Jump to content

FW190D9 can't dogfight.


Snapage

Recommended Posts

On 7/13/2022 at 8:21 AM, Doughguy said:

Didnt want to get too technical 😶

After few more flights im getting the hang of the angry lawnmower. Gotta fly it in a very specific way only otherwise ones dead meat.

Reshade helped alot with the spotting issue.

Still struggeling with any type of evasive manouvering in the dora as this thing departs just damn quick.

Eg when i do a lag roll i usually start with a flat turn yoyo then stick opposite direction and pull back and rudder same direction as stick. Works like a charm with the mustang even with lower speeds but with the dora.. idk. Maybe i should go back to basics with manouvering since im self taught. Any specific order of inputs for above manouver? It sort of works fine at higher speeds eg 500kph but if i pull back to hard on the stick (bout same as mustang gut feeling wise) the thing departs and snap rolls back... not to speak of speeds above 300kph...

Same with scissors. Be it flat or rolling. 

If i cant execute a lagroll fast and tigth it kinda defies the purpose. Any suggestions?

I know ones to fight in vertical with the dora and to run away and reengage. That usually works. But youre not always safe from f*ckups.

 

Would try barrel Rolls at medicore Speeds 300-400 kmh 190 is the best rolling WW2 Bird. But be flown clean roll with Aileron and Rudder coordinated. There no wiggle and flying backwards required, that cost you only valid potential energy to re-engage your Opponent

 

 

Once you have tasted Flight, you will forever walk the Earth with your Eyes turned Skyward.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

9./JG27

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am 14.7.2022 um 16:54 schrieb MAD-MM:

Would try barrel Rolls at medicore Speeds 300-400 kmh 190 is the best rolling WW2 Bird. But be flown clean roll with Aileron and Rudder coordinated. There no wiggle and flying backwards required, that cost you only valid potential energy to re-engage your Opponent

 

 

Looks good. How much rudder/aileron do you apply or how do you coordinate it. Ive tried these rolls in horizontal flight mainly w/o much success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Doughguy said:

Looks good. How much rudder/aileron do you apply or how do you coordinate it. Ive tried these rolls in horizontal flight mainly w/o much success.

Probably in horizontal orientation there is not enough energy to perform roll like this.

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

On behalf of the "Dora was bnz" only thing, everyone talks about.

 

Consider several facts.

Firstly, the FW was designed as fighter first, the groundpounding was attached later.

Does anyone really believe she had no turningcapabillities? Like we see in DCS? In the D9 you have to have like 600+ kph for it to not snap over the left wing as soon as you pull more than 1/5 of the stick. (And other prominet sims feature that too)

There was that kind of escapemanouver where you would pull hard if attacked to jinx out of the way like this, but it was achieved by instantly pulling very hard upwards, not by trying to fly a somewhat tight turn.

What is the point in building a fighterplane that can not even outturn some bombers like this?

No one would ever build a fighter like this. Even more so a fighter praised by even its opponents for its lethality.

I keep reading that german pilots only attacked if they were in a favourable position and while they certainly aimed for that we all (as airwarfareenthusiasts) should know better about the reality of the war. Especially at 43 onwards there would have been no german planes in the air at all, no matter what front you look at. The fact that there were and even that some pilots did pretty well shows how good their aircraft still were.

Even as the trainingtime dwindled down to only a few hours before the first combat sortie, some managed to do their job and prevail. (Allthough admittedly most of them died before their tenth sortie)

Do you honestly think a young, halfassedly trained pilot had the nerve to bnz with allied fighters on its six? We all started as newbies, we all were at that place and i know next to all of us gave in to our insticts and turned at that very moment. Ppl back then were not different from us today in how they behave under stress and the danger of losing their life. (Most decisions taken while fearing death are not wise anyway)

There is just no way FWs behaved that badly like it is depicted in modern sims, sorry i am not buying that.

