Narushima

Hmm, I'll try that then. A little rudder adjustment to my aim.

Ripping the wings should not be possible. The Dora didn't have hydraulic boosted elevator control, so unless your pilot is the T-1000 Terminator, you won't be able to pull with enough force to break it. Might be possible with the trim though, it's electrically controlled. Btw, does anyone know what the ultimate load for the D-9 was? P-51 was around 9G-10G at fighter weight I think. EDIT: Ok, found it. Apparently, the ultimate load factor for the FW 190 was 11.16+ G at 4250kg. So you have to pull over 11G to break off the wings.

So what should I aim for to take him down?

You actually can turn with the P-51, provided you lose some fuel- Load up with 50% fuel and you're good to go. And if he gets on your tail, remember, you have the roll advantage. Try to keep the speed at 400km/h and you can out-roll him at will. Roll to one side, turn a bit, then inverted 180 roll and change direction. He can't follow that. I've had some fights with the AI, and he hasn't outmanoeuvred me yet.

Well I hit his engine. Black smoke and all. But the AI doesn't seem to be affected by engine damage at all. Even if missed important stuff, 18 20mm rounds should make his airplane into Swiss cheese. Remember, an average of 5 20mm rounds were needed to down a ww2 fighter.

Those were confirmed hits (according to the post mission brief). I got him in a zoom climb just before he stalled.

If it's anything like the P-51 AI, no. Shot 18 20mm and 39 13mm into that bastard, and he was still ready to fight... 20 minutes into the fight my engine was steaming, while he was merrily flying around with white and black smoke trailing behind him.

Keep in mind, the AI P-51 is flying without the weight of it's .50 cal ammo, so it's around 300kg lighter than it should be. This will help it in some areas (turn, climb) and hinder it in others (dive acceleration, zoom climb). EDIT: You can adjust weight in the mission editor btw.

On note here, you can run MW-50+full throttle for 10minutes straight. I managed 11 1/2 minutes before my engine failed, and that was during a dogfight. I suppose you could run it longer if you go fast enough to cool the engine. As for fighting the AI P-51, it stands no chance as long as you stick to pure energy fighting or if in a pinch flat scissors. I just kept looping above him and he simply didn't have the engine power to get a guns solution on me.

Why would you lean for the gun sight? The gun sight was designed so that you could see it with you right eye, while your left eye was free to scan the clearance in front of you. Your brain would combine the two images (usually favouring your main eye, for most people that's the right eye). If we really wanted it realistic then the gun sight would have to be somehow projected beyond the revi glass, to create the illusion of stereoscopic vision. Detailed information can be found here: http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/26683-german-sights/?p=299237

I remember reading somewhere that the D-9 in the US test was rebuilt after the war from a crashed D-9, which would mean it probably wasn't in pristine condition. Allied ground crews did not know how to handle the FW 190, evident from earlier 190 test like the A-4, where the ailerons were improperly aligned by the ground crew but they just wrote it down as an aircraft fault. Probably explains why the test pilots had such a different experience to what Kroll members.

Ty Krupi. Good read.

I think it's referring to the gaps around the exhaust vents. Just my opinion though, can't back it up with evidence. As for the performance increase, it was around +10km/h top speed, give or take some depending on altitude.

Why must you tease us so...

That's a nice summary. Eric Brown (British test pilot) had good things to say about it: Though I wonder what Dora he flew. Seems like he flew a D-9 with C3 Fuel. He mentions the 213A and rates it at 2,240hp. Anyway, what's interesting is this statement: "It had all the handling qualities of the A-series" There's this myth circulating around the internet, that for some reason the Dora was less manoeuvrable than the Antons, even though it had almost the same air frame and wings than the A-8, while also being slightly lighter, having more engine power, and better center of gravity balance. A-8 were notoriously unbalanced when flying at full fuel, this issue was somewhat mitigated by installing the ETC rack a bit forward and never taken off.

Keep it under 6000m, and if you somehow get into a turn fight, just point the nose up, using the Dora's 400HP engine advantage. Force the turn fight into a spiral climb, yo-yos (which can turn into rolling scissors) or flat scissors, utilizing the Dora's superior roll rate. Their turning circles are comparable, with the advantage going to whoever has less fuel and can use their flaps better. Speed bellow 6000m is comparable, with the Dora holding a small top speed and acceleration advantage. If caught above 6000m dive to terminal velocity and use the electrically driven all movable horizontal stabilizer trim to recover from the dive. The P-51 lacks that and will be affected by compressibility more, meaning in theory it should overshoot you.

If you want to figure out how many rounds were needed on average to down a German fighter with .50 cals, look at some gun camera footage. Count the number of tracer rounds you see going into the plane, average it out throughout 10 or so tracks (make sure you choose good tracks where you can clearly see the tracers and when the plane goes down), then multiply by 5 (they used 1 tracers every five rounds, meaning if you see 10 tracers there were probably ~50 rounds fired). It will give you a rough estimate.

I sympathise with you and your ilk. Some people have been waiting for the P-51 key for almost a year now. To put salt on the wound they might now have to wait for the Dora as well.

Are DCS cockpit models moddable? If they are, then this won't be that big of a deal.

The solution would be extremely simple. Calculate by how much refraction would change the angle of light and just adjust the bar accordingly. No other adjustments would be necessary and the cockpit would actually look more realistic. No need to implement refraction this way, and no need to change the exterior model (from what I know no sim uses cockpit models for exterior).

And Anton. Bombers/ground attack generally weren't given names from the phonetic alphabet (which the F and G models were). I sure would like to see these original German books where it says that the D-9 wasn't to be called a "Shrike". See I have this secret book I found in an old abandone bunker that says The D-9 was called the Würger. But I can't post it for some reason. You'll have to take my word for it. Extra1: You can find more information through Google than you will ever have in your house. Extra2: English please? Was that a poor attempt in trying to insult me? I was trying to demonstrate to you how naming conventions work. I'd also like to note, that the Würger-Staffel, a unit created in 1944, used Doras in defense of Me 262 Airfields.

After searching a bit I've found that you've already had this discussion 3 years a go on a different forum, and nothing I say will ever even remotely change your opinion. No point in arguing.

Fw 190 A-5 http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5-1286-nr2.html Granted, it's true that not all A-4 and A-5 models had the auxiliary tank, but there's definitive evidence that at least some of them did carry it as standard equipment.