Fox One

I think when making the cockpit they relied too much on parts catalogue drawings and too little on pictures of the real thing. If it was me, when making the cockpit model I would have relied mostly on cockpit pictures of W.Nr. 601088, that is the only original, complete D-9 remaining on the planet. Comparing DCS cockpit with 601088 pics, there are indeed several relatively minor inaccuracies, especially on left cockpit panel. Probably the developers didn’t knew that, for example the D-9 parts catalogue drawing for left cockpit panel was actually copy-pasted from A models parts catalogue – in reality they are not identical. So this drawing is just some generic “version” of the left cockpit panel, but I think the developers took it too seriously. Also please note that on picture posted by draken152, the radio channel selector and landing gear indicator are one in each other’s place – probably the museum guys, when they put the plane back together, didn’t knew which went where, and both having the same dimension they placed them incorrectly. In Jerry Crandall’s Fw 190 Dora book, vol 1 there are some cockpit pictures with precisely this particular plane before restoration – channel selector is on the rear place, landing gear indicator in forward. However the Lehrmittel D-9 manual from Jan 1945 is showing the same gear and flaps indicators as the catalogue parts – that is item 19-6825A (similar with DCS). It is not unconceivable that both versions existed on operational aircraft, so what we have now in DCS might in fact be correct. Probably in this late stage of war, they built them with whatever indicator they had available. Note that on the forward location for gear indicator there is a square metal plate ( better visible on pictures here http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=507 ). It was probably put there to cover the square hole already made in the panel for gear/flaps indicator like we now have in DCS, in order to “adapt” it for the circular indicator – cause that was what they had available to install in the aircraft.

That's right, obviously, so I take the answer is - it is a feature. If that's so, and pilot's instructions for real Fw 190, be it A or D say landing approach speed should be made at 200-220Km/h, I challenge you to do a landing in the Dora while flying the approach with the cockpit airspeed indicator at 200Km/h. And please post the video. Thanks

Any comment from developers about the not negligible difference in speed between cockpit indicator and external view at landing approach speeds? The difference is almost 20Km/h. Could this be Pitot reading errors due to slow flying at higher AoA? Feature or bug?

Big picture of the nose:

According to this http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190d9test.html it looks like the maximum deflection angle for radiator flaps was 20deg. I have made an approximative measurement on a sceenshot and currently the angle is about 15deg. But it is visually obvious anyway in IvanK's image. This should be pretty simple to fix... ... but after they will fix this, I will go ahead and add that there are no metal strips connecting the actuated flaps with the non-actuated ones. Then I will add there are actually no actuating rods visible inside of the flaps ... :D

^^^ I feel the same.

Zychon, excellent post, thanks

SiTh, if the model is still being worked on, could you please ask them to have a look at this http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1747105&postcount=325 http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1747177&postcount=326 I noticed several errors on the initial release AI version of the model were corrected. But this error with the MG 131 guns being too widely spaced and also guns cowling shape is IMO pretty damn important for the model to look right.

What drives me nuts is that there’s no oxygen mask. Flying happily at 30,000 ft without a mask… I‘m all for historical accuracy in visuals, but instead of no mask I would rather have the pilot wearing a modern-day HGU helmet WITH a mask! Seriously! In both Mustang and Dora the pilot is wearing the same generic leather helmet that I’m not sure is actually a real type used in WWII. The pilot model is already made, historically accurate flight clothing is probably not extremely complicated to do, the most effort would go into making a new 3D model for pilot’s headgear. How awesome would be if the Fw pilot looked like the picture below! And with goggles on. The oxygen mask probably is not the late-war type, but you get the idea. ED will be making also DCS Bf 109, Spitfire IX, P-47 and Me 262 – authentic WWII pilot gear please, with oxygen mask an goggles on :)

Lange_666, please post 2-3 tracks of your takeoff attempts, I would like to study them. Use 100% fuel and 3250rpm. Please press rctrl+enter to display the controls indicator. My experience – I crashed on the first 2 takeoff attempts, succeeded 3rd time (all at 3250rpm), of course the first takeoff without crashing wasn’t exactly a beautiful one. Succeeded on first landing attempt. Since then, I gradually got better and better, as one might expect. I am using an X52pro and no rudder pedals, just stick twist for rudder, and I’m pretty surprised you have such difficulties, especially that you said you have rudder pedals. I have wheel brakes assigned to throttle hat, but there is no need for differential wheel braking during takeoff run – rudder alone is sufficiently powerful to keep the plane straight.

