Author Topic: Jug compared to 190A8 question  (Read 1575 times)

Offline Mime

  • Parolee
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 227
Jug compared to 190A8 question
« Reply #30 on: May 10, 2005, 02:35:39 PM »
P47 is one of the many Allied planes that have received significantly enhanced performance characteristics over time, while the LW birds haven't changed at all.  Go figure.  

I'm sure old schoolers remember how poorly the P38/P51/P47 compared to the super planes they are now.  Why didn't the LW get any of those magic enhancements??  And why is the Ta 152 still porked?

Offline TexMurphy

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1488
Jug compared to 190A8 question
« Reply #31 on: May 10, 2005, 02:49:15 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Mime
P47 is one of the many Allied planes that have received significantly enhanced performance characteristics over time, while the LW birds haven't changed at all.  Go figure.  

I'm sure old schoolers remember how poorly the P38/P51/P47 compared to the super planes they are now.  Why didn't the LW get any of those magic enhancements??  And why is the Ta 152 still porked?


Simple answer... US development company...

Thing is there will never be unbiased plane modeling... planes are modelled based on historical recordings and history is written to enchace the power of the one writing history.... history will never be unbiased... hence models in historical games will never be based on unbiased information.. that information beeing interpreted by humans (always biased towards something by nature) so things will never be correct....

Tex

Offline Flyboy

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1582
Jug compared to 190A8 question
« Reply #32 on: May 10, 2005, 05:24:45 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKFokerFoder+


Why the 25 and not the 30 model?  Isn't the 30 more powerful, and have better views?  
 


the D25 is the prettiest

Offline AKFokerFoder+

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 661
Jug compared to 190A8 question
« Reply #33 on: May 10, 2005, 05:28:40 PM »
I am not a LW afficienado, nor an American plane buff.

I just want to fly a competative airplane in the MA that isn't one of the uber models.

Read;

LA7
PonyD
Dora
Niki

I want to fly that plane consistantly in order to know it's envelope.  It is better to fly a lesser plane well, than a better plane poorly.

The old A8 was pretty nice, and fit my flying style extremely well.  I am finding the Jug to also be a nice fit, as it has many simular characteristics to the A8.

Some would even call the Jug pretty.  But then some would probably call Hilary Clinton pretty also. Although personally I have never had that much to drink.

All in all for what my opinion is worth, it would seem that the 190's are undermodelled.  

Certainly the new views are far from being optimal.

And from what little I have read, the 190 would shove you way back in your seat in a dive.  It's roll rate was from all accounts unreal.

Offline TexMurphy

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1488
Jug compared to 190A8 question
« Reply #34 on: May 10, 2005, 05:57:51 PM »
A plane that is off that beaten track and does improve you as a pilot alot is the F6F.

There is no one way to success in it like there is in the fast ones (lalas, ponies, 190s, tiffies) and the slow ones (spitV, zekke and hurrie).

You have to treat each situation differently and constantly maximizing your planes performance.

You will either learn to use flaps and rudder to a new level or you will struggle.

It really is great plane.

Then ofcourse so is the jug.. ;)

Tex

Offline AKFokerFoder+

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 661
Jug compared to 190A8 question
« Reply #35 on: May 10, 2005, 06:34:41 PM »
AKOwl flies the F6F like no one I have seen.

Like all US planes, it suffers from not having cannons.  (the C Hog being the exception).

I find the 6 gun package to be a bit weak for someone of my gunnery skills.  

However, the 8 gun package of the Jug is pretty effective in a snap shot situation on fighters.  You definately lose performance in the Jug by taking 8 guns.  I.e., the roll rate seems less. And it is heavier.  But for me the added effectiveness of the firepower more than makes up for the performance hit.  Like the in the A8, where I took the 4 - 20mm package.

I don't like the rear view of the F6F, I feel to vulnerable in what is the most critical area of SA: your mid-low six.  I spend more time looking at my six than my 12.  I am constantly scanning with my hat switch, and rolling to check my low 6.  It is in the massive furballs where you need to see as soon as a bogey starts to line you up, not when he is D600.  I often shake bogeys that start to line me up at 1.5K or greater by showing them, (or at least deluding them into thinking) that I am in a higher e state than I am.  Also, alerting them to the fact that I know they are there, they will often break off and look for an easier kill.

