Focke Wulf 190D Cockpit Tour and More 

We need to know his specs first so we know what to get firet

I don't think his finance are the problem, his wife bought him his computer so he might have sentimental value to it

Tru dat!

Go ahead you can donate since you came up with the bright idea

"soggy french fries" In other words bad French fries

In my opinion, these statements makes no sense. You would use these words for a model of the aircraft, or its depiction in a flight simulator. What "attention" and "detail" went into the real aircraft came with the functionalities it was designed with, which were not especially more advanced than other Luftwaffe aircraft currently in service at that time. I would say the Fw 190 Dora was very much a product of late WW2 Germany, desperately searching for a way to improve the quickly degrading air-to-air performance of their Antons.

@@Frenchy849 I think the statement makes very much sense. The 190 series stands out over all others in having a very modern feeling cockpit. Stunning in simplicity and seemingly designed around workflows. A truly pilot-centric design approach. In contrast, cockpits of other aircraft seem to have been designed around the technical necessities of the machine instead. Standing in front of one exhibited at a museum, I couldn't help myself to think how "modern" it was, even by today's standards. I never understood why the concept of a combined gyro instrument like the Wendekompass never caught on outside of the Luftwaffe (and later Soviet Air Force) Oh, and there was nothing desperate about the actual designs, save for perhaps the Natter and the Heinkel 162. The desperation (which was clearly there) was mostly to be seen in when the designs were deemed combat ready.

@@daszieher the FW-190 wasn't any more advanced than it's allied peer aircraft, such as the P-51, or the Spitfire mk IX which came out in 42 and was built specifically to counter the FW-190. the 190 came out in 1941, the P-51D specifically was able to DOMINATE the F-190 at the altitudes that it was designed for (to escort our B-17 flying fortresses.). So, the phrase it was ahead of it's time is really nonsense. People have this weird romantization of the nazi wehrmacht and luftwaffe. Things like how great the Tiger tanks were (they sucked, broke down easily, constant maintanance needed) Both the Soviets and the US had smaller tanks that could punch through the Tiger's front armor at 800m, and were produced en masse such as the T-34-85 and the M4A3 The soviets managed to take out 7 tigers losing only 4 T-34-85s, in one battle.

@@ExarchGaming rubbish. Look at the design with your own eyes. You'll see highly advanced concepts for the time. These are all just aircraft, tools to fight a war. Some had the edge over others in a few areas, some in others. Neither the Mustang nor the 190 were absolutely dominant (I also did not say anything like that). The 190 A was,by the way, not designed to be a versatile high-altitude fighter. There is no need to romanticise or even attach a certain value to the systems under which they originated, except, perhaps that a capitalist economy where products compete more openly for positions will deliver slightly better results. And that being bombed while attempting to build and maintain a production industry is difficult. Regarding the tanks, Tigers had exceptional kill rates at distance, but performed abysmally overall in real battle for a series of reasons. There is enough propaganda from both sides to skew the perception in one direction or the other, don't fall for it

Mustang Grìffon powered spitefire same sophistication

I do like it, but at the moment it's the only DCS WW2 plane I have.

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles ; Technically you also have the TF-51D Mustang trainer as she is free for everybody :)

and this looks bad compared to max graphics. i hope greg can scrounge up the funds for a monster gaming rig. DCS is glorious with everything cranked up to 11

You should see it in VR. The first time I flew one of these planes in DCS using a VR headset, I took off from the field and was just blown away by the 3D environment and the level of detail of everything. Then I did my first wing-over and almost fell out of my chair it felt so real 😂 it’s actually crazy how cramped these cockpits feel when you’re in VR. It really gives you a sense of how little room there was in most of these birds.

Thanks.

Thanks, I'll try that.

thats a great idea! id watch that! i feel like Greg has done something like that but not in DCS. or maybe he mentioned his favorite and least fave layouts in one of his videos. either way thats a good plan!

Can't remember where I read it but I think one of the British early WW2 bombers had some horrific spring loaded lid over something important in the control panel. The writer/pilot disliked it intensely.

