Revisit 190A-8 weights please

[Krusty]

This isn't about top speed, corner velocity, speed bleed. This is plainly and simply about the weight errors in the 190A-8.

There's dozens of threads over the years about this, so I'll just sum it up:

Many documents, resources, references, have been cited. The 190A-8 is over-weight. It weighs as much as the heavily armored sturmbock version, but has none of the bulletproof benefits.

Historically, a fully fueled (including aux tank), with 4x20mm and no ETC drop-tank-rack, the Fw180A-8 weighs 4300kg, or around 9481lbs.
In-game, the same loadout weighs 4400kg, or 9682lbs. The performance and power curves all match specs for a plane weighing 4300kg, yet somehow we're almost 230 lbs overweight.

The P-38G was fixed, why not fix the 190A-8? Either leave the weight/performance as-is, but give us bulletproof damage modeling around the pilot and the oil ring (both of which get shot away anytime you go near a bomber stream) or prune the weight back, please! Either way, whatever's better. Give us the armor as-modeled into the weight, or take that weight off!


Then there's the outboard guns options. Both are off.

Historic weights:

Quote from: MiloMorai on 01-27-2007, 05:48:58
ammunition for 2 MG131 - 77kg/170lb for 950rds
ammunition for 2 MG151 - 110kg/243lb for 500rds
ammunition for 2 MG151 - 64kg/141lb for 280 rds

removal of 2 MG151 and ammo - 389lb

ref. 190A-8 Handbook, Tech Description #284

The 30mm MK108 weighed 58kg or 128lb.

Historically, 389lbs - 141lbs (ammo) = 284lbs (124lbs for each empty MG151/20)
In-game, 322lbs - 136lbs (ammo) = 186lbs (93lbs for each empty MG151/20)
between 62 lbs UNDERweight for the guns alone, to 67lbs if the ammo is underweight

Historically, 128lbs for each Mk108 30mm (no ammo weight available, assuming HTC has it right)
In-game, 531lbs - 143lbs (ammo) = 388lbs (194lbs for each empty MK108)
132lbs overweight for the guns alone


Note on the E6B: It's easy enough to check. Go to E6B and check the weight while sitting on the runway with different weapons loadouts. Fire the ammo off and recheck weight, you get the ammo weight, you can figure weight per round, weight for the leftover guns after the ammo is gone (as compared to the 2-gun version) and other valuable info.

Then there's the F-8

The F-8 is currently 489lbs heavier than the A-8. If the A-8 gets fixed that will increase to just over 700lbs more than the A-8. However, the speed and climb charts are 100% identical between the two planes. This is both visible on Dokgonzo's comparison page and HTC's very own speed/climb charts. If you super impose the charts from HTC's webpage on top of each other there is no difference between these two models.

So why is the 190F, with so much more extra weight, still climbing like the much lighter 190A-8? The speed and climb charts closely match those historic charts which claim the A-8 weighs 4300kg, yet despite having the same engine, same airframe, and 700lbs more armor than the A-8, somehow the F-8 in this game climbs like the A-8. The difference in acceleration and turn is barely noticable, and the other specs seem just copied-and-pasted from the A-8.

in fact you can see they were! If you look at HTCs charts they show 9642lbs is the weight under which the charts were made. That's a 190A-8 with 4x20mm and full internal fuel. The SAME weight is listed at the top of the F-8 speed and climb charts, despite the F-8 actually being much heavier.

It seems HTC just copied and pasted the flight model, and somehow it doesn't take weight into account with the performance.

We need to have better data on the F-8 model too, eventually. That may simply be lack of available data. For the A-8, however, there is tons and tons of data.

Like I type above, we've had weight fixes good and bad on several other planes, why has the 190A-8 not been fixed?

[Boozeman]

The F-8 is currently 489lbs heavier than the A-8. If the A-8 gets fixed that will increase to just over 700lbs more than the A-8. However, the speed and climb charts are 100% identical between the two planes. This is both visible on Dokgonzo's comparison page and HTC's very own speed/climb charts. If you super impose the charts from HTC's webpage on top of each other there is no difference between these two models.