Oh and beeing from the country which build and operated these planes has the benefits of reading firsthandaccounts of surviving pilots in their motherlanguage. And while you could argue that it was no D9, i once read about a guy flying in an TA152 C2 or 3 (very few took to the air, even less had contact with the enemie) and he stated, that he was fighting a Typhoon during the last days of the war, at chimneyheight and while he was pulling his stick rather gently, the tiffi had already wingedgevaportrails and eventually snapped over, crashing to the ground. Designwise the Ta is more or less an updated D9 with another engine. So they should not behave that much differently.

 

So my point is, that the FW190 was probably a far better plane than we know it, or else the fighterproduction had remained on the Me109 entirely and no pilot at all would have flown it. Oh and the accounts of allied testpilots are also not to be taken as gospel, as they usually failed to perform axis fighters the way the repective pilots were trained to. No matter if it is about german, italian, or japanese planes.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord_Pyro said:

What is the point in building a fighterplane that can not even outturn some bombers like this?

No one would ever build a fighter like this.

Yet many aeroplanes were built like that 🤣🤣🤣 . Now you mention, Hellcat and or Corsair vs Zero? Built well after they knew Zero's capabilities, yet still they didn't design them as the kind of dogfighter some people think. Dogfighting isn't always and solely turn and burn, just that

 

2 hours ago, Lord_Pyro said:

Does anyone really believe she had no turning capabillities?

I don't believe nor I have to, I've seen the charts, either allied tests after the war or German ones (they're there, no secret on that) 😉 . I keep my comparison just for consistency sake, does anybody believe they designed Hellcat or Corsair with no turning capabilities at all compared to Zero or almost any other Japanese fighter? What could they have in their minds to do so?? No more questions your honour

 

2 hours ago, Lord_Pyro said:

There is just no way FWs behaved that badly like it is depicted in modern sims, sorry i am not buying that.

Then don't buy, but "behave badly" is your opinion, not how the actual aeroplane performed, keep that in mind. You're looking for a kind of combat (turn and burn, like every PS kid out there) that weren't the kind the aircraft was designed for. Whenever you want to use it the way it wasn't designed for it's bad behaved, sure it is. But what are you comparing to?

 

2 hours ago, Lord_Pyro said:

… i once read about a guy flying in an TA152 C2 or 3 (very few took to the air, even less had contact with the enemie)

Well, we were fine but here you slipped all the way. Only a couple Ta-152C were build according to sources (yeah, we all here are aviation nerds), they were still in really early prototype state. Anyhow, let's say some test pilot had to fight for his life in any of them (BTW the Ta-152H anecdote about Kurt Tank himself outrunning P-51s is known to be apocryphal… ahem…), but Ta-152C sported a DB603, so not even close to the Jumo 213 we have here, AND yes, the wing plant was redesigned (check your sources, it's not H model but still longer wings with rounded wingtips, it's a different one and since it never "flew" I wouldn't know it's performances) so it's a totally different aircraft and not just a closely related one, while D-9 sported the exact same wing as A-8 it was developed from. Assuming it was the superhigh performance aircraft they sell it were (funny they didn't manage to finish only a couple of examples before war ended, it's still debated if more than one BTW) no, you can't just compare it to D-9 straight away. Not even close. And still, I'm sure that wasn't a turn and burn aircraft, low lever fighter, yes, but no T&B…


As said, charts are there, just check them, and search these very forums, you aren't the first one to "debate" this here (some folks even tried to tell aeronautical engineers they knew better 😅). But data is data while believes and hearsay stories are just that. BTW, I don't think FW190 in any flavour was a bad aircraft at all (or the couple we have in DCS, for the purpose), it is a quite good aircraft just meant to be used in a certain way.


Edited by Ala13_ManOWar

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about that i want to use it a certain way and i am not crying if it doesn't do that. It was more about the fact that people rule out any turning performance at all saying you can/could only bnz with her. Same stories are told countless times about 109s, yet if you ask(ed) regular Pilots about it they call that bull<profanity> and tell you, that they just used some flaps and had never any problems in a turning fight.

 

You just cant fly bnz only, such a world does not exist. You also can't pick your terms of fighting everytime, running if the odds are bad, nor could the actual pilots. Thats wishfull thinking. They had to make do with what planes they got and if they were low and slow, had some spit turning in they just would not climb away but turned as hard as they could. And i guess it worked maybe not all of the time but more often than not.

