You’re absolutely right in saying that the Spitfire LF Mk IX was superior in many aspects to the Anton series of the 190 — I never said otherwise. But I think you may have misunderstood my point.
What I’m mainly referring to is the punishing drag model applied to the 190s, both the Doras and the Antons.
As for the Spitfire Mk V, I really don’t have much issue fighting them — even when flying the early 190s like the A-1. It’s not that hard to manage a 1v1 and either win or at least disengage and reposition.
But what I’m trying to say is that from BR 4.7 onwards, where we start seeing early Griffon 61 Spits, the performance gap becomes far too wide compared to historical reality. Historically, the Mk IX and its variants were indeed designed to counter the 190s after the Mk V proved inferior — but as even test pilot reports show, the early Mk IXs weren’t that superior at all.
In-game, no matter what you do, you can’t shake or reverse a fight between the 190 A-4/A-5 and a 4.7 BR Mk IX. The 190s suffer from an extreme amount of drag, can’t hold energy, and can’t even capitalize on their real advantages — like initial acceleration and roll rate. It’s not just about player skill — the Mk IX is practically unbeatable in this matchup.
I’m not basing this on assumptions, but on historical documents, pilot accounts, and real combat dynamics from WWII. The way War Thunder portrays the Spitfire Mk IX vs the 190s goes far beyond what any realistic depiction would suggest.
The only viable scenario for a 190 to win is having at least double the energy, and even then, you’re stuck in endless boom-and-zoom runs, praying not to lose initiative.
Obviously, the Spitfire out-turns any 190 ever made — and that’s fine — but the sustained turn rates and the way the 190 bleeds energy instantly is just way overdone. Meanwhile, the Spitfire can turn over and over again, regain enough altitude to force a scissors, or do a sharp 180° and somehow still catch you — as if it lost no energy at all.
Where’s the acceleration of the 190? In a scenario where the Spit does such a hard turn while the 190 just runs straight, the Spit should lose a lot more energy and not be able to catch up so fast.
But the game punishes the 190 with this drag model, ignores its historical acceleration, and portrays the Spitfire as some miracle aircraft that can just turn forever and dominate every situation.
Every time I end up in a scissors with a Spitfire — whether I’m flying a D9, D13, D12, A5, A4 — it’s impossible to reverse it. Even if I make the Spit overshoot repeatedly and manage my throttle well, I can never catch it — unless it’s a very inexperienced player and I land a lucky deflection shot.
So that’s the point here: the 190’s flight model needs to be improved. Better acceleration, less drag during sustained turns and rolls, better rudder authority in vertical maneuvers…
It’s hard to accept that an aircraft so iconic and so successful during WWII is represented as being this overwhelmingly inferior to its rival.
I’m not usually the type to compare games, but I also play IL-2 Sturmovik, and there the 190 behaves very differently. War Thunder claims to offer a “simulator” mode, but some aspects are treated like pure arcade. Once again, some features are overemphasized while others are completely neglected.
I lowkey wonder if this is an issue with the INSTRUCTOR and not the flight models.
This is a fairly generally applicable observation to a lot of aircraft.
I tried my Mustang Mk Ia in Air RB rather than air SB because I couldnt find lobbies and… it’s an entirely different beast. It bleeds energy way faster, it can’t pull as reliably and it flops and wobbles around like a dead fish drunk on vodka out of water in the middle of the desert.
G.55 is similarly different between ARB and ASB. In ARB, I see people remark G.55s have terrible energy retention in loops and bleed a ton of energy. While definitely true in ASB, I don’t experience this nearly as much as I have seen in ARB tutorial/review videos.
What I do observe in ASB is how the G.55 has incredible gyroscopic precession effects where pulling back on the stick YEETS the aircraft’s nose off to the right and puts you into some serious slip requiring constant babysitting of the rudder to avoid bleeding speed when making sudden pitch up/pitch down inputs.
I do not fly Fw190s enough to comment on them directly, but I can cite videos of ASB content creators who do not make any complaints about drag or rudder issues.
Like, he doesn’t say it’s amazing or anything but his complaints are distinct from those you are making (engine performance).
This makes me think the Fw190s experience the same issues as I did with the Mustang MkIa and G.55 where instructor does not know how to properly manage the rudder causing tons of drag from slipping.
