Der_Fred

Reading through this topic is so much like Déjà vu :) Nobody's actually bothered to :- 1) indicate the direction of the turn 2) the altitude of action 3) speeds .. and... 4) Pilot reports are important, but must be interpreted correctly Solty comes close with his points 1-3.., Point 4 I'd leave out. There another characteristic of the FW that is mentioned in the Soviet assessments, the FW tend to 'sink' when elevator is applied aggressively. This 'rotation' will most likely give the impression that the FW is out-turning the other a/c, but this is an important momentary attribute of the FW, as it enables you to give the other aircraft a deflection 'squirt' in a tight turn. The fire power of the FW, will make this 'squirt' very effective, thus maybe giving the pilot a false sensation of the FW's turning ability. After all, the only reports you hear of, are from surviving pilots. Another thing is the the A5 was considered the most agile Fw190, followed by, I think the A9, then A8, which was more numerous. I'll like to see a short nosed A5 or A9 sometime. :)

Nooooo, you don't want to do that.... :-) How's about the P51 gun focal point/harmonisation then ... Now we're talking :-) :-)

There's a Korea combat report, where it's stated that if you sustain a 5G spiral dive, the Mig-15 cannot follow you. I'm not sure of the exact reasons, read it a long time ago, but this stuck in my mind like glue. :-)

There is a WW2 report somewhere that the LW pilots complained that their cannons were 'ineffective'... until some clever guy worked out that the cannons were exploding on contact - in most cases exploding outside the a/c frame = surface damage = useless. They then added a delay fuse, so the shell exploded inside the frame. the kill rate increased dramatically. Maybe DCS are using the former model. :-)

Sorry, also forgot to mention: - Any clues/local knowledge that makes life a little bit easier. Danke

Hi all, I'm off to Berlin (Germany) in Sept 2014 for 3 months, and ask any locals or people who know the area, for info relating to :- - Best places to look for decent accommodation. - Average rentals for a single person accommodation. - Places to avoid (there are always these in any big city :-) ). - Pitfalls and tourist traps (I'm not going for tourism but this is good to know). Thanks for any help Der_Fred

This whole story has been hammered out before.. years ago. :-)

I was in contact with Flugwerk many years ago, and the engine was different ??

Now moving on to the FW190.. there are many flying around... I can guarantee you that not one of these pilots are prepared to even 'age' their prize possessions (and I would not too) just to prove a risky maneuver. So it nothing more than a pipe dream, to get the real testing done... so ultimately we have to rely on WW2 and vet report interpretations. I can tell you who has lots of experience in this, but you won't like it :-)

Imagination !! :-)

You're in hurry :-) Looking forward to your full report Herr Leutnant

I'm awfully skilled at that .. just to annoy the developers, no doubt :-) Essentially the DCS FM models are very good.. BUT (funny how this thing appears outa nowhere ) although, I've been told here, that there's a lot of research and modelling gone into the aircraft, including wind tunnel stuff .. no doubt. I find when you start pushing the 'envelope' on the P51 (my experience thus far)... the models are not looking good, from my experience in aircraft. I'm not doubting current real P51 pilots testing here, but what I'm questioning is.. Have they/DCS really tested the aircraft in the envelope that I've mentioned.. and I can honestly say NO.. they haven't... purely because it's to dangerous, and a current P51 is very expensive to lose. It is a risky maneuver. So moving beyond this can we/DCS developers work on the past experience of P51 vets, who had nothing to lose by pulling these stunts and they had parachutes. I must pull that video of the WW2 p51 vet who mentions this... in the next post - must just find it:-)

I saw this in the local newspaper and thought maybe someone here might know someone who knows something ?

derrr https://www.dropbox.com/s/4le9ssjw2jc2nqs/P51TakeOffLanding.mp4

From what I remember.. I pulled fairly hard on this landing.. [ur]https://www.dropbox.com/s/4le9ssjw2jc2nqs/P51TakeOffLanding.mp4[/ur]

No doubt ED's aircraft are excellent... top notch, I'm just questioning those irritating 'nooks and crannies' that are important, and won't go away :-) Pushing the envelope .. so to speak ?

WRT the Dora... there are many other 'experten' I could buy, but I'm wiser.. I'll wait for the 'debugging' to be resolved !!

I have made 'comments' about the P51 :-) But maybe I should be a test pilot for ED... You have a point. How about it ED ?? :-)... :-)

The idea is to test an aircraft in standard (and extreme) scenarios, as a test pilot would do (hopefully). The results be known to the public. Here we are talking about the most 'perfect simulation' yet you question the 'test flights'. I'd like to know I'm getting what I pay for, after all I've been told these aircraft data are from wind tunnel testing, and that the data is 'un-questionable' ? :-)

So you're ok with that then ?... I'm happy as an non-acceptable advisor :-)

I'd like all aircraft to be put through a set of flight maneuver tests before being released. The test list being recommended by the Devs and Public The results of these tests announced in detail, publicly via video examples. What say Yeee ? :-)

The FW190 is always my specialty. I'll wait a bit until all (most) of the problems are ironed out. :-)

Sorry.. maybe I'm a bit grumpy today... But hells having to live with such stuff... works me over... maybe I'll go fly somewhere.. sorry for being a pratt !! ..Later

No problem... But if you think of it... having a constructive DCS-vs-IL2 thread would convert many others... But the way this seems to be handled, as with many other types of 'SIMS' is more destructive... and smacks of Pongo type sims.