 

Thats all i wanted to point out.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Lord_Pyro said:

It was more about the fact that people rule out any turning performance at all saying you can/could only bnz with her.

In fact, Fw190's turning performances (charts for reference) are better than some allied fighters, it's just it's better at high altitude and above (can't recall the exact number, but let's say) 400Km/H IAS and you know most people in sims don't ever hold that kind of speed nor they bother, they don't even try and just pull the stick all the way back and that's all, but that's no bad aircraft, that's bad management and lack of knowledge to take advantage of that.
 

7 hours ago, Lord_Pyro said:

Same stories are told countless times about 109s, yet if you ask(ed) regular Pilots about it they call that bull<profanity> and tell you, that they just used some flaps and had never any problems in a turning fight.

That's different and probably here you're thinking more on another titles, right? Bf109 used to be the best turning aircraft in DCS… Until they "nerfed" it? No. Until the Spitfire happened 🤣 🤣 . If you know Bf109K4 in DCS then you know it's a good turn and burn aircraft depending on what you're facing, vs P-51? All the way. vs P-47? Yes, but careful, that beast can run and slip. Against Spitfire? You're the B&Z there, don't try to outturn a Spit IX. Bf109 isn't bad in that at all, but it's portrayed like that in other balanced games, yes, but not here mate. Though here we were talking Fw190 and yes, check 190 wing load, check engine power, check charts, the 190 wasn't designed to just turn, it could outturn other aircraft at high speed which perhaps was easier when they had all the performance advantage in 1941-42, but look at the numbers, Fw190A-8 had roughly the same engine than those early variants while weight was just way higher. It's not a beliefs matter, it's  maths matter. Should we get an A-5, to say something, some day it would be probably a way better aircraft in that regard, lighter and a bit more nimble (a bit), but A-8? It was what it was. And since Dora is just an A-8 in another engine we got what it is.

On top of that, think Dora's best performances are at altitude, something we almost never do in sims… the inline engine was mounted for high altitude performances, with that monster speed at ground level only being a side effect, but it wasn't meant to perform at low altitudes and yet it can, Dora is almost twin with the P-51. Just don't use it to turn like an ice skater. It's like it was always said, know your machine better than your enemy knows his and you'll be victorious every time. The other way around ends up badly usually.


Edited by Ala13_ManOWar
  • Like 2

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord_Pyro said:

You just cant fly bnz only, such a world does not exist. You also can't pick your terms of fighting everytime, running if the odds are bad, nor could the actual pilots. Thats wishfull thinking. They had to make do with what planes they got and if they were low and slow, had some spit turning in they just would not climb away but turned as hard as they could. And i guess it worked maybe not all of the time but more often than not.

 

Turning really hard isn't the be-all and end-all of defensive flying. The FW-190 with its great roll rate can spoil attacks, force overshoots, win scissors fights. Its speed allows its pilot to disengage once he has an opening and run from fights he isn't likely to win. Can a slower, more maneuverable fighter outturn the FW-190? Sure, but how about two? Or four? Fights often aren't fair. But if you can run away from a single Spitfire, you can run away from a full squadron of them just as well.

Of course in any defensive scenario you are at a disadvantage, pretty much by definition. And not every fight can be won, regardless of what you do. Particularly if you've already given the enemy every possible advantage to begin with - like in your scenario above.

Also consider that a turning fight, whether you initiate it or it's forced on you, will probably take you all the way to the deck. You'll be slow, you'll have poor SA, any friendlies you were escorting will be gone, any bombers you were intercepting will be gone. Even if you win, you will be at the mercy of anyone who shows up to investigate. Defensively it's definitely better than dying, offensively - not a great option in most cases.

So, to sum up, being able to turn well is nice and the FW-190 is (broadly speaking) not a great turn fighter, but...