Massive G.55 Sotto 0 sideslip from shoving the stick forward to enter a dive.
Another thing… RB and AB have a completely different dynamic. You get third-person view, which makes it way easier to predict enemy movements, plus you have aim assist, stalls and spins are much harder to trigger, and maneuvers can be done much more instantly because there’s a flight instructor constantly compensating for you.
Bringing an RB experience into an SB discussion is totally irrelevant, because in SB you have full manual control over the aircraft — there’s no computer helping you correct your mistakes or overinputs."
I assumed you were talking about air RB because your statements were directly contradicting Squishface’s video on the Fw190 where he describes its main advantage is in Energy retention but bad energy generation.
You complained of rudder and turn energy loss, which corresponded with my experiences trying to play RB again after mostly flying SB and finding planes I love in SB feel like dead fish in RB.
Watch the videos I’ve linked.
One discusses 1 vs 1 duelling with sim controls…
One discusses SB EC matches.
Edit: And I can assure he uses Fw190s quite regularly in SB. I have ran into him before and got clowned on.
Edit2:
Direct timestamped quote on its energy retention (for doras):
I take it positively for two reasons, first: Willi said in the interview that he never had any difficulty fighting Tempests. Second: the United Kingdom never made available the comparison data between the Tempest and the H1, something that Germany published the data it had with captured Tempest, and the data it has on the H1 showed that it was superior to the Tempest
This post is about SB so the anecdotes about RB aren’t really relevant. That said the issue sounds more to do with the somewhat hand holding/arcade nature of the instructor and less necessarily the performance of the aircraft. The only work around would be to over and unhistorically buff the 190’s (unless instructor is causing issues) or unhistorically nerf the Spitfires. Both are terrible solutions in my opinion but again… I don’t play RB.
The 190’s did actually have a more lively FM a few years ago but people cried because it also made the flight model “unstable” so Gaijin gave us this over stable FM that we have today. It even correctly tightened up in turns like the Spitfires currently do but the masses screamed and you get what you have today.
It’s too quick to judge the Tempest pilot’s abilities when we don’t know how actually capable he was. Training is one thing but actual experience is something else entirely. Potentially 20 bomber kills is nothing to scoff at considering the dire situation Germany was in at that point.
Off memory didn’t the Ta-152’s bounce the Tempests as well?
The point I’m making is that people are hinting at Ta-152 superiority because it shot down a Tempest and yet on that exact same day a Tempest shot down the Ta-152 as well… basically it’s a silly point to make to claim which aircraft was better.
In game it is the same in my experience. If the 190 is caught with its pants down against a Mk IX it’s in deep trouble, that said you can always dive away and extend. The Mk IX whilst faster still isn’t that fast and an Anton will hold energy far better. The only issue is the LF IX which shouldn’t be 5.0 at all.
The Anton can always disengage and then re-engage.
Boom and zoom is more or less the game the 190 is meant to play. The wing loading is too high to be a solid turn fighter and RAF accounts on average never state that the 190 out turned them but would dive on them and finish by climbing with a “roll off the top”.
If you lose the initiative then disengage, as an occasional Spitfire pilot having a smart 190 that runs when it should is the single most frustrating thing on the planet. Because I know if I chase someone I don’t see will one shot my tail clean off and if I go defensive you’ll just circle back and attack again.
I think you’re talking about the LF IX not the F Mk IX… the 190’s have no issue running from the F although it puts up a much better fight. In regards to sustained turns in SB the points I’d make are:
1: The Spitfire retains energy very well due to a very low wing loading, the 190’s high wing loading bleeds energy faster.
2: The Spitfire has good energy retention in turns but most don’t know how to fly it correctly and allow it to skid all over the place throwing its energy away faster than anything else in the game. So whilst yes it’s clearly good it’s also extremely challenging to fly, the 190 in comparison is on rails which it absolutely shouldn’t be.
I’d advise some caution on buffing the 190 compared to reality…
The 190A was a superb little aircraft but its heyday was against the Mk V spitfire which it very handily outperforms in game. By the time the Mk IX came out you’ll find quite a few RAF pilot accounts that state that the Mk IX had reached parity with the 190A. It had better high altitude performance, comfortably turned inside of the 190 and outclimbed the 190. Isn’t a Spitfire IX pilot quoted for saying something along the lines of “I could practically see the shock in the 190 pilot’s face as he looked around and saw my Spitfire climbing up to meet him”.
