FW190-A8 Performance may need adjustment

[KurtVW]

I was doing some research on the internet with regard to the performance of the 190's... Primarily because everything I've ever read says that EVERY 190 out matches any Spitfire upto MkIX.  However in AHII this does not seem to be the case.

One area that I've always believed the 190's are under modeled is sustained turn performance, however I was not able to find any hard numeric data to support my belief.

I don't know if the data I found is 100% accurate, but I looked at various different sites and was able to establish an average.

The fuel consumption seems to be the biggest variance.

For my testing, I loaded the lightest gun load, emptied the magazines on the runway.   Climb performance measured at 100% fuel.  Fuel calculations done immediately upon arrival at target altitude and the miles and fuel burn during the climb we're averaged out for level burn at altitude to avoid skewing the numbers.  After the testing at 15,750 was complete I made a military climb to ceiling.

General Concensus seems to indicate the A8 gave these numbers:

(blue is real plane, red is AHII model)
Top Speed
Real Life: 404mph @ 15,750 feet (wep unknown, assumed off as most tests are at military power)
AHII: 393mph @ 15,750 (required wep to attain this speed)

Range:
Combat Radius: 530 miles
One way: 1100 miles

Combat Radius: 325 miles (measured at 15,750 feet, 2100RPM and MP 32.9 burn rate 1x)
One way: 653 miles

Rate of Climb (sea level):
3280 Feet per minute (sustained military - no wep)
2700 Feet per Minute (sustained military - no wep)
3200 Feet per minute (Wep on)

Service Ceiling
37,400 Feet
38,050 Feet

[MutleyBR]

Hi Kurt!

Good job on the performance analysis!
If you think A 8 performance needs adjustment, just take a ride in 190 D-9, which had superior performance, in terms of speed and engine behavior at hi altitude...
In this version of AH2 I found it very difficult to reach hi altitude bomber formations and  to follow inferior powered planes in level flight.
Gunnery is also offset. I aim the same way I used to in previous versions and am missing most of the shots...
In oher words, Dora now a medicore plane.
Just venting some frustration because I'm almost certain it won't be considered.

<>

[Schutt]

Hey, i find it intresting the modelld plane seems to be way off.

Where did you get the data from?

What configuration does the plane you refer to use, whats its status?

ciao schutt

[MOSQ]

Kurt,

Pyro will not change anything without references. He will change the FM if you can show authentic and verifiable data.

Send Pyro the details of the info you've obtained.

Also this thread should really be in the Airplanes and Vehicles forum or the Gameplay Feedback and Requests. The FM is not really a bug, it's intentionally modelled this way. Over there you will also get a more lively discussion on the pros and cons of this data from folks who have been researching these LW issues for years.

I suggest you re-post over there, and give citations and references for your data.

Mosq

[Pongo]

since you got half the fuel range did you check that you didnt have the fuel burn mulitplier doubled as is the default?
Go to the aircraft formum and search on the 190 and enjoy the read.

[TequilaChaser]

is best to test in offline mode, and set the fuel burn multiplyer to 0.001

this way the fuel weight remains constant

regardless of fuel loadout