did he just say they are developing the FW190?

[Weta43]

The F-15C in its current state is only missing AFM and a clickable cockpit to be at DCS level..

This is very, very far from being the case

[Echo38]

FW-190 A5 or A8 is not an adequate opponent for the D-Mustang.

 

Why do you say this? Are you going by your experiences with the grossly-inaccurate IL-2 games?

 

The F-15C in its current state is only missing AFM and a clickable cockpit to be at DCS level.

 

That's kinda like saying, "This corpse in its current state is only missing a heartbeat and brainwaves to be a living person."

 

AFM and full-pit is more than half the story. Saying "it's only missing the majority" isn't really much of a positive statement.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Echo38

[Ala13_ManOWar]

+1

 

People seems to forget A8 was only a heavier A5, with quite similar performances, and only A series problem is +6000m performances, but any other scenery a 190A5 would easily beat a 51, why do you think all your combat would be at high level? It'll be mostly low level and 51 don't shine there but A5 does. Don't rely just on "official history" books, they are quite biased to a very silly point of view.

 

S!

[Echo38]

any other scenery a 190A5 would easily beat a 51

 

I'm not convinced that this is true, either; I'm just of the mind that those who think that the FW-190A would have no chance against the P-51 are getting their impression either from old U.S. rah-rah or else from the IL-2 game's wildly-inaccurate portrayal. I should think that the two aircraft, realistically modelled, should be an interesting and competent match. Perhaps not as similar as P-51 versus Me 109, or FW 190 versus P-47, but not nearly as one-sided as IL-2 players (and people who've been steeped in one side or another's propaganda) think.

 

IL-2 had so many enormous errors--particularly with U.S. and German aircraft & weaponry--some as large as 300% and many in the tens of percentage. Despite the colossal Ubisoft/Maddox marketing campaigns touting the game's supposed realism, IL-2 is about as reliable of a source of historical information (including absolute and relative aircraft performance) as the History Channel entertainment shows are--which is to say, not very. IL-2's aircraft performance modelling has always been a joke (and, I might add, changed broadly at nearly every patch, 'til it was like watching Disney Cinderella's dress).

 

My moderately-educated assumption is that, given reasonably-equivalent pilot skill, fuel load will make more of a difference than aircraft ability in a FW 190A vs. P-51D matchup. Assuming that the FW 190 is modelled to the DCS standard, a low-fuel FW 190 would tend to kick the tail of a high-fuel P-51D in a dogfight at "normal" altitudes, and vice versa. So even if one does tend to dominate at certain altitudes, the mission maker can use fuel mass to balance things out. (Heck, even with P-51D versus A-10C, fuel mass can make the difference between the P-51 dominating or the A-10, in high-skill duels at low and medium altitudes. Try it: 50% fuel versus 50% fuel, and then 80% fuel versus 20% fuel.)

 

In short: just because the FW 190A was no match for the P-51D in IL-2, very much does not mean that it was no match in real life. As for the historical anecdotes & statistics, bear in mind that the Luftwaffe was suffering from catastrophic logistical problems during the later years of the war, which has resulted in the aircraft themselves being maligned through misattribution.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Echo38

[Krupi]

Dora removed the Antons issues at alts over 6000m but the anton certainly could take on a p-51.

 

You have to remember some simple facts:

 

The allies on the west front had superior numbers.

 

The axis verteran pilots were slowly dwindling being replaced by green pilots.

 

Taking these into account it's clear that the P-51D/K is not a "superior" aircraft to the late war 109 or 190.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Krupi

[Ala13_ManOWar]

I'm not convinced that this is true, either; I'm just of the mind that those who think that the FW-190A would have no chance against the P-51 are getting their impression either from old U.S. rah-rah or else from the IL-2 game's wildly-inaccurate portrayal. I should think that the two aircraft, realistically modelled, should be an interesting and competent match. Perhaps not as similar as P-51 versus Me 109, or FW 190 versus P-47, but not nearly as one-sided as IL-2 players (and people who've been steeped in one side or another's propaganda) think.

