst-hangar.com/emil-91.html

Nicholaiovitch:)

[JtD]

Certainly an interesting account. Messerschmitt polars for the 109 E show a optimum L/D of about 10, at a Cl of around 0.5. I'm more inclined to stick with that figure than with Bob's. Focke Wulf gives L/D max of around 11 for the Fw 190A. Unfortunately I couldn't find polars for the flaps down configuration.

Both figures show a bit of a variance, so +- 1 is easily possible, but at any rate, I guess we can agree that the in game glide ratio as measured by you is (way) too low. I'll try to do my own test soon and will see if I can confirm your findings, it might help to reduce speed a bit.

[JtD]

Basically I can confirm your findings. I'm getting the 109 to about 1:8, the 190 to about 1:9. I think one difference between the real plane and the in game representation is the lack of a fully featherable propeller, this could improve glide ratio quite a bit.

Anyway, what does it tell us about the realism of the landing characteristics, or more specifically the glide characteristics with flaps and gear down? Personally I see no reason to consider the STOL characteristics of the 109 more realistic than the 4.11 190.

[Nicholaiovitch]

Basically I can confirm your findings. I'm getting the 109 to about 1:8, the 190 to about 1:9. I think one difference between the real plane and the in game representation is the lack of a fully featherable propeller, this could improve glide ratio quite a bit.

Anyway, what does it tell us about the realism of the landing characteristics, or more specifically the glide characteristics with flaps and gear down? Personally I see no reason to consider the STOL characteristics of the 109 more realistic than the 4.11 190.

Your point about the fully featherable prop. not being available in game is a very worthy comment. (wish it was!)

There are other reports of glide ratios being as high as 1:12 for the Bf109, but thinking about it, all these reports were from BoB pilots attempting to glide across the Channel after engine problems. This would have meant heading SE and with the prevailing wind being from the west in UK, it is conceivable that a tail wind (especially from 4000m as quoted) would have given the impression of a superior glide performance.

It has been an interesting exercise flying these profiles and the conclusions are more or less what has been stated already:-

- The deceleration characteristics of the FW190 with the new FM from speeds above 400Kph to circuit speeds is heavily influenced by the prop behaviour in auto pitch.
- By ensuring radiator is fully open before decelerating and additionally selecting manual pitch (set 100%), the deceleration rate can be very considerably reduced.
- Descent rates (at idle and/or engine shut down)in the landing config. may/may not be truly realistic as no information seems available.

Nicholaiovitch:)

[ElAurens]

I enjoy threads like this, where level heads prevail, actual data, both in game and real world is discussed and valid conclusions are made in an adult manner.

Thanks gents.

[c4nuck]

I think everyone should check out my new thread regarding the 190. Well at least the A8. It comes with a 190A8 Handbook that has ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING you could imagine about the A8, where and how thick the armour was, HP with all settings and altitudes, fuel consumption, more than you could ever imagine. The complete package.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=488193#post488193