might be the full fuel every plane takes
2 Likes
I usually feel like I’m way faster with the P47…even when it’s completely loaded with all those HVARs
Turns better too lol
1 Like
One of the reasons I always snap when aircraft changes are mentioned by devs is that how arcady flying is, especially the aircraft stats.
1 Like
Since they are doing whatever they want with flight stats and throwing out historical or warthunder stats, its high time legendary planes not only get their flight model fixed (cough 190), but they get boosted to be fun and actually more inline with their Historical legendary reputations
Mosquito and 190 boost please, these planes should be the bees knees…not sitting on the bench
10 Likes
Historically speaking, the spitfire could “out turn” the Fw 190. Don’t think it could out climb it though the stats in Enlisted have it doing so.
Many other sources can corroborate what Mr. Rodgers says here. Feel free to do your own research.
Personally feel that 190s are fine, except for the lack of suspended armaments. Their greatest advantage is speed however that pro can be somewhat mitigated because of the minimal play area. Regardless, turn fighting in a 190 should only be done after a dive and even then it is still a gamble. Go vertical or get shot down.
2 Likes
Not only that if You check out the fligth model of this plane and the bf series You Will realize that fw series drift into the air why?? Probably cuz handycap
Also this post i Made explaing overall that some planes are buffed like the TU-2 which is biased and is not supposed to be like that:
Also if someone can help to revive this topic by adding more information thank You
2 Likes
I made a bug report about the D-12 gold order version 7 months ago.
Answer: “The information provided has been passed on to the developers for review.”
Never heard from it again.
There are several bug reports about the Fws flying so bad, the oldest is 2 years.
I suggest we confirm the problem on the bug report site.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/enlisted/i/0Y4Xo5ZrS2fH
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/enlisted/i/kVL3DDlWWSbW
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/enlisted/i/FQL2Kq0UJthD
FYI:
- I found that always using flaps on the Fws helps. Use them always except when flying level. It helps turning better (duh) and also less pancaking after bombing.
- the premium D-9 flies the least bad of all Fws in the game, but still not good.
Topics like these keep appearing every now and then.
We all seem to agree there is a problem with the beautiful 190s.
I would very much appreciate a clear answer from the devs about this:
Yes it’s broken and we’ll fix it soon, or no it’s not broken at all and it will stay like this.
6 Likes
Nice video, but as with all historical questions, it must be said that the winner writes history. To admit that an aircraft was more maneuverable than the legendary Spitfire would be almost an insult. Let alone talk about the Mustang like that. Most people only know about the excellent flight performance of the Bf 109s, but that was only the case at high altitudes and
at high speeds.
It was not for nothing that the aircraft had flaps.
At low or medium altitudes, the Fw 190 was far more maneuverable than the Bf 109.
That is roughly the same altitude as in Enlisted. Nevertheless, the Bf 109 in Enlisted is more maneuverable than the Fw 190 (an aircraft that is less respected in history than the Bf 109, Spitfire or Mustang). The Fw 190 had problems at high altitudes, which is why the D series was designed. The Ta 152 was a masterpiece that was supposed to combine all the advantages of the Bf 109 and Fw 190 and that was the case. The evidence that the British wanted to steal one just to develop their Spitfire proves to me that the Fw 190 was at least as maneuverable as the Mk. V.
A comparison of the later versions of the Fw 190 with the later Spitfire is even more difficult because they almost never met.
The fight against the USAF bomber groups was the main focus at this time and escort was flown primarily by American aircraft.
Regardless of the eternal discussions about which aircraft was how maneuverable, the turn time of the Fw 190s is longer than any Bf109 and longer than some bombers, which is fundamentally wrong when you consider the general flight altitude in Enlisted.
1 Like
Adding the Ta 152 would be cool because the Tempest is already there. But shouldn’t the Ta 152 have a turnaround time like a bomber?
Setting the turnaround time of the Fw 190 to the level of the Spitfire Mk V (would be realistic) would be a good opportunity to introduce a BR5 Spitfire Mk. IX or Mk. XIV.
