P47 vs 190

[Westy]

Not 190 vs 47 but as regards 190A having less drag....  Compare the F4U-1 and
Fw190A-8. The power is practically the same, 2000hp on the deck (F4U mil pwr
and 190 Special Emergency). The 190 is only about 10mph faster on the deck
but the F4U-1 has some 60% more wing area and 20% more weight.

Doesn't speak well for the 190 being sleek

[Krusty]

A8 in game is about 260+ lbs too heavy in clean configuration. That's going to royally screw with power to weight and weight to wing ratios and all that stuff.

A8 was supposedly the best turner of the antons and the Dora better still. (anecdotal)

[Ardy123]

A8 in game is about 260+ lbs too heavy in clean configuration. That's going to royally screw with power to weight and weight to wing ratios and all that stuff.

  I agree with krusty on this. Krusty you wouldn't happen to have the docs that support this, maybe we can get HTC to take a look.

[Krusty]

Posted many a time by many a folk.

Should still be on the forum, let me dig up a link.....

[drgondog]

Not 190 vs 47 but as regards 190A having less drag....  Compare the F4U-1 and
Fw190A-8. The power is practically the same, 2000hp on the deck (F4U mil pwr
and 190 Special Emergency). The 190 is only about 10mph faster on the deck
but the F4U-1 has some 60% more wing area and 20% more weight.

Doesn't speak well for the 190 being sleek

1st question - what are your sources for speed, horsepower and gross weight for both ships?

2nd question - altitude?
Comment - Thrust = Drag: Same thrust but a velocity difference says the slower ship has more drag.

[Krusty]

From the ill-fated thorsim thread:

Just going to compile a little list of different tests and different airframes on different dates (including the untranslated version of the 2 images I linked earlier in this thread), all listing weights and loadouts for the test.

These are not meant to really debate what performance we have or should have, but are only used as examples of historic weights in wartime testing (battle loaded) airframes. Also note dates are day/month/year, NOT the normal month/day/year.

New links:
serial no.: 801-048
date: 13.11.1943
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-level-speed-13nov43.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm
Lists 4350kg for fully loaded 2x20/2x30

serial no. 801-051
date: 13.11.1943
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-climb-13nov43.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm
Lists 4350kg for fully loaded 2x20/2x30

serial no. 801-132
date: 25.10.1944
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-25oct44.jpg
Already previously listed, but translated chart:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-25oct44.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm

serial no. (A-8 not listed, ta152 comparison)
date: 3.1.1945
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-3jan45.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm.

serial no. (A-8 not listed, anothe rta152 comparison)
date: 12.1.1945
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-12jan45.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm

serial no. (A-8 not listed, compares multiple variants)
date: 1.10.1944
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/leistungsdaten-1-10-44.jpg
already previously listed, but translated chart:
http://www.vermin.net/fw190/translated-fwchart.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm

from 2009:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,258131.0.html

From 2008 (ignore the trolls):
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,228970.0.html

Just as reference...

[drgondog]

From the ill-fated thorsim thread:

from 2009:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,258131.0.html

From 2008 (ignore the trolls):
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,228970.0.html

Just as reference...

Krusty - thanks. The only reason I asked is that to have a legitimate set of facts to deal with in performance discussions is to establish a credible source for at least the weights, altitudes, Hp rating and the velocities as recorded by that test pilot and published. Obviously multiple runs and dates are better as specific engine conditions, boost differences, etc will drive a spread of data.  You know that and I know that.  When the discussion dives into the weeds.

The question I was seeking an answer to was whether the "2000 Hp equivalency between a "p-47" and an Fw 190" had any basis for enabling a comparision of relative speeds? Which P-47, what dash number, did the pilot report any issues with the engine, was the data reduced to STP values? Was the Hp referenced from a standard published set of data as a function of altitude, etc, etc.  I like Mike Williams' site and frequently use data extracted from his site but rarely ever reference a source there unless the test reports are detailed and concise.

[Krusty]

That was more in response to Ardy's request than directly pertaining to the jug/FW debate. Other than the weight issue in-game affecting handling, it probably won't help your discussion.

