FW190 FM Change

[Nicholaiovitch]

Originally Posted by JtD

The Kommandogerät reduced rpm to 400-500 at 0% power. Seems to be a good enough match in game.

I think I have to repeat myself - try landing another heavy, clean plane with 0% pitch (say P-47, P-51). The Fw 190 is nothing out of the ordinary.

Would you agree it is a big change to the old drag curve prior to 4.11?

Nicholaiovitch

PS This is I believe an FM discussion and not one on how to land!

[JtD]

Would you agree it is a big change to the old drag curve prior to 4.11?

No, I wouldn't.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Jumoschwanz

When I am landing any aircraft in IL2 I figure a big part of it is slowing the aircraft down, so I drop landing flaps and gear as soon as my speed is low enough so they will not break off.

When flying online combat no one wants to spend a lot of time landing, they want to get down and get back up quickly. Once in a great while I will do a drawn-out text-book landing just to show myself how well I can still do it, but that is not too often. I would bet that in WWII there were many situations when pilots did not like dawdling around landing at low altitude and speed also?

I will line myself up with the strip as best I can, drop flaps and gear as soon as I can on the approach. Usually the gear will not break if your speed is below 400-350km/hr somewhere. If I do not think I will be able to touch down at 200km/hr then I will scrub off some speed with a hard S turn or some other E-burning slow maneuver. If I am going so fast when I drop the gear that it breaks then that too is the ground crew's problem to fix the pancake damage.

The FW190 was a hot plane with a high take-off and landing speed wasn't it?
I have never taken the time to see how fast I could touch it down without it disintegrating and blowing up, but it might be fun to try landing at 250, then 300km/hr etc. and find out what the limit is....

Addition: I never used much or any flaps taking off in the 190, it was always faster not to and it always seemed the aircraft was pretty easy to lift off the ground at 200km/hr. So it makes sense that if you try to land at over that speed the aircraft will try to stay in the air. I don't know why I always tried to take off and land at around 200km/hr no matter what I was flying, it just seemed to always work well. If I had a lot of time and enjoyed it more, I might land slower or use flaps on take off.

The jamming the flaps on landing was bad advice as it just makes it harder to land. If I am taking the time to actually land, of course you want to raise the flaps as soon as you touch the ground.

I will admit that often on dogfight servers where I want to spend the most time in the air with ammo and fuel to try and meet victory conditions before time runs out, I will skip landing altogether and either pancake the aircraft in, or just bail and get a new plane. Points-whores will not like that idea though.....

Even in dogfight servers I prefer to do a proper landing... not so much for the points but for the sense of completion. Oddly I sometimes find people watching my carrier landing approaches as apparently I do it fairly well. That is to say that most people crash into the deck or superstructure so I'm a cut above catching a wire and pancaking on the deck

I do the rudder slide or some S turns to try and bleed off speed as well... maybe I was having a bad night the last time I tried it but it did seem harder than usual. I'll fly a proper mission and see what the experience is at the end.

[Nicholaiovitch]

Originally Posted by JtD

No, I wouldn't.

OK....I would agree that this issue is very subjective.

The fact is that several chaps have pointed out that the drag in the approach configuration with gear and full flaps is not really very realistic (this is apart from the issue of deceleration and nothing to do with prop pitch).

The basis for drag on approach with any a/c is to fly at 1.3VS in the approach config. and a 3deg (maybe slightly more for a high performance fighter) with stable power.

With the current drag profile of the FW190 this gives a very low power setting not representative of the wing loading and drag that this a/c should generate.

This is the limit of my knowledge and I certainly believe that the chaps at TD know a lot more than I do. However, I and few others also believe that this feature needs a little work to make it better.

That's all. Have fun!

Nicholaiovitch

[JtD]

A quick comparison between 4.101 and 4.11:
Fw 190A-5, 0% throttle, auto pitch, 100% fuel, standard load out, rads closed, flaps and gear down, gliding at 250IAS

4.101: ~20 m/s descent, 1450 rpm
4.11: ~15 m/s descent, 700 rpm

same thing engine off, prop at 0% pitch

4.101: ~16 m/s descent
4.11: ~16 m/s descent

-> It's the prop.

[II/JG54_Emil]

Originally Posted by JtD

A quick comparison between 4.101 and 4.11:
Fw 190A-5, 0% throttle, auto pitch, 100% fuel, standard load out, rads closed, flaps and gear down, gliding at 250IAS

4.101: ~20 m/s descent, 1450 rpm
4.11: ~15 m/s descent, 700 rpm

same thing engine off, prop at 0% pitch

4.101: ~16 m/s descent
4.11: ~16 m/s descent

-> It's the prop.

1+!

[Jumoschwanz]

Just something interesting I noticed right away while flying the FW190A:

I was missing many shots that I thought I should be making so I adjusted my convergence out further and seemed to be hitting as well or better than ever.

Weapons seem to be stronger to me, or maybe some aircraft are easier to damage now. When hitting IL2 Sturmovik and other eastern front aircraft with the 190A it seems they often go down in one firing pass.

Funny how in another post on this forum someone said their FW190As weapons seemed to be much weaker.

If the flight model was changed I am not sure how that would change the requirement for weapons convergence, it may not or maybe the attitude of the aircraft at speed is different, I might just be a crazy old man......

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by Jumoschwanz

Weapons seem to be stronger to me, or maybe some aircraft are easier to damage now. When hitting IL2 Sturmovik and other eastern front aircraft with the 190A it seems they often go down in one firing pass.

Though of course a well flown up-gunned A8 always could do that.

[Epsilon Eridani]

Back too prop Pitch, which has apparently become important now, though I always was manipulating it for what seemed best performance, then 100% in combat, but I digress, I read that you should lower prop pitch when landing. I looked for document, as I read these pages, and waited for next to load, but could not find, and I digress again.

Game is way better, gonna Take 190 up for spin, see if I can shoot down 16 b-17's by my self in QMB.

Thanks TD ~S~

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Jumoschwanz

Just something interesting I noticed right away while flying the FW190A:

I was missing many shots that I thought I should be making so I adjusted my convergence out further and seemed to be hitting as well or better than ever.

Weapons seem to be stronger to me, or maybe some aircraft are easier to damage now. When hitting IL2 Sturmovik and other eastern front aircraft with the 190A it seems they often go down in one firing pass.

Funny how in another post on this forum someone said their FW190As weapons seemed to be much weaker.

If the flight model was changed I am not sure how that would change the requirement for weapons convergence, it may not or maybe the attitude of the aircraft at speed is different, I might just be a crazy old man......

I call this the placebo effect

A new patch comes out and random occurrences that they would have otherwise written off are now considered features/changes/modifications to the way things used to be.

I don't think anything has changed regarding weapons. Maybe you were having an off day... or your preferred firing distance has changed over time.

When people go looking for changes people will often find them even if they aren't there. Nobody is immune