Significance of the 190

[Tomsk]

Fatigue is a difficult thing to simulate well, however I believe stick forces are simulated. And this is exactly why the 190 is better at high speeds in DCS, compared to the 109 - lighter stick forces.

[BravoFoxTrt]

Very good thread.:thumbup:

[The Black Swan]

I need to experiment to know for sure but wouldn't the helmet cockpit sounds remedy the "sound radar" problem?

Kinda off topic but I'm just curious.....

[golani79]

I need to experiment to know for sure but wouldn't the helmet cockpit sounds remedy the "sound radar" problem?

Kinda off topic but I'm just curious.....

 

Everything gets a bit muffled with this option but you still can hear other airplanes.

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

Everything gets a bit muffled with this option but you still can hear other airplanes.

 

yeah, this option doesnt solve the issue. also, the soundradar in my view, shouldnt be optional, or possible to achieve with certain audio slider settings. it must be uniform for all clients/players, at least online.

[Kurfürst]

It seems people tends to forget we have the ultimate 109, even though almost all 109 had a good climb rate compared to current counterparts, not so were other performances and specially top speed. Earlier models than K4 lacked so good performances in one or another aspects (while sometimes having better ones in others).

 

That's really a first for someone to call the 109... slow.

 

Here we have the Fw190D9, a more or less later model, but not even close to "the ultimate 190", being that Ta152C and H. Those models really kicked in the ass everything, including Bf109K4. I don't dare to say this or that 109 model should be the one compared to D9, but it isn't K4 definitely.

 

Huh? Sorry but the D9 is the ultimate 190, appearing head to head with the K4.

 

And I am always wondering why people seem to be so hung up on the Ta 152. What was so hot about it, really, apart from high altitude performance? ? That some guy made a mock up fight with Tempest and outturned them, which is to say they turned better than a fighter never known for its turn ability...?

 

The 152 was a great plane for one thing, a specialized high altitude fighter. Otherwise... nothing special anywhere under its optimum extreme altitudes.

 

Besides that, 109 fanboys usually forget 190 was an technical wonder, the first ever aeroplane which almost all controls were electrical, with a primitive form of what we call nowadays ergonomics, everything at hand in cockpit, and ease of use for the pilot who could concentrate on combat instead of management. 109 have a bit of that with Komandogerat, but not in a so high level as 190. You're right in a sim we may be a bit unaware of those refinements and make not so huge difference, but IRL of course everything matters. When you read Dora manual you can only wonder how well designed this bird is.

 

109 'fanboys' do tend to forget about because the 109 operated on the same principle, as far as the pilot workload goes. Automatic everything, HOTAS engine operation with a single lever. The Kommadogereats was more advanced as far as engine control went (more stuff was set in the background by it), though it had a rather problematic start. From the practical point of view, as far as pilot workload went, it offered nothing over the single lever control in the 109.

 

The super-advanced engine control is the narritive from the RAF perspective. From the air force that's fighters are known for an increadibly complicated engine startup and flight instrument and switches placed completely randomly in the cocpit. But the same narrative was made of the 109F a year earlier when they inspected it (to qoute: 'The fact that the airscrew is fully automatic, and the oil and coolant temperatures thermostatically controlled, helps to make the aircraft a simple fighting machine, as the only things then occupying the pilot's attention in combat are his throttle, flying controls and guns.' )

 

And all electronic systems, YAY for that, yay for electric trim, propeller pitch, flaps, guns, and undercarriage, so just in case your battery fails, everything is gone at the same time and you don't have to worry about much any more, since its gone already.

 

Here's for example what the German's said about electric trimming on the 190.

 

"The electric trim is currently actuated by a rocker arm, that is very small and also almost level with the panel. The trimming must be able to be operated at all times, and thisrequires that the rocker switch must be significantly increased in size so that it is at least 1 to 1 1/2 cm above the panel."

 

There you go, fiddle with a tiny electric switch in thick pilot gloves, in a cocpit that heats up to 45 degrees Celsius in the summer..

 

A smart design? Without doubt. Did it had advantages over the 109 - without doubt, but those were mainly outside flight performance, such as capable of carrying a more heavier armament and ordnance, a tougher airframe that withstood harsh/belly landings much better, having a very wide undercarriage, better search view.

