USARStarkey

Gerhard Knolls Comments: First paragraph: purely speculation, it could have been a lemon. It might have also have been the best 190D ever built. Second: Makes no reference to any specific characteristic, namely turn. The 190 was a good plane no doubt. Doesnt mean it turned better than the 51. Third: This doesn’t even make sense. The test pilots having more time to play with the plane would have made their test more accurate than tests with random pilots without much experience in a near endless list of tactical situations. If anything, having more than 6 hours of flight time would have allowed the test pilots to push the plane to its limits. Pilot Impression pic: 1. Pilot claims 109 less agile, not a 51. And before you start talking about how the 109 was so much more agile than the 51 due to conventional wisdom, there are people who will have your head for claiming the 190 was more agile than the 109. However, you and I actually agree here 4. Pilot claims the previous 109 and 190 were more agile. This is in line with my assertion regarding the A series and D series, so I have no issue here. Next Pic: As you noted, this pilot thought the Anton turned better. Next: Stated they had similar agility. I never said the difference was large. Last: Comparison to mustang says A-8 was similar in “combat maneuvers” and that D-9 had slight advantage. Combat maneuvers could mean anything. It does not specifically mention turn rate or radius, or any metric for that matter.

I hope this doesn't take 2 days

Just because I disagree with you does not put me on a "highly biased anti-axis charge" do me the favor of not reducing my opinion to a bias, simply because it is consistently at odds with your views. I could easily reduce your opinion on this forum via the same logic, as you have made it evident you are a 190 Fan. Perhaps I should just assume this is entirely unfounded and make sweeping judgments about your character and intelligence based on this. I think not. Instead, I will do your the courtesy of arguing with you on fact for fact level, and not try to reduce your arguments by implying you have ulterior motives. I like a good debate, but once we start making suggestions about each others character and motives, we preclude any meaningful debate because we are already assuming the other is a fool. This is a bias by definition. I am sure you know plenty about the 190D and other planes, so do I. P.S: Note, I am not saying the 190 is inferior or noncompetitive. They exchange advantages at different altitudes, and will be good opponents. A great deal rides on how ED modeled the Dora's engine. I will be very upset if that thing puts out more than 2100bhp. Regardless of performance however, it has to be noted that the Dora entered the war so late that it really wasn't all that important. "Dietmar Hermann summarized FW 190 D-9 performance as follows: I haven’t read or heard that the D-9 was tested with the Jumo 213 and C3 fuel. I know that at the beginning of development Focke-Wulf made a distinction between the normal Jumo 213 and the Jumo 213 with 100 octane fuel. I think that there was not a problem with the engine; rather there was a problem of the fuel’s availability. In my book I have published one chart from 3.1.45 (page 154) showing FW 190 D-9 performance with B4 fuel with MW 50 injection operating at 2,02 ata (Sondernotleistung ). However, I have no evidence showing that 2,02 ata was enabled by the end of the war. I think that the D-9 was flown either with the 1900 PS update or with MW50 injection (2100 PS). The development announcement of the D-9 said that all D-9 were delivered with the ETC 504 and the 170 l or 300 l drop tank (Entwicklungsmitteilung Fw 190 D-9, Blatt XV b2 and b3 from 31 May 44 and renewed at 20 June 44). The first test report of FW 190 D-9 serial number 210002 states that the D-9 lost 8..10 km/h. with the ETC 504 and the fixed wheel flaps (delivery condition). From Fw 190 “ Long Nose” , pg 103: “Focke-Wulf conducted experiments with a Fw 190 D-9 (WNr. 210 002, TR+SB) in an attempt to further increase the performance of production aircraft. Gaps in the engine cowling fore and aft were sealed with rubber. In the course of these experiments an increase in speed of 17 km/h was achieved at combat power. Focke-Wulf subsequently advised the manufacturing plants to pay special attention to proper sealing of the engine compartment pending approval by E-Stelle Rechlin. Rechlin rejected the idea of rubber seals for the engine compartment, however.” D-9 production aircraft did not have the slit sealing (engine gap seal). I have the information from a document named "Lfd. Entwicklungsarbeiten Fw 190/Ta152" from 8.1.45 updated 20.3.45 with the handwritten statement "24.3. Rechlin lehnt ab!". So I think that this was the expected answer about the previous troubles during the Focke-Wulf testing. (Test report No. 3 of Fw 190 D-9 210002 dated 24.10.44 shows a 13 km/h difference at SL operating at 1.8 ata between aircraft with sealed and unsealed engine gaps (595-608) - Ed.). Flight Report Nr. 4 of Fw 190 D-9/210002 presented the following results: Operating at 1,75 ata, a maximum speed of 606 km/h (376 mph) at ground level was obtained. The maximum speed in the first gear was 650 km/h (404 mph) at 2,7 km (8858 ft.). The condition of the aircraft was as follows: D-9 production condition with methanol installation, surface smoothed/primed and polished, seams & cracks sealed, operable wheel flaps, gap at engine sealed (D-9 Serienzustand mit Methanolanlage, Oberfläche gespachtelt und poliert, Spalte abgedichtet, bewegliche Radklappen, Spalte am Triebwerk abgedichtet.) These values did not quite reach the characteristic curve from the comparison dated 15.12.44. So we can state: D-9 without engine sealing - 15 km/h; with ETC 504 + fixed wheel covering about -10 km/h. This indicates that the D-9 reached the following speeds - minimum: 606 km/h (377 mph) at sea level with MW 50 injection and engine sealing; without ETC 504 and variable wheel covering. 