Dear Simmers, any feedback regarding the new FW190F German ww2 fighter?Is it fantastic?How does it compare to the real air spitfire?

I don't have the Realair Spit, but I do have the Wings Of Power Mustang, and now their Focke-Wulf. Oh, and by the way, it's mostly the A series they model: 190A-3 through 9, and the close air support 190F-9.Seems great so far; I have about 2 hours or so and mostly in the 190A-4 and 190A-9 because those are the two modeled without the centerline drop tank.True to the Fw-190's penchant for losing control at high angles of attack or being rough on the stick, this Fw will snap into a stall if you lack a little finesse on manuevers. Performing a Cuban Eight, it's easy to depart controlled flight at or near the top as speed bleeds down below 400kph (if I remember, I wasn't watching when suddenly I found myself attempting a recovery rapidly decending below 2,500 feet).The A-9 has a fast climb and cruise, true to the literature I've dug up and what ** says (it was the version which finally had a decent supercharger). It's roll rate seems to mimic what I've heard about Fw-190's: fast and crisp. Keep your speed up on landing, and definitely use power, or you'll find yourself low and slow very quickly, and a rapid increase of power will only make matters worse.My only gripe so far: when switching to the virtual cockpit, it feels too close and low in the seat. However, backing the view off to 75% makes the cockpit feel right, or raise your self in the seat a couple notches and the view seems right. But, having never sat in the cockpit of a real Fw-190, I have no idea how obscured the forward vision in one really was.If you like flying WWII fighter aircraft in FS2004, I'd certainly recommend both **'s Mustang and now their Focke-Wulf.Dan

I've flown it for about an hour, and would have to say that overall, I like it. Shockwave claims to have done a lot of work in making the flight envelope extremely faithful to the real FW190 (in all it's variants - each has it's own air file), and as far as I can tell, it seems to fly very nicely. Very twitchy at take-off, perhaps too much, at least with my stick, and stalls very easily.The air file doesn't seem to be quite as refined as RealAir's, but as I've never flown a real Spitfire or FW190, this is all subjective.:) It does seem to be in the same ballpark, though, but without the warning shudders and structural groans that the RealAir Spitfire does so well.The VC is very nicely modelled, but only the usual FS things work. For $29.99 (US), I sort of expected more, or at least to have dummy switches that give the illusion. Gauge fluidity is very good, but nothing like RealAir's.My biggest disappointment is with the external model - which still looks excellent, by the way, but as I sit here with 5 photo books about FW190's on my desk, I think Shockwave could have done a lot better. I think it may be partly a desire to cut down the number of poly's, and partly an unfamiliarity with the structure of the aircraft. The two areas that I believe could have been correctly modelled without compromising the number of poly's are the way the rear fuselage spine curves down from the canopy and then arcs back up to begin the leading edge of the fin. On the real FW this is a graceful arc, but on the model it is a very chopped shape. Secondly, the rear fuselage sides on the FW were more or less flat, with a small radius bend leading to the undersides. On the model, the rear fuselage has been modelled to be sort of roundish.If you want to be really picky, you could also point out that the wheels are not indented on the real FW wheels (being more of a gentle cone), and the gear cover shape are not accurate at the bottom. That said, I'm not a modeller, so I don't know what the challenges were that were faced by whoever made this FW. The wing cord at the tips seems too thin, as well, but I'm not as sure about that.Sometimes I think that otherwise excellent modellers are duped by inaccurate drawings to work from. Aircraft shapes are what I do for a living, and I have worked with many drawings that look very good, but when compared with the real aircraft (in reality or in photos), have serious errors. So maybe I'm being too picky with the model here.Overall, I like this FW190 very much. With 10 separate models to choose from, each of which are very nicely painted, each of which has a tailored air file that is supposedly very accurate, it's a good buy.If you're looking for the kind of visual magic that companies like Carenado and RealAir have recently come up with, it's not that great. Still good, though.That's enough blabbing from me! :)Mike F.

Mike,I went back and re-examined the Focke-Wulf model from your perspective, including grabbing a couple of photos from the real plane. While I see what you're talking about, I really think you're splitting hairs on this one. I don't think there are more than a handful of add-ons out there that would stand your kind of expertise and scrutiny.Dan

Oh well, I've heard people complain high and low that certain aircraft models were total and utter crap because the windscreen was less than 0.1 degrees too steep (or about a pixel too far forward at the top at a resolution of 1024x768)...Ever since I don't listen to such complaints, they're indeed meaningless nitpicking.