So why is the 190F, with so much more extra weight, still climbing like the much lighter 190A-8? The speed and climb charts closely match those historic charts which claim the A-8 weighs 4300kg, yet despite having the same engine, same airframe, and 700lbs more armor than the A-8, somehow the F-8 in this game climbs like the A-8. The difference in acceleration and turn is barely noticable, and the other specs seem just copied-and-pasted from the A-8.

in fact you can see they were! If you look at HTCs charts they show 9642lbs is the weight under which the charts were made. That's a 190A-8 with 4x20mm and full internal fuel. The SAME weight is listed at the top of the F-8 speed and climb charts, despite the F-8 actually being much heavier.

DokGonzo's site compares a 4 cannon A8 with a 2 cannon F8. The weight difference between those is only like 60 lb, thus the very similar perfomance. The correct comparison plane would be the 2 cannon A8 where the difference is indeed 500 lbs. And then you do have obvious differences in performance. As for the speed, the extra weights impact on topspeed is neglectable. 

[Saurdaukar]

Im all in favor of anything that improves FW wing loading.

[LLogann]

YES PLEASE!!!

[Krusty]

DokGonzo's site compares a 4 cannon A8 with a 2 cannon F8. The weight difference between those is only like 60 lb, thus the very similar perfomance.

At first that is what I thought, as well.

However, that is not the case.

190A-8 4 guns 100% (169gal): 9682 lbs
190F-8 100% (169gal): 9849 lbs

I was using not only Gonzo, but HTC's own speed and climb charts (which are copied and pasted directly from the 4-gun A8 package). That's still a significant amount of weight, that would show SOME change in climb, turn, top speed (induced drag should shave off at least 5mph for that much extra weight). You would see SOME difference. Instead, it runs just like an A-8 across the board. That's just not right, IMO.


EDIT: For the record, my quote of 9642 on the speed charts is a typo, they say 9682

[Krusty]

*bump*  just to keep it in HTC's mind as they are working on the next update... 

[Boozeman]

At first that is what I thought, as well.

However, that is not the case.

190A-8 4 guns 100% (169gal): 9682 lbs
190F-8 100% (169gal): 9849 lbs

I was using not only Gonzo, but HTC's own speed and climb charts (which are copied and pasted directly from the 4-gun A8 package). That's still a significant amount of weight, that would show SOME change in climb, turn, top speed (induced drag should shave off at least 5mph for that much extra weight). You would see SOME difference. Instead, it runs just like an A-8 across the board. That's just not right, IMO.


EDIT: For the record, my quote of 9642 on the speed charts is a typo, they say 9682

Ooops, my bad about the weight, its actually 160 lb in that configuration. Sorry.
Anyway, my records do show some differences at this weight difference also:

Climb to 10 kft (average on WEP):
A8: 3100 ft/m
F8: 3000 ft/m

Acclereation WEP 200-300 mph TAS (SL):
A8: 42 sec
F8: 44 sec
 
Turrate SL:
A8: 22,7 sec
F8: 23,2 sec

[Ghosth]

On a 9 - 10,000 lb airplane, you really think you can feel 200 lbs?

Granted if its wrong, and if you can prove its wrong, it should be fixed.

But I really doubt you'll ever notice the difference.

[BaldEagl]

At first that is what I thought, as well.

However, that is not the case.

190A-8 4 guns 100% (169gal): 9682 lbs
190F-8 100% (169gal): 9849 lbs

I was using not only Gonzo, but HTC's own speed and climb charts (which are copied and pasted directly from the 4-gun A8 package). That's still a significant amount of weight, that would show SOME change in climb, turn, top speed (induced drag should shave off at least 5mph for that much extra weight). You would see SOME difference. Instead, it runs just like an A-8 across the board. That's just not right, IMO.


EDIT: For the record, my quote of 9642 on the speed charts is a typo, they say 9682

I told you they were identical in performance but you wouldn't believe me.

[moot]

Ghosth, for what it's worth, I can feel the difference when the 20mm's and a bit of the 30mm's are gone in the 152.  It's a small difference, but when you're flying at 10/10ths, it makes the difference between just riding the stall and breaking it.

