How is it, that the final evolution of the fw 190, is actually worse than the doras and every other model. It’s elevator nerf is also unnecesary, another plane left to collect dust.
4 Likes
I feel like the FW’s have been pretty shit as well for a long time.
5 Likes
It’s because the plane is morbidly obese. Ta 152 C-3 is about 700kg heavier than the 190 D-9. This is an increase in empty weight of about 20%, as the D-9 has an empty weight of 3570 kg according to WTRTI. The huge weight increase is owed in large part to the ridiculous amount of armor and firepower of the C-3. The 30mm MK 103 cannon alone weighs 150kg.
For all that, the 152 C-3 only has a slightly increased wing area compared to the standard 190 wing, so wing loading increases a lot on a design that already had high wing loading to begin with. Despite the 152 C-3’s more powerful DB603LA engine, the 190 D-9 has a noticeably superior power/weight at WEP up to about 5km altitude, which covers most altitudes that matter in WT air RB. The C-3 really takes off up above 6km though thanks to its two-stage, variable speed supercharger.
The huge increase in weight without a proportional increase in power and wing area results in atrocious maneuverability and worse sustained climb. The high wing loading increases induced drag, and the expanded wings + some other changes also increase parasitic drag, harming top speed, so that despite the extra engine power, the C-3 is only faster than the D-9 by between 2kmh and 17kmh at relevant altitudes.
In my opinion, the Ta 152 C-3 would be balanced by having its interceptor spawn removed and BR reduced to not more than 5.0, yes, really.
3 Likes
Both the Ta-152s are one of the most overtiered vehicles in the game (alongside Japanese 6.0+ props), the H-1 should be a 4.7 and C3 at 5.0 at most (without airspawns). But Gaijin seems to not care for low brs anymore , i think they are doing it intentionally not just because top tier makes them so much money but by making low tier an unbalanced mess people would want to pay their way out of it asap.
Its really sad how so many unique ww2 vehicles are just left to rot in the hangar…
2 Likes
The C-3 was built as a Zerstorer/Bomber Hunter, it’s more in the class of 190 A-8s than dedicated fighters like the Doras and 152-H.
2 Likes
H1 can actually have the induced drag fixed and go 3.7, another bv155 xD
As explained by a previous post part of the issue is the increase in weight.
-
In deviation to another post i do not share the view that the C-3 was a designated bomber hunter for medium alt (medium if you see the service ceiling of the H-1 >13 km as high).
-
I read decades ago about the purpose of the C-version as so called “Schlachtflugzeug” similar to the class of strike aircraft we have in other TTs.
-
That explains the heavy armament, the “short” standard wings of of the Doras and, ofc, the added armor which had also allegedly ~150 kg weight.
-
So with medium to very low altitudes in mind all the C-3 had to do was to be fast in a straight line and deliver a heavy punch.
-
Iirc the H-1 and the C-3 were the only piston engine fighters foreseen to remain in production plannings (in notably numbers) for '45 - all other aircraft should be jets.
The imho way more serious part of the problem is gaijin’s approach to FMs of the 190 family:
-
From my pov the only models worth to play are the 190 A-1 and the 152 H-1. And even the 190 A-1 is not that agile and able to clap Spit Mk Vs at will as they did irl.
-
All other models require extremely disciplined play styles whilst focusing on keeping your speed high and using the previously insanely good fire power; i liked the D-13s has you could energy trap F8Fs & Spits rather easily above 7-8 km but the flight experience was rather disappointing.
-
I mean if you dig deep enough in the web you find very rare mock-up fights between Doras and 109 Ks which were decided by pilot experience - try this in wt…
-
So if gaijin sees 190s (besides the 2 exceptions) as flying bricks and gives them a FM of a medium bomber like a 217 it is no wonder that the C-3 (with much higher weight) flies like a cargo ship.
But have in mind: It could be worse. Some years ago you needed 2 kills (if game was won) or 3 kills (if game was lost) just to compensate your own repair cost as they were in the 50 k SL range…but still cheaper than the G 56…
I’m curious about the turning performance of Fw 190s.
They gain pretty good turn with flaps but they also kill your speed. Other than that Fw 190s are one of the worst turning planes.
Chat GPT says that thick wings, like on the Fw 190, can produce high lift at high angles of attack increasing instantaneous turn.
While a Fw 190 can’t keep up a turn with a Spitfire, I Imagine what made the Fw 190 so deadly in RL against the Spitfire, was that once on its tail it was very difficult for the Spitfire to not get shot down, due to the combination of the Fw 190s high roll rate and, presumably, high instantaneous turn.
Making it easy to put the guns on target.
But without flaps, Fw 190 hardly turn at all in WT, when they probably should be able to pull pretty high AoA.
They say when a Fw 190 pulled too much on the stick it would sharply roll over to the right.
I always wondered why that would happen.
But if it’s true that the wings could pull high AoA while also generating high lift at low speeds, due to the tick wing roots, the combination probably resulted in some situations where the airflow over the ailerons, or one of them, stopped and the torque of the engine spun the plane to the right.
1 Like
It boils down that the Spit had a smaller turning circle…
…and the 190 was an A-3 version, similar to the A-4 we have in the game…
I also don’t believe that the 152 C was intended as a dedicated bomber destroyer. However I don’t think it’s a dedicated strike aircraft either. I think that too much effort is being made to fit this plane into 1 particular role, when in reality it was meant to be a true multi-role aircraft. It is an all-weather, medium altitude Jabo/Jabo-Rei/Jager/Zerstorer/Schlacht. The Ta 152 H is the Hohenjager(Specialist high altitude fighter/interceptor) and the Ta 152 E is for recon.