Between us, wasn’t the P51 D also very maneuverable? After all, it also has a turnaround time that is, in my opinion, too long. If they introduced all of this, the air battle between the USA and Germany would be much more balanced.
Fw-190 was only more maneruverable in terms of roll rate than Spitfire.
Fw-190A not only has much higher stall speed than a Spitfire but worse power to weight ratio.
Spitfire with lower stall speed not only can do smaller turn radius but sustain it better with its better power to weight ratio. Infact the Fw-190A stall speed isnt just high, its higher than most ww2 prop fighters even compared to the heavier US stuff.
Fw-190 was made for Boom n Zoom and thats unfortunately not meta in enlisted. Not only are the fights limited to low altitudes, the enemy gets a stupid aim assist t show him where to shoot. BnZ is also a lot more difficult to perform from 1st person view from the cockpit.
My advice is… stick to the Messersmitts
When gaijin makes aircraft flight models they dont input the turn time value.
The Flight Model prograzm automatically calculates the turn rate according to the characteristics of the aircraft such as drag, oswald efficieny, stall speed, power to weight ratio etc. When a plane has wrong turn time its when for example the wing lift coeffcient is wrong, but i already checked it in the past. Fw-190’s have their current 1.40 CL_Max
When A7M’s were initally added in War Thunder, the A7M2 had 19 sec turn time instead of 15 sec.
This was a result of gaijin modelling the wings to have wing lift coeffcient of only 1.06 CL_max instead of 1.40 CL_Max
BF-109E’s used to have 21 sec turn time instead of 17-18 sec and it also also result of the wing lift coeffcient being too low.
I fixed all those planes to get their correct turn times (by bug reporting) that they have today. Trust me when i say this. Fw-190 turn rates are actually correct.
Fw-190A-5
Loaded Weight: 4106kg
Wing Area: 18.30m2
Engine: 1677 Horsepower
Wing Loading = 224.37kg/m2
Power to Weight: 2.45kg per HP
Spitfire Mk IX
Loaded Weight: 3331kg
Wing Area: 21.46m2
Engine Power: 1700 Horsepower
Wing Loading = 155.22kg/m2
Power to Weight: 1.96kg per HP
Spitfire has 44.5% lower wing loading, Fw-190’s wing loading is in twin heavy fighter territory
Spitfire has 25% better power to weight ratio
If you think that Fw-190 could pull inside and then outturn a spitfire, youre dreaming
The winners do write history. And history is sometimes measured in the human cost. In this case that cost was exacted because of German engineering. We know they made efficient killing machines, but to put out exact numbers to somehow depict that proficiency is somewhat guess work, hopefully based upon historical research. I’ve never flown those warbirds and I’d guess neither have the devs, so educated guesses are our best bet. Now with that being said, this game seems to shares a lot of similarities with DCS and the IL2 series in their guesses. If flight characteristics are borrowed from them, perhaps the flight models in Enlisted are pretty good.
I appreciate your response and am with you in thinking the Ta - 152 would make a good addition.
According to my data, the Rollei Royce Merlin 65 provided 1,650 hp to the Spitfire Mk. V and the BMW 801 D-2 provided 1,700 hp to the Fw 190 A5.
Regardless of this, I would like to note that neither the A5 nor the Mk. IX appear in Enlisted.
The mention of wing loading and power to weight piqued my interest.
After a short research I found that the Spitfire is significantly lighter, which is a big advantage. I also looked at the values for the P 51, P 38, P 47 and Tempest. All of them have worse values than the FW 190 A8 (only the Tempest had a slightly lower wing loading), which is strange because they all have a better turn time (admittedly not significantly, but a second can be decisive)
I haven’t had a look at the other values yet.
So I have to say sorry for saying that the FW 190 was more maneuverable than the Spitfire. However, until I find any further information about stall speed and so on, I remain convinced that the turn time of the FW 190s is too long.
Maybe I’ll make a new suggestion, but then in comparison to the US planes.
PS: it can hardly perform the classic flight maneuvers of the Boom&Zoom, in contrast to the Bf 109.