Honestly, I’d watch the hell out of a cockpit tier list.

Mosquito is calling 😅

I don't own any Newbalances.

This guy got it right. You set a target temperature.

@@SheriffsSimShack Yeah, I've screwed that up more times than I'd like to admit. if I don't watch it carefully, I tend to overheat. Thankfully the engine starts making a funny sound to indicate that you've got about 4 minutes before you lose it.

Hi Bulldog, I know it was you because I debriefed myself in Tacview. We had some great fights, although at the time I didn't know it was you because it seems every P-51 pilot flies that same paint scheme. We had one fight when we hit each other in the head on pass, both of us limped back to base. Great flying, and thanks.

I don't think it's abandoned and I think there is some real home for the DCS WW2 stuff. Time will tell. Of course I have no idea what the developers of DCS are going to do, but they have a great opportunity here in terms of the timing of their product, I just hope they can capitalize on it.

Thanks Wrench, I had no idea those view controls were available.

I probably will. I'm getting the P-47 next, then all the other WW2 planes in DCS. I'm most excited about the P-47, but they are all great.

Sweet! Your videos are so detailed I almost think I can fly a simulation.

I'll do that one day.

Hmm, I didn't know that.

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Well, it is unusual and seen only in special events on a few servers such as the 4YA WWII events. Someone made a recruitment video for folks who might want to assume the role but I can't seem to find it. Plus it was pretty...long 😂

Agreed. It's amazing to see how logical things can get if someone spends the time and grey matter to simplify and streamline them, instead of just going "where do we put the xyz? Oh there's some space left over there, the pilot will just get used to it."

Yeah, the 109s are lacking in armament. The 13mm HMGs are good but you only get 2 of them and one 20mm.

Stephen, thanks for your kind words. I may try the 21, I have the Mig 19 and I love it, but there doesn't seem to be anywhere good to fly it in multiplayer. Some places are guns only, but all jets, so you end up agasint F16s, others are cold war but the US jets get all aspect heat seakers. I would like to find a place for Mig 19 vs cold war with rear aspect only.

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Have you tried "Enigma's cold war servers?" There are no F16's wandering around. Best thing in those is going to be a Viggen, MiG21, F5 or Mirage F1, none of which have anything better than an old Fox 1. They have MiG-19 slots and it's all turning fights with the occasional missile shot. It's brutal, really brutal. There are some damn fine gen 2-3 fighter pilots out there in DCS. It'll make you work hard for any kill. It's great fun.

I have, the F5s there have all aspect heat seakers, and the overlord bot is all seeing, which makes it pretty easy for them. What I want is a cold war server than doesn't go past the Vietnam era.

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles The Caucus version of the server uses rear aspect heaters only now, and is much more challenging from that perspective.

That's great if it's true. I would have to check it in tacview to figure it out for sure.

I can confirm that the CG shift from using fuel from one tank vs the other is there

It would have been a dissapointment if it didn't. Microsoft Flight sims had been doing it for more than 20 years

I'll get a new one later this year, maybe early next year.

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I recommend waiting for prices to stabilize a little, Nvidia for example ordered way too much silicon for their next generation of graphics cards. Can probably get a decent deal that way.

Really? The DCS 109K4 manual states "The DCS Bf 109 K-4 is modeled with the DB 605 DB engine." and " The DB could use B4 fuel which, with MW 50 Methanol Water injection equipment, generated an emergency power rating of 1,600 PS at 6,000 m (1,160 PS maximum continual at 6,600 m), and take-off power of 1,850 PS at 0 m, with a maximum supercharger boost of 1.8 ATA. The DB could also be run on higher octane C3 fuel, but use of MW 50 was forbidden." So the manual specifically says that the engine they modeled can used C3 fuel. It would be odd if it's not in the sim.

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Yep, DB engine could run both fuel types with only a minor adjustment from ground crews (I believe you explained that in some 109 video also?), but there are no sources talking at all about 1.98 Ata ever used in K4 despite it could run it. Fuel shortages I guess. The thing is since there are no evidences of it ever being used there is no C3 fuel for K4 in DCS, same as there are no gun pods available since there isn't a single evidence of them being used in K4 despite manual saying it could use them, for instance.