The over emphasizing argument goes both ways. You may feel the 190 is under powered in regards to agility (which I agree) but it’s also too stable with a too gentle stall. The lack of drag with takeoff flaps constantly deployed is questionable as well.
On the flipside the Spitfire is agile but its instability and torque effects feel somewhat overdone from what I’ve read. The early models also melt their engines.
Well, I just watched the last video you sent me — and honestly, it only reinforces what I’ve been saying all along. In the video, the player points out multiple times how most planes outclass the Fw 190 when it comes to energy retention, even in scissors.
At one point he says something like: “If you’re flying a 190 and someone knows what they’re doing with the rudder, they’ll eventually line up a shot on you.”
In another part he says: “5.7 BR planes in general are way more capable than you, and they’ll force you to drain all your energy, because they retain theirs much better.”
It feels like you still didn’t quite get what I was trying to explain, even though I’ve said it a few times. I’m not here saying the Fw 190 should be the best plane in the game, or the most agile, or the one that turns better than anything else. What I’m saying is: the flight model applied to the Fw 190 has way too much drag.
Simple moves like wide turns, even when using barely any elevator input, will cost you all your energy advantage — while other planes (especially the Spitfire Mk IX and later) can just snap into a 180° turn and still chase you even if you’re flying away in a straight line.
As for the P-51s — I was never talking about them. I actually think they’re balanced opponents, and dogfights with them feel fair on both sides.
But when it comes to the Spitfire Mk IX (and later variants) — let me give you an example. You’re flying an Fw 190 D-9, you have a bit of altitude advantage. You dive in for a boom and zoom. The Spit has less energy than you, so he pulls into a tight turn to evade. You follow for maybe a second, realize you won’t get the shot, so you pass and climb out in a straight line. The Spitfire somehow pulls a full 180°, gets on your six, and still has enough energy left to take shots at you or at least shut down your attempt to bait him into an energy trap.
Ask any serious SB player — this isn’t something I’m making up. It happens all the time.
What’s my point here? Am I saying the Fw 190 should climb better than the Mk IX? No. What I’m saying is that the drag model on all Fw 190s is overdone. Even a Mk IX with the Merlin 61 engine would realistically never be able to catch a 190 in a climb after pulling a tight 180° like that. That’s just unrealistic and over the top.
Sure, the Mk IX was better than the 190 in some ways — no doubt — but in War Thunder, the way acceleration and drag are modeled on the 190 makes it feel completely non-competitive and disconnected from reality.
Where’s the drag the Spit should’ve experienced in that tight turn?
And if that situation already feels like this… now imagine going into a scissors. I swear, even my 80-year-old grandma could win a scissors fight against an Fw 190 if she was flying a Spitfire Mk IX with two days of training.
Once again, I’m going to compare this to IL-2 — and honestly, I don’t even like doing that. But since we’re talking about gameplay and flight models, I think it’s fair to mention a sim that’s more recognized for its realistic simulation than WT.
The Fw 190, as you yourself said, is pretty “twitchy” in tight turns — but in IL-2, you can at least fully use the aircraft’s capabilities, even if it often puts you in bad spots. In prolonged fights against Spitfires, that crazy turning behavior — where one move puts you in immediate trouble — just doesn’t happen like it does in WT. On top of that, drag and energy behavior feel way more grounded and believable.
Sure, the Spitfire will always out-turn you no matter what — that’s fine. But if you get in a bad spot, you can use wider, more gradual turns to keep up some energy while the Spit tries to force a tighter engagement. In those cases, you might gain some speed and even have a chance to take the fight vertical — and maybe, just maybe, turn the tables or escape.
Now try doing that in WT with any Fw 190… As I said before — and I’ll repeat it — even when you clearly have the upper hand in a scissors, the Spitfire can just overshoot, pull a 180°, and be back on your six in 1 or 2 seconds. Even if you let him do that and decide to run straight at full throttle while he’s burning all his energy in that turn, your acceleration will do almost nothing. He’ll still be on your tail — basically glued to your six.
Try taking it vertical, and you’ll see a Spitfire pull off a loop like a Red Bull stunt plane. Try to turn, and the Spit will somehow meet you nose-to-nose before you’ve even finished rolling into the maneuver.