[Stoney]

Not 190 vs 47 but as regards 190A having less drag....  Compare the F4U-1 and
Fw190A-8. The power is practically the same, 2000hp on the deck (F4U mil pwr
and 190 Special Emergency). The 190 is only about 10mph faster on the deck
but the F4U-1 has some 60% more wing area and 20% more weight.

Doesn't speak well for the 190 being sleek

"Sleek" is usually consistent with a low coefficient of zero-lift drag, not necessarily just a big difference in speed.  A FW-190 will out accelerate an F4U-1 very quickly, so not only does it go 10 mph faster (which is a big enough sea-level difference to matter), it gets up to that top speed faster.  

Again, the acceleration and top speed are functions of power available and power required.  When power available = power required, an aircraft is either not accelerating and level (top speed at that amount of power), decelerating and climbing, or accelerating and descending.  In order to accelerate while staying level, there must be excess power available. If we consider thrust to both aircraft equal, then the F4U-1, with its higher weight and Cd, has a higher power required to accelerate compared to the FW-190.  So, both the difference in acceleration and the difference in top speed demonstrates that indeed the FW-190 could be considered more "sleek" than the F4U-1, assuming thrust is equal.

Of course, assuming thrust is equal, just because the horsepower of both aircraft is equal, is another assumption that can get you in trouble.  Differences in the propeller efficiency and exhaust thrust realized by either aircraft can introduce another difference which should be considered in a comparison.  It could be that Kurt Tank optimized the FW-190 prop for one flight regime and Vought optimized the F4U-1 prop for another flight regime.

TL;DR:  Thorough aircraft performance comparisons demand very detailed analysis.  Cherry-picking one performance metric and basing an entire comparison on that metric can lead to false conclusions...

[Ardy123]

That was more in response to Ardy's request than directly pertaining to the jug/FW debate. Other than the weight issue in-game affecting handling, it probably won't help your discussion.

Krusty,
should I or you star a wish list item for HTC to look at this?

[FLS]

Ardy this has been debated enough that I'm sure HTC is aware of it.

[icedragn]

One thing is for sure , if the 190a8 flew like it does in AH, Luftwaffe would never accept it as a replacement superiority fighter for earlier models.

Well being that I fly the 190a8 98% of the time in AH it is not a plane to take lightly, even in the game. In the hands of an experienced pilot it can hold it's own against any plane in the game. I hear hear alot that the A8 doesn't turn. Well I have to disagree. Over time I have learned to turn this plane pretty good and I always fly with the second gun pkg. I have turn fought, and won against ponies 80% of the time. Same with jugs n spit16's. As in all things it takes alot of practice. Most take one up and see how "bad" it performs and never fly it again hence forth it's bad reputation. Flying it really good doesn't happen overnight, it takes months of dedicated practice with it. I'm still not done learning it's tricks and such and I have been flying it for over 2 years!!!!

[Ardy123]

Well being that I fly the 190a8 98% of the time in AH it is not a plane to take lightly, even in the game. In the hands of an experienced pilot it can hold it's own against any plane in the game. I hear hear alot that the A8 doesn't turn. Well I have to disagree. Over time I have learned to turn this plane pretty good and I always fly with the second gun pkg. I have turn fought, and won against ponies 80% of the time. Same with jugs n spit16's. As in all things it takes alot of practice. Most take one up and see how "bad" it performs and never fly it again hence forth it's bad reputation. Flying it really good doesn't happen overnight, it takes months of dedicated practice with it. I'm still not done learning it's tricks and such and I have been flying it for over 2 years!!!!

Icedragon,
would you care to duel me in it?
I was flying it last night in the DA against people and was getting owned....
Then I picked up my trusty ol k$ and dished ownage, only to go back to the 190 a8 to try and figure it out.

[Debrody]

Im flying FWs from time to time, but only once could have an epic turnfight. Was against DREAM, he was in a full tank la-7, me in an almost empty a-8. Even though i tryed everything, i was owned at the end. So chanceless, the a-8  only can turnfight with jugs, with any chance of win. So sad, its a brick.

[save]

you cannot turnfight a p47 with a fw190a8  in here. you cannot even turnfight an 20 000 lb A-20 .

you can use instantaneous turn to get a snapshot or hope he is a noob.