 

The end of all design ergonomics and smart solutions, from which it follows that the same MUST be also true to its flight performance, despite the fact its a 4 ton machine with a very high wingloading...? Hardly. It was a great plane, well though out. A great many things and design standards are very similiar to those used on the 109 in fact, and the things it improved upon it - beefier structure and powerplant - are also a reason why its flight performance in some areas is weaker or better.

 

Which brings us to the question on the thread. Why the 190 is hyped so much in Anglo-Saxon literature? The answer is easy, RAF Fighter Command took a bad hammering in 1941 from 109Fs, and a just as bad one from 190As in 1942. Precisly for the same reasons - the advantage of the defender, more experienced fighter pilot cadre, and better planes to boot. The exhange ratio was massively against RAF FC, the 190A did not change that at all.

 

When the Luftwaffe introduced the 190A over France and practically replaced the 109s for all but high altitude work (and only in France - not because it was super-elite but for the profane reason that it's early engine reliability record was so shitty they considered it unfit for any other theatre than the French 'backyard' where it would fight over friendly terriotory and wouldn't loose pilots to engines stopping mid-air..!), finally they had an excuse to cease those pointless incurcions over France. The new, sinister and completely unknown 'super fighter' of the enemy. Hence the narrative from Price et all, they are all rooted in the panic described in old Air Intelligence papers. You know, the papers with all the funny stuff made up from heresay, like He 112 fighters, Messerschmitt 'Jaguars' or Bf 109s with DB 603s... and 'Curtiss Hawks' appearing over France in 1942.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Kurfürst

[VagTech]

That's really a first for someone to call the 109... slow.

 

 

 

Huh? Sorry but the D9 is the ultimate 190, appearing head to head with the K4.

 

And I am always wondering why people seem to be so hung up on the Ta 152. What was so hot about it, really, apart from high altitude performance? ? That some guy made a mock up fight with Tempest and outturned them, which is to say they turned better than a fighter never known for its turn ability...?

 

The 152 was a great plane for one thing, a specialized high altitude fighter. Otherwise... nothing special anywhere under its optimum extreme altitudes.

 

 

 

109 'fanboys' do tend to forget about because the 109 operated on the same principle, as far as the pilot workload goes. Automatic everything, HOTAS engine operation with a single lever. The Kommadogereats was more advanced as far as engine control went (more stuff was set in the background by it), though it had a rather problematic start. From the practical point of view, as far as pilot workload went, it offered nothing over the single lever control in the 109.

 

The super-advanced engine control is the narritive from the RAF perspective. From the air force that's fighters are known for an increadibly complicated engine startup and flight instrument and switches placed completely randomly in the cocpit. But the same narrative was made of the 109F a year earlier when they inspected it (to qoute: 'The fact that the airscrew is fully automatic, and the oil and coolant temperatures thermostatically controlled, helps to make the aircraft a simple fighting machine, as the only things then occupying the pilot's attention in combat are his throttle, flying controls and guns.' )

 

And all electronic systems, YAY for that, yay for electric trim, propeller pitch, flaps, guns, and undercarriage, so just in case your battery fails, everything is gone at the same time and you don't have to worry about much any more, since its gone already.

 

Here's for example what the German's said about electric trimming on the 190.

 

"The electric trim is currently actuated by a rocker arm, that is very small and also almost level with the panel. The trimming must be able to be operated at all times, and thisrequires that the rocker switch must be significantly increased in size so that it is at least 1 to 1 1/2 cm above the panel."

 

There you go, fiddle with a tiny electric switch in thick pilot gloves, in a cocpit that heats up to 45 degrees Celsius in the summer..

 

A smart design? Without doubt. Did it had advantages over the 109 - without doubt, but those were mainly outside flight performance, such as capable of carrying a more heavier armament and ordnance, a tougher airframe that withstood harsh/belly landings much better, having a very wide undercarriage, better search view.

 

The end of all design ergonomics and smart solutions, from which it follows that the same MUST be also true to its flight performance, despite the fact its a 4 ton machine with a very high wingloading...? Hardly. It was a great plane, well though out. A great many things and design standards are very similiar to those used on the 109 in fact, and the things it improved upon it - beefier structure and powerplant - are also a reason why its flight performance in some areas is weaker or better.

 

Which brings us to the question on the thread. Why the 190 is hyped so much in Anglo-Saxon literature? The answer is easy, RAF Fighter Command took a bad hammering in 1941 from 109Fs, and a just as bad one from 190As in 1942. Precisly for the same reasons - the advantage of the defender, more experienced fighter pilot cadre, and better planes to boot. The exhange ratio was massively against RAF FC, the 190A did not change that at all.

