really?? i don't notice that... infact i love the FW190 and BF109 becouse there preformance. i believe no planes ever sucked, each plane is known for it's good and bad points, infact i don't like flying the P-51, it's sluggish, but i bet there be alot of pilots out there that like it, and fly it alot better then me. in the end it all depends on the pilot's skills, abilitys, and how they fly that plane.
now see your good at flying british planes so that is your skill ,

cheers, daniel

Good planes take good pilots...

Yeah, I've noticed that the AI doesn't really seem to stall, I flew straight up on a 262 and a P-55 stalled at the same altitude as me.

Try going with a slightly lighter load of fuel in the 190, it seems to have the same problems as the 51. So yes it is quite realistic.

Ozzy

Just remember that stalling has nothing to do with airspeed!  It's to do with the angle of attack.  If the angle is too small, not enough air will be pushed over the wing to create a lower pressure here, so no lift is formed.  When at a correct angle and speed...say 100 knots and 10 degrees up....air is being pushed over the wings at a lower pressure than below the wings and the high pressure air rises, forming lift.  At too great an angle, the AoA is too great to form lift, therefore you stall, no matter what your airspeed is.

Maybe the Spitfire's wing shape creates mre lift at low speeds, I don't know...but I do know the P-51 was never a great wing shape for creating lift at low speeds.

imo, what it comes down to is If used right and In the hands of a skilled pilot, any aircraft can be a killer machine.

in a way it would be very difficult for an F-18 to shoot down a camel:) almost impossible to get a heat seaking lock, a radar lock wouldnt be possible, and guns would be difficult as the stall speed of the hornet has to be faster than top speed of a camel:) all it would have to do is wait for the hornet to over shoot then fire guns quickly certainly would be interesting:)

stall - When the wings stops producing lift

Taken from: http://www.aero.hq.nasa.gov/edu/mean.html

Even that Rod Machado guy in the FS2002 lessons says a stall is simply when a wing stops producing lift, not when your airspeed is too low.  Although there is a certain speed in level flight where this happens on every aircraft...

I think Whiskey_Zulu is under the impression that a stall happens because your airspeed is too low. That isn't the case.

Whiskey_Zulu:  Just to make sure you know...the P-51 can dogfight with one notch of flaps down.  It works, I do it all the time.  Flaps increase the curvature of the wing and so more lift is produced.  20 degrees of flpad creates more lift, so lowers your stall speed, but it won't cause a considerable drop in your performance.

Quote:


wohoo!! 8)

hey, i think the only way to down a sopwith in a F18 is to go low down, and wosh past the camel at the speed of sound!!! that will surely put the camel into a stall and flip to the ground
8) 8) 8)

thow i think your not allowed to break the barrier that low....

Without getting too involved in this argument (and belive me the "what causes a stall" thread is a blinder !

My advice to you Whiskey-Zulu is to forget all about the "stock" Microsoft aircraft - that is the ones that came with the game. Most people agree that these are less than realistic.

Instead download the 1% standalone aircraft . These are supposed to perform as realisticialy as possible (within 1% of the original) and they come with better paint jobs as well .

You can find them here , at Avhistory , sim-outhouse

Good luck and (hopefully) happy flying 

For goodness sake - the poor guy is asking for help and all you lot can do is argue over who is right about stalling 

Grow up !

Quote:


Its from Beavis and Butthead.

Quote:


oh shutup he already got told an answer.

this is the first time I post in the cfs3 forum and I get told to grow up. I won't be coming here again.

The stall rate on German planes vs British planes is fairly simple to explain. German planes had a rectangular shaped wing that were very thin. Thin rectangular wings offer good to excellent preformance but at the cost of a nasty unpredictable stall rate. British planes had thicker wings in an oval shape. This type of wing offers excellent preformance as well without the unpredictable stall. Weight also comes into play. Fully loaded, the FW190 can become quite heavy. It now doesn't have a good enough Power to Weight ratio to maintain a steep climb.

To sume up, areodynamics are a lot more than just air producing lift. Different wing shapes can produce differing amounts of lift and preformance. You may wish to search the net or even get a book on areodynamics to get a better understanding. Better yet, get a WW2 pocket guide to aircraft, they list preformance stats, I use them frequently in FS2002 and CFS3 to get climb rates and other information.  

<sarcasm>

Yes.

Yes they did suck that bad.

In retrospect, it's amazing the Luftwaffe achieved as much as it did.   

Did you know that Willy Messerschmitt designed the Me 109 in only 11 days?  And that he was drunk while doing it?  And he only drew the schematics with his left hand?  (He was right-handed)  He was also with a prostitute at the time.   The prostitute had syphilis... and a heroin addiction (much like Reichmarshal Goering).

All that aside, the 109 did get off the ground, didn't it?  You want to know how?  The Occult.  The Occult got the Me 109 off the ground.  Have you ever seen the movie Return to Castle Wolfenstein?  Well, that was more or less based on actual events, and there was most certainly a deep relationship between the Luftwaffe's performance and the Nazi Occult.