 

IL-2 had so many enormous errors--particularly with U.S. and German aircraft & weaponry--some as... etc

Well, you're right, and as you say I don't take any Il-2 (although I use it of course) as a matter of fact. I mean about what I've read and see in documents, from people really knowing what they say. Keep in mind also DCS would never be "the real thing" in the meaning of real background (pilot training, relative numbers, and so). In an absolute 1vs1 doghfight, two equally trained pilots, under 6000m a 190A5 would beat most of the times a 51, at 6000+ a 51 would beat not A5 but any A model most of the times. But I think 6000m is pretty much envelope advantage to 190, isn't it? just people are thinking on bomber scorting at 9000m, of course there a 190A could perform only poorly, but we won't have that in DCS at least for a (I guess long) time. And you're quite right in the meaning of fuel, weight and so, real aircraft performs very different with different conditions. So I mean, people think on A5 as an old model and so. Not only she's not but in a middle range conditions (altitude, weight, pilots training, and so) an A5 would be a quite good performer against 51.

 

 

Anyway, we're talking and we don't know nothing about what model would be... :lol::lol::lol: But that's my point, whatever the model ANY late 190, from A5 to D9, would be good against a 51 on its better envelope (for example all of you talk about Dora, but don't say a low level Dora would be dead meat), personally would be happy whatever the model will, so complaining about something we don't know is just waste time.

 

S!

[Maximus_G]

Why do you say this? Are you going by your experiences with the grossly-inaccurate IL-2 games?

I think so because of the flight test data.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5.html

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51d-15342.html

Climb and max speed difference is enormous.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

I think so because of the flight test data.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5.html

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51d-15342.html

Climb and max speed difference is enormous.

Just speed and climb data is not all, inertias, weight, energy bleeding while maneuvering, pilot skills, that makes a difference in combat and aircraft performances. Anyway, you're comparing 3000rpm 67"ATA performance for P-51 with you don't know what conditions A5. If you fly DCS P-51 you now know 3000-67 is not a continuous working power setting for longer than 5 minutes. You should compare 2700rpm-46" data as that's max continuous working setting. And, even comparing 3000-67 data I don't see so great difference you mean.

 

S!

[Maximus_G]

Just speed and climb data is not all, inertias, weight, energy bleeding while maneuvering, pilot skills, that makes a difference in combat and aircraft performances.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf

Maneuverability section.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Maximus_G

[blkspade]

This is very, very far from being the case

 

The avionics package is another probable difference, but that is a matter of revision.

[Merlin-27]

I'm not convinced that this is true, either; I'm just of the mind that those who think that the FW-190A would have no chance against the P-51 are getting their impression either from old U.S. rah-rah or else from the IL-2 game's wildly-inaccurate portrayal. I should think that the two aircraft, realistically modelled, should be an interesting and competent match. Perhaps not as similar as P-51 versus Me 109, or FW 190 versus P-47

 

+1

 

Quite dependent upon pilots, loadout and tactical scenario along with a wonderful equalizer .... Lots and lots of historical data, which in the right hands should make for a very interesting confrontation in the virtual skies.

 

One note: You guys think shooting at the kevlar covered AI aircraft is frustrating. Can't wait to try and disable that radial. :megalol: And be careful of the head-on attacks.

[Krupi]

+1

 

Quite dependent upon pilots, loadout and tactical scenario along with a wonderful equalizer .... Lots and lots of historical data, which in the right hands should make for a very interesting confrontation in the virtual skies.

 

One note: You guys think shooting at the kevlar covered AI aircraft is frustrating. Can't wait to try and disable that radial. :megalol: And be careful of the head-on attacks.

 

:thumbup:

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Maneuverability section.

And were that talks about P-51? I only see F-4U and F-6F :music_whistling:.

 

That kind of test during war always have lacks. First it's an A4 (in 1944 if I see...), second you don't know what kind of A4 (for example may be, and probably it is, an U3 modify but they didn't knew about that), third usually allied test didn't knew German engines used 100 octane gasoline and with low octane allied fuel German engines didn't run properly, four it were perform by and experienced pilot but allied one not experienced in the model, five usually that info were pass to front line units and biased for troops moral purposes (not good to know your machine is crap compared to your enemy you fight...), should I say more? Anyway, still don't see P-51 comparison, even WWII era one, and still I think A5 is a good one against P-51 on its envelope.