To me, there’s a huge — massive — over-exaggeration in how these planes are represented. The difference in maneuverability and capability is just too much.
You mentioned catching someone off guard — but honestly, any plane can get a kill if they surprise the target, unless it’s something with tail gunners. That applies across the board.
I didn’t say that the H1 is better than the Tempest because it shot one down, but rather that the H1 surpassed the Tempest in combat, where Willi said that he didn’t reach the limit of his machine, while the Tempest couldn’t get rid of the H1 even going to its limit, don’t worry I have a table that shows the time that some fighters take to make a 360° turn at 6,000 meters altitude, and the Tempest is crushed by the D9, the H1 doesn’t even need to be mentioned, in Harmann’s own book it is written that the P47 and Tempest pilots were desperate due to the maneuverability of the H1, accept reality
The flight models of Air RB and Air SB are identical - that means that decisive parameters like low and high speed acceleration, energy retention and overall handling are the same.
Therefore any user using a 190 in Air RB whilst using a Hotas and without instructor is able to share his experiences without degrading any pure SB statement
This is misleading at best:
The in-game inferiority of a plain Fw 190 A-4 vs a Spit Mk VB is based on overperforming Spits and underperforming 190s regarding their FM - and this has nothing to do with RB / SB as the FMs are identical
Whilst i admit that the instructor plays a role in Air RB for MnK users the issues described in the OP and subsequent posts refers to Air SB = without instructor. I played both aircraft in Il-2 FB in FR (=Full real) >20 years ago - the handling of 190s in IL-2 was way better and the 190s were amongst my favorite aircraft
There is no workaround necessary - and also no “unhistorical” buff for 190. Even admitting that the RAF wasted a hell of aircraft in pilots during their Leaning forward into France campaign with their plain stupid attack strategies - the Mk V was clapped at will by 190 A models; that’s why JG 26 and JG 2 kept a solid 4:1 K/D vs them.
There are a lot of studies regarding allied vs axis pilot training available - the main difficulty is and was controlling the aircraft.
What happens when 6 NZL Spits try to camp German airfields looking for easy prey and meet an actual experienced pilot is described here (link). A Bf 110 nightfighter ace shot down 2 Spits and became friends after the war with one of his victims. The Spit pilot had according to the linked souce almost 200 combat sorties…
There are various variants available; most common is the version that the 4 Tempests split up in two pairs doing tree top strafing runs and the Ta 152s came in very low to esure that they can spot them.
Feel free to select the version you like.
Dude - you sound like a UK fanboy. There is nothing wrong with a certain level of patriotism but you might relax a little bit. The only thing what looks “silly” here is your effort to downplay more than obvious facts.
This specific encounter happend at very low alt (50-100 m) and the sole strength of any Tempest is and was low level top speed - its ability to outrun most contemporary opponents if in danger.
It is logical that an aircraft like the Tempest can’t outturn any enemy at his six. If you want to increase your knowledge about actual fights with Tempests read Tempest combat reports, you find evidence enough that turnfighting was not their strength: (Combat Reports)
But - i fully admit that the Tempest II is a real beauty.
It would be great if you could focus on the issue described in the OP. Thx in advance!
As mentioned I agree with the 190A’s over stable FM. The problem you have is that it’s 190 pilots that brought the current FM to fruition where they complained that the correct flight model was too “unstable” despite the fact it allowed you to be far more dynamic in fights.
In regards to your experiences with fighting Spitfires and not being able to get away the Mk IX Spitfire is as fast as the 190A and is/should be faster at some altitudes.
"SPITFIRE IX VERSUS FW 190A
The FW190 was compared with a fully operational Spitfire IX for speed and manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000 feet [7620 metres].
At most heights the Spitfire IX is slightly superior in speed to the FW190 -
the approximate differences in speed are as follows:
At 2,000 ft [610 m] the FW 190 is 7-8 mph [11-13 km/hr] faster than the Spitfire
At 5,000 ft [1524 m] the FW 190 and the Spitfire are approximately the same
At 8,000 ft [2440 m] the Spitfire IX is 8 mph [13 km/hr] faster than the FW 190
At 15,000 ft [4573 m] the Spitfire IX is 5 mph [8 km/hr] faster than the FW 190
At 18,000 ft [5488 m] the FW 190 is 3 mph [5 km/hr] faster than the Spitfire IX
At 21,000 ft [6400 m] the FW 190 and the Spitfire are approximately the same
At 25,000 ft [7622 m] the Spitfire IX is 5-7 mph [8-11 km/hr] faster than the FW 190"
Interestingly it’s theorized that this 190A was also running a higher boost than it should as well.
