How to Fly the Dora

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

That's the guy!

 

And this is the video I was referring to.

 

Yo-Yo and the rest of the ED team actually used the precious information in it to fine tune the 190.

 

As much as I can be a true PITA for Yo-Yo and the forum admin here at ED when I start complaining about this or that flight characteristics in the sim, I am also

one of the first to make positive exclamation about great chievements, and the Fw190 ( now final ) is indeed my preferred DCS module, by far.

 

It's nice to see it's creator, Yo-Yo, trying to takeoff in it, just after Eric, and failing miserably :-)

 

This shows, among other things, how honest his / and ED's approach is, when showing it openly in the video.

 

It also serves as an incentive for those who think they're really bad virtual pilots when starting to use these DCS modules. It happened to me with the initial p51d, then the D9 and finally the 109... and it'll probably happen again when the Mk IX becomes available :-)

 

 

 

[ame]

[/ame]
Edited January 6, 2016 by jcomm

[Crumpp]

That's the guy!

 

And this is the video I was referring to.

 

Yo-Yo and the rest of the ED team actually used the precious information in it to fine tune the 190.

 

As much as I can be a true PITA for Yo-Yo and the forum admin here at ED when I start complaining about this or that flight characteristics in the sim, I am also

one of the first to make positive exclamation about great chievements, and the Fw190 ( now final ) is indeed my preferred DCS module, by far.

 

It's nice to see it's creator, Yo-Yo, trying to takeoff in it, just after Eric, and failing miserably :-)

 

This shows, among other things, how honest his / and ED's approach is, when showing it openly in the video.

 

It also serves as an incentive for those who think they're really bad virtual pilots when starting to use these DCS modules. It happened to me with the initial p51d, then the D9 and finally the 109... and it'll probably happen again when the Mk IX becomes available :-)

 

 

 

 

11:04 of Eric's video.

 

He is not describing the current version of DCS's Dora.

[NineLine]

11:04 of Eric's video.

 

He is not describing the current version of DCS's Dora.

 

And maybe that's why you aren't impartial enough to research an FM ;) Context man... context.

 

I was always surprised the 109 out turned the 190 just because the 190 was so smooth and clean in the turn, while the 109 feels more like a high performance machine you are just hanging on to...

 

The 190 is a like a Cadillac... if you take his entire statement in context it seems to me he was talking about the quality of the flight in the 190. But that's just me... anyways, your a numbers guy, what do the numbers say?

[Hummingbird]

Let's not invest too much into single pilot opinions. Pilot opinions are after all nortoriously inaccurate when in comes to analysing comparative aircraft performance and often differ wildly from person to person - and many times because they were misunderstood by the interviewer or reader as SiTh correctly points out :)

 

The germans tested the 109 & 190 extensively and the 109 always came out better in actual turn fights (round and round), the 190 had other advantages though. I believe Eric alludes to this as well when he desribes how the 109 feels more like a glider on approach (more lift pr. weight) where'as the 190A felt more like a piano :P and he finally describes the Dora as being in between the two.

 

Eric's opinion regarding "kurven kampf" is probably shaped by the fact that the 190 was a lot easier to control at high speeds, and as such the instantanous turns at high speeds felt a lot faster to him than he was able to achieve in the 109.

 

Finally lets keep in mind that most WW2 shoot downs did after all start and end at rather high speeds, mostly with the target not knowing he was being attacked until it was too late, thus the desire for great controllability at high speed was usually higher than for at low speeds.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Hummingbird

[anlq]

Let's not invest too much into single pilot opinions. Pilot opinions are after all nortoriously inaccurate when in comes to analysing comparative aircraft performance and often differ wildly from person to person - and many times because they were misunderstood by the interviewer or reader as SiTh correctly points out :)

 

The germans tested the 109 & 190 extensively and the 109 always came out better in actual turn fights (round and round), the 190 had other advantages though. I believe Eric alludes to this as well when he desribes how the 109 feels more like a glider on approach (more lift pr. weight) where'as the 190A felt more like a piano :P and he finally describes the Dora as being in between the two.

 

Eric's opinion regarding "kurven kampf" is probably shaped by the fact that the 190 was a lot easier to control at high speeds, and as such the instantanous turns at high speeds felt a lot faster to him than he was able to achieve in the 109.

 

Finally lets keep in mind that most WW2 shoot downs did after all start and end at rather high speeds, mostly with the target not knowing he was being attacked until it was too late, thus the desire for great controllability at high speed was usually higher than for at low speeds.

 

As a former IL-2 1946 user. I categorize WWII fighter in 2 types: Turn n burn & Boom and Zoom.

What you said above is BnZ tactics, FW190 / P-51 fall into this type. For TnB, it comes to Bf109 / Mitsubishi Zero / Lagg / Yak ...

When you use P-51D and FW-190 against BF109, it's better not to get into TnB with him, he'll drag you down and kill you easily, and they were in knife-fight all the time with high alert.

