Originally posted by Dingy:
Dunno about others but Im not screaming about inordinate performance numbers for the A5...
The point Im trying to make is that its a forgiving enough aircraft that a majority of pilots are flying them. There isnt the same plane variety in the skies as there was in the past.
-Ding
I never accused you of saying the plane was incorrectly modelled in relation to it's allied counter parts, what I AM saying is that those people who come here and post about data, then people like lazs who pull words from this data are yapping about how the F4U should be able to do this against the 190, or the P51 should be able to do this against the 190, or the 190 has "phantom E rentention"(as my good buddy Citabria put it heheh), all the while these comments are based off of data done by a series of flight testing, NOT in combat situations like the MA. So, what I'm getting at is, people who are mouthing off about how the 190 should perform relative to those planes it has tests against, why don't you go out and do some tests on your own with someone unbiased to the matter? I haven't seen one post response about how the 190 in AH performs against the F4U or the P51 other than "Well last night in the arena a 190 pulled away from me on the deck.. impossible! Blasphemy!". It's really a moot point until a reply comes back "well, me and another pilot went into H2H or the SEA or TA and performed some flight tests. The 190 is in fact overmodelled because it pulls away from the F4U at low altitudes using just normal power(no WEP/BOOST). The 190 then proceeded to roll faster than the F4U. We started with the 190 behind the F4U and began lazy turns, tightening each revolution. In the end we found the 190 does in fact turn inside the F4U at low speeds, with no flaps, which it shouldn't. Therefore I believe something is amiss." THAT is grounds for examining the 190s flight model. It's intelligent, logical, contains factual information and is done in the same manner the RL flight test reports were done with.
That's just my opinion, but I'm sure someone will insist that's not the way to do things and if I get shot down by one, then it's overmodelled. Just like those spitfires and zeros that turn so quickly. Those are overmodelled too. Why? Because they kill me all the time in the arena and I said so. I'm right, you're wrong, quick change the flight performance for this plane so it behaves like a C130 and I can easily kill it! (tongue in cheek since second paragraph began)
As far as the arena not being as diverse.. excuse me but I remember when the cannon hog came out. I couldn't fly to another airbase without seeing atleast 10 of them. Now where are they? Very few people I see flying them, and almost none with great success(except Torque). As for me, I like this 190A5, but I'm not biased towards it or the F4U or the P51 or the 109 or the etc..... If it's incorrect, fix the damn thing. But if it's not, don't neuter it just because someone claims it to be inaccurate(still have yet to see proof in flight testing data from AH that this new 190 is somehow a super duper uber plane). I like the zero, that thing can turn on a dime. Survivability is fairly low with BnZ aircraft everywhere(except Mitsu has flown it with great success.....). My point is, unless you have data from BOTH fields (AH and RL) then you mine as well stick your head up your... because that's where it's been the whole time. :-)
-SW
AKSeaWulfe+
ps: almost none of this is directed at you Dingy, except for that part about the arena not being all that diverse.