So if you’re struggling to do wide turns to get away from the Spitfire the fact the speeds are very similar and the Spitfire can sit inside your turn thanks to its wing loading probably has something to do with it.
The same test however DOES say that the 190A out accelerates the Mk IX but only at the altitudes where the 190A has the speed advantage. So if the Spitfire is sitting inside of your turn and gaining on you whilst it’s doing it then it could be due to the fact that it has the advantages of a tighter turn radius, lower wing loading and greater acceleration (depending on the height) to go with it.
Seems to line up with reality to me.
In regards to overall agility:
“Manoeuvrability: The FW 190 is more manoeuvrable than the Spitfire IX except in turning circles.
The superior rate of roll of the FW 190 enabled it to avoid the Spitfire IX by turning over into a diving turn in the opposite direction.”
So essentially dive away and use your greater energy retention which unless something has changed the 190A can easily do that to the Mk IX. In fact a lot of pilot accounts I’ve read also back up the fact that 190A pilots would dive to safety and not go into a rolling scissor etc where it bleeds its energy and then gets murdered by the tighter turning aircraft.
There’s a difference between going vertical and vertical turn fighting which it sounds like you’re describing. Again the Spitfire is the more agile aircraft with a lower stalling speed which will allow it to swing its nose around as the speeds drop off at the top of a loop like you’re describing.
During AFDU trials the 190A had a similar turn performance to the P-47 with the Spitfire being the tightest by a fair margin. If the Spitfire is killing you in a turning fight then well… it should…
Making sure to have energy or energy advantage to boom and zoom is the ultimate tactic in WW2 fights. When the US encountered the Japanese they played into Japan’s hands by attempting to dogfight them… they proceeded to get butchered. When they learned “hey lets not do that again” their odds improved, when they then focused on having aircraft with greater speed over manoeuvrability and focused on boom and zoom you could say it became a turkey shoot…
Speed-Life.
Altitude-Life insurance.
The 190’s are some of the best boom and zoomers in the game. Just don’t get caught slow and if you do make sure you have altitude to escape.
I accept reality but I find it hard to accept that “P-47 and Tempest pilots were desperate due to the manoeuvrability of the Ta” when you consider that the Ta had zero effect on the war and barely anybody knew what it was. When the Tempest previously shot down what was confirmed to be the Ta-152 literally earlier that day it was claimed as a 190.
In regards to the turn performance tables I believe it or not made the same point on the old forum however I was corrected… if it’s the same table that Tempest is only running 7lbs of boost.
If you want to get silly and claim the Tempest was “crushed under the might of the superior German engineering!!” because the Ta shot one down (ignoring the fact the Tempest also killed the Ta) two Ta’s alone were shot down by Spitfires. So using your logic the Ta was “Crushed by the Spitfire!!”.
I don’t know why the Germans bothered, especially when an aircraft that was operational in 1939 surpassed the Ta in combat. I heard the Ta pilots were desperate due to the manoeuvrability of the Spitfire.
Yes but the problem is that most play with the instructor which quite massively affects the performance of the aircraft in manoeuvres. Sometimes limiting them for god knows what reason. The reason I get defensive over this is because Gaijin listens to RB complaints which then affects SB as well and so far it has been overwhelmingly for the worse. 109’s now have magical elevators due to RB complaints, 190’s are missing their responsiveness due to complaints etc etc…
The 190 is quite a bit faster than the Spitfire Vb with vastly better energy retention. The only time a 190A will die to a Mk V is if for whatever reason it decides to turn fight.
You cannot use another game as evidence as to how an aircraft should fly. No matter if it’s IL2 or the apparently holy grail DCS… which interestingly had a worse 190fm than War Thunder from what I’d heard although things may have changed.
Hellcats clapped Zeroes therefor we should be able to turnfight Zeroes and win.