I also think that, when selecting for example 50% fuel, both fuel tanks should be filled more evenly, instead of the rear tank being almost empty. Take off with 100% fuel, fuel selector to both open, fly until you burn 50% of fuel, then watch indicator - that's how the tanks should be filled when you select in the editor 50%. Also related to this - I did a 20 min of flight comparative test with fuel selector to both open, both pumps ON, then the same but with forward tank pump OFF, rear tank pump ON. After 20 min, the same amount of fuel was consumed from the forward tank as in the first test. This can't be right.

I am sure that's the explanation. The rudder ground adjustable trim tab is slightly bent so to deflect rudder slightly to the right. As soon as there is enough propeller slipstream, it will deflect rudder, even if the plane is stationary. Also on the Mustang - if you trim rudder and elevator, then hold brakes and advance the throttle, watch the plane from outside - both tail control surfaces will deflect forced by air pushed by propeller.

Unfortunately I haven't seen any info about D-9 speed where it should be trimmed, but I found this interesting info in the pilot's notes part of the manual Bedienungsvorschrift-Fl for Fw 190 A-1 to A-8 variants. It says at an altitude of 1500m and a speed of 500Km/h, with pitch trim indicator on 0, the plane must be trimmed and must "fly straight", suggesting it should be trimmed in all 3 axes. They say it is allowed a deviation of maximum one needle width to + or - on the pitch trim indicator.

That's right, there should definitely be an indicator for the left flap, too.

The current range scale in sim doesn’t make any sense. What in the picture of the real thing is a 400, the modeler thought it is 100. The real sight range scale has range marks for 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000. It would be logical to assume the sight has marks for 100, 200, 300, maybe even marks at every 50m for close range, especially since the scale is non-linear, there is enough room for that. Since the real sight range scale has distinct marks for 800, 900, 1000 m, ranges where you have no hope of hitting anything that flies, I am 100% convinced it has to have marks for 100, 200, 300, 400 since that’s the usual “working” range in air combat. I could make for myself a modified texture with the missing marks, but it wouldn’t be correct, the range marks would be way too close to each other, see how non-linear the real sight range scale is, below the 300m range mark, there is a large space and the lower range mark is not visible. The current scale would have to be a lot longer. And the current sight on-off switch, that actually should be a gyro-fixed switch, is this going to be reported? I mean there are documents that proves it.

^^^ Actually I was wrong - gunsight brightness control is functional.

Ok, I see now - the bulb should be switched on with V24 switch. If you don't need the sight, the reticle brightness should be adjustable to zero with the control on the sight (I think the control is not functional now).

What I was saying is that currently in DCS the only way to have a fixed reticle is to set distance to minimum value, which is not correct. Switch on right panel? where?

Great post, draken152! Thank you! Honestly, I suspected that having to set distance to minimum in order to get a fixed reticle can't be correct. The circle disappears from the sight and the only reference left is the central aiming mark. This can't be right. You need the circle as an additional reference to better judge lead, both air to air as well al ground straffing. Probably in the right cockpit switches panel there should be an additional switch for turning on EZ 42. As a big electronic device with vaccum tubes, it MUST have its own ON-OFF switch, just like FuG16 and FuG25.

My view:

I have even started a thread about it : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=127712 For me personally, the geometrical accuracy of something I always see in front of me when I fly is pretty damn important. But my impression is the vast majority of people really don’t care much about such details. That’s why I have very, very low hopes it will be corrected.

Fw 190 D-9 used the same KG 13B stick grip as earlier Fw 190 versions. There are 3 weapon buttons on the stick : A, B1, B2. A (trigger): fires the synchronized weapons (MG 131, MG 151) B1 (on top of the stick): fires the outer wings guns (not available on D-9, so this button does nothing) B2 (left side of the stick): bomb drop. This button is also used to fire WGr 21 or R4M rockets.

External tanks related – I believe when dropping tanks, the upper part of the pylon (called a ferry beam) should remain attached to the plane, while the tank TOGETHER with the rest of the pylon should drop.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=127712

Cockpit instruments are not what this is about. It doesn’t matter. All pictures are of E and F models and, as expected, the windshield in all of them is identical. In day fighter variants of the Korean War (A, E, F) the windshield was changed only once, from the early V-shaped one. And it is obvious in none of the pictures is a V-shaped windshield. So there is no need to find the correct pictures, they are already correct. The best way to prove I’m wrong would be to post some pictures that actually look like DCS model ;)