Damage from my guns on FW190

[Echo38]

P38l 0.16 hp/lb vs 109g 0.21 hp/lb

Power to mass ratio favors the 109 g

 

As I already pointed out a few posts ago, you are rigging your comparisons by using inaccurate figures. These are not accurate & representative numbers. P-38L generally had a superior power-to-weight ratio to the Me 109G. 0.23 is a much more accurate figure for the P-38L's standard power-to-weight ratio. (Under the best of conditions, later in the war, it was ~0.25 or more.) You appear to be scrounging for the very worst power-to-weight ratio figures you can find for the P-38, which smacks of bias. This is about the same as comparing a 109 with full fuel and bombs and a P-47 with half a tank, and using that comparison to say that the P-47 was more nimble. Not good.

 

With all that research i belive you.

 

You should rather go check it out for yourself, and see whether what I'm saying is true. Twenty years ago, it wouldn't have been an option for most people; short of a road trip to the National Archives or something like that, there wasn't a way to get ahold of many of the old documents. But since the Internet, there's been uploaded a trove of things which show some of the less-well-researched but better-known books to be in error. While my reading is extensive compared to nearly any flight simmer's (and even compared to that of many real pilots), I only did a small fraction of the research done by the guys who throw their everything into it--the kind who actually make the trips to the archives and painstakingly copy these things from the microfilm. They've done a lot of work so that people like you and me can benefit from it, and so that this knowledge is not lost to the world and replaced by misimpression.

 

Much like you, unless you are quite old and have experience flying these birds back in combat, I only go by what I have read as well

 

This is true--I do not have any hands-on experience with any real warbirds (short of having had the wonderful opportunity to sit in the cockpits of a few of them, with the engines off--which, of course, is irrelevant). Nor have I interviewed pilots & engineers, or compiled charts from test reports, none of that sort of thing. Still, I did put a lot of time and effort into trying to understand the subject. The vast majority of flight simmers put little effort into trying to figure out how the real aircraft were; they read a few pilot stories, maybe a survey-level book or two, and browse Wikipedia; unfortunately, they then often consider themselves informed. I've done a great deal more than that, but I still don't consider myself truly expert. Not even close--only an expert in comparison to the sort who use Wikipedia as the primary source.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Echo38

[NineLine]

The vast majority of flight simmers put little effort into trying to figure out how the real aircraft were...

 

Of course, not everyone finds historical documents interesting or comprehensible either, even major sources online only tell a 3rd of the story, archived documents offline hold another third of it, and what amazes me, the most forgotten part... the pilots themselves... because a test pilot can do something with this or that plane doesnt mean a raw rookie in his first combat flight can... how many pilots pushed these planes beyond their capabilities to survive... flight reports on enemy fighters (held as a holy grail) that were patched up but possible not running at 100%, so while I do enjoy a healthly respectful debate on the WWII era warbirds, at the end of the day, its more about the love of the era of flight than anything else... everything else needs to be taken with a grain of salt :)

[Der_Fred]

Originally Posted by Echo38

The vast majority of flight simmers put little effort into trying to figure out how the real aircraft were...

 

There's a funny thing about simulations.. and it sounds similar to IL2 wrt to modelling.... when people started complaining that it 'was not right'..

 

Here we go again with DCS..

 

:-)

[Der_Fred]

Originally Posted by Echo38

The vast majority of flight simmers put little effort into trying to figure out how the real aircraft were...

So tell me, how were these real aircraft.. and how do compare in a sim, and against other sim aircraft...

 

Could you give us a objective comparison, as well as a subjective one ?

 

:-)

[Echo38]

Could you give us a objective comparison, as well as a subjective one?

 

You will, of course, forgive me if I decline to run about digging up once more a mass of graphs, charts, and other wartime documents for the purpose of feeding a troll's amusement. As I said a few posts ago, the info's out there--the fact that you can't be arsed to go look at it yourself is more than enough proof to me that you don't really care.

[sobek]

Go easy on the namecalling, plz.

[Der_Fred]

Ditto

[NineLine]

Settle it in the skies boys :)

[Der_Fred]

:-) True

Waiting for my Dora !!

[Der_Fred]

..with AFM

[Bearcat]

And the fact the 190 in real life was known for taking damage and continued flying.

Mostly, the radial engine variety though.

I am looking forward to the day, where the realistic AI damage model is implemented and smoke and fluid loss have an impact. And a tweak on ours were you can't lose manifold pressure and your prop governor from a single bullet originating from dead astern. That will be very cool.

 

There was an inline 190?

[Hans-Joachim Marseille]

[/url]

There was an inline 190?

 

Indeed there was the Junkers Jumo 213 inline powerplant in the "Dora" ... the outer appearance kept suggesting radial, although noselength visibly

to allow room for the larger inline engine. The tail was lenghtened to compensate for shifted weight balance because of the heavier engine. The wingspan also increased.
Edited July 16, 2013 by Hans-Joachim Marseille

[gavagai]

There was an inline 190?

 

Fw 190D-9, bearcat.

[Merlin-27]

The exhaust stacks are for the inverted V12

[Yob]

They changed it to increase high attitude speed and engine power. They kept the Radial radiator from the Ju-88. This meant that the new D series looked like a stretched radial but was in actual fact a inline Junkers Jumo 213 engine.

[Der_Fred]

Back to OP... This track shows no prob with the FW190 AI 'challenged' :)

DoraDay.trk