591 km/h (367 mph) at sea level with MW 50 injection; without engine sealing, ETC 504 and variable wheel covering. 581 km/h (361 mph) at sea level with MW 50 injection, ETC 504 and fixed wheel covering; without engine sealing. With 1900 PS engine set up: 578 km/h (359 mph) at sea level without engine sealing and variable wheel covering. 568 km/h (353 mph) at sea level with ETC 504 and fixed wheel covering. Hermann wrote of testing the Fw 190 D-9 in his book Focke-Wulf Fw 190 "Long Nose": In the beginning only the Fw 190 V17/U1 and Fw 190 V53 prototypes were available for extensive flight testing. The V53 was used for performance trials at Lanenhagen. For the most part these confirmed the estimated performance figures. The V53's armament initially consisted of two MG 131 machine-guns in the fuselage, two MG 151 cannon in the wing roots and two MG 151s in the outer wings. This was the armament originally planned for the production D-9s. The outer wing cannon were later removed. The V53 was painted in a standard camouflage finish. At a gross weight of 4070 kg with ETC 503 external stored rack, the V53 achieved 555 km/h at ground level at 3,250 rpm (emergency power). During flight trials the V53 was involved in a heavy forced landing. It was subsequently repaired, but for safety reasons it was limited to low-level flights. When production began, aircraft from the production line joined the test program. The first and second aircraft from the Sorau production line were flown to Langenhagen to participate in series testing. Werknummer 210 001, manufacture's code TR+SA, made its first flight on 31 August with chief test pilot Hans Sander at the controls. On 7 September 1944, just a few days after the D-9 arrived at Langenhagen, the first case of engine trouble was encountered after just four hours flying time. This aircraft underwent four engine changes by 9 January 1945. Even the Jumo 213 A had teething troubles. The second aircraft, Werknummer 210 002, TR+SB, followed on 15 September 1944. The aircraft was piloted by Hauptmann Schmitz on its initial flight. These two production aircraft were used by Focke-Wulf at Langenhagen for long term testing until March 1945. While 210 001 was to have been made ready for delivery to the Luftwaffe in March 1945, 210 002 was scheduled to take part in further performance trials. The fourth production machine, Werknummer 210 004, TR+SD, was assigned to the E-Steel Rechlin, but crashed there on 25 September 1944. The exact cause of the crash remains a mystery. Another Fw 190 D-9, Werknummer 210 007, TR+SG, which had been used for static and air gunnery trials at Tarnewitz, was assigned to Rechlin as a replacement. On its arrival at Rechlin, however, 210 007 made a crash landing (10% damage) and subsequently had to be repaired. Rechlin was subsequently assigned the sixth production aircraft for further testing. The ninth production aircraft, Werknummer 210 009, TR+SI, was flown from Sorau to Langenhagen on 18 September 1944. After just a few test flights, on 26 September this D-9 was transferred to Jumo in Dessau to serve as an engne test-bed. Flight tests were still being carried out there in March 1945, including some with four-blade VS 19 propeller that was to be used on the Ta 152 H. It was originally intented that two aircraft should be converted to test the Fw 190 D-9 with the MW 50 system. The company planned to convert Werknummer 210 002 at Langenhagen and Werknummer 210 048 was equipped with the system in Sorau. The machine was supposed to go to Rechlin for testing of the MW 50 system, however, it crashed at Sorau while on the third flight. Pilot Finke was killed. In spite of this, testing of the MW 50 system continued on the ground. Interestingly, the special tank was filled with water only, as no methanol was available. Estimated maximum speed at ground level without methanol-water was 540 km/h at 3,300 rpm and 1.5 atm of boost. With methanol-water, maximum speed at ground level was 585 km/h at 3,300 rpm and 1.76 atm boost. In production aircraft it was planned that the MW 50 system could be used to draw fuel or methanol/water from the 115-liter tank. On account of delivery difficulties, however, it was decided to use the tank with methanol-water only, and this was dubbed the "Oldenburg System" (see III./JG 54). This system was installed in production aircraft beginning in November 1944. Hermann noted the following points regarding the Fw 190D-9's operational history: The first thirty production aircraft were delivered to the unit (III./JG 54) at the beginning of October 1944. [...]In September 1944 an equipment kit was installed which raised boost pressure and increased the Jumo 213 A's emergency output from 1,750 to 1,900 h.p. The installation was carried out on-site by Junker's Tecnical Field Service (TAM). This increased emergency power could be used at altitudes to 5000 meters. At the same time, use of takeoff power (1,750 h.p.) was extended to 30 min., while authorization was given to use combat power (1,620 h.p.) without restriction. The Junkers technical field service visited III./JG 54 monthly. In October the number of Fw 190 D-9s on strength with the Gruppe rose to 68. Of these, 53 had been converted to 1,900 h.p. and one was delivered by Focke-Wulf with the MW 50 system. The remaining 14 were in the process of being converted and completion was imminent. [...]In its November report, Junkers noted that all the aircraft of the three new Gruppe were being converted to 1,900 h.p. and that the work was significantly more difficult at frontline airfields where there were no hangers. By the end of December 1944 there were 183 Fw 190's in operation with the increased performance modification, and 60 more had been delivered with the MW 50 system and were at the point of entering service. *"

