Author Topic: HTC's Fw-190s vs the "ideal" 190s (Read 1685 times)

GScholz · « **Reply #15 on:** February 03, 2005, 07:59:01 AM »

The time gaps are exactly the same. The prop-blades just "close-in" from both sides instead of only one. If the two props are geared together (no variation in rpm) there should be no problem using syncronised guns.

Jester · « **Reply #16 on:** February 03, 2005, 09:25:43 AM »

FW-190 should have superior manuverability over the Spit V as the real one did.

straffo · « **Reply #17 on:** February 03, 2005, 09:29:49 AM »

Define "manuverability" 1st

JB73 · « **Reply #18 on:** February 03, 2005, 10:59:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Jester
FW-190 should have superior manuverability over the Spit V as the real one did.

i would agree with that statement regarding the 190a2 and a3 for sure, i have not read enough about the latter models in direct comparison

Karnak · « **Reply #19 on:** February 03, 2005, 11:19:22 AM »

The Fw190 never had superior manuverability to the Spitfire in terms of horizontal turning. It should be superior to the Mk V in the verticle, speed, roll and acceleration. It should be superior to the LF.Mk IX in roll and dive only.

Regurge · « **Reply #20 on:** February 03, 2005, 12:07:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
The time gaps are exactly the same. The prop-blades just "close-in" from both sides instead of only one. If the two props are geared together (no variation in rpm) there should be no problem using syncronised guns.

Yes, provided you align the gearbox so the opposing blades pass each other as they also pass through the bullet trajectory. Depending on how many guns need to be synched and their location it might be hard to get everything properly lined up.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #21 on:** February 03, 2005, 12:14:06 PM »

A few more questioms for the experten.

Is it possible to put a hub cannon through all the mechanicals required for a counterroating prop?

Also, Is it possible to synchronize a revolver cannon like the MG213 series in 20mm?

Crumpp · « **Reply #22 on:** February 03, 2005, 10:50:03 PM »

Quote

The Fw190 never had superior manuverability to the Spitfire in terms of horizontal turning. It should be superior to the Mk V in the verticle, speed, roll and acceleration. It should be superior to the LF.Mk IX in roll and dive only.

The FW-190 and the Merlin powered Spitfire were about as evenly matched as too planes can get throughout their lifecyle.

The FW-190 held advantages in Agility, zoom climb, dive accelleration, and depending on altitude level accelleration.

The Merlin powered Spitfires held the cards in top diving speed above 10,000 feet and sustained turn. Some models had a better sustained climb. None of the Spitfires could directly follow an FW-190 in a shallow sustained climb at high speed.

The FW-190's stick forces at high speed are a little over 1/4 of those experienced in the Spitfire.

This has been done to death on the calculator and very well documented.

Facts are the Merlin powered Spitfires gained more weight than the FW-190 and an equal amount of horsepower.

The FW-190 has less parasitic drag and it's wing efficency is very slightly below the Spitfires. The difference is about .01.

All in All, the FW-190A was a very rough customer for the Spitfire. The Spitfire was equally as rough for the FW-190. If both pilots fly to their aircrafts strengths then very brief snapshots at one another is the most common result.

The FW-190A3 weighed less than the FW-190A8. It also developed 450hp less and it's prop was not nearly as efficient. Add in the fact that Faber's FW-190A3 developed quite a bit less power than a Luftwaffe serviced FW-190A3 (150hp less) and it becomes evident those tactical trials are not representative of actual combat.

I have posted all the documents showing this before but will dig them out tommorrow and post again.

Crumpp

JB73 · « **Reply #23 on:** February 03, 2005, 11:14:27 PM »

crump... the trick, or question at hand is the "realistic" model VS the HTC model.

the fact is the 190A5 is NO match for the sptiV in an equal engagement in the MA DA TA or CT.

*IF they were to model an A3 or an A4 how significantly better would it be than a spit V? if it was, the A5 would cease to exist for all practical matters.

in an equal engagment the best i have done ( and i am by NO means a greta pilot nor confess to be) is a D9, taking a spitV into a spiral climb, getting the spit to fall over first, but the stall of the D9 making me not be able to make the shot.

thats a D9, a far superior climber and "speedester" than the A5.

the few A5 engangment i have had have been over before i can honestly say it started. thats against a mediocre pilot i have heard of very few times in the MA as being "good".

like i said im no great pilot, but i'd like to see the best spitV pilot VS the best A5 pilot.

i'd guess leviathan is the spitV guy, not sure because it is a toss up about the 190A5 pilot, either way in an equal engagement coE and all, the 190 does not have a chance to even land a ping.

so is there something wrong, or is that realistic is the true question. i happen to personally believe that something is not correct with the 190. i by no means say te spit is "porked", heck it my be i have not research on the data. i have no real knowledge on the specifics of it, all i know is the 190A "should" be a match for it.

time will tell what the game developers do, and what is changed or not changed in the game. all i can ask politely is that HiTech and Pyro look deeper into the factors, and find the proper conclusion AND hopefully post some revelant data to show what they based their decisions on.

TrueKill · « **Reply #24 on:** February 03, 2005, 11:57:23 PM »

when the Fw190A came out it could out maneuver the spitV on the deck dont know model it was though, And the 109E4 could out turn the spitV but not alot of pilots pushed thier A/C far enough for it to.

GScholz · « **Reply #25 on:** February 04, 2005, 02:52:52 AM »

No 190 could ever outturn a Spit V. However the 190 was faster in level flight, climb and dive.

Tony Williams · « **Reply #26 on:** February 04, 2005, 07:14:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Regurge
Yes, provided you align the gearbox so the opposing blades pass each other as they also pass through the bullet trajectory. Depending on how many guns need to be synched and their location it might be hard to get everything properly lined up.

Quite so. If you have two three-blade contrarotating props then the guns would have to be spaced at exactly 120 degrees from each other - so you could have up to three guns synchronised, but you couldn't necessarily put them where you'd want them.

Also, not all contraprops featured the same number of blades on each prop, which would really mess things up.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

GScholz · « **Reply #27 on:** February 04, 2005, 08:38:55 AM »

Actually that would be quite easy on a low wing monoplane. One gun in each wing root ... just slide the guns out along the wing until they hit 120 degrees on the prop-axis. The third gun is mounted directly above the engine in the cowl. Just swap the two MG131 for a single 151 on a 190D and the inner wing guns are pretty much aligned up already. Add an engine gun like on the 109's and you have four nose-mounted cannon on a single engined monoplane with a three (six) bladed counter-rotating prop.

Angus · « **Reply #28 on:** February 04, 2005, 05:39:23 PM »

That's gonna be dicey and NOSE-UGLY

HoHun · « **Reply #29 on:** February 04, 2005, 05:55:28 PM »

Hi Tony,

>I doubt it VERY much. The time gaps would be tiny, and when you take into consideration the need for a safety margin because the cartridge propellants don't always burn at precisely the same rate...

Somewhere, I have an article confirming exactly that, but I can't find it right now.

The question of synchronization was what killed the first He 219 project, which had a centrally-mounted twin-engine, single-propeller layout like the He 119. When the project went from reconnaissance to night fighter, a more conventional layout was required, leading to the He 219 as we know it.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)