LW VS VVS PLANES at 4.10

[=69.GIAP=TOOZ]

Could it be he is talking about the G effects? From what I understand (I fly bombers mostly, so haven't done much fighter flying with 4.10) the traditional BnZ fighters tend to suffer more as they tend to get up to higher speeds than other aircraft (i.e. late 109's and 190's, for example) and if you try to manouvre too hard out of your dive, then you're probably gonna break something.

Perhaps doing a little bit of practice to improve your tendencies to pull too hard on your stick (oo-er, that might be taken the wrong way!) might be what is required here? Or am I wrong in this analysis?

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by =69.GIAP=TOOZ

Could it be he is talking about the G effects? From what I understand (I fly bombers mostly, so haven't done much fighter flying with 4.10) the traditional BnZ fighters tend to suffer more as they tend to get up to higher speeds than other aircraft (i.e. late 109's and 190's, for example) and if you try to manouvre too hard out of your dive, then you're probably gonna break something.

Perhaps doing a little bit of practice to improve your tendencies to pull too hard on your stick (oo-er, that might be taken the wrong way!) might be what is required here? Or am I wrong in this analysis?

That's probably the best guess. That or his medication is making him loopy . No FM changes to any Luftwaffe aircraft or really any aircraft at all. Just the P-51 with the smallest of FM changes to fix an old mistake - somehow that is a controversy But I'm not surprised.

Even with the G force restrictions it's actually not so bad for German aircraft because they are tougher than most and the FW190 in particular can pull very hard without loosing any structural bits and pieces. At least so far... I've been flying FW190A-9s and Ta152H-1s so far. On the flipside, I saw a La-7 do a hard negative knife edge in front of me and his tail section separated at around 700kph. My FW190 was just fine

[TinyTim]

Well, I find flight modelling of all planes (that I tried at least) somewhat less wobbly than before, which deserves a big thumbs up in my humble opinion. Up to now some planes (like Hellcat and Corsair) felt like an 1:72 scale model hang up on a couple of elastic strings, wobbling all around. They appear to be a lot more stable now.

[FAE_Cazador]

Originally Posted by IceFire

Even with the G force restrictions it's actually not so bad for German aircraft because they are tougher than most and the FW190 in particular can pull very hard without loosing any structural bits and pieces. At least so far... I've been flying FW190A-9s and Ta152H-1s so far. On the flipside, I saw a La-7 do a hard negative knife edge in front of me and his tail section separated at around 700kph. My FW190 was just fine

Last night I tested a Fw190A5 in Spits-vs-109 Server (4.10 Unmodded) against a bunch of P39s and La-5Fs. I could get 2 La-5F kills just by hitting them with no more that 7 impacts when they were in a high-G turn, breaking them in pieces (tail or wings broke). I did not see that before, with so few hits (I could count them on my user stats page).

So it seems the new G-load feature works against T&B fighters the same as the initial poster said against B&Z ones. Probably G-overloads had damaged their structure before so hard that some few hits were enough to crack it. I think this is the reason, not my aim, indeed

By the way I did not use Fw190 as B&Z fighter but as Hit and Run one.

[Blue 5]

Is the new G-loading applicable to the AI? IRC AI pilots did not suffer from blackouts / redouts, which allowed them a considerable freedom of manouevring.

[JG52Uther]

I think the only thing TD have done to the LW fighters is change the G limits,and forget to load some of the gunpods...

I await the fix for mk 108's myself.One hit to rip a fighter apart,three hits to shred a Flying Fortress.

[Friendly_flyer]

Originally Posted by JG52Uther

I think the only thing TD have done to the LW fighters is change the G limits,and forget to load some of the gunpods...

Well, there's the bar below the windscreen in the 190. I'd say improved visibility counts for quite a bit.

[Ernst]

I performed a G endurance test just a time ago. Flying the 190 i heard the "crank" at 8.5 G while the spitfire i heard at 9.7 G. Spits have more G endurance than Focke Wulf! I will say nothing, i am a bit used. As always...

[Kwiatek]

Try negative G

[Ernst]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Try negative G

I tested. I could not "crank" the spitfire in negative G and I tried a lot. In fact i could not experience more than -2.0G in the Spitfire. The Focke Wulf is relatively easy to "crank" in negative Gs.

The Focke Wulf broke at -3.8G~-4.0G. I could not anchieve more than -2.0G in the spitfire, maybe if i trim the spitifire negative i ll. I ll try later. In principle appears to me that spitfire has much better G endurance in 4.10. Why? Ask TD.

I did not tested other aircraft, but i guess that i ll have much more surprises. Kwiatek, what you expected to me observe while trying negative g's?