1) as Ala13_ManOWar said, it's not as bad at it as you initially made it out to be

2) turning isn't your only defensive option and usually isn't your best offensive option

... so since everything in airplane design is a trade-off, sometimes sacrificing some turning ability for other advantages can be preferable.


Edited by lmp
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how high is that probability? Based on what? Your gut feeling?

The sheer statement that fighter x can turn better/worse than fighter y is very one/two dimensional in a 3 dimensional environment...

What speed? What altitude?

This is what also matters alot! A turn fight up high with a mustang is pretty much your death sentence. The wings dont produce enough lift compared to the mustang. Hence you had the t152 h which was essentially a glider on roid rage.

Now fighting below the mustangs supercharger stage height will give different results... the dora can outrun mustangs and extend rather easily. 

In my observations below 5k meters the dora can also out turn the mustang with enough speed or flaps down. 

Albeit one has to be careful as the 190s bleed speed fast and youll be going slow fast and end up hitting the deck flying treetop level which is not always a good position to be in.

Lag pursuit is your friend with the occasional lead persuits in the vertical turns. Imagine the dora bein a stalking wolf that runs down its prey. And wolfs usually fight in packs.

However in my experience flying the mustang and dora the mustang has some problems flying slow and manouvering even with flaps out compared to the dora. The mustang gets instable and stalls quite a bit faster compared to the 190s.that can go slow a bit better.

Im not a good 190 pilot but she can do alot. Certainly turn. Even if its just momentarily which often is enough to shred a pony to pieces.

But youre better off fighting in the vertical using yo yos and dives. Especially if you fight on your own.

If you dogfight and theres a wingman youre gonna be dead rather quick.

I have my fair share of disputes with the dora myself as shes bit more unstable compared to the anton (and the revi is just whack..)  but if you try to maintain energy and set your speed parameters as limits youll always be on top, given you can act from favourable pos.

If you cant cause youre being jumped on run. Fast. If you cant do that go idle and use barrelrolls or flat scissors to shake of the attacker and run.

Yes b&z only can be dull. War usually was. With seconds of terror on between.

Pilots often flew sorties w/o any contact at all.

And aces were shot down. German aces even 2 3 4 times.


Edited by Doughguy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/24/2022 at 2:14 PM, Lord_Pyro said:

On behalf of the "Dora was bnz" only thing, everyone talks about.

 

Consider several facts.

Firstly, the FW was designed as fighter first, the groundpounding was attached later.

Does anyone really believe she had no turningcapabillities? Like we see in DCS? In the D9 you have to have like 600+ kph for it to not snap over the left wing as soon as you pull more than 1/5 of the stick. (And other prominet sims feature that too)

There was that kind of escapemanouver where you would pull hard if attacked to jinx out of the way like this, but it was achieved by instantly pulling very hard upwards, not by trying to fly a somewhat tight turn.

What is the point in building a fighterplane that can not even outturn some bombers like this?

No one would ever build a fighter like this. Even more so a fighter praised by even its opponents for its lethality.

I keep reading that german pilots only attacked if they were in a favourable position and while they certainly aimed for that we all (as airwarfareenthusiasts) should know better about the reality of the war. Especially at 43 onwards there would have been no german planes in the air at all, no matter what front you look at. The fact that there were and even that some pilots did pretty well shows how good their aircraft still were.

Even as the trainingtime dwindled down to only a few hours before the first combat sortie, some managed to do their job and prevail. (Allthough admittedly most of them died before their tenth sortie)

Do you honestly think a young, halfassedly trained pilot had the nerve to bnz with allied fighters on its six? We all started as newbies, we all were at that place and i know next to all of us gave in to our insticts and turned at that very moment. Ppl back then were not different from us today in how they behave under stress and the danger of losing their life. (Most decisions taken while fearing death are not wise anyway)

There is just no way FWs behaved that badly like it is depicted in modern sims, sorry i am not buying that.