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I further widened my first answer with a few more details as I watch the video by the way. Sorry it's not done at once.

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles To your question, AFAIK manual says if you close cowl flaps handle it should go back to automatic by itself, but I'm not really sure it works, at least not in the past which might have changed by now, or not. P.S.: first post is finished now, just a few comments. Thanks for the video again, great stuff.

@@sildurmank Check the comment above from Magic_Zach: "Regarding the D9's manual cowl flap operation, from my experience it works more as a thermostat control. etc" I tried it the last days, and it seems to work. You set a target temperature rather than "closing/opening them", so they always stay in auto WITH this manual option. The procedure just coincides with open/close at first. 100 C seems like the default for the coolant gauge, and then the oil temp stays at near max. Greg´s tip on setting the timer for 10 min works great, when staying on max MP with MW50.

At the end I did shoot someone down. Also, I have a recent video in which I battle two P-47s online.

Oh, as soon as you started summarizing and saying you hoped people got something out of the video I thought that was the end. You pulled a Ferris Buhler on me, next time I'll sit through the credits.

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Hey I got a question about the gun sights, I noticed when you were flying around maneuvering the reticle would dissappear as I suspect it would, did they (you in the sim) have to electronically cage the sights in those things to keep from bouncing against the gyro stops and screwing up the calibration and bore sighting? And were the sights mechanically caged during take off and landing? The gun sights on our Vulcan guns which seemed very similar to what was in those planes had a mechanical caging knob for when we'd be bouncing along through the woods, then when we'd get set up to fire you'd mechanically uncage the sight, the gun tubs (turrets) could traverse pretty fast on one of those things especially compared to a tank for the sake of tracking aircraft, before you slung the gun violently in any direction you had to push an electronic caging button on the control handles to keep from bouncing the gyros against their stops in the sight and get the maintenance Sgt mad at you because he had to recalibrate everything.

It's disappearing because the pilot can only see it within a narrow range of angles. The sight can be caged in which case it becomes a fixed reflector sight. In the case of the Dora, the problem with doing that is it can take 90 seconds to spin up, so when you want the gyro again, it may not be ready. Thus I leave the gyro on until I know I don't want to use it.

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles So there wasn't an electronic caging button to keep from bouncing the sight around and messing things up in a high G or some other violent maneuver? I was watching an interview with a P51 pilot once and he mentioned something about pressing an electronic caging button for the sight which I think was the K14 when performing high G maneuvers or reversing a turn real hard or something like that, but he definitely mentioned a caging button.

@@Ulysses104-0 Yeah, just because the single power lever doesn't give the pilot independent control of MP doesn't mean it is not a useful power reference. Naturally you would have to still watch RPM limits, just like you so when setting EPR in turbojet.

I could imagine that; I'd theorize that the german fighter pilot ethos was influenced a lot by glider planes (which a whole number of pilots and instructors did fly before the war) - the pre-flight there is obviously a whole lot shorter as there are just about no systems to check, and if you've grown up on that amount of "prep-work", any additional step will feel like an unwanted obstacle to your take-off.

