"What was so excellent about the FW 190 and P-51?" Topic

I don't play any model based wargames that deal with WW2 aviation directly, but I do sometimes play flight sims like IL-2 Sturmovik. In the games I've played rarely do I have much success with the FW-190 and the P-51, although I do have a fair amount of success against them. In most games I've played the main advantages of the FW-190 seem to be speed and firepower, and for the P-51 the only advantage seems to be speed. I know both of these planes are considered among the best fighters of the war, so what am I missing?

They look cool.

so what am I missing

That the flight sim has some problems?

Just like our miniature games, computer combat simulators aren't necessarily true to life simulations.
--
Tim

Speed, manouverability (sp?). One of the things about the P-51 was that it had the range to escort bombers to Germany and back which is probably not a big selling point on a flight sim.

The FW-190 was tough, manevuerable and designed to operate from combat airfields – great survivability and with those 20mm cannon packed a big punch

The P-51 was not as good a dogfighter as some other fighters but had great speed, performed very well at high attitudes and had tremendous range

The advantages that the P 51 enjoyed & by that, I mean the Merlin powered ones. Very well trained pilots, good armament, excellent range and more importantly there were an awful lot of them to project air superiority over occupied Europe.

The FW 190 A/F series was a versatile airframe that lent itself not only to being a very capable fighter, but also to become a useful ground attack aircraft. The radial engine was not so prone to damage as the liquid cooled engines of its contemporaries. Also,it carried in various models, some exceptionally heavy armament, more than capable of destroying 4 engined bombers IF it could get through the protective fighter escorts.

Another factor in the P-51's favor was that it had good maneuverability and performance at high altitude; an arena where most other fighters were lacking.

Fast, maneuverable, excellent firepower, and for the Mustang, a very long range due to its use of underwing droptanks.

FW-190 has the best rate of roll in the sky. Should be a handy thing when taking fire, roll away from the hits.
Let's see, P-51, laminar wing, heavy firepower, light on the controls, more power than any opponent-Merlin engine, speed to burn for a prop plane, great in a dive, outstanding climber, turned with anything, best pilot training available, gas for Berlin and back, Cadillac of the Skies…hmmm…any of that any good?

Hi:

P-51, absolutely beautiful and great fighter – at altitude. The FW-190, also beautiful and a great fighter (though with poorer, and poorer trained pilots). However to "Jabo 1944's" comment, it is telling about the P-51 that the Air Force pulled them out of ground attacks very quickly in Korea because they were very vulnerable to North Korean ground fire. The Corsair, also a radial – like the FW, stayed on much longer.

That probably is not part of the SIM, either

I always compared the durability of the FW190 to the American P-47 Tunderbolt. Both could take punishment. More than comparing the FW190 to the P51 Mustang.

Well. The real thing you're missing is that the game in question is made by a Russian company and is about the Eastern Front…..

So, naturally, everything not Russian is going to worse.

I had a buddy tell me the mustang was what you took a picture in to send home to the girl and the folks, the thunderbolt was the plane you got in to get the job done

I'm with Izzyfaze, they look cool.

Fw 190, tough construction, heavy arms, fast.

P-51, long range, good punch, faster.

Spitfire, Hurricane, ME-109, Warhawk all 1930's Technology.
Fw-190, P-51, 1940's technology.
Ten or so years can make a big difference.

It is a game about flight, not a real flight simulator. Most real aircraft are not as easy to fly as the sims make them to be. After all it is not much fun to just repeatedly crash.

Plus you are p against the designers predjudices.

Owen

All aircraft have parameters by which they excel and by which they aren't as good. A P51 is outstanding at altitude, and an FW190 is better at lower altitudes. You play to the strengths of the aircraft.

A sim is a simulation based on the best info and/or prejudices of the creators.

It's possible that the simulation isn't good at simulating those particular aircraft, or it's possible you are not playing to the strengths of the aircraft.

I seem to recall something about a fuel injector not a carberator on the P-51, giving it a very steep climb and dive. I could be dead wrong…

Sorta. P-51 has a nightmarishly complex thing called a pressure carburetor (the balance between 4 different pressures controls the fuel mixture). It's more or less an all-mechanical fuel-injection system, but it needs a flowbench to calibrate.

However, no fuel floats to get in the way of acrobatics.

My recollection of IL-2 is it is more of an arcade game…

FW-190 was generally king of the sky in EAW, Warbirds etc. Fast, tough, manouverable, good cockp[it visibility and with lots of firepower, a fabulous plane. Rather easier to land than a 109 too….

> the thunderbolt was the plane you got in to get the job done

Not if that job involved flying to Berlin…

I've noticed that Flight Sims are a lot like First Person Shooters, technically things may be correct but the skies are full of ace pilots fully prepared to die (and then reincarnate). That puts a real damper on the realism.

I've found IL-2 to be very realistic, especially at the higher skill levels.

Plane performance is always somewhat subjective and someone will always scream when their pet airplane doesn't meet their expectations.
The problems with the P-51, for the most part, are due to how the plane is employed. The 'Stang is a high altitude fighter, most pilots won't take the time to climb it up to it's effective altitude and most Dogfights degenerate into low altitude turning fights. A place where the Mustang does NOT perform well.

-Buck

so what am I missing?

Spitfire IX?

I've often noticed that people that game with various planes and fail even though the plane was very successful tend to not fight them the right way. This is true on the table top and on the computer. If a figher was known for tight turns and outturning their opponent do that. If it was known for speed then use that. It is easy to get people to try and turn in a plane that was a speed freak. I have had endless fun refusing to engage an enemy until I could set them up where I wanted them. Sure they taunt you about running away and all, but that stops after they got shot down. People in games are too aggressive because, as has been pointed out, they can get blasted out of the sky and be back in a minute.

Mustang and FW-190 are more suited for zoom and boom (both have good dive and climb speeds), not turn and burn (though the FW190 could not be beaten in a flick roll). So use your rate of climb to position yourself above your prey, dive down and strike before climbing again. Mixing it, invariably leads to loss of altitude and decreasing speed and energy.

I have played IL-2 quite a bit and the FW-190, if handled correctly is a 'butcher bird', it also seemed one of the less arcade-like flight sims around equally rewarding and punishing realistic and unrealistic handling. An La-5 at high altitude is a pig, get to medium to low altitude and the FW-190 is beatable.

Arguably all 1930's technology, FW190 first flight was in'39. And the Spitfire in its later marks was still the gold standard as the air supremacy fighter…….

Milites,
I took your advice and used the FW 190 with boom and zoom tactics, firing as I shot past the Russians at high speed. It works fairly well that way against fighters although it can be impossible to hit them if they maneuver at the last moment. On the other hand against larger planes, including the IL-2, with less ability to maneuver, the FW 190 can do quite well. The armament is strong enough one GOOD pass seems to be enough to knock anything out of the sky, and it has enough ammo to make several passes.

I still prefer the Me-109 in most situations, but the FW-190 definitely has its strengths.

Now, onto the Mustang…

It's about altitude.

The Spit IX is a dog at the FW190's optimum altitude (and vice versa) while the Spit XII es all over the FW190 – because that's what it was designed to do. The same is true for the Yak3.

And why Kozhedub was able to take out the two P51Ds that mistakenly jumped him while he was flying an La7.