Oh and beeing from the country which build and operated these planes has the benefits of reading firsthandaccounts of surviving pilots in their motherlanguage. And while you could argue that it was no D9, i once read about a guy flying in an TA152 C2 or 3 (very few took to the air, even less had contact with the enemie) and he stated, that he was fighting a Typhoon during the last days of the war, at chimneyheight and while he was pulling his stick rather gently, the tiffi had already wingedgevaportrails and eventually snapped over, crashing to the ground. Designwise the Ta is more or less an updated D9 with another engine. So they should not behave that much differently.

 

So my point is, that the FW190 was probably a far better plane than we know it, or else the fighterproduction had remained on the Me109 entirely and no pilot at all would have flown it. Oh and the accounts of allied testpilots are also not to be taken as gospel, as they usually failed to perform axis fighters the way the repective pilots were trained to. No matter if it is about german, italian, or japanese planes.

I agree completely....

Obsessed with FM's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Doughguy said:

The wings dont produce enough lift compared to the mustang. Hence you had the t152 h which was essentially a glider on roid rage.

You cannot see the forest for the trees.  A FW prop is always much more efficient than  P-51's 4 bladed prop meaning more lift over the wings on the top speed range....,   lift,...... meaning it was deliberately  designed with smaller  wings (area) .....to reduce drag as also it probably didn't even need bigger ones.  

All things considered, I would expect a D-9 to have similar turning performance with a mustang if not a little better...( Especially if we also consider the powerful rear horizontal stabiliser and the fact that the engines are of comparable shp power). Not in any case what we see in DCS....

 

PS: Don't even think of starting to  argue about not considering the larger  P51 prop diameter without weighing the fact that FW Props have much larger prop airfoil chord...


Edited by fapador

Obsessed with FM's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, fapador said:

You cannot see the forest for the trees.  A FW prop is always much more efficient than  P-51's 4 bladed prop meaning more lift over the wings on the top speed range....,   lift,...... meaning it was deliberately  designed with smaller  wings (area) .....to reduce drag as also it probably didn't even need bigger ones.  

All things considered, I would expect a D-9 to have similar turning performance with a mustang if not a little better...( Especially if we also consider the powerful rear horizontal stabiliser and the fact that the engines are of comparable shp power). Not in any case what we see in DCS....

It's you sleeping here, no, a propeller don't give you any lift advantage no matter how efficient they are (which German propellers aren't more efficient than American ones, BTW). Smaller wings means higher weight per square inch hence higher wing load which means less manoeuvrability-turning performance. No, a D-9 doesn't turn better than a P-51 except at high speeds, it's in the charts, German ones also. Then again, you agree with something I already explained to OP and he agreed in the end with that explanation. Keep reading.

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

t's you sleeping here, no, a propeller don't give you any lift advantage no matter how efficient they are (which German propellers aren't more efficient than American ones, BTW). Smaller wings means higher weight per square inch hence higher wing load which means less manoeuvrability-turning performance. No, a D-9 doesn't turn better than a P-51 except at high speeds, it's in the charts, German ones also. Then again, you agree with something I already explained to OP and he agreed in the end with that explanation. Keep reading.

Completely false statements....

Also the P-51's wing has a CL-max of 1.28 *Freeflow*, at idle that is probably 1.47, while the Fw-190's is probably around 1.80.

There's no doubt what so ever that the Fw-190D-9 will outturn the P-51D, although not by a whole lot, but the Dora-9 does turn tighter nonetheless. The reason being that the Dora-9 has both a lower lift-loading and power-loading, as-well as lighter elevator stick forces at high speeds.

Oscar Boesch from Sturmstaffel 1, also stated that in a very tight and high speed turn the Fw-190 only required one hand on the stick. This allowed the pilot to get a much better feel for what the aircraft was doing, allowing him to fly at the edge of the envelope at all speeds. As a matter of fact, the FW-190 experienced an almost dangerous reduction of stick forces at high speeds. No loss of control, just an increased chance to stress the airframe.

12 minutes ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

a propeller don't give you any lift advantage no matter how efficient

I am LMAO. 

Cause its like saying air speed doesnt increase lift....