2 Likes
This is how you calculate Stall Speed or Check Wing Lift Coefficient
Link to calculating stall speed (in metres per second)
Link to calculating the Lift Coefficient
This is the flight performance of the Fw-190’s that gaijin has for them in War Thunder
Fw-190A-1:
https://old-forum.warthunder.ru/index.php?/topic/92003-fw-190-a-1/#comments
Fw-190A-4:
https://old-forum.warthunder.ru/index.php?/topic/116454-fw-190-a-4/#comments
Fw-190A-8:
https://old-forum.warthunder.ru/index.php?/topic/94902-fw-190-a-8-sncac-nc900/#comments
Fw-190D-9:
https://old-forum.warthunder.ru/index.php?/topic/94910-fw-190-d-9/#comments
Sustained turn times at Sea Level
Fw-190A-1 = 21 sec turn
Fw-190A-4 = 22 sec turn
Fw-190A-8 = 23 sec turn
Fw-190D-9 = 21 Sec turn
Lets check the Fw-190A-8
Loaded weight: 4272kg
Wing Area: 18.30m2
Wings: Normal Flow Wings = ~ 1.40 CL_Max wing lift coefficient is what we are expecting
4272 x 9.81 (Gravity) = 41,809 Newtons
(of Lifting force is needed to pick the Fw-190A-8 off the ground at 4272kg weight)
Air Density at Sea level is 1.225kg/m3
Stall Speed in game is 190km/h
This is CL_Max of 1.34
So the Fw-190A-8 should actually have 185-186km/h stall speed to achieve 1.40-1.41 CL_Max
This would improve its turn time from 23 sec to like 22.5 sec (which is still trash)
Tempest Mk V
Loaded Weight: 5221kg
Wing Area: 28.06m2
Wings: Laminar Flow Wings, expected CL_Max is ~1.32
5221kg x 9.81 (Gravity) = 51,218 Newtons
(of Lifting force is needed to pick the Tempest V off the ground at 5221kg)
Air Density at Sea Level is 1.225kg/m3
171km/h Stall Speed at ~1.32 CL_Max for Tempest V, which is a lot lower than 186km/h (for fixed Fw-190A-8) or the current Fw-190A-8 with 190km/h stall speed.
Power to Weight:
Tempest V = 5221kg / 2450 Horsepower = 2.13kg per hp (P/W ratio)
Fw-190A-8 = 4272kg / 1700 PS (1677HP) = 2.55kg per hp (P/W ratio)
So not only does Tempest V have 8.8% lower stall speed (186 / 171)
It has 19.7% better power to weight ratio than Fw-190A-8
This is why Tempest V is still able to do circles around the Fw-190.
A6M2 Mod 11
Loaded Weight: 2338kg
Wing Area: 22.43m2
Wings: Normal Wing = 1.40 CL_Max
A6M2 only has 124km/h Stall Speed
2338kg / 950 Horsepower = 2.46kg per hp
Compared to Fw-190A-8…
A6M2 has 50% lower stall speed and 3.65% better power to weight ratio
A6M2 can literally pull much smaller turning circles. A6M2 can do turns at 160km/h without stalling, whilst Fw-190A-8 would be fighting for controls near its stall speed at around 186-200km/h.
1 Like
Really good, I’m happy about such detailed information, but I also have sources with 3,855 kg and a stall speed of 166 km/h. That’s the big problem, you can find different data everywhere. It doesn’t matter, it’s still cool.
Could someone do a calculation like that for P38 and P47.
Which P-38 model?
P-38J
Loaded Weight: 7880kg
Wing Area: 30.425m2
In game has 189km/h stall speed, giving it 1.50 CL_max
P-38J has 2.46kg per HP power to weight, so a bit better than Fw-190A-8 and currently in game has roughly same stall speed as Fw-190A-8
P-38J is also the slowest turning version of the P-38.
1 Like
Pretty interesting stuff. So considering all the math, would you all say Enlisted is pretty accurate?
I would say its pretty irrelevant if its realistic or not. Most planes in enlisted arent, no reason 190 should be hindered by being so (which i highly doubt it is in the first place)
4 Likes