The Ta 152 C itself would be capable of fulfilling the missions previously carried out by 190 A, F and G models and even numerous other aircraft as well, even at night or in bad weather thanks to the heavy navigation equipment added. It has the large ventral armor plate normally only seen on ground attack 190 variants like the F-8(Jabo), large wing fuel tank capacity to extend range like the G models(Jabo-Rei), the firepower normally expected of a much larger Zerstorer/Schlacht aircraft like an Me-410 or Bf 110. And a powerful two-stage supercharged engine that will help whether it’s lifting heavy payloads on takeoff(and the structural strength to lift 5500kg), or for intercepting bombers at 25000 feet.
I do think that even despite all this, they went overboard with the cannon armament and performance suffers for it. For bomber destruction I think 3x 20mm MG151/20 like the Dora 13, or 2x 20mm MG151/20 + 1x MK108 like the 152 H would have been enough. For ground attack, suspended ordnance like bombs and rockets would be the heavy-hitting method. The extra pair of 20mm in the cowling seems superfluous, and with the omission of that and the MK 103 they probably wouldn’t have needed to lengthen the nose or move the wings forward, and it would shave like 300+kg.
There were also the later Dora variants meant to continue, serving alongside the 152s also as semi-multirole aircraft, though less versatile and more biased towards the jager role. The D-13 was only just starting production, it also featured a bad-weather kit like the 152 C and it was planned to receive the more powerful Jumo 213EB, fuel tanks inside the outer wings, and I believe also some equipment for ground-attack. The D-15 was also in development in 1945, to have ground attack capability, cannons all in the wings, and use the DB 603EC engine. The D-12 and D-14 were cancelled in favor of these aircraft respectively.
I personally would also add the D-9 to your list of 190s worth playing. I feel like the D-9 is right on the edge of being just maneuverable enough to work, and the small gain in weight + loss of power at low alt of the D-12 pushes it over the edge into being too unmaneuverable to have any hope.
I do have a theory to at least partially explain the 190’s lack of maneuverability. I think it’s the instructor. The instructor is set up to prevent you from pulling so hard that you put yourself into a stall/spin, and the 190 has very sudden and harsh stall characteristics, so I think the instructor is overly cautious in the 190, giving the feeling of a lack of elevator authority. If you switch to Realistic or Full real controls mid-flight like I do, you will notice a significant increase in turning ability if you ride the edge of the 190’s stall. If you pull just a little too much, the wingtip will stall, causing you to snap roll and then spin if you don’t react fast enough. The snap roll can also be done intentionally as a trick to juke the enemy. The slower you are going the more difficult it is to manage. With a joystick carefully riding the stall isn’t so bad, but trying to use W/S keys fully deflects the elevator and instantly sends you out of control if you aren’t going fast, so it can be hard to pull off. In the 152 H, if you are going decently fast, use takeoff/landing flaps, and realistic control mode, the plane turns like an absolute UFO, you(and your enemy) will be shocked at how fast you pull lead on anything short of an LF Mk 9 or Japanese turnfighter. Unfortunately I find that even with realistic controls, the D-12 and 152 C-3 are awful in maneuvering.
1 Like
I really appreciate your reply as a whole - but i am not sure if i have mentioned that i fly exclusively in Air RB with a Hotas and SFC (even on an old and inactive MS account) - with the individual instructor slides at “off” whilst keeping the general slide at “on” to keep the auto trimming of the aircraft.
Therefore i don’t know how bad the planes might be to fly with mouse aim.
But in any case the planes were not my taste regarding responsiveness - the best compromise for me was years ago the F-8 (long before it was used by almost everybody and the fire power was good enough for me) as i was never a fan of 109s. So using the very strong flaps to increase maneuverability is nothing new - but i am not sure if everybody is aware of this.
I was a fan of the Doras (i bought the D-13 with the boosted ailerons) even at 5.3 despite i never enforced head-ons due to the severe accuracy disadvantage vs mouse aimers.
But imho the wt meta changed significantly since 2019 and if i see the competitors today the D-9/12/13 need a downtier to shine; imho the 5.0 BR is slightly too high when i compare the combat effectiveness of a 4.7 La-7 with them.
I mean in the rare event when playing not with Germans in a full uptier in my SM 92 the 190s are no threat if flown by average pilots. And even vs experienced guys - as soon as you deny a head-on and get behind them (which is extremely easy) they are toast - the superior roll does not help, i can go 870 IAS in a dive and i won’t overshoot thx to my airbrake. Imho the 190 Ds are still just support fighters.
Anyway - gl & hf!
Pardon, is this even possible in game?
What do you mean exactly?
The turnability? I mean roll yeah, active controlls yeah, but the turnability and manuvers?
Imho you have to distinguish between anecdotal evidence (like with the first source) irl and what wt is able and willing to offer.
So certain aircraft perform way better or way worse in wt than irl and vice versa.
Some things are rooted in compromises made to make the game playable for masses (like way too high g-limits or lack of modeling the necessary muscle power to be able to put high AoAs) and others are based on gajin’s lack of seriousness when adopting FMs or plain bias.
So it is no secret that 190s can’t really turn fight Spits in wt or that the FM of A6Ms lacks the severe control stiffening at higher speeds (irl) whilst they are being able pull 12 gs which would break the neck of their pilots…
1 Like