I think the BF109 in DCS is overpowered, he's very powerful in climbing, he can keep up with a P-51D in a BnZ which is not possible.

 

Red : +1 we need more judgement from pilots, but unfortunately there're not many WW2 pilots still living nowaday. we should base on documents and engine to benchmark Module's performance.

Edited January 7, 2016 by anlq

[Yo-Yo]

I think the BF109 in DCS is overpowered, he's very powerful in climbing, he can keep up with a P-51D in a BnZ which is not possible.

 

Red : +1 we need more judgement from pilots, but unfortunately there're not many WW2 pilots still living nowaday. we should base on documents and engine to benchmark Module's performance.

 

So, you faithfully think that 1600 HP vs 4300 kg will give you more energy than 1800 HP vs 3400 kg? Surely, the ballistic coefficient for P-51 is better but it's not the only one that forms energy qualities.

[LuSi_6]

As a former IL-2 1946 user. I categorize WWII fighter in 2 types: Turn n burn & Boom and Zoom.

What you said above is BnZ tactics, FW190 / P-51 fall into this type. For TnB, it comes to Bf109 / Mitsubishi Zero / Lagg / Yak ...

When you use P-51D and FW-190 against BF109, it's better not to get into TnB with him, he'll drag you down and kill you easily, and they were in knife-fight all the time with high alert.

I think the BF109 in DCS is overpowered, he's very powerful in climbing, he can keep up with a P-51D in a BnZ which is not possible.

 

 

this is so wrong in so many ways, it could be right out of the War Thunder forums...

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

So, you faithfully think that 1600 HP vs 4300 kg will give you more energy than 1800 HP vs 3400 kg? Surely, the ballistic coefficient for P-51 is better but it's not the only one that forms energy qualities.

 

Just for me to try to understand Yo-Yo, because other than that I agree the K4 can't be compared to older models, with inferior power / weight ratio, and so, I think the K4 in DCS, when correctly handled ( because it can be trickier than the p51d ), should indeed be able to out perform it's opponents, and I have successfully used it against both the p51d and the Fw190, this last one when the pilot starts using the wrong tactics...

 

But, back to my question, what is "ballistic coefficient" ? Do you mean the same as "penetration coefficient" ?

[Hummingbird]

Just for me to try to understand Yo-Yo, because other than that I agree the K4 can't be compared to older models, with inferior power / weight ratio, and so, I think the K4 in DCS, when correctly handled ( because it can be trickier than the p51d ), should indeed be able to out perform it's opponents, and I have successfully used it against both the p51d and the Fw190, this last one when the pilot starts using the wrong tactics...

 

But, back to my question, what is "ballistic coefficient" ? Do you mean the same as "penetration coefficient" ?

 

A ballistic coefficient is used to describe the drag of a projectile, i.e. the higher the ballistic coefficient the lower the drag. It isn't used within aeronautics, Yo Yo was just using it as a reverse analogy for drag coefficient ;)

[humptydumpty]

WHen I am able to successfully take off I will fight the Mustangs :) ,I love this bird when I fly it low and fast

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

WHen I am able to successfully take off I will fight the Mustangs :) ,I love this bird when I fly it low and fast

 

 

Sorry for the out-of-topic, but yes, the Mustang is a nice flyer, although having to constantly fiddle with the trims, and fuel tank selector, plus the management of the engine temperatures, makes it a lot less easy to operate than both the 109 and the 190...

[humptydumpty]

Sorry for the out-of-topic, but yes, the Mustang is a nice flyer, although having to constantly fiddle with the trims, and fuel tank selector, plus the management of the engine temperatures, makes it a lot less easy to operate than both the 109 and the 190...

 

 

I prefer the Dora against the Mustangs. Some how I am not too fond of the American birds.

 

And I meant a DGFT against a Mustang.

[Yo-Yo]

Just for me to try to understand Yo-Yo, because other than that I agree the K4 can't be compared to older models, with inferior power / weight ratio, and so, I think the K4 in DCS, when correctly handled ( because it can be trickier than the p51d ), should indeed be able to out perform it's opponents, and I have successfully used it against both the p51d and the Fw190, this last one when the pilot starts using the wrong tactics...

 

But, back to my question, what is "ballistic coefficient" ? Do you mean the same as "penetration coefficient" ?

 

The ballistic coefficient is not a pure drag characteristics, it is a combined parameter coupling inertia (mass) and drag. Generally it looks like m/(CD_0*S) and shows energy bleeding at unloaded flight with g=0 (very steep climb and dive as well as dive entering)

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

Ah! Thx Yo-Yo, I thought it was what we call Cx here.

Edited January 7, 2016 by jcomm

[humptydumpty]

I think I got the trick to get this girl up in the air. This is what I do.

 

Once aligned in the center of the rwy , stick back and full right aileron (guess to aviod the prop wash) and a little right rudder. Increase throttle to 1.3 wait a few seconds push to 1.5 and once above 120 let the stick come back in to the center , I have more control. I noticed that the rudder is not needed during the take off roll but only if the ball mis-aligns. There are moments that I feel I am going to loose the nose but with some yaw adjustments I get her back.