We could debate this all day, so lets not waste our time. What is not debatable is how they handle in game. The 190D is not as good a turner at low speeds in DCS. It is laughably easy to out-turn the ai, and the ai flys that thing right to the limit.

The Dora has its own advantages, but one of them is not turn. The A model does not even remotely have the same air frame by any stretch of the imagination. The D is more or less a totally different plane than the A. Different engine, Different wings, different air-frame. It is a 190 only in name. As for its qualities: "17 December: The Second Gruppe pilots returned to the front and their new base at Nördhorn-Clausheide in seventy-four Fw 190D-9s, their numbers bolstered by twenty brand-new pilots. The pilot’s opinions of the “long-nosed Dora”, or Dora-9, as it was variously nicknamed, were mixed. The new model was intended to correct the Fw 190’s most glaring weakness, its poor high altitude performance. What came out of Kurt Tank’s shop was a compromise. Tank did not like the liquid-cooled Jumo 213A engine, but it was the best choice available. The long in-line engine had to be balanced by a lengthened rear fuselage to maintain the proper center of gravity, making the Fw 190D four feet longer than the Fw 190A. The new airplane lacked the high turn rate and incredible rate of roll of its close-coupled radial-engined predecessor. It was a bit faster, however, with a maximum speed of 680 km/h (422 mph) at 6600 meters (21,650 feet).Its 2240 horespower with methanol-water injection (MW 50) gave it an excellent acceleration in combat situations. It also climbed and dived more rapidly than the Fw 190A, and so proved well suited to the dive-and-zoom ambush tactics favored by the Schlageter pilots. Many of the early models were not equipped with tanks for methanol, which was in very short supply in any event. At low altitude, the top speed and acceleration of these examples were inferior to those of Allied fighters. Hans Hartigs recalled that only one of the first batch of Dora-9s received by the First Gruppe had methanol-water injection, and the rest had a top speed of only 590 km/h (360 mph)."