 

When the Luftwaffe introduced the 190A over France and practically replaced the 109s for all but high altitude work (and only in France - not because it was super-elite but for the profane reason that it's early engine reliability record was so shitty they considered it unfit for any other theatre than the French 'backyard' where it would fight over friendly terriotory and wouldn't loose pilots to engines stopping mid-air..!), finally they had an excuse to cease those pointless incurcions over France. The new, sinister and completely unknown 'super fighter' of the enemy. Hence the narrative from Price et all, they are all rooted in the panic described in old Air Intelligence papers. You know, the papers with all the funny stuff made up from heresay, like He 112 fighters, Messerschmitt 'Jaguars' or Bf 109s with DB 603s... and 'Curtiss Hawks' appearing over France in 1942.

 

If electronics are a downside in an aircraft there hasn't been a good one since the 50's.

[IronJockel]

 

Which brings us to the question on the thread. Why the 190 is hyped so much in Anglo-Saxon literature? The answer is easy, RAF Fighter Command took a bad hammering in 1941 from 109Fs, and a just as bad one from 190As in 1942. Precisly for the same reasons - the advantage of the defender, more experienced fighter pilot cadre, and better planes to boot. The exhange ratio was massively against RAF FC, the 190A did not change that at all.

 

When the Luftwaffe introduced the 190A over France and practically replaced the 109s for all but high altitude work (and only in France - not because it was super-elite but for the profane reason that it's early engine reliability record was so shitty they considered it unfit for any other theatre than the French 'backyard' where it would fight over friendly terriotory and wouldn't loose pilots to engines stopping mid-air..!), finally they had an excuse to cease those pointless incurcions over France. The new, sinister and completely unknown 'super fighter' of the enemy. Hence the narrative from Price et all, they are all rooted in the panic described in old Air Intelligence papers. You know, the papers with all the funny stuff made up from heresay, like He 112 fighters, Messerschmitt 'Jaguars' or Bf 109s with DB 603s... and 'Curtiss Hawks' appearing over France in 1942.

 

I don't remember reading about a plane that went into production to specifically counter a 109. Yet both, the British with the mk9 and the russian with the La5 only talk about countering the 190 in regards to these planes.

The British called this beast the butcher bird for a reason and considering that all following interceptor designs (Bearcat, Tempest/SeaFury) are somewhat based upon the 190 just provs the significances of Kurt Tanks design.

Galland himself said about the in regards to the 190 and 109: "... that only Focke Wulf Fw-190 fighter production should continue in conventional aircraft, to discontinue the Me-109, which was outdated ..."

[Krupi]

I don't remember reading about a plane that went into production to specifically counter a 109. Yet both, the British with the mk9 and the russian with the La5 only talk about countering the 190 in regards to these planes.

The British called this beast the butcher bird for a reason and considering that all following interceptor designs (Bearcat, Tempest/SeaFury) are somewhat based upon the 190 just provs the significances of Kurt Tanks design.

Galland himself said about the in regards to the 190 and 109: "... that only Focke Wulf Fw-190 fighter production should continue in conventional aircraft, to discontinue the Me-109, which was outdated ..."

 

+1

[Ala13_ManOWar]

That's really a first for someone to call the 109... slow. ...

 

Huh? Sorry but the D9 is the ultimate 190, appearing head to head with the K4. ...

.

.

.

You liked it first read, then reread and suddenly not? :lol: Fine mate, whatever.

 

Still 190 is quite a better aeroplane than usually said by 109philes :thumbup:.

 

 

S!

Edited December 2, 2016 by Ala13_ManOWar

[Solty]

Well, as all new airplanes Kurfurst, first production 190's had their issues. But the 190's issue was the engine, which was supposedly chosen because DB605 was already taken by the Me serries.

 

To me the ergonomics of the 190 are fine. They are not super great. Especially the temp gauges are low and small. That said, what makes the 190 for me, is the ability to dive away from most enemies of its time and roll out of the attack. Not to mention scissors.

