FM's>WOP vs. RA

[Li'lJugs]

Believe me when I say I am not trying to start a flamewar, or denigrating either software producer's house, just looking for opinions, OK?

While waiting on the WOP P-47, I've been flying both the WOP Fw-190 and the RA Spit, and to be honest, I find the Spit more enjoyable to fly around in.

It is "easier" to fly, for one thing, but I don't know if that is because it was so in RL, or if it has been modeled that way-in real life, I have flown neither (big surprise there, huh?). But maybe it was that way in real life? Also the Spit modeled by Realair is a Mk 14, a very advance Spitfire. And the Spit was noted in real life to be a rather sweet airplane, while the Fw190, although a very formidale (sp!) fighter, was known to "bite" the novice if handled a bit too rough.

I don't even know if anyone here can answer the question authoritatively or not, but maybe?

And FM debates are always fun, don't you think? LOL!

Like I said, I like them both, and I am going to love the Razorback P-47, but I am interested in your opinions, especially from the "gurus" of flightsimming.

[Panther_99FS]

If you want a bit more "work" while flying, try one of Bob Sanderson's Hurricane's or Bruce Thorsen's new P-40B/C (in full realism of course)

P

[Li'lJugs]

Not looking for "work", just wondering how the FM's compare to the real thing, in terms of "feeliing", that's all.

I do have the Hurri, and it is very nice, and also easier, IMO, to fly. (As it should be, from all I have read.)

[stickshaker]

I agree, Li'IJugs. The plane feels too twitchy to me; I would say it needs more aerodynamic or mass inertia or more stick force per G. I know she was a fast roller, but she also had very good control harmonization, whixch is a bit lost in the twitchiness. The ailerons seem a bit too effective at low speeds. Also the tailwheel seems too effective; something I feel is also the case with the new P-47s. But we should not forget that we lack motion cues in our sims. The plane may well be on the numbers but still not feel as we expect (with no experience in the real thing of course).

[SD_Research]

Believe me when I say I am not trying to start a flamewar, or denigrating either software producer's house, just looking for opinions, OK?

While waiting on the WOP P-47, I've been flying both the WOP Fw-190 and the RA Spit, and to be honest, I find the Spit more enjoyable to fly around in.

It is "easier" to fly, for one thing, but I don't know if that is because it was so in RL, or if it has been modeled that way-in real life, I have flown neither (big surprise there, huh?). But maybe it was that way in real life? Also the Spit modeled by Realair is a Mk 14, a very advance Spitfire. And the Spit was noted in real life to be a rather sweet airplane, while the Fw190, although a very formidale (sp!) fighter, was known to "bite" the novice if handled a bit too rough.

I don't even know if anyone here can answer the question authoritatively or not, but maybe?

And FM debates are always fun, don't you think? LOL!

Like I said, I like them both, and I am going to love the Razorback P-47, but I am interested in your opinions, especially from the "gurus" of flightsimming.

The Fw 190 is far different aircraft than the Spitfire, in whatever marque. The Spit is indeed a sweetheart of a plane by WWII fighter standards, and is much easier to fly than a Mustang or P-40 for that matter. The Fw 190 is tougher to fly than the Mustang by a good margin, by all pilot accounts. It had a fast roll rate, a vicious stall, and took a fine hand (and feet) to handle on the ground and during takeoff and landing.

Can we make planes easy to fly? Sure. But by comparison, we prefer to make them more representative of the differences between the actual aircraft. So when you comment that you find the Spit a more enjoyable plane to just fly around than the Focke-Wulf, that's accurate and means we have all done our jobs with respect to the flight model.

Ground handling is a compromise in FS9; generally these planes are somewhat more stable in real life on the initial takeoff roll, and steering is not linked to the tailwheel. FS9 always links the center wheel (tail or nose) to the rudder pedals, and to get acceptable taxying maneuverability we have to find some good compromise in steering angle.

The best technique for takeoff in these aircraft is to get up to full takeoff power as quickly -- but as smoothly -- as possible. That way you can take advantage of the stability and directional control offered by the rudder because of the prop blast.

[Li'lJugs]

SD_Research, thanks for that response, it's been awhile since I checked out this particular forum.

With further flying, I have gotten used to the '190, and it's not such a handful anymore. I love it, in fact, and now fly it as much, if not more than the RA Spitfire. You guys do great work! (Now if we could only get an AT-6! )

[Panther_99FS]

Not looking for "work", just wondering how the FM's compare to the real thing, in terms of "feeliing", that's all.

I do have the Hurri, and it is very nice, and also easier, IMO, to fly. (As it should be, from all I have read.)

LoL well, they require more "work" (instrument monitoring to stay within flight parameters) otherwise, you'll have a sure-fire engine seizure)...