 

S!

[Merlin-27]

...five usually that info were pass to front line units and biased for troops moral purposes (not good to know your machine is crap compared to your enemy you fight...), should I say more?

 

That report is a little too detailed (and classified at the time) for pure propaganda purposes. I doubt the "front line troops" had any interest in the performance specifics of each aircraft. For that matter, I'm pretty sure most of the pilots themselves had a tough time with the in-depth aerodynamics. But to falsify the report would likely put pilots lives at risk... so I doubt that is the case. Calling any of the discussed aircraft "crap" is a sign that this is more of an emotional response than anything. Yes it was not a perfect comparison. We all know this and we could all argue the same arguments that are on every other forum. I, as do most, have great respect for the German aircraft of that era and given the time and resources who knows what could have been produced or accomplished. There are too many variables to declare one aircraft "the best" but then I guess that's what make the sim environment so great. And in time, hopefully we get the chance to fly all of the great ones.

[NineLine]

I think so because of the flight test data.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5.html

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51d-15342.html

Climb and max speed difference is enormous.

 

You know its getting serious in here when someone whips out the wwiiaircraftperformance.com site...

 

:helpsmilie:

 

:lol:

[VIMANAMAN]

You know its getting serious in here when someone whips out the wwiiaircraftperformance.com site...

 

:helpsmilie:

 

:lol:

 

:lol:

[Foul Ole Ron]

I don't think it's doing a disservice to the Pony to say that, all other things being equal, it would be slightly outclassed by a FW190-D in a one-on-one dogfight. The Pony did what it was designed to do very well i.e. provide an ultra long range platform that would also be able to capably go head-to-head with the LW during these incursions. It had good speed overall with both cruise and top speed being high. In a turn fight at high speeds it was more than capable. It was relatively easy to fly for the most part and had a decent armament. It was also quick and easy to construct and numbers in a fight mean far more when the performance differences between platforms are not all that great.

 

I don't think the role played by the Pony as a war-winning weapon has been overrated. They carried the bombers to Berlin and back home again and were able to engage with the LW effectively during these missions. There was no other plane in the allied inventory that could have performed this role as well as the Pony did. The actual technical ability of the Pony in a dogfight has been overrated but I think we have to be careful not to downgrade it too much - it was still a good overall dogfighter, just not the very best.

 

In the type of multiplayer match-ups we'd see in DCS you'd have to think the FW190-D would have the edge all other things being equal. Though they never are equal in practice so would still make for some fun match-ups. Going for the FW190-A would probably make for a more balanced match overall but would be a pity to have a plane that's crippled past 20,000ft. The D would also make for better historical missions like bomber intercept with P51s flying escort. Would love to see a Spitfire Mk.XI for an equal head-to-head duel with the FW190-D at some point too.

[Vlerkies]

I'm not really bothered as to which is better worse in whatever scenario.

 

Just stoked to be getting something different, and glad its from the axis side of the fence to at some spice to the pot.

 

:thumbup:

[Echo38]

I don't think it's doing a disservice to the Pony to say that, all other things being equal, it would be slightly outclassed by a FW190-D in a one-on-one dogfight. The Pony did what it was designed to do very well i.e. provide an ultra long range platform that would also be able to capably go head-to-head with the LW during these incursions. It had good speed overall with both cruise and top speed being high. In a turn fight at high speeds it was more than capable. It was relatively easy to fly for the most part and had a decent armament. It was also quick and easy to construct and numbers in a fight mean far more when the performance differences between platforms are not all that great.

 

I don't think the role played by the Pony as a war-winning weapon has been overrated. They carried the bombers to Berlin and back home again and were able to engage with the LW effectively during these missions. There was no other plane in the allied inventory that could have performed this role as well as the Pony did. The actual technical ability of the Pony in a dogfight has been overrated but I think we have to be careful not to downgrade it too much - it was still a good overall dogfighter, just not the very best.