 

It is also the truth that the 109 in 1939 and 1940, 41, was fighting with illequiped air forces. Polish airforce was small and behind in terms of aircraft. All other countries had inexperienced and poorly trained or poorly organised airforces. Soviet union scores the worst scores, even though it had massive airfroce, most of it was I-15 and I-153 biplanes, their pilots had no training, their doctrine was illequiped and their planes didn't have radio's for a long time. These are the enemies of the 109. Either illequiped or untrained and inexprienced airforces.

[IronJockel]

No mention of some non combat factors that made the 190 better suited than the 109 in different scenarios:

wider undercarriage that led to significantly less losses by crash landings than the 109 and makes it suited better for use on harsh airfield conditions.

The 190 also also far easier to maintain on the field. Almost everything could be reached by opening an single side-gate and fixing electrical compartments take significantly less time that a hydraulic or mechanical system.

And then comes the vast flexibility of the aircraft: Night-fighter, Heavy fighter and it even replaced the Stuka.

Counting up these things makes one almost think this is a modern day multi-purpose aircraft and not a WW2 fighter :D

[rogonaut]

I don't remember reading about a plane that went into production to specifically counter a 109. Yet both, the British with the mk9 and the russian with the La5 only talk about countering the 190 in regards to these planes.

The British called this beast the butcher bird for a reason and considering that all following interceptor designs (Bearcat, Tempest/SeaFury) are somewhat based upon the 190 just provs the significances of Kurt Tanks design.

Galland himself said about the in regards to the 190 and 109: "... that only Focke Wulf Fw-190 fighter production should continue in conventional aircraft, to discontinue the Me-109, which was outdated ..."

 

+1

 

 

Here's for example what the German's said about electric trimming on the 190.

 

"The electric trim is currently actuated by a rocker arm, that is very small and also almost level with the panel. The trimming must be able to be operated at all times, and thisrequires that the rocker switch must be significantly increased in size so that it is at least 1 to 1 1/2 cm above the panel."

 

There you go, fiddle with a tiny electric switch in thick pilot gloves, in a cocpit that heats up to 45 degrees Celsius in the summer..

 

 

well that´s a bummer right, what a shitty plane:D

Edited December 2, 2016 by rogonaut

[Krupi]

No mention of some non combat factors that made the 190 better suited than the 109 in different scenarios:

wider undercarriage that led to significantly less losses by crash landings than the 109 and makes it suited better for use on harsh airfield conditions.

The 190 also also far easier to maintain on the field. Almost everything could be reached by opening an single side-gate and fixing electrical compartments take significantly less time that a hydraulic or mechanical system.

And then comes the vast flexibility of the aircraft: Night-fighter, Heavy fighter and it even replaced the Stuka.

Counting up these things makes one almost think this is a modern day multi-purpose aircraft and not a WW2 fighter :D

 

As Kurt Tank himself said "The 109 was a thoroughbred and the 190 a workhorse"

[DB 605]

As Kurt Tank himself said "The 109 was a thoroughbred and the 190 a workhorse"

 

+1

 

Fw 190 was better aeroplane, thats for sure. More robust, less tiring to fly, much more modern desing.

 

But fighter vs fighter duels those things did not meant that much for experieced pilots who were used to 109. They would not benefit much (if anything) from switching G10 or K4 to D9.

[IronJockel]

 

To me the ergonomics of the 190 are fine. They are not super great. Especially the temp gauges are low and small. That said, what makes the 190 for me, is the ability to dive away from most enemies of its time and roll out of the attack. Not to mention scissors.

 

 

And the chaos of gauges in the 109 or American designs "are super great" ? :music_whistling:

Apply Fitts's law combined with how important each gauge is (likeness of having to look at it) and you will even have scientific evidence that the 190 cockpit design was the most ergonomic of that time.

[Solty]

And the chaos of gauges in the 109 or American designs "are super great" ? :music_whistling:

Apply Fitts's law combined with how important each gauge is (likeness of having to look at it) and you will even have scientific evidence that the 190 cockpit design was the most ergonomic of that time.

 

No. But I still prefer 51s cockpit layout. Especially because the temperatures in 190 are nearly hidden from the pilot. The only thing about the Mustang is that altimeter is behind the throttle. Also, it's my opinion, not a fact.

[DB 605]

And the chaos of gauges in the 109 or American designs "are super great" ? :music_whistling:

Apply Fitts's law combined with how important each gauge is (likeness of having to look at it) and you will even have scientific evidence that the 190 cockpit design was the most ergonomic of that time.