because the real Dora did about 415mph, as the without the seal it it caused alot of drag.

The ability of a pilot to outturn a better turning plane, confers not that advantage upon the airframe, but on the disparity in skill. 190D pilots were initially very dismayed that the Dora was not as agile as the A in either turn or roll.

The Dora does not out turn the 51. You barely have to try in order to defeat the excellent AI in a turn. Nor does it out turn the 51 in other sim. This will be evident soon enough tomorrow. Dive recovery is debatable, depends on alot of factors, not just that bloody trip tab.- up to and including the 51's lower drag, and more sophisticated trim system overall. Have you dove the mustang? even in compression it can still be maneavered even at high alti, when most planes would be complete bricks. Initial dive speed is irrelevant, you will be at low speeds for such short amount of time, and at higher altitudes your forced to fly faster just to stay airborne, and at high speeds the better initial acceleration of the Dora is even more irrelevant because youll start every maneuver at high speed.

To compliment the previous chart, I made this one to show only the real test data.

NVIDIA is to western Tech as ATI is to Eastern Tech. IE: solid state vs vacuum tubes. :)

Over 20,000 Feet the mustang is King, plain and simple. It is more agile at all speeds and at all altitudes, especially up high. As the altitude increases, the 190s climb advantage remains but becomes much smaller. over 20,000 feet the Mustang becomes increasingly faster than the dora, and over 30k it is simply no contest. Low Speed Turn: Mustang High Speed Turn: Mustang High speed: Depends on boost. under 4000m its a tossup based on how the dora and pony are modeled. Between 4000 and 6000m Dora is faster. Over 6000 the Mustang wins, and by alot, especially as you get higher. Dive: Mustang Climb: Dora, at all heights, but not by a huge amount over 20k.

During the tests I did, I noted that on a few occasions the engine was the cause of the kill. However, while I dont have the exact numbers, the engine failure either resulted in an obvious kill (ie:fire) or happened just before something else important bought the farm. For example, in one case the engine began to overspeed, but just after this the entire tail section came off. In my next set of tests (yes they are still coming.) I will be counting any sort of engine failure like an over speed as a assumed kill in order to account for this. Even with engine non-immediately-fatal engine issues being counted as kills, it is evident from my tests and from anecdotes provided by others in this thread that we are several orders of magnitude over the desired damage threshold for human flown planes. As has already been stated by myself and several others here, that is about 4 times what we should be seeing statistically. With regards to human marksmanship and damage being evident, that is also part of the problem. If you watch gun cams, even when there is no fire or wings being shot off, it is evident that damage is being done as evinced by metal flying off, smoke, and the very noticeable impact flashes caused by the tracers. Some of these effects exist in game. Others do not, and as others have said, the visual model isnt very representative sometimes. My biggest beef visually is the lack of tracer flashes. I have seen these not only in gun camera, but in real life from the real thing. They are extremely visible. Right now in DCS, all we have to show hits are smoke poofs. These poofs are not very consistent, and should be in conjunction with the flashes. For example, in the tracks i posted earlier for the ai, you will notice I hit the 190 in one of my burst 90 something times in a SINGLE burst of fire, and yet the smoke poofs make it look like I was missing most of the time. For the longest time I thought I was missing my target, I learned otherwise by chance, and it was only then I realized to just trusting my gut and holding the trigger down was better than short burst and looking for evidence of hits. P.S. I agree with the stuff you said, Im just quoting you so my comments make sense in context :)

So is the new 190D modeled with a engine gap seal or not? No Production D-9 ever had one, and it makes a huge difference in performance.