I think you're right, it is nitpicking, in a sense. I very rarely take the time to go over a model like this, because usually I'm quite happy to just have a representation of the aircraft to fly in the sim. I know how much work it takes. This one just seemed worth it. Sometimes, perhaps irrationally, you just want something to be the best.The price, in comparison to similarly priced aircraft, and claims of the publisher, also may have motivated a slightly more closer look.As mentioned, it is a good product in my opinion, no question. I now have 2.72 hours flying, am doing a repaint.... :)Mike F.

However,I DID enjoy reading your thoughts regarding this simulated aircraft. WWII era airplanes are my favorites of all time. Own the Shockwave P-51 & RealAir Spitfire.L.Adamson

Mike,Just to note, your observations are not at all incorrect! In fact, you did make me take a closer look at the model.By the way, now my interest is piqued, what do you do, where you work with aircraft models for a living?And, be sure to share your repaint! What version are you painting for?Dan

Hi Dan. Part of the work I do as an artist involves making highly precise images for a national aviation museum (and others). The work carries the mandate of being very precise. In order to carry out the work, I have to use drawings, factory or otherwise, plus photos. The finished result has to pass review by the technical committee, who actually work on these aircraft, and they know their stuff! I have had ample opportunity to use both factory drawings and have access to the real aircraft for measurement, and I love my job!Also, for seven years, before I got into the graphics side, I also had a business making physical models for aviation companies, collectors, and the like. I was the first person to ever see the Bombardier Global Express in a physical form (i.e. not on paper or on computer)! At the more complex end of things, for high-end collectors, some models were complete static engineering replicas, with everything functional that could be made to function, with the exception of engine and instruments. Throttle linkages, mixture, flight controls, undercarriage, doors and their latches, etc., all worked, and were usually made in their original materials. These were usually in 1/8 scale (and were very expensive!). All these were made with original factory drawings, sometimes piece by piece, where plausible.There's much, much more (it goes back 45 years!), but I think this is what's immediately relevant to the way in which I took a look at the FW190.As for the repaint, here's a preview of the work in progress. It represents a somewhat fictional FW190-A9, in the 74/75/76 scheme with 81 mottling it would have worn from the Oschersleben factory if produced in April 1945, as it would have appeared perhaps that month or at the beginning of May. The mottling, etc., is copied from colour photos available of aircraft at the plant. The aircraft wouldn't be that dirty, as it was practically brand new, and as the war was drawing to a close I didn't imagine that anyone would have had time to paint on squadron or 'Defense of the Reich' markings, beyond the aircraft's basic number (6). I have given the aircraft a serial number in the 38000 range, as this was the range given for A9's.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/123018.jpgHave you tried my RCAF repaint for the RealAir Spitfire?And as I have it close at hand, here's a rather poor image of a Rolls Royce Merlin 45 engine I made, as part of a larger Spitfire project. 43 separate castings! I remember it was a complicated job. All the external linkages worked.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/123019.jpgSorry you asked?:-lolHope this sort of answers your question.Mike F.

Mike,WOW! Outstanding stuff! You've taken modelling and painting to a whole new level! I'm not sorry I asked at all. If anyone has a right to be picky about the shape of sim aircraft, it is definitely you.As an aside, I love the Merlin and saved the picture of your model with several articles I've downloaded on that subject. The two best engines produced from that era: the Rolls Royce Merlin and the Pratt and Whitney R2800, hands down.Your work is beautiful, and I hope you make the Focke-Wulf repaint available for download. And no, I don't have your repaint for the RealAir Spitfire, simply because I haven't yet purchased the Spit. I really should, next to the Mustang, she is the most beautiful aircraft to fly.It's good to have you as part of the flight sim community, Mike.Dan

> And no, I don't have your>repaint for the RealAir Spitfire, simply because I haven't yet>purchased the Spit. I really should, next to the Mustang, she>is the most beautiful aircraft to fly.>Without doubt, the P-51D Mustang is my most favorite aircraft ever, and I've had the privlage to fly (as passenger) in one.But when it comes to simming, if you don't have the RealAir Spitfire, then you're really missing out! L.Adamson