 

I do agreed that 190 have most modern cockpit and easy layout. But "chaos of gauges" in 109? C'mon, quite an exaggeration here...see attachment. Green=flight instruments, red=engine gauges.

[pepto]

Wow! Some great discussion going on :P I really wish that the game offered more fitting missions for the 190 instead of dogfight scenarios, some BnZ training would be really cool ;)

[PicksKing]

Wow! Some great discussion going on :P I really wish that the game offered more fitting missions for the 190 instead of dogfight scenarios, some BnZ training would be really cool ;)

 

With release of the normandy map and the containing AI-units you will be able to create some on your own very easily. And yes I am very excited as well to show some B-17s where a fortress really belongs - namely to the ground ;)

[Friedrich-4B]

Which brings us to the question on the thread. Why the 190 is hyped so much in Anglo-Saxon literature?

Wow! If true, it's astonishing that the Anglo-Saxons even mentioned the Fw 190 in their literature, let alone hyped it! Anyone who wrote about the 190 in Anglo-Saxon times was a true visionary, or a time-traveler, because the Anglo-Saxon culture essentially died out a few generations after King Harald got an arrow in the eye in 1066 AD. The best known example of Anglo-Saxon literature is . Unfortunately, there's no reference to the Fw 190 in Beowulf (or could it be Focke-Beowulf 190?), so it's more than likely an urban myth that the Anglo-Saxons hyped the 190.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

The ultimate Fockeowulf!!! What a nickname :lol::lol::lol:.

 

 

S!

[horseback]

+1

 

Fw 190 was better aeroplane, thats for sure. More robust, less tiring to fly, much more modern desing.

 

But fighter vs fighter duels those things did not meant that much for experieced pilots who were used to 109. They would not benefit much (if anything) from switching G10 or K4 to D9.

Experienced pilots with a long history with one aircraft type have serious advantages over pilots who have bounced from one aircraft type to another, or who have limited experience in even a 'superior' type; a guy who was a good friend when we were teenagers went to the US Air Force Academy and then into Phantoms for a few years before graduating to F-15s, where he spent most of his career. When I saw him last (about 10 years ago), he had just retired after close to thirty years, almost a quarter century as an Eagle driver.

 

He had the classic fighter pilot's ego, but I believe him when he said that he rarely lost a one on one mock dogfight with any other type of aircraft after he'd flown the Eagle for five years or so; he was so intimately aware of what he could do with this aircraft that as soon as he ID'd his opponent he could choreograph (his word) the whole fight from start to finish. He said that if no artificial restrictions on his capabilities or 'State Department' rules of engagement were imposed, he figured he was a lock to win (but he did say that Typhoons and Rafales could sometimes make him work for it).

 

I would not be terribly surprised that someone who had been flying combat in 109s for five plus years might have a significant edge over someone with less than a hundred hours in a Mustang, Thunderbolt, Lightning or Spitfire...or a Dora, if it came to that. A major part of the contest is knowing exactly what you can do and being able perform under stress.

 

The real test comes when pilots of equal or near-equal experience in type face off, and in that situation, the qualities of the both the individual pilot and his aircraft come to the fore.

 

cheers

 

horseback

[Starfire]

The outcome of the war was never about quality of equipment. It was about the amount of equipment (production).

Once the US stepped into the war, the fate of the axis was sealed and only a question of time.

 

In dec 1943 a Luftwaffe pilot could expect to be outnumbered 4:1 on the western front.

 

In 1943 the total Allied/Axis combat aircraft production was 101.639 vs 19.584

 

 

 

Axis and Allied production of military aircraft 1939-45 (units)

 

 

Combat Aircraft | Trainers | Transport

 

Italy 5.942 | 1.769 | 468

Japan 45.363 | 15.201 | 1.350

Germany 94.279 | 11.546 | 3.079

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

145.584 28.516 4.897

 

 

Combat Aircraft | Trainers | Transport

 

Canada & E.Grp 6.501 | 10.000 | 468

UK 84.111 | 31.894 | 1.784

USSR 128.847 | 4.061 | 17.332

USA 197.760 | 57.623 | 23.929

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

417.219 103.578 43.045

 

 

 

Source: Brute Force - John Ellis

Table 41, table 42 :smartass:

[Tomsk]

Thanks Starfire, that's really interesting. I knew the allies outnumbered the axis, but it's good to see some numbers on it.