I Agree entirely, and would like to add a few things based on what you said, While the difference mathematically between the currents 20mm and 50 cal is proportional, overall effectiveness is not. There is a certain threshold over which a weapons system is not longer tactically useful when compared to other systems. If the 20mm were kill in 5 hits on average, and the 50cal in 20-30, then both guns would be able to kill targets in short enough bursts to be effective. 20mm, has the advantage, but 50cal is still within the range of effectiveness. As it is now, 20mm is still powerful enough to be useful, but the 50 is not relatively speaking. any primarily 50cal armed plane will have to sit in the saddle behind a bandit for a unreasonable amount of time, meaning that the likelihood that another bandit shows up forces him onto the defense more likely. It also means that the defender will get more chances to evade, or scissors, or simply escape by shrugging off damage in a climb or flat out run. By extension it makes Gun's D a much more effective defense, as snaprolling all over the place or jinking really hard makes it nearly impossible to get enough rounds on target to get a kill. Even worse, BnZ is now rendered neigh on impossible without multiple passes, all of which must land significant numbers of strikes, which means the defender can more easily sucker the attacker into a Co-E situation before the Attacker can finish him off. In other words, it disproportionately alters the entire tactical situation between two aircraft in a very unrealistic manner.

I am fairly certain from the testing ive done so far with my modified APIT that the explosive factor counts as a certain number of hits or something. Regular AP though only counts for one. For example, when I was killing 190s with them it was saying 90 hits but i was killing them in like half second bursts. 15-30 hits of 20mm is way too high, meaning that the 20mm are also suffering from this issue.

From what I have seen, it is a collection of factors. Like you mentioned, the ballistics probably play roll. The damage model is a huge factor though. You never see planes catch fire unless mortal damage has occurred like a engine being killed or wing removed. Aside from the tracer the apit doesn't seen to actually have incendiary effects. The mechanical linkages for controls don't seem to be vulnerable. A lot of basic damage model stuff appears to have been neglected, yet we have some super complicated engine damage and other things.

Note: 6 fifties expend 4800 rpm. 2 seconds of fire would be 160 rounds. Even a perfect shot would not land all round one target due to dispersion. getting between 5-25 percent on target would be between 8 and 40 strikes. Reading memoirs and encounter reports makes it clear that most kills we're achieved via high speed bounces deflection shooting played a big part here. If it took 100+ strikes to get a kill, boom and zoom would have been nearly impossible because only a robot would hAve been able to get enough rounds on target.

No one is claiming that data is perfect. Like you said, without getting ultra complex, we are making generalized statements. I posted that primarily to show more than one source of data supporting a 1-3 ratio in comparison to 20mm as a baseline. As for a 1-2 second burst, that is much shorter than what is currently modeled. Right now, you MIGHT kill a plane with that if you managed to land every round on target in that space that space of time. Memoirs do support the idea if short Bursts kill fighter and part of my opinion is also based on pilot accounts. However I would like to note that the average pilot accuracy during ww2 was measured at about 5 percent. Few of the rounds in a sustained burst would have hit. Gun cameras clearly show massive damage inflicted by relatively few strikes. One of the most common things I've seen is small fires being started by the incendiaries. You never see fire in dcs unless you kill the engine or blow a wing. Oddly enough though, nearly every belly landing starts a fire

