fw 190a5 flight model

[beginner]

in version 4.11.1, is ..at least fw 190 a5.. set in an historical real one in turning characteristics (compared to flugwerk videos from real fw a8 flights)
now turns like in reality. until version 4.10.1 was turning characteristics of fw very poor, unreal poor.

why it takes so long?? or i hope..next versions will again never make fw an airplane thats is designed only to fly straight.DD

[Whacker]

I am thoroughly and completely confused.

The answer is 42.

[IceFire]

What the I don't even.

I think that's a good response?

But seriously... I'm not sure if he's saying the FW190 doesn't turn well enough or if it turns too well.

[K_Freddie]

Remember that the Flugwerk FW is made of modern materials and is unloaded, making it much lighter than a wartime FW.

You can also complain about the P51s turning ability, and if you're looking for an aircraft that can turn like a Zero, you won't find it in the latter war aircraft.
The idea of combat fighting had changed from slow dogfights to high speed strike aircraft.

[beginner]

i dont care what i complain, i care about little bit of realism.
think about, when they were designed in reality fw like here in 4.10.1, with turning capabilities like in 4.101. do you sure know..from basic logic, that test pilot will be complain, thats is not flyiable constructed because for that absurd turnig (or they wil call it..deadly stall airplane....but historicaly you dont find such a complains, opposite ..fw was an exelent plane)

so, it was little bit stupid to set this flyight model in the game.

but, in 4.11.1 looks like reality and its OK.

[Gaston]

Well since the FW-190A was an excellent aircraft, and did out-turn any mark of Spitfire, but at at low speeds and in prolonged sustained horizontal turns only, NOT at high speeds, I guess it finally dawned on the development team just how absurd their flight model was...

My guess is they still did not go far enough. But the straight-line comments I hear underline the absurd lengths to which they thought reality would slavishly follow their grade-school math...

And the FW-190A was crap at dive and zoom, and was never used that way... But I guess the're only so much reality simmers and sim-builders can take at one time...

Gaston

I'm not sure if he's saying the FW190 doesn't turn well enough or if it turns too well.

[MaxGunz]

Herra didn't make that claim of 190 being a great low speed turnfighter.
Gaston did. That's what "The claim" refers to.

[MaxGunz]

Originally Posted by Beve3rly

I'm not sure if he's saying the FW190 doesn't turn well enough or if it turns too well.

He says historically the FW out-turned the Spitfire at low speed something on the order of all the time. That's while avoiding details like were they co-speed or co-alt, a 50-150 ft drop can do wonders for a turn.

This is a plane with 1G stall 110-130 mph (depending on weight) going to turn better than a plane with a 1G stall 80-95 mph. That's the first order difference and it gets wider when you start to turn. The Spits are able to pull 2G's at speeds the FW's can't begin to turn without losing alt. And the difference gets wider with speed. You have to pull more G's at speed to turn tighter, if you go slower your lift will wane faster than the speed reduction would effect any tightening. Go slow enough and you fall. So where under 300 kph will the FW find some turn advantage given both planes in similar, directly comparable situation?

[JtD]

I wish that someone claiming he's researched a plane for fifteen years would at least be able to spell the designation properly: Fw 190 A. I'd excuse a FW 190 because early documents also show the capital W, but there's never been a FW-190A, or a Me-109G, for that matter. German plane designations never used a minus between manufacturer and number.