Author Topic: Why the 190 so hard to land cleanly (Read 1349 times)

Flatbar · « **Reply #15 on:** April 24, 2006, 05:15:46 PM »

On all rides I pull up the flaps just before touchdown. It will greatly reduce the bounce on just about all planes. The only time I don't use this method is on carrier landings for obvious reasons < hook >.

Glasses · « **Reply #16 on:** April 25, 2006, 12:54:48 AM »

Don't worry you just have to deal with it or fly the perfect rides of the USA which have no flaws whatsoever.

Krusty · « **Reply #17 on:** April 25, 2006, 01:33:54 AM »

Bah glasses you're insane. I'd take a 190 over a p51 any day! 2.7 fixed a major problem with the game code so far -- how it flows across surfaces. Now that that's fixed, 109s and 190s aren't handicapped like some might think, or some have claimed in the past.

They are in fact quite competitve (okay, they were already, they are "more so" now) and while the US planes are still awfully damn good, I think that a 109/190 can still get you your kills and get you home more often than not.

Unless you suck, like me, then it's "not".

Glasses · « **Reply #18 on:** April 25, 2006, 10:49:46 AM »

They have performance but they suck at everything else since they perfrom the same form SL to 30k, ie unstable stall worthy uncontrolable plane of death traps.

1. Low visibility(exagerated cockpit bars.
2. random dispersion even when firing at convergence and close range >200y.
3. Major E bleed when even making slight control corrections.
4. Very high accelerated stall (even at 350mph 190s and 109s stall while only pulling 5gs at altitudes below 20k)
5. Since these planes perform best above 250mph leaves us with the complete lack of contorl below these speeds, for example a 109 to pull the same radii as an F4u or a P-51 has to pull twice as many Gs, while a heavier aircraft with lower thrust to weight >20k ft has only to pull 2gs to make the same turning radii, there's some thing wrong there. (Wonder why in mock fights the F-16s were able to out turn the F-15s below 20k and above that the F-15 made a diference, having a thicker wing and two engines compared to the stubby wings of the F-16 that are great for lower altitudes but up high not so much.,9this is a modern day example of what happens when even though the F-15 is higher the high altitude performance is better, but the F-16 takes it down low because of its weight and relative size.) Yet in AH they the 109/190 perform the same with lack of control from SL up to 25k, there's no difference.

Krusty · « **Reply #19 on:** April 25, 2006, 12:01:46 PM »

I disagree. 190 and 109 do not fly the same, nor have I experienced the 350mph accelerated stall you mention. Perhaps your controls are set too sensitive, and it's insta-stalling from too much input? I don't know.

However I've been fast in both planes and pulled massive Gs in both planes and never had that problem. In fact I think they're more stable now than they've ever been (that instability bug was around since AH2 came out).

Knegel · « **Reply #20 on:** April 25, 2006, 12:08:04 PM »

Hi,

the lift of the FW190A´s dont seems to increase in the right relation with the speed and the other way around. With to few lift with increasing speed, a unnormal high AoA is needed to get the wanted turn at higher speed. This lead to early stalls and much E-bleed at same time(i guess the indueced drag is linked to the AoA).
This also would explain why the 190´s perform not that bad while a slowspeed right/left stall fight despite its high wingload.
It also explain why the plane still have so much lift after touch down even with only 110mph.

Anyway, the FW190A8 touch down can be smooth like babyskin, no matter if you use flaps or not.

Withoutflaps, keep the speed at 110mph and a little bit power to minimize the acceleration with this high AoA, power to zero close above the runway. Resulting you will get almost a "3 wheel touchdown".

With full flaps you need to do the same but with 100mph.

1-2 very little hops are the result.

Its not that a big deal to land the 190A8 on a CV, to get it off the deck with 100% fuel is a 'bit' more hard.

Greetings, Knegel

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #21 on:** April 25, 2006, 01:52:55 PM »

Only problem I have landing the 190 is slowing the beast down ... since flaps don't deploy at higher speeds.

The 109's are very dangerous now ... I went into the TA for an evening and was amazed at what they could do now that HT did that Coad Thing. Yeah, they can't handle Ludicrous Speed like a Pony, but so what? Only thing I don't like about the 109's is the cockpit framing - and I have way more trouble landing 109's with their gear arrangement.

The 190's have no problem at high speed that I can see. I've flown 'em all since the update (except the Ta ... which still sucks snot through a straw) and they are very, very happy working the vertical. The 190 is pretty defenseless once it gets slow, a P51 is more capable in that regard. But for making high speed attacks the 190's roll rate gives it an edge over anything ... you can flick it over and switch targets with ease.

Pooface · « **Reply #22 on:** April 25, 2006, 03:25:02 PM »

glasses i turnfight decent pilots in 109s and 190s, and i win. there is nothing wrong with it. you're starting to annoy people with your silly 'luftwaffe is porked' whines.

put a sock in it:aok

Arlo · « **Reply #23 on:** April 25, 2006, 04:18:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Only problem I have landing the 190 is slowing the beast down ... since flaps don't deploy at higher speeds.

The 109's are very dangerous now ... I went into the TA for an evening and was amazed at what they could do now that HT did that Coad Thing. Yeah, they can't handle Ludicrous Speed like a Pony, but so what? Only thing I don't like about the 109's is the cockpit framing - and I have way more trouble landing 109's with their gear arrangement.

The 190's have no problem at high speed that I can see. I've flown 'em all since the update (except the Ta ... which still sucks snot through a straw) and they are very, very happy working the vertical. The 190 is pretty defenseless once it gets slow, a P51 is more capable in that regard. But for making high speed attacks the 190's roll rate gives it an edge over anything ... you can flick it over and switch targets with ease.

Radical s turns, chop throttle, nose up, nose down, pancake.

Glasses · « **Reply #24 on:** April 25, 2006, 04:30:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pooface
glasses i turnfight decent pilots in 109s and 190s, and i win. there is nothing wrong with it. you're starting to annoy people with your silly 'luftwaffe is porked' whines.

put a sock in it:aok

Like that's hard to do in an RAF plane . Might as well put 3 more engines in them and call them a 747.

It's really undermodeled or it's the other way around.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #25 on:** April 25, 2006, 04:34:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
Radical s turns, chop throttle, nose up, nose down, pancake.

You mean landing the 190? Yeah ... that and shearing off the landing gear trying to slow down to get into the pattern.

Arlo · « **Reply #26 on:** April 25, 2006, 04:54:31 PM »

Makes landing an F4U on a carrier seem rather nice, eh?

Karnak · « **Reply #27 on:** April 25, 2006, 05:22:35 PM »

Is Glasses actually capable of making a post that is not a "Luftwaffe is porked" post? I can't recall ever seeing one.

Glasses · « **Reply #28 on:** April 25, 2006, 05:27:35 PM »

Well it is porked and has been porked from quite a while Karnak

LEDPIG · « **Reply #29 on:** May 03, 2006, 04:28:11 AM »

The Ah flight model of the landings is a little without life, no actual plane hits the runway and just sticks like the ones in AH do. Hardly ever happens.