P-38G and J!!

[Crumpp]

Fw190A-5 is OK as a placeholder for earlier Fw190s.

Not really.  The FW-190A3 is a lot lighter with the same horsepower as the FW-190A5.  It represents a more manuverable FW-190A than the A5.

The FW-190A5 was the least manuverable of the FW's.  It was heavy and had the early BMW-801D2 developing about 1600PS. The control surfaces were even changed in the later FW-190A5's to try and offset it's reduction in handling.

Crumpp

[Kweassa]

Amen, Karnak.

 I agree that particularly the Japanese and Soviet planesets need more planes, and the largest priority should be set there. However, like Karnak mentions, the largest gaps in the currently existing planeset, is;

1) lack of early P-38s
2) a two-year gap between the Spit9 and Spit14
3) a one-year gap between the G-6 and the G-10


 Also, IIRC,  the evolution of 190s could be divided into four phases;

1) early As; A1~A3
2) mid As; A4~A6
3) late As; A7~A9
4) final stage; D-9~Ta152

 Just one more 190 from the 'early As' pool, and it would totally complete the 190 set. It'd also do nicely in 1941~1942 English Channel setups.

 

ps) Crumpp, by any chance did you read HTC's comment on the Fw190A-8 in the Plane/Vehicles Overview section?

Read it Here

 It seems that they also have the same image about the Fw190A-8, as opposed to what you've been saying for some time now.

 Also, I've seen Fw190A-5 speed quoted at 625km/h, which is a lot slower than both the A-8, and our AH A-5. Any explanation for this??

[Crumpp]

Just one more 190 from the 'early As' pool, and it would do nicely in 1941~1942 English Channel setups, the first days of the 190s.

I agree and you are correct in the fact that there are much more glaring holes in the planeset to fill!

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

The ever increasing weights took a toll on the performance and handling of the 190.

It did gain weight. It gained less weight than the FW-190A5 gained over the FW-190A3and it gained significant power as well.  The BMW 801D2Q put out 2050hp @ 1st supercharger gear FTH.  Rammed it was about 1950PS.  A significant gain over the FW-190A5's BMW801D2 1600PS unrammed.

Combine the power gain with the much more efficient wide chord wooden prop (12.3cm) and the FW-190A8 was more manuverable than the FW-190A5.  

The FW-190A8 also had a much better elevator and replaced the "stiff" elevator of the FW-190A3 making it much better at being able to take advantage of it's roll rate.

Currently our FW-190A5 in AH is modeled after EB-104.  EB-104 as an FW-190G3 that the USAAF tried to put back to FW-190A4 fighter standards.  It was too light to represent an FW-190A5 and consequently the plane climbed too steeply but was much slower on the deck than a standard figher FW-190A5.  Since the FW-190G3 was based on the FW-190A5 you can see EB-104 is really representative of nothing in the Focke Wulf lineup.

Crumpp

[soda72]

heheh .. if you get crumpp started talking about 190's we'll be here allllll year....

[Octavius]

Karnak, would you consider the P-40E a `42 model more or less?  Production started in August of `41, but didn't see combat with the US until Pearl and saw no service in the commonwealth (RAF, RAAF, SAAF, RNZAF) until early `42.

I dunno, I could call it both a 41 and a 42 fighter.  First F model actually flew only a month later than the D/E!  (May vs. June 41).

[Karnak]

Crumpp,

I agree.  That is why I said the Fw190A-5 was an "OK" placeholder instead of a "good" placeholder.  The difference between the Bf109G-6 and Bf109G-14 / Spitfire F.Mk IX and Spitfire LF.Mk IX is bigger than the difference between the Fw190A-2 and Fw190A-5, that is why I consider a higher priority.  Who knows where HTC stands on it though.


Octavious,

I consider the P-40E an early 1942 fighter.  My comments were about late 1942 American fighters.

It sounds like I'm being pretty picky there, but the post I was responding to was about F4U-1s and P-38F/Gs.

[Octavius]

In that case, bring on the P40F/L/K.... hell, why not the M  

N is ugly!

[Jester]

Originally posted by allmetal
I would like to see the Ki43,44,and 45.Or how about the J2m Raiden?

Agree 110%  

[Kweassa]

What speed should one expect from an accurately modelled Fw190A-5?

 Currently;

AH Fw190A-5: 660km/h(410mph) at alt, 545km/h(339mph) at deck
AH Fw190A-8: 656km/h(408mph) at alt, 561km/h(349mph) at deck

 Are you saying our AH 190A-5 should climb a bit slower, but faster at deck? How about top speed? Is it correct that our A-5 is faster than the A-8?

[Grits]

I may be wrong, but I think I remember talking to Crumpp about this and it seems like he said the A-5 and A-8 almost should be swapped. The A-5 should handle and perform more like our A-8 and likewise our A-8 should handle and perform more like our A-5, or at least that was the drift of it.

[Crumpp]

The FTH speeds are correct for the FW-190A8 and the FW-190A5.

The deck speeds are off and should increase to around 360mph for both.

The FW-190's will climb at a similar rate but using a faster speed and shallower angle.

With the exception of the FW-190A5.  It's climb rate in AH is just fiction.  It does not climb that well.

At FTH the FW-190A5 is faster than the FW-190A8.  On the deck the FW-190A8 is faster, accellerates better, zoom climbs better, better guns, sustained climbs better, and turns better.

The FW-190's should only have two flap settings with the "take-off" flaps being so close to USAAF combat flaps that the USAAF classified them as such in their test's.

With that said because of the flap design you will only benefit from having flaps down for a short period of time.  Split flaps just work that way and can actually hurt your turn performance if left down for too long.

The elevators should be more effective as well as they were changed and improved in the late FW-190A5.

BUT the elevator trim should be much more sensative in high speed flight.  In other words the trim setting you enter a dive with could cause you problems in the dive.

Roll rate should improve on the FW-190's closer to it's calculated rate of roll.  And I expect dive accelleration will improve (drag).

I believe in AH the FW-190 gets it's high speed handling from it's drag characteristics.  The actual FW-190 has less form drag than the Spitfire.  It got it's high speed handling qualities from it's very light stick forces.  

Crumpp

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Crumpp
The deck speeds are off and should increase to around 360mph for both.

Without a REALLY good source I'm gonna have to call BS on this one.  If that were true, not only would the Spitfire Mk XII not have been able to run down the low level raiders it was put in service to deal with, but the Spitfire Mk XIV could not do so.

The only reason that a single stage Griffon Spit (the Mk XII) ever went into service was to run down those low level raiders and if what Crumpp posted were true it would have been a dismal failure and only the Typhoon would have been considered.

[Crumpp]

It was a general statement and I don't think Pyro would leap to change anything without proof.

He already has the Flight Test's.

The deck speeds are off and should increase to around  360mph for both.

For the FW-190A8 on the deck:

BMW801D2Q:

575 Kilometers per hour equals 357.288 Miles (statute) per hour

July '44 - BMW801TS:

590 Kilometers per hour equals 366.609 Miles (statute) per hour

FW-190A5:

555 Kilometers per hour equals 344.861 Miles (statute) per hour

565 Kilometers per hour equals 351.075 Miles (statute) per hour

Has been the range on A5 performance.

The only reason that a single stage Griffon Spit (the Mk XII) ever went into service was to run down those low level raiders

Almost all the G's and F's I have found have significantly less performance than the FW-190A's.  More weight and Drag.

Crumpp

[Karnak]

I'm pretty sure most of the nuisance Fw190 raiders were As, not Gs or Fs.  Certainly not Fs as those came later.  I don't know off hand when the Gs were introduced.