There’s many, many reasons why you can’t use real life numbers and suggest we base aircraft performance on that. If you want something to be mad at then we need to petition Gaijin make our pilots actually human and struggle for consciousness at around 5g. One of the reasons why the 190 might feel hopeless in a turning fight is because we can yank our planes around at 9g without a care in the world.
Alright, then let’s go ahead and use the very data you brought up and break it down. Let’s put aside real-life accounts and focus purely on how these aircraft should behave in-game, based on what’s already been said.
First — Initial acceleration advantage for the Fw 190 at low altitudes.
That’s exactly one of the key points I’ve raised here already. As I explained earlier, this supposed acceleration advantage doesn’t actually exist in-game — not for the A-series, and honestly, not even for the D-series (D-9, D-12, D-13). Just like in the last example I gave: even after a Spitfire makes an insanely tight turn to get behind you, and you completely ignore it and fly straight and level, the Spit — even after burning a chunk of its energy — still catches you without much trouble. That shouldn’t happen. At the very least, the 190 should have some edge in acceleration here to disengage, reposition, or set up for a second pass — but that kind of physics simply doesn’t exist in the current model.
Second — Turn capability.
No one’s disputing the fact that the Spitfire could out-turn any Fw 190 variant. That’s well known. The issue is the level of exaggeration in the current flight model. The Spit can pull such an extreme, instantaneous turn that there’s no room to use a wider tangent, trade some of your turn performance for energy, or even attempt to stretch the fight into a more favorable position. The margin to maneuver is just gone.
Third — Defensive maneuvers.
The same strategies that real pilots used — I use them too. If the drag model was more realistic, they’d actually work. I never try to flat-turn with a Spitfire unless it’s a high-speed pass and I’m just forcing him to break off. In those cases, I never follow the turn, I just keep going straight or pull into a shallow climb (5° to 10°) to reset the fight. But what ends up happening? The Mk IX catches you anyway — even stopping you from setting up a proper boom-and-zoom return pass.
If you try a half-roll + dive (or a low yo-yo), which should give the 190 the advantage, the Spitfire in WT has such insane elevator authority and pitch rate that he’ll meet you nose-on before you even complete the inverted half-loop — which is exactly where the 190 should have the edge with its dive performance.
So I’ll say it again: this isn’t about player skill.
I’ve flown the Fw 190 (all variants) for 3 or 4 years now, and I can tell you — I’ve tried every possible way to fight defensively. Your only chances are:
you have 10 times more energy,
you catch him distracted,
or the Spit pilot is a new player who doesn’t understand spacing or his plane’s strengths.
It’s absurd how both flight models are handled:
The Spitfire is overperforming, especially in turn rate, energy retention, and acceleration.
The Fw 190 is the opposite — it’s underperforming in all the areas where it should at least have a niche or tactical role.
Just imagine a Fw 190 D-13 with a Jumo 213 engine — in terms of initial acceleration, a Spitfire Mk IX should be miles behind you, with no real ability to catch up in shallow climbs. Try it yourself in-game — the D-13 should have way more noticeable acceleration than it currently does.
So what’s the point of giving it this kind of punishing drag and lack of acceleration in the flight model?
And to make things worse, they place those Spitfires at 4.7 and 5.0 BR, while the Fw 190s sit at 5.7…
The only Dora that’s placed lower is the D-13 at 5.3 — and even there, you still end up fighting Spitfire UFOs with early Merlin n Griffon engines that are super mega ultra powerful (at least according to Gaijin).
Once again, I did not say that the H1 is superior because it shot down the Tempest, but because the machine’s performance was superior, and yes, the pilots of the P47 and Tempest squadrons that faced the H1 were alarmed by the H1’s maneuverability, Willi himself said that he only survived the end of the war, due to the H1’s climb rate and maneuverability “it was my life’s policy”
I am not mad at all but i am happy that we finally have a point we can agree.
As mentioned (also by others) before: Nobody wants to modify the FM of 190s into turnfighters - but the whole topic of g-limits deals with handling and agility which affects the flight experience as a whole.
The way too high g-limits are just one aspect - the forces needed to move the stick and pilot positions in the cockpit have severe effects too - one main strength of 190s was the ease of using the controls (electric, not hydraulic) and the pilot position which allowed to take higher g-loads for a longer time period.
Very well said.