My previous tester is indisposed at the moment, so if anyone would like to be a target or vise versa just PM me. If I cant get anyone to test with, I might have to delay posting more results tonight. In the meantime, I have been experimenting around with the APIT round in the game by modding it. Based on the ballistic chart I posed earlier, which equated the APIT rounds incendiary effects as being equivalent to 10% the he power of the German 20mm, I modified the 50cal APIT to have that value of explosive filler, or .0175. For comparison, the 23mm in game has .175 filler( I couldnt find the german 20 in the list) this is a crude solution and I just wanted to see what happened. I would like to note that from the stats list on the 50cal there does not appear to be any incendiary property and seems to just be a ap round with a tracer and slightly less mass. From experience DCS does not seem to model aircraft fire except when you lose a wing or engine anyways, which is probably a considerable part of the deficiency this thread is about. Note: although its just for kicks, I have killed the ai dora with about 30 strikes around 5 times now with the new APIT round I made. Thats right, the depleted uranium Dora ai went down in 30 hits.

In the meantime, this image backs up what the two of you have said about dispersion patterns.

Just a note to those who are interested. More Data will be posted tonight.

I know for certain the ai can hang on the prop, amonst other things, far too often. This has been well documented. As for the human pilots, Im not sure I follow you. Note, I am not saying you are wrong at all, just that I'm not noticing the issue. I would like to point out though that at very low speed control surface effectiveness goes down alot more in DCS than in other sims, making it harder to aim etc if you were hanging on the prop. I have heard alot of ww2 accounts of fighter hanging on props at low speeds and rpms during turns, but I dont know the exact numbers so I cant really say one way or another. If you redid your test and compared it to some real life numbers it would be more revealing I think. at 67 inches 3000rpm, and P-51 at 9700lbs should get a max climb around sea level of 3600ft per min.

Im not a dev, but I did notice your inital zoom in the 120mph track is a good 2000fpm greater than in the 175mph. You also started 10 knots faster.

Of course it is speculative to a certain extent, and I like anyone else am subject to error. Even with large amounts of data, any damage model in any sim is to a certain extent speculative even. That being said, not much has been discussed regarding the actual ballistics because that wasn't the direction the conversation went in. Several people agreed with my first post, and Sithspawn asked me to do more testing and send him tracks. I am still in the process of doing that testing, I was just putting up what I got so far. Regarding the actual ballistics, Both the Navy and the USAAF considered 3 50cal equivalent to 1 20mm generally speaking. It took about 5 20mm to down a fighter typically. If you watch 50cal only planes gun cam footage, you will notice that they knock down enemy planes very quickly, or least set them on fire or cause an explosion. The Table on in this website is in good agreement with the 1 to 3 ratio comparison with 20mm cannon. http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm Here is some gun camera footage, ignore the rest of the video if you wish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2FFtu441s&list=LL9p_QEwysGYhs3YDKN0f60w&index=10

1. lol 2. This is a moot point. This test was preliminary for one. Second, statistically, I'd have to do a insane number of tests to get a decent plot. The point here is just to gather a little bit of data so this is more than just complete speculaton. 3. Lets not beat around the bush. You dont have to actually say it to get your point across. As for your experience with aircraft, something tells me that neither you, I, or anyone responsible for the making of any damage model in any sim went out shot the crap out of some ww2 fighters to seen what happens. Your point here is just plain nonsense. Nobody here has any real world experience with shooting up these planes, so I guess noone can have an opinion, including the makers of this game and others. 4. So let me get this straight. You just made a post telling me I had no business pontificating with regards to this subject for the aformentioned reasons. Now your upset because I supposedly told you that you couldnt have one? Firstly, that is contradictory as hell. Second, I never said anything of the sort. I said that manner in which you phrased your post makes it look as though you have other motives, not that you cant have an opinion. You are really good at not actually reading what I post-and then having something to say about things I didnt actually say, or bringing up issues that I have already mentioned. 5. Missed this one from your earlier post: DCS is my favorite sim for a variety of reasons. I am hardly the only person who makes complaints on here, in fact that makes up a very large part of what people post about on these forums. This bit of your thread is obvious fanboy apologetic drivel. Perhaps instead of wasting your time on here, you should go find a forum where everyone agrees with you, or a simulator that is perfect and no one can offend you with criticism of a game you have put on a pedestal. (also, you are once again telling me to go away and not have an opinion.)