 

Hope this is correct , because I tried all methods posted by members but I was never comfortable. Never tried the landing except once and I broke the gear and fell straight on the belly :).

 

For taxi I don't even lock the tail wheel and she is fine.

 

I never read my school books but reading the document on this bird :)

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

That's it ironmaiden, although the aileron input is not necessary IMO.

 

You just need rudder, during the acceleration, but above 170 km/h the aircraft is directionally stable already.

 

Don't forget the 1st stage of flaps, irrespective of your Gross Weight.

 

For landing, pass the threshold at 200km/h, and cut the engine. Gently pull the stick as it loses speed, constantly denying the ground and achieve a 3-point touchdown pitch... The speed will bleed off, and you will eventually settle... From there on, rudder and stick back to lock the tail wheel and stay on the rw.

 

If you have to go around - Sloooooowly add throttle and ease on the stick, or torque and the high AoA will kill you after flipping you ...

Edited January 7, 2016 by jcomm

[humptydumpty]

That's it ironmaiden, although the aileron input is not necessary IMO.

 

You just need rudder, during the acceleration, but above 170 km/h the aircraft is directionally stable already.

 

Don't forget the 1st stage of flaps, irrespective of your Gross Weight.

 

For landing, pass the threshold at 200km/h, and cut the engine. Gently pull the stick as it loses speed, constantly denying the ground and achieve a 3-point touchdown pitch... The speed will bleed off, and you will eventually settle... From there on, rudder and stick back to lock the tail wheel and stay on the rw.

 

If you have to go around - Sloooooowly add throttle and ease on the stick, or torque and the high AoA will kill you after flipping you ...

 

If I don't use the aileron she is not good for me. And rudder I only use it if she is not straight. Maybe I can try without the aileron and use the rudder only.

[Sporg]

If I don't use the aileron she is not good for me. And rudder I only use it if she is not straight. Maybe I can try without the aileron and use the rudder only.

 

Remember, the rudder works partly as "aileron" as well:

 

Left rudder pushes right wing forward.

This creates extra lift (and less on left wing) so the right wing goes up.

 

Likewise right rudder makes left wing go up.

 

You can actually control an aircraft mostly without ailerons if you use this trick. :)

[humptydumpty]

Remember, the rudder works partly as "aileron" as well:

 

Left rudder pushes right wing forward.

This creates extra lift (and less on left wing) so the right wing goes up.

 

Likewise right rudder makes left wing go up.

 

You can actually control an aircraft mostly without ailerons if you use this trick. :)

 

 

Yes but only a little bit of rudder else it will spin.

 

Alright I will try all these tricks and see what I am comfortable with.

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

Yes but only a little bit of rudder else it will spin.

 

Alright I will try all these tricks and see what I am comfortable with.

 

Also, and since you're using the twist grip for rudder, make sure you define something as a 10 or 12 % curve in your yaw axis - it may help ...

[Crumpp]

So, you faithfully think that 1600 HP vs 4300 kg will give you more energy than 1800 HP vs 3400 kg?

 

I think 2100hp and 4300Kg will have more excess thrust than 1600 hp and 4350 kg.

 

 

And maybe that's why you aren't impartial enough to research an FM ;) Context man... context.

 

The context is physics.

 

think 2100hp and 4300Kg will have more excess thrust than 1600 hp and 4350 kg?

 

The math is extremely impartial and tells us what is the realm of possibility and what is not. It has been allowing us to produce machines for heavier than air controllable flight for one hundred years now.

[humptydumpty]

Also, and since you're using the twist grip for rudder, make sure you define something as a 10 or 12 % curve in your yaw axis - it may help ...

 

 

I am not using a twist grip rudder. That is my broken Logitech attack 3 which I use as a throttle and rudder and for some switches. So one hand the stick and the second the rudder / thrust etc...

[NineLine]

The context is physics.

 

I doubt Erich was speaking in physics, which is what my comment was directed... your interpretation of his comments... so no, the context is NOT physics.

Edited January 7, 2016 by NineLine

[NineLine]

I think the BF109 in DCS is overpowered, he's very powerful in climbing, he can keep up with a P-51D in a BnZ which is not possible.

 

Based on what?

 

This?

 

As a former IL-2 1946 user.

 

DCS is built from the actual testing docs and pilot info both modern and historical. its not based off another game or sim. Its possible that DCS might not reflect what you saw or have seen elsewhere.

 

I've been fly WWII sims since the 80's... DCS made me feel like a newbie again.

 

At any rate, the topic is the Dora, lets stick to that.

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

 

At any rate, the topic is the Dora, lets stick to that.

 

... speaking of which I must say the lightness of the Stick in the Dora, at a wide range of speed ranges, mostly in pitch is simply remarkable.

 

It's also probably the reason why a simmer, lacking the adequate forces acting on her / his body, will sometimes easily fall into an accelerated stall, and go upside-down...