The manpower mustered for every single German sortie that took place during the war was almost incomprehensible by today's standards.  For every single, individual plane's flight, the following had to take place:

• An assemblage at the airbase of four high priestesses, three Bavarian virgins (male or female) wearing black leather spats, two red deer from the Balmoral Scottish highlands (no other deer would suffice), and a Hauptmann from the Wehrmacht with a missing left eye.
• The group would sacrifice 142 russet potatoes by jamming each into the barrel of an 88mm AAA gun and firing.
• A sacred fire would be lit in an empty fuel drum that had been cut in half.  The only fuel allowed for the fire would be hazel nuts and pictures of Winston Churchill.
• Finally, all (including the deer) would join hands (or hooves) in a sacred circle around the fire and chant (in English):
  
  Mighty Knight of the heavens,
  Arise to the challenge.
  May your miscarriage of engineering
  Carry you across the Channel.
  May your bombs be our enemies' misfortune,
  And our utter delight.
  May you not run out of petrol (again)
  On the return trip.
  
  COMPLICATE!
  COORDINATE!
  GRAVITATE!
  EXTRICATE!
  ELIMINATE!
  DEPRIVATE!
  
  ELLLEEEVAAAATE!!!!

As the chant builds up into a furious crescendo, the plane rolls down the runway.  If it is timed perfectly, the chanters will reach their climax just as the aircraft lifts off the runway.  If it is not timed perfectly, the magic will fail and the plane will stall (not because not enough air is moving across the wings to provide sufficient lift, but because the magic has failed), and crash, its' unfortunate pilot entangled within the burning wreckage.

Keep in mind the bravery of the German airmen who flew despite these almost insurmountable odds, and the sheer number of learned people (steeped in the ways of both the Occult and of our Lord and Master The Horned One, God of the Hunt) it took to get their planes off the ground.

Its something to think about.

For a little while, anyway.

</sarcasm>

First lets tackle tha MS AI.

The AI planes use a simplified flight model compared to what you get when you fly a standalone aircraft. Fly the Fw190A8 R8 against an AI pilot in a B17 and he'll out turn you - Yeah, right!
.(thread on this at avhistory)

http://www.avhistory.org/scripts/MegaBBS/thread-view.asp?threadid=1105&posts=10

Fact is AI pilots can pull some stunts that you CAN'T do in the same plane however hard you try. They also fly into mountains though (try starting a QC intercept in BF110s over Barcelonette at 2500 feet and see what I mean - LOL).



Now lets talk about Fw190's.

The British planes had big wings and therefore low wing loading. High lift sections give low stall speeds and good turning performance. The Spitfire was special because it had a laminar flow (very thin) wing with elliptical plan so doesn't lose much speed in a turn (crap for mounting big guns in though).

The Fw190 (and to a lesser extent the bf109) had very small compact designs with small wings and therefore high wing loading. Turn performance was not great and if you get into a turn fight with a spitfire, you'll die. Vicious stall characteristics too. Advantages are high speed and massive acceleration in a dive (but don't try that against a P47). The 190 also has a higher roll rate than anything else (except a late mark clip wing Spit at low altitude) allowing very fast changes of direction and a wonderful 'split-ess'.

The FW190 is an energy fighter. The tactics involve keeping your speed up and exploiting the inertia of the aircraft to dogfight in the vertical and use 'boom and zoom' tactics to keep one step ahead.

You need separation. Make a long, high speed approach, line up your target and let him have it (preferably head on). Six guns on a 190 will unload a lot of lead in a short burst - make it count. If you miss DON'T try and turn for another attack. Nose down WEP and burn to acheive separation again. Then come back and have another go.

The least realistic thing in CFS3 is that you've got that darn taget cone and tags everywhere telling the enemy where you are. That helps the spit pilot because he can turn and follow the cone but definitely does not help with the tactics you need in the 190. Try it and you'll stall and snap a wing down.

Later, the fw190D sacrificed roll rate and some firepower for massive speed and higher altitude performance. The Ta152 took this further and the H model had a long wing with low loading, a speed of 472mph and a ceiling of 48,000 feet. Fortunately for Hawker Tempest pilots only about 15 were built.

Stalls are cause by low airspeed OR too high angle of attack. Recovering from both kinds is a skill you'll need in the 190.

Also, I'm darn sure most developers just don't try as hard to model the German planes well. Hell they can't even get the guns right on some of 'em. mS only put in HALF the goddam ammo and even the later builders of FW190's for CFS3 don't put 30mm cannons where they should be.

I like the 109 in the game, especially with the extra cannons, just drop that bomb or drop tank PDQ.  This is ideal for the one pass sneak up and destroy them combat.

But as has been said don't try to out-turn a Spit, just power dive and not only does their wing hinder them, so does the fact that the early Spits weren't fuel injected so drag and gravity are on the side of the Luftwaffe.  (must be something to do with the garlic)

Anyhow that brings me to my lastest crib about realism - why when I take off in the 109 do I not get to see the ceremony - is a developer working on this - Terrain SDK anyone??  

The FW190 is inferior to the Spit IX I read an arcticle about it (ACTUAL FLIGHT TEST DATA) it could only out roll (Usless )

Whitey(spelled right?) I have to agree with you, all of the aircraft have their own little 'ticks and when you have learned how to minipulate what ever you are flying to "match" those ticks, you get good at any of the aircraft, I too have my favorites, but, I've tried to learn all of the aircraft's different  nuances you can almost perform miracles in them... Keep in mind also please, that we just got our machine back online, and I've had alot of time to try and learn them all... I like them all... Dano