In the F6F, I often don't see them until they are D600, and comitted to their attack.  Which means I then have to go into defensive manuevers that bleed more enegry, making me a target for more bogeys, I bleed more speed, add more bogeys, then add a walk back to the hangar.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2005, 06:37:43 PM by AKFokerFoder+ »

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Jug compared to 190A8 question
« Reply #36 on: May 11, 2005, 12:56:47 AM »
Re: uberflappage comment

I don't think the speeds are wrong. There's been enough jawing on these forums for the past 2 years about flap speeds. I think the lift is way too efficient, and the drag way too light. At more than 2 notches the flaps are more like a speed brake than a lift enhancer. At full flaps they are almost a 90-degree tangent from the bottom of the wing! How in the hell does that make you turn tighter than a spit? Should make you spin out uncontrollably if you're anything more than 10-degrees from flat level.


My $0.04 (2 about the efficiency, 2 about the drag).



Re: 190 speed: It's fast enough to out run SpitVs. I don't know, but it seems to top out in the lower 300s (non-wep). Decent, but could be better. Make a dive and you pass 400 easy. And then retain it for a while, too!

Offline AKFokerFoder+

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 661
Jug compared to 190A8 question
« Reply #37 on: May 11, 2005, 01:14:41 AM »
Some pretty intresting points on the flaps Krusty.  Perhaps they are overmodeled.???

I only use 1 notch for ACM, sometime (but rarely) 2, unless of course I am trying to slam on the brakes to force an overshoot.

I like the flaps for landings, I use about all the flap I can to get it to stop fast.

BTW, I flew the Jug again tonight.  Only time for one sortie, I had some big honey do's to do, and tomorrow I fly up to Fairbanks and north for two days.

Hope to be back for Friday.

I did get an LA7.  Shot the kee rap out of a B24, got it smoking, and when it went down, I didn't even get an assist.  Same thing with a Spit I hit, no assist.  Not sure what was with that.  But I survied an attack by a higher Pony D, and got out of the way of a Niki.

I am really thinking this Jug may be a hidden jem.

But I do miss my A8.  Not sure what it is that I like so much about that plane.  But it is pretty as a rose in spring, faster than a $2 pistol, and meaner than my ex-wifes mother.

Offline Kurfürst

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 921
      • http://www.kurfurst.org
Jug compared to 190A8 question
« Reply #38 on: May 11, 2005, 06:23:32 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Mime
P47 is one of the many Allied planes that have received significantly enhanced performance characteristics over time, while the LW birds haven't changed at all.  


That`s news. No, wait a minute, it`s just a silly belief.
The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site
http://www.kurfurst.org

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Jug compared to 190A8 question
« Reply #39 on: May 11, 2005, 11:59:31 AM »
Have to agree... While the USAAF planes *did* get a super boost of usefulness with the flaps (I miss AH1 flappage), the LW rides got boosts as well. First the 109s got much increased roll rates, and better elevator control (so it seems to me, anyways) -- essentially they could turn inside of a mile's turning radius now :rofl

And just recently with the 190s we got a more stable ride. It seems that some of the instabilities are gone at low(er) speeds. The rest seems the same (roll, climb, speed, etc) but that instability problem was a big one, and now it seems to be gone. So a small change but an important one.


LW rides have been getting updated too. Just on a different schedule than the other planes.

Offline Don

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
Jug compared to 190A8 question
« Reply #40 on: May 11, 2005, 04:35:18 PM »
The later model FWs had a lot of frontal armor for the pilot and the engine, to protect them from the B17s gunners.

Offline AKFokerFoder+

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 661
Jug compared to 190A8 question
« Reply #41 on: May 11, 2005, 08:21:17 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
First the 109s got much increased roll rates, and better elevator control (so it seems to me, anyways) -- essentially they could turn inside of a mile's turning radius now :rofl
 


Try going into the vertical.  With a well executed yo-yo I can turn a G10 under 3/4 of a mile (with less than 1/4 tank of fuel, flaps at the top, no gondolas, and proper throttle management). :lol