Aside from the unrealistic flight model — like the exaggerated turn rates and endless vertical climbs of the Spitfire — we should also remember that the FW 190, even from its early variants, was an exceptionally advanced fighter in terms of automation and design.
The pilot essentially only had to worry about throttle management after takeoff and keep an eye on the gauges. The aircraft handled many tasks automatically: even prop pitch adjustment was automatic. The flaps had preset positions activated with a single control, while most other fighters — including the Spitfire — relied on manual crank systems to set flap angle.
Later versions, like the Dora, went even further, managing supercharger stages, fuel mixture, and more — all automatically unless the pilot specifically chose to take manual control.
In other words, while Soviet and British fighter pilots were busy juggling multiple manual controls — and dealing with hydraulically assisted sticks that made high-speed maneuvers harder to initiate — the FW 190 operated with an almost fully electric and semi-autonomous control system from the very beginning.
By the way, just one more thing — the articles and sources you brought into the discussion are really interesting. They definitely added a lot to this conversation.
o7
I did some testing last night with the 190A5/U2 and the F MK IX Spitfire. The test was done on RB difficulty and autotrim on to remove any user error and so I could use the virtual HUD.
The only caveats are I’m using a Ps5 controller and using AEC so you might notice some slight differences if you use MEC and a joystick.
First test on the deck 200mph-300mph acceleration.
The Mk IX took 40 seconds.
The 190A5 took 30 seconds.
From 300mph I made both aircraft go into a vertical zoom.
The Mk IX reached 3900ft.
The 190A5 reached 4500ft.
After this I did an energy retention test, dive from high altitude and level out at 440mph. Then level out and count the time required for the speed to fall below 350mph.
The Mk IX required only 35 seconds for the speed to fall below 350mph.
The 190A5 required 1:19 seconds for the speed to fall below 350mph.
Every one of these tests highlights the at times massive advantages of the 190A. It’s comfortably faster, zooms better even in a somewhat slow 300mph vertical climb and is vastly superior in regards to energy retention to the point where I wonder if the Mk IX is too draggy if anything.
From what I’ve seen the 190A is performing absolutely fine. You’re welcome to test this yourself.
The issue is our pilots pulling 9g and more sometimes like it’s nothing. Limit our max G-pull to a more realistic 5-6g and the Spitfires will stop pulling fast turns. That said the Spitfire will always retain energy better than a 190A in a turning fight.
It definitely doesn’t as I’ve proven unless you’re at an altitude where the Mk IX should be faster. As I’ve said test it yourself. It’s massively inferior in regards to acceleration and zoom climbs not to mention straight line energy retention.
The Spitfire in reality had a very sensitive elevator which is reflected in game. The problem you have is that our robot pilots can happily snap into that high G turn to blast you instead of cautiously pulling into a turn to stop from blacking out.
As a side note if you think the Spitfire is bad the 109 is actually worse. The Spitfire as mentioned was known for having a lively elevator… the 109 most certainly wasn’t especially at high diving speeds, yet in game the 109 can pull out of 400mph dives like it’s nobodies business.
Both of these quotes I can say since testing are absolutely incorrect. I highly recommend you test them both yourself. The 190A is vastly superior in energy retention and acceleration.
Have you got any quotes about Tempest and P-47 pilots being alarmed by the Ta’s manoeuvrability? I’m not denying that the Ta-152 would’ve been a superb aircraft if the Luftwaffe had more of them but I do get a sense that it gets looked at with rose tinted glasses as do most German wonderweapons.
As I said in the engagements they met Spitfires its manoeuvrability and climb rate didn’t stop it from getting mauled and as mentioned when they mixed with Tempests no matter how you spin it the ratio was 1:1.
I agree 100%. A lot of the issues in game at the moment are down to the pilot not the aircraft. I don’t have an issue with 109 pilots and 190 pilots having a slightly higher G threshold compared to the upright seated Spitfire as reportedly they did. That said if this comes to pass someday they really really then need to fix the 109’s magical elevator otherwise it’ll be twice as broken as it currently is.
This is in the book by historian and researcher Dietmar Harmann. For Willi to say that a fighter was his life’s policy, at least this aircraft should be 50% superior to the aircraft he faced, and as he himself said, “I never had any difficulty fighting Tempests, I had many dogfights against P51s and Tempests, it was easy to overcome them”
