WWII FW190's, how good were they in dogfights?

"John Waters" wrote in message m...
wrote in message
...
Trying to fly these in the game IL2 is a waste of time, they are really
crap. I can't believe this was realistic in comparison to other fighters
of
the time. Anyone know how good the real planes were and/or what their
major
weaknesses were?

Biggest problem about computer games I have discovered so far is
Earth's G effect is ignored (the egg) along with no unloaded (zero-G)
accleration increase. The gun ranges far exceed actual effective
ranges in real life, as well as the lead requirements are way too
small. For example, co-speed 400KIAS, 1500 foot range, 5 G, the pipper
sags down below the nose in an F104A - your target's wings stick out
each side of the radome. Also, fuel consumption is also way too low,
at a guesstimate about 1/4 what it really is in combat.
Walt BJ

(WaltBJ) wrote:

Biggest problem about computer games I have discovered so far is
Earth's G effect is ignored (the egg) along with no unloaded (zero-G)
accleration increase. The gun ranges far exceed actual effective
ranges in real life, as well as the lead requirements are way too
small. For example, co-speed 400KIAS, 1500 foot range, 5 G, the pipper
sags down below the nose in an F104A - your target's wings stick out
each side of the radome. Also, fuel consumption is also way too low,
at a guesstimate about 1/4 what it really is in combat.

I used to play around with FA18 Fighter and if you were in a fast chase you ran
it dry real quick. Also couldn't reach a running Russian with a Sidewinder
unless you were real close.

These days I sometimes play with Microsoft's WWII Combat Flight Sim. A friend
who flew P47's found it pretty amazing and I have compared it to the gun camera
films I have and the range and leads seem about right (except the tracers go
the same place as the other rounds, which I understand is not quite right). In
fact, I taped the computer video in black and white and edited it in among
camera film and it looks pretty darn good.

The physics models are good with the P47 feeling heavy and slugish compared to
the P51. The German planes are much different and rather twitchy. Of course,
they were supposed to be fast climbing interceptors versus the Allies need for
long range escorts.

BTW, the Spitfires are nice till you get P51s but the Hurricanes have a turning
radius and roll rate that seems to be an advantage in some engagements. I
wonder if this reflects real conditions?

-- Charlie Springer

BTW, the Spitfires are nice till you get P51s but the Hurricanes have a
turning
radius and roll rate that seems to be an advantage in some engagements. I
wonder if this reflects real conditions?

I went about European Air War completely backwards - flying missions in Me 262s
and P-47s against essentially sitting ducks (B-24s and He 111s, respectively).
After a couple years playing it and trying nearly every aircraft, I flew a
couple campaigns set on realistic (read: landing by parachute was considered a
success) and the best fighter v fighter in the game was a Spit IX. Close
second, as far as flying a whole campaign, was the Hurricane. That thing had a
ton of guns and most of what was being fired back was light enough that, when
hit, you could bail out over friendly territory and begin again. Defending
Beachy Head from a sky full of 110s seemed pretty realistic, *for a game*. One
thing I hate about WWII flight sims is that aircraft in bomber streams never
seem to feel effects of turbulance. Formations bob ever so gently in rhythmic
patterns at a set airspeed, like perfect robots. 10+ Mosquitos fly along at
12,000' in loose groups at 280 knots, serene as nuns as you fall in astern.
Yah, that's realism.

Has anyone seen a decent nightfighter sim? Something in a Mosquito or Beau..?

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

An LZ is a place you want to land, not stay.

Has anyone seen a decent nightfighter sim? Something in a Mosquito or Beau..?

Nothing on that front, Gordon. There's been discussions about the
subject and while it would be quite easy to put the right planes into
night skies, everything else is way harder to make.

Radar, for example. It would be immensely hard to make a radar display
that works like the original. Having computer voice give you corrections
from "his" radar display could work, but that would lack the feeling.
Night war was so technical, that you know, it would be mostly flying in
dark sky and not seeing anything - and that would bore 99,5% of the players.

THOUGH...

We did run a three battle long night bombers campaign on WarBirds
simualtor a few years ago. It was fantastic, though very hard.

We managed to do it with a lot of tweaking. Many interesting things
"adjusted" to make a daylight air combat sim to work in a night bomber
scenario, but it worked surprisingly well. Skipping the details, the RAF
bombers did not have any radars, RAF night intruders had partial radar
picture, Luftwaffe night fighters had no radar and Luftwaffe ground
control had full radar picture. This worked in teh in flight map, little
dots moving in the map and we limited that each and every person could
see. Very rough, not like a real radar at all but best what we could do.

Most of the planes were almost correct, some changes with sub variants,
just that the Lancaster had to be replaced by B-24.

In the end, the scenarios were amazing. The pilots flying in almost
blind, relying largely on instruments, Luftwaffe interceptors listening
to ground radar comms and trying to find the bomber streams from
blackness, me as CO of one night fighter squadron plotting the map,
moving counters on tablemap, trying to guide the night fighters around
RAF intruders hunting near airfields and yelling to the guys on radio
(real time voice comms) when they were too late making a turn or druly
commenting "scharm 3, you're in middle of bomber stream". "Control, we
don't see anything..." "Scharm 3, watch again, I repeat you are in
middle of 12+ bombers, control out".