I’m interested in what Greg has to say, but in the meantime, we can reason by analogy with automotive manual transmissions. Most modern ones are rod-actuated, but cable-actuated transmissions used to be more common, especially on cars with unusual layouts such as mid-engined cars or ones with the transmission behind the rear axle. Rods certainly give a better feel at the control input (gear lever or stick/pedals) because they have less friction and less of a “dead zone” on center. But long rods also need relatively many reinforcing guides so they don’t buckle under compression. While you can save weight by using only one rod for both pushing and pulling, I’d imagine the redundancy of two rods (one in tension, the other in compression) would be worth the extra weight in a WWII fighter. And in a cable-operated control, you need two cables per control because you can’t push a cable very far¹. On the other hand, cables are simpler and much easier to route and maintain than control rods. But hydraulics provide even better feel than rods (among many other advantages). I believe hydraulic flight controls first appeared on the Lockheed Constellation, so they were on the horizon in WWII for combat aircraft. So I suspect that any plane that would benefit from rods would benefit even more from hydraulics, rendering rods a short-lived transitional technology on the way to hydraulics for large and high-performance aircraft. Obviously, many GA planes retain cables because they are simple, low-maintenance and reliable. I’m speculating wildly at this point, but I imagine Greg can answer authoritatively. EDIT: I found this SAE presentation that asserts powered hydraulics appeared in military aircraft in the 1940’s. So I guess I’m doubling down on my theory that control rods were likely overtaken by hydraulics fairly quickly. But again, I bet Greg knows. www.sae.org/works/committeeResources.do?resourceID=482181 ¹ That is, the cables must be paired so one is always pulling on the bell crank no matter which way the control surface is moving. For example, an elevator control uses one cable to raise the elevator and another to lower it-but I bet almost everyone here already knows that.

Pushrods were the standard and are still used on a lot of light civilian aviation. It's essentially the most basic form of mechanical linkage from stick/pedal to the control surface, alongside systems of pulleys and cables. Hydraulically-boosted controls were developed near the end of WWII and used in a limited capacity on some later aircraft before being expanded to full hydraulic systems as you look at things like the F-86 and beyond.

@@jasonkrantz3643 the F/A 18 Hornet /Super Hornet, use the same electric controls that the FW 190 A/D; they are more reliable, precise, easyier to mantain, lighter, than the Hidraulic ones, the cables wont deform, changing the controls, in the Dora only the landing gear and the flaps where hidraulic, in the A model was said that was a good gun platform, and the controls were precise, they also said that because of the Komando gerat (the mechanical computer that allow the FW 190A to use ONE lever instead of the THREE standart) that in theory was hard to fly in formation, even if that aircraft were showed in flying formations

Hi Warbles, this one was unscripted, and once I got going it just sort of went on and on. Even so, there were a lot of things I meant to discuss and didn't.

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles No worries Greg, I was more smiling and winking than anything else... I enjoyed the whole thing, immensely. Keep on keeping on ! Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !

The BF109 E7 is the earliest commonly known fighter that had a "computer" for prop-pitch/throttle as far as I can think of. I'm sure that others with more knowledge of the topic could outline it further, including Greg. This video of his outlines the function of the system ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-O8lk5E-Lq-c.html

@@mckseal Indeed. A Bf109 pilot fighting against the British during the battle of Britain could not understand why they often seemed to catch the British pilots by surprise. After the war, he was able to fly a Spitfire, and said that there was so much to do inside the plane that was automated in the Bf109.

Check the comment above from Magic_Zach: "Regarding the D9's manual cowl flap operation, from my experience it works more as a thermostat control. etc" I tried it the last days, and it seems to work. You set a target temperature rather than "closing/opening them", so they always stay in auto WITH this manual option. The procedure just coincides with open/close at first. 100 C seems like the default for the coolant gauge, and then the oil temp stays at near max. Greg´s tip on setting the timer for 10 min works great, when staying on max MP with MW50.

The default "combat mix" must use HE as well, but probably not all of them as the delayed "Minengeschoss". When I choose Anti Bomber as loadout in the 109K4 only the MG´s have tracers, the 30 mm none. The Dora however has tracers on all weapons with that option.

I'm really glad you liked it. I feel that DCS allows me to cover things I just couldn't do otherwise.

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles we need to get you a better graphics card

The 190 series will continue. I think people will really like the next video in that series, covers something that I haven't seen talked about before.

cant wait! The 190 has been my favorite plane since I was a kid seeing its lines in black and white aircraft identification illustrations in an old Battle of Britain computer game. your deep dives into the 190 are nothing short of phenomenal to me, I (and I believe most on here) can’t thank you enough for your work and content.

My Fiat has Water:Methanol, I have made videos about that.

Yes, that's true. However the gyro sight did exist and I elected to use it in the sim. The DCS Dora is very much a best case realistic Dora. In other words of all the variants that actually made it into combat the version in DCS is about the best of those.