[Krusty]

Edit: Rethought what I wanted to say. Didn't mean to sound like an arse.

You still don't see the major point: that the F-8 wasn't modeled after F-8 data. It's just a copy and paste of the A-8.

If/when the A-8 is fixed, the F-8 will be even MORE overweight, but will still have almost the same performance as the A does.

That's a side point to fixing the A-8's weights, but I do hope someday they get that one right.

[Krusty]

I wonder if HTC is considering this for the next patch? 

[FYB]

This isn't about top speed, corner velocity, speed bleed. This is plainly and simply about the weight errors in the 190A-8.

There's dozens of threads over the years about this, so I'll just sum it up:

Many documents, resources, references, have been cited. The 190A-8 is over-weight. It weighs as much as the heavily armored sturmbock version, but has none of the bulletproof benefits.

Historically, a fully fueled (including aux tank), with 4x20mm and no ETC drop-tank-rack, the Fw180A-8 weighs 4300kg, or around 9481lbs.
In-game, the same loadout weighs 4400kg, or 9682lbs. The performance and power curves all match specs for a plane weighing 4300kg, yet somehow we're almost 230 lbs overweight.

The P-38G was fixed, why not fix the 190A-8? Either leave the weight/performance as-is, but give us bulletproof damage modeling around the pilot and the oil ring (both of which get shot away anytime you go near a bomber stream) or prune the weight back, please! Either way, whatever's better. Give us the armor as-modeled into the weight, or take that weight off!


Then there's the outboard guns options. Both are off.

Historic weights:
Historically, 389lbs - 141lbs (ammo) = 284lbs (124lbs for each empty MG151/20)
In-game, 322lbs - 136lbs (ammo) = 186lbs (93lbs for each empty MG151/20)
between 62 lbs UNDERweight for the guns alone, to 67lbs if the ammo is underweight

Historically, 128lbs for each Mk108 30mm (no ammo weight available, assuming HTC has it right)
In-game, 531lbs - 143lbs (ammo) = 388lbs (194lbs for each empty MK108)
132lbs overweight for the guns alone


Note on the E6B: It's easy enough to check. Go to E6B and check the weight while sitting on the runway with different weapons loadouts. Fire the ammo off and recheck weight, you get the ammo weight, you can figure weight per round, weight for the leftover guns after the ammo is gone (as compared to the 2-gun version) and other valuable info.

Then there's the F-8

The F-8 is currently 489lbs heavier than the A-8. If the A-8 gets fixed that will increase to just over 700lbs more than the A-8. However, the speed and climb charts are 100% identical between the two planes. This is both visible on Dokgonzo's comparison page and HTC's very own speed/climb charts. If you super impose the charts from HTC's webpage on top of each other there is no difference between these two models.

So why is the 190F, with so much more extra weight, still climbing like the much lighter 190A-8? The speed and climb charts closely match those historic charts which claim the A-8 weighs 4300kg, yet despite having the same engine, same airframe, and 700lbs more armor than the A-8, somehow the F-8 in this game climbs like the A-8. The difference in acceleration and turn is barely noticable, and the other specs seem just copied-and-pasted from the A-8.

in fact you can see they were! If you look at HTCs charts they show 9642lbs is the weight under which the charts were made. That's a 190A-8 with 4x20mm and full internal fuel. The SAME weight is listed at the top of the F-8 speed and climb charts, despite the F-8 actually being much heavier.

It seems HTC just copied and pasted the flight model, and somehow it doesn't take weight into account with the performance.

We need to have better data on the F-8 model too, eventually. That may simply be lack of available data. For the A-8, however, there is tons and tons of data.

Like I type above, we've had weight fixes good and bad on several other planes, why has the 190A-8 not been fixed?

Your complaining about 0 - 350lbs for a plane? Yes, give it another 10hp so he can go home happy...

-FYB

[Anaxogoras]

Your complaining about 0 - 350lbs for a plane? Yes, give it another 10hp so he can go home happy...

-FYB

How would you feel if you found out the F4U-1A was 350lbs overweight?

[FYB]

How would you feel if you found out the F4U-1A was 350lbs overweight?

i'd use the other F4U models. 

-FYB