So night bombers can be simulated in some way, in at least correct
online environment, but I don't quite see much changes for a dedicated
simulator. One was in the works by hobbyists but I think that project
has died.

Here's some info/pictures on the night bombers battle:
http://vip.mikrobitti.fi/~jukkak/wb/...ns.htm#emc15.1

jok

Regnirps wrote:

snip

BTW, the Spitfires are nice till you get P51s but the Hurricanes have a turning
radius and roll rate that seems to be an advantage in some engagements. I
wonder if this reflects real conditions?

AFAIR it does, at least prior to the Spits getting metal ailerons (which boosted
their roll rate at high IAS). That came in starting as a retrofit on either Mk.
IIs or Mk. Vs, I forget which. IIRR, the Hurricane I could out-turn the Spit I at
low/medium altitudes, but the Spit had better speed up high so it had a more Ps
available up there, where the Hurricane was hanging on a stall while maxed out.

Guy

On Sun, 23 May 2004 05:21:00 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

AFAIR it does, at least prior to the Spits getting metal ailerons (which boosted
their roll rate at high IAS). That came in starting as a retrofit on either Mk.
IIs or Mk. Vs, I forget which.

Officially, Mk Vs, but that didn't stop some unit commanders (e.g.
Bader at Tangmere) short-circuiting the procurement procedure to get
their Mk IIs fitted with them. They apparently weren't common on the
Mk V until late in 1941, as Neville Duke complained when his
metal-aileroned Mk V was lost on operations with another pilot that
summer. And that was when he was with 92 Squadron, the first to get
Spit Vs.

Gavin Bailey
--

Now see message: "Boot sector corrupt. System halted. All data lost."
Spend thousands of dollar on top grade windows system. Result better
than expected. What your problem? - Bart Kwan En

In article ,
(WaltBJ) wrote:

"John Waters" wrote in message
m...
wrote in message
...
Trying to fly these in the game IL2 is a waste of time, they are really
crap. I can't believe this was realistic in comparison to other fighters
of
the time. Anyone know how good the real planes were and/or what their
major
weaknesses were?

Biggest problem about computer games I have discovered so far is
Earth's G effect is ignored (the egg) along with no unloaded (zero-G)
accleration increase. The gun ranges far exceed actual effective
ranges in real life, as well as the lead requirements are way too
small.

Try WarBirds. It has all that right.

You can download it and fly offline for free.

--
Laurie Nyveen da
__________________________________________________ _____________________
Editor, Netsurfer Digest http://www.netsurf.com/nsd
Editor, WWII TechPubs http://www.wwiitechpubs.info
101 "Red" Squadron, Israel http://www.101squadron.com

"All we are, basically, are monkeys with car keys."
- Grandma Woody (Northern Exposure)

(Remove nada from Canada to e-mail me. Sorry)

Well, I dont know which flightsims you tried, but Il-2 surely can't be
blamed of having a simplyfied gunerry model. Every bullet is a vector
defined object, as well as aircraft, and collision between these objects is
what is used in IL-2 to detect hits being scored. In older sims the hit
bubble was used so it was rather easy to score hits. Now I haven't fired an
airborne weapon in my life, but IL-2 feels just about right. It also has a
state of the art flight model. I don't think you will be dissapointed if you
try it. It would also be very interesting to read what you think of it once
you've tried it.

As for jet sims, the latest thing is LOMAC which models modern jets
(F-15, A-10, Su-27, Mig-29). Jets of the '60s are soarly missed in todays
flightsim market... I'd really like a decent F-104 sim...


__/ G R E E T I N G S ! \__
\ /


"WaltBJ" wrote in message
om...
"John Waters" wrote in message
m...
wrote in message
...
Trying to fly these in the game IL2 is a waste of time, they are
really
crap. I can't believe this was realistic in comparison to other
fighters
of
the time. Anyone know how good the real planes were and/or what their
major
weaknesses were?

Biggest problem about computer games I have discovered so far is
Earth's G effect is ignored (the egg) along with no unloaded (zero-G)
accleration increase. The gun ranges far exceed actual effective
ranges in real life, as well as the lead requirements are way too
small. For example, co-speed 400KIAS, 1500 foot range, 5 G, the pipper
sags down below the nose in an F104A - your target's wings stick out
each side of the radome. Also, fuel consumption is also way too low,
at a guesstimate about 1/4 what it really is in combat.
Walt BJ

Walt I have no idea what sim you are refering to with F104s etc, IL-2 is an
WW2 FS, that is considered by many, to be the most realistic WW2 FS made..
As to gun ranges in IL-2 they are accurate from what I have read in WW2
pilot AARs etc.

As to gravity effects etc, thats a question better presented at:

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=...102&f=63110913

Regards, John Waters


"WaltBJ" wrote in message

Biggest problem about computer games I have discovered so far is
Earth's G effect is ignored (the egg) along with no unloaded (zero-G)
accleration increase. The gun ranges far exceed actual effective
ranges in real life, as well as the lead requirements are way too
small. For example, co-speed 400KIAS, 1500 foot range, 5 G, the pipper
sags down below the nose in an F104A - your target's wings stick out
each side of the radome. Also, fuel consumption is also way too low,
at a guesstimate about 1/4 what it really is in combat.
Walt BJ