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles of course it existed. But I assume it was so uncommon, like a K4 on C3 fuel and MW50, with perfectly maintained aerodynamics. But it (the Gyro-Sight) existed and was far superior in dog-fighting.

Hi Kim, great question. With fighter escorts that wouldn't have worked because I could not have slowed down to stay just outside of the effective range of the Bomber's 50 cals. I would have had to keep my speed up and only had a moment to fire before breaking off. More bombers would increase the defensive fire, but as long as I go after the rear one the others couldn't really bring much fire to bear. Of course the German's couldn't really use this tactic in the war because by the time they got the gyro sights, US fighters were escorting all the way to the target, and in vastly superior numbers.

Would 6 20s in the nose of 262 , given better results for most pilots ( especially lesser experienced pilots at the end of the war )

@@jackd1582 Probably not. The 30s can deal damage hitting anywhere, so for just going in hot, the 30s are probably better. They even wanted to arm the 262 with dual 55mm that would take out bomber in just one hit 🤔

@@kimjanek646 but you're not damaging what you're not hitting . 151's follow a straighter path for longer distance .Think I've seen the trajectories side by side on a graph

@@jackd1582 It’s a calculation between the times you hit vs the amount of damage inflicted. In the end the 30s are probably still better in the amount of bombers they are going to take out on average. At least when you can only make one attack run on a formation at high speed.

Yes, except that you don't have to wait 30 seconds, just push the buttons as fast as you want.

I thought that too, but since I haven't ever felt it in my hand, there may be something about the operation I'm missing here.

It doesn't care what the target is doing. Think of it this way. It's showing you where your ammo will be at the selected range, say 400 meters. No matter what the target is doing, you ammo will be at that spot 400 meters in front of your plane. If the target is in that same spot, it gets hit.

Yes it is. It's more of an aircooled engine thing, but if you need more manifold pressure to reach a given RPM with the prop at a given pitch, (low pitch in this case) then it needs more than normal power to do it.

Cigar and Gump are just not the standard answer, which is to complete the appropriate check list. This is from a question on the commercial pilot written test and the standards for most checkrides. That's not to say that Cigar and Gump don't work, the do work really well.

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thanks for your reply. I suspected that was the case. I find the same with modern Non Technical Skills, Threat and Error Management etc. CRM and Good Airmanship used to be the appropriate terminology. Perhaps it’s just me but I see it as repackaged with no significant changes in the actual skill sets. Thanks for all your great videos. I always enjoy watching them.

I mention that in the video description.

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles great.. there was also bristish fighters using it.. like the tempest.. and I also think the sea fury does and there was a few others, i dont quite know what used it it, but there defently was uk fighters doing it as well

@@matsv201 The Coffman starters were also a backup start method that was available on some engines. Inertia starters with a hand-crank option were also available on some Allied engines for emergency backup.

@@FiveCentsPlease i really dont know much about it pther vice than its also called cofinman because it was so dangerus

@@matsv201 The Coffman starter just uses the force from a shotgun-type shell to move a piston that is geared to spin the engine for starting. Not ideal because of the risks from shock-loading the engine. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-65qrzgbTTcQ.html

@*Uncle Joe* Cheers!

Gort, I'm right there with you on this. I personally don't have a problem with Cigar and Gump in older airplanes, especially in single pilot operations.

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Glad to hear not everyone is mainlining the Kool Aide.

I would get a Thrustmaster T16000, it's not great, but certainly good enough. You will need some head tracker, I use TrackIR simply because I could then get the profiles from others and not have to spend time setting it up. (I used Spudknocker's profile, he is here on youtube and has it in his video descriptions). There are cheaper head trackers. I Fly Central has an inexpensive home made set up. Then get the plane of your choice, ad the map you want. I like the Normandy map for WW2 action. DCS comes with some modern area maps which are free, but for WW2, you really need something else.

Spitfire can out turn anything beside the zero but it’s outdated and borderline useless by 1944 The saving grace was the squadron moved to France = close to the action again

I'm getting the P-47 next.