Edited by fapador

Obsessed with FM's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also some Aerodynamical P-51 vs Fw-190  comparison it can be easily seen that FW wins everywhere...

he statistics don't explain why the P-51, which not only fares worse at the factors below (with the exception of the thickness), but was also heavier (Fw-190 Max. Weight: 4,839 kg versus P-51D Max. Weight: 5,489 kg) and had less power (Fw-190 2,240 HP versus P-51D 1,790 HP) , able to fly at roughly the same max speed (Fw-190 Max. Speed: 704 km/h. versus P-51D Max.Speed: 703 km/h), and rate of climb (Fw-190 Max. Climb: 1110 m/min versus P-51D Max. Climb: 1011 m/min)?

Airfoil Thickness Ratio - Higher is better.
Fw-190: Root= 15.3% Tip= 9% .
P-51D: Root= 14.8 or 15% Tip= 12%.

Wing Aspect Ratio - Higher is better.
Fw-190: 6.02.
P-51D: 5.81 .

Lift-loading - Lower is better.
Fw-190: 154.33 kg/sq.m. (31.5 lbs/sq.ft.)
P-51D: 181.73 kg/sq.m. (37.18 lbs/sq.ft.)

Power-loading - Lower is better.
Fw-190: 1.91 kg/hp. (4.22 lbs/hp.)
P-51D: 2.81 kg/hp. (6.2 lbs/hp.)

Obsessed with FM's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

A reminder for all, please treat each other with respect. 

thank you 

  • Like 1

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
3 hours ago, fapador said:

Also some Aerodynamical P-51 vs Fw-190  comparison it can be easily seen that FW wins everywhere...

he statistics don't explain why the P-51, which not only fares worse at the factors below (with the exception of the thickness), but was also heavier (Fw-190 Max. Weight: 4,839 kg versus P-51D Max. Weight: 5,489 kg) and had less power (Fw-190 2,240 HP versus P-51D 1,790 HP) , able to fly at roughly the same max speed (Fw-190 Max. Speed: 704 km/h. versus P-51D Max.Speed: 703 km/h), and rate of climb (Fw-190 Max. Climb: 1110 m/min versus P-51D Max. Climb: 1011 m/min)?

Airfoil Thickness Ratio - Higher is better.
Fw-190: Root= 15.3% Tip= 9% .
P-51D: Root= 14.8 or 15% Tip= 12%.

Wing Aspect Ratio - Higher is better.
Fw-190: 6.02.
P-51D: 5.81 .

Lift-loading - Lower is better.
Fw-190: 154.33 kg/sq.m. (31.5 lbs/sq.ft.)
P-51D: 181.73 kg/sq.m. (37.18 lbs/sq.ft.)

Power-loading - Lower is better.
Fw-190: 1.91 kg/hp. (4.22 lbs/hp.)
P-51D: 2.81 kg/hp. (6.2 lbs/hp.)

Remember the pilot is the ultimate equalizer. Please include tracks where you think the Dora is failing you and I will look into it. If no evidence is presented from the Sim I will close this and move on. 

  • Like 2

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yesterday i did some further flying and noticed that i forgot to do one important thing, which i did for most of my dcs aircraft.

And that's applying 25-30% curves to my achsisinputs. Now the dora behaves like one would expect from a fighter. Not hyperresponsive entering stalls even by slight movements.

 

So that was one of the rare occassions where the fault was infront of the screen 😛

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord_Pyro said:

Yesterday i did some further flying and noticed that i forgot to do one important thing, which i did for most of my dcs aircraft.

And that's applying 25-30% curves to my achsisinputs. Now the dora behaves like one would expect from a fighter. Not hyperresponsive entering stalls even by slight movements.

And it tells a lot (good of course) of you to acknowledge it 😉 .

 

3 hours ago, Lord_Pyro said:

So that was one of the rare occassions where the fault was infront of the screen 😛

🤣🤣🤣  :thumbup:

  • Like 2

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The way to dogfight allied mustang is to out chandelle it in vertical. 

Inevitably there s maybe 25 kmh top speed gap in favor of dora and this allows to gain more altitude in chandelle then pursuing mustang. 

This is risky but is possible when done carefully. Otherwise the plane thrives off hit and run tactics and team support. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...