|
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
07-16-2010, 09:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
That 190 that attacked Johnny was probably a early A1/A2 with less weight and was known when it appeared in -41 to be a excellent dogfighter both in horizontal and vertical manouvers. And those ill concieved circus operations were primary excecuted at medium/low altitude where the 190 had a field day against the Spit 5s.
If the spits and the bombers would have kept their operational altitude above 20k feet the 190s would be more of a dog and suffer more losses. But the brittish bombers at that time suffered from bad ceiling so their recomended combat altitude resulted in the 190s initial advantage in -41. 
|
|
#3
07-17-2010, 08:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
-I'll note what you have provided to back up your assertion: ... Besides Il-2 Moderator Xiolabu3 defined perfectly well what a "vertical turn" was in those days: Quote (from memory because in a flash of comprehension this "objective" moderator DELETED his own statement...): "90° bank turns were refered to in those pre-energy days (he then quotes my own "pre-energy" statement in bold here), as "Vertical bank turns" WHICH WAS LATER SHORTENED TO JUST "VERTICAL TURN" IN PILOT SLANG... Besides that, the context of the text makes it pathetically obvious that this could not be a vertical loop: Here is the ACTUAL text: "Then we both turned hard TO THE LEFT and whirled round on what seemed to be an ever decreasing circle. With wide-open throttles I held the Spitfire V in the tightest of VERTICAL TURNS." Please note there is NOTHING OMITTED between those two sentences in this quote: Verify here: http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/471...sononfw190.jpg In those days anything vertical was not called a turn, period. So JTD, would you care to revise your erroneous statement? Besides, doesn't Johnny Johnson state at the beginning of the same text: "(FW-190As) They also turned better than the Me-109"? Also Russian evaluations: http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/t...bat-fw190.html Quote: -"The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight." So ALL these guys are wrong because your kindergarten math disagrees? Besides, I still think it could have been 19-23 seconds... And what about this Spitfire pilot?: -Squadron Leader Alan Deere, (Osprey Spit MkV aces 1941-45, Ch. 3, p. 2: "Never had I seen the Hun stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing... In Me-109s the Hun tactic had always followed the same pattern- a quick pass and away, sound tactics against Spitfires and their SUPERIOR TURNING CIRCLE. Not so these 190 pilots: They were full of confidence..." Result of that fight?: 8-1 for the FW-190As... FW-190A combat pilot: "It was MUCH better than the Messerschmitt. You could do anything with it: You could CURVE IT, go fast, go high, go low" But against all that you'd rather take the word of test pilots, especially those of the US Navy right? Gaston P.S. As far as opining on a game I have never played, note I have been watching tracks and reading all the forums since 2002, and that I attached "probably" to all my statements regarding the game... G. Last edited by Gaston; 07-17-2010 at 09:31 PM.
|
|
#4
07-17-2010, 09:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The Antons were the Butcher Birds in the early years of IL2 but soon become the butchered after the various patches/updates, and is now a shadow of its former self. IMHO IL2 has been "balanced" to make the online experience "fairer" in the aircraft's year time scale. You wont see Me 262's in most of these online servers because "its not fair". As far as the rest of the thread goes .............. 
|
|
#5
07-17-2010, 09:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yes I was aware of that, but still never heard of the FW-190A out-turning lightweight aircrafts, so they must have been porked very early on... Most of what I read on the FW-190A involved endless threads about the cockpit visibility through the lower "bar" (the game design was later proved wrong in later posts with photos taken from an actual cockpit)...
The FW-190A's Low-speed sustained turn rate was much more rarely discussed than its high speed turn rate, which pretty much says everything... Gaston
|
|
#6
07-17-2010, 11:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
All early discussion was related to Eastern front A's
Predominantly these were the complaints. Poor sustained turn rate. Poor climb rate. Lower armoured glass bar, no refraction. All pilot references in books I have read contradict some of the modelling with the FW's In IL2. I wont diverse as you are somewhat aware of the failings of this aircraft already in this sim from more expert past forum members that went to great lengths with correct data presentations.
|
|
#8
07-18-2010, 06:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
-Thank you for your information. Assuming the character of the FW-190A, as it stands right now, is indeed as "most" Il-2 players (except K_Freddie) say it is: -Poor low speed horizontal maneuvers. (Less sustained turn rate than Me-109G) -Good high speed maneuverability, especially so on the vertical. Conclusion: -A specialized "Boom and Zoom" fighter (a "floret" in Rall's words) Then confront that to the reality: -Very good low-speed horizontal maneuverability. (Lesser initial turn start likely, but better than Me-109G when sustained) -Poor high speed maneuverability on the horizontal, at least after the A-4 model, and poor to extremely poor on the vertical for all Antons... (220 m extra drop after nose-level from 1500 m 45° pull-out: Soviet summary) Conclusion: -A specialized low-speed horizontal turn fighter that mostly avoids vertical maneuvers. (Indeed a "Sabre" in Rall's actual words) The current simulated FW-190A does not just have FAILINGS: It is the near-exact OPPOSITE of the real thing, if "most" players here are to be believed... So KG26_Alpha is saying that despite people with better sources than me presenting a similar case years ago, the better initial FW-190A moved AWAY from where it should have gone? I have a hard time believing that play balance is a major commercial argument over accuracy for such an elaborate game.... Isn't accuracy a major selling point of Il-2? (Given what I know of miniature modeling, and how my accuracy concerns are treated, I must be naive...) And people are wondering why I am not interested in playing this game? FYI, I am also a miniature modeler for some years now, spending a LOT of effort on correcting various awful 1/48th scale WWII kits by Hasegawa and Tamiya, even some of the best not being in fact much better than the worst, and I have also spent a LOT of time (14 years total) on my boardgame to ensure it captures as closely as possible the true character of each type: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...708#5031083708 And so you will have to excuse me if my time is not so unlimited as to play a game that makes the flight models go worse as time goes on, and is vague enough to get things precisely upside-down as to their basic character... Read what the pilots have to say, and don't worry so much about how I spend my time... And JTD still has to explain why a LEFT turn is a vertical loop... Gaston
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