 

This is what I was getting at. For one example: the P-38 turned better and climbed better than the P-51 at most altitudes, when using contemporary boost ratings and comparable fuel loads. However, one could build nearly two P-51s for the cost of one P-38. On the other hand, the P-38 could be flown by just one pilot, while the pair of P-51s needs two. And yet again, the P-38 pilot needs a good deal more training to be effective with his airplane, because the twin-engine design was more complex. But, in the end, it was fuel range which made the P-51 the superior Berlin escort. The P-38 had the range to reach Berlin with the bombers, but not enough to fight effectively along the way. The '38 pilots had to make choices between trying to fight at cruise power settings, or having to abort the mission early.

 

The P-51 may have "won the war"--or, more accurately, provided a necessary contribution--but so did other aircraft, such as the '38, which was around to provide Berlin escort long before the P-51 came (although, again, the P-51's longer range did make for a better escort). Some people really do give the P-51 more credit than it deserves, in particular with regards to its dogfighting ability compared to that of other U.S. heavy fighters and of German fighters. On the other side of the coin, the IL-2 games gave the P-51 far less credit in that area than is truthful--along with the FW 190 and the other two of the "big three."

Edited January 31, 2013 by Echo38

[jermin]

IL-2 had so many enormous errors--particularly with U.S. and German aircraft & weaponry--some as large as 300% and many in the tens of percentage. Despite the colossal Ubisoft/Maddox marketing campaigns touting the game's supposed realism, IL-2 is about as reliable of a source of historical information (including absolute and relative aircraft performance) as the History Channel entertainment shows are--which is to say, not very. IL-2's aircraft performance modelling has always been a joke (and, I might add, changed broadly at nearly every patch, 'til it was like watching Disney Cinderella's dress).

 

Very well said. You have pinpointed the exact problems with IL2. That game is heavily biased towards VVS aircrafts, especially in the most recent patches. The acceleration performance of all German aircrafts are heavily undermodeled. And it takes forever for them to reach maximum level speed.

[Double_D]

WarBird Epic

 

Hello;

 

 

Cheers...:thumbup:

[Echo38]

You have pinpointed the exact problems with IL2. That game is heavily biased towards VVS aircrafts, especially in the most recent patches. The acceleration performance of all German aircrafts are heavily undermodeled.

 

I quit IL-2 around version 4.04, so I can't comment on the changes which've occurred since then, but back when I played it, the Me 109 was always, shall we say, "optimistically portrayed," but the FW 190 was not. Likewise, the U.S. aircraft were a mixed bag, with the F4U being treated well but none of the "big three" matching up to reliable data. And, of course, at every patch flight models changed dramatically, and each time "it is correct." Bah.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Echo38

[VH-Rock]

I quit IL-2 around version 4.04, so I can't comment on the changes which've occurred since then, but back when I played it, the Me 109 was always "optimistically portrayed" but the FW 190 was not. Likewise, the U.S. aircraft were a mixed bag, with the F4U being treated well but none of the "big three" matching up to reliable data. And, of course, at every patch flight models changed dramatically, and each time "it is correct." Bah.

 

haha, you've gotta love the IL-2 devs.

 

Indeed it is true that the flight models were seriously biassed in that game, but it was still a thoroughly enjoyable flight sim :)

[Echo38]

but it was still a thoroughly enjoyable flight sim

 

It was a thoroughly enjoyable game, as long as one didn't take it seriously. But as a flight sim, it was a failure. A simulation cannot be wrong in so many areas, with such large percentages of error, and have so many essential large pieces missing, and still be considered a valid simulation.

[VH-Rock]

It was a thoroughly enjoyable game, as long as one didn't take it seriously. But as a flight sim, it was a failure. A simulation cannot be wrong in so many areas, with such large percentages of error, and with so many essential large pieces missing, and still be considered a valid simulation.

 

Considering when it was first conceived, I believe it can. The problem was that the developers never moved on from that initial concept and kept developing to the original specifications so, in turn, it became more and more arcadish(?) with each patch. Don't get me wrong, I am not putting it on the same level as DCS, obviously, but I believe it deservers more credit than most people give it now. IL-2 is still a hugely popular game which is why it comes under such scrutiny. Most other sims of the same age died away one by one a long time ago.