is this correct? (my 190A-5 deck speed test)

[RRAM]

One MGFF cannon weights 28 kg. Each round weighs 134g. 120 rounds are, then, 16,08 kg.

The whole excepcional, impressive, and massive ammount of extra weight you load in a Fw190A5 by selecting the 4x20mm loadout is, so, 88,16 kg. In a plane which takeoff weight is something around 4400kg, we're taking a whooping extra 2% weight. WOOSAH!!!!.

There was no strenghtening needed of the wing. It already had the hardpoints to load the cannons from factory.
The ammo cans come within the weight of the weapon itself (but if you want to, go and add a couple of Kg to that enormous weight...sheesh, 90kg!!! enormous weight indeed!!!!!)

So wotan: when you load a 250kg in AH2 you load the bomb rack too (wich also weights on itself and affects handling). And carrying 250kg of external load is never equal to carrying that extra weight internally, as there are almost no aerodinamic penalties in an internal carrying configuration.

Not to mention... comparing the extra weight imposed by the extra MGFFs loadout with a 250kg bomb is a bit off-mark. (but just a bit ).


Anyway. He who flies Fw190A for it's acceleration and climbrate is wasting his time. Fw190A is a B'n'Z marvel but doesn't accelerate or climb any good (the D is another story against certain enemies).

Ho who flies Fw190s for anything other than snapshots is wasting his time too unless he's a real hot-stick and really knows his stuff.

To lose a rediculous ammount of acceleration and climbrate to win a 30% of firepower is a good trade. 190 lives for the snapshot most of the time. The more firepower you bring to bear in that half-a-second, the better. MGFFs may be crappy 20mm cannons, but THEY ARE 20mm cannons none the less.

To have 2 exterior cannons improves your % hit chance at all distances other than that of convergence. It's as simple as knowing that the cone of fire is bigger.


The low ammount of ammo is irrelevant. After the ammo is gone you've fired quite some of your other ammo too: your external guns still weigh but the MGFFs are pretty light anyway. You aren't much worse than a 2x20mm Fw190A5 after that.


In short: losing an insignificant ammount of climbrate and acceleration to win a 30% firepower even for 6.5 seconds "only" (which gives you at least 13 0.5sec. snapshots) is always a good deal.



P.D. and wotan, if you're going to boast your great killing skills in real-life-like environments, I may remind people that I destroyed 12 enemy planes (2 corsairs, 6 F6Fs, 1 Lancaster and 3 Avengers, IIRC) in TWO FRAMES of Hostile Shores (or whatever it was called that great scenario of defending Tirpitz in Norway a couple years ago)...with a 4x20mm Fw190A5.

So, the only thing I see from your numbers is that you're a damned great stick flying the Fw190A (something I already know), not that the 2x20mm loadout is better than the 4x20mm one. I'm pretty sure you'd have had exactly the same kill tally or better with the 4x20mm configuration

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Krusty
190s have one of the fastest acceleration rates in the game. even with heavier internal weight, you can still just nose down and pick up 50mph instantly. Or hit WEP and not have to wait at all.

Acceleration rates for the A series 190s is nothing to write home about. Whereas the Dora can go from 200 mph to 300 mph in about 32 seconds (on the deck) the A-5 requires 43.38 with MGFFs and 41.53 seconds without the MGFFs. That is very unimpressive. The heavier A-8 will not be better.

With fuel generating the same range as the 190A-5, the following aircraft can accomplish this in much less time.

P-38J: 37.07
Typhoon: 35.87
109G-2: 37.62
P-51D: 36.68
P-47N: 34.49
La-5FN: 31.27
Yak-9U: 37.40
Ki-84: 35.96

So, if you're on the deck and depending upon acceleration to get clear of pursuing enemies... Good luck. Just don't get so slow that acceleration becomes a short-term factor.

My regards,

Widewing

[TheThang]

those numbers arnt with wep on the a5 are they? (edit) apparently they are. your right =(

[Wotan]

To lose a rediculous ammount of acceleration and climbrate to win a 30% of firepower is a good trade. 190 lives for the snapshot most of the time. The more firepower you bring to bear in that half-a-second, the better. MGFFs may be crappy 20mm cannons, but THEY ARE 20mm cannons none the less.

You don't gain 30% firepower in AH. MGFF in AH begin losing lethality the further your move beyond 240yards. By the time you get to around 325 yards lethality is way down. With just 120 rounds even if your hit % is around 15% (which is a good average) only 18 rounds of that 120 will impact the target.

With the different ballistics impact probability is low even close in snapshots. There is very little chance of increased in hit probability. Also since hit sprites in AH are generic for all rounds, you don't know what rounds are hitting or missing when you fire all your guns at once. MG 17, MGFF, MG151 all make the same sprite...

Even if you are an outstanding marksmen there is no way you land 100% of your hits find there mark...

Now In IL2/FB/AEP/PF I take the MGFF 75% of the time. These rounds are much more effective in that game. However I only fire those in close and hardly ever fire both primary and secondary guns together.

One MGFF cannon weights 28 kg.

From Tony Williams:

the Ikaria-made MG-FFM weighed 26 KG.

Each round weighs 134g. 120 rounds are, then, 16,08 kg.

IIRC a single 100 round drum of MGFF weighed in at 33 kg. i think you missed miss the weight of the of drum itself which is doubled.

There was no strenghtening needed of the wing. It already had the hardpoints to load the cannons from factory.
The ammo cans come within the weight of the weapon itself

The hard points were there in the wing but the hardware to mount and adjust the guns weren't. Some of the cans were armored as well.

Even 150kg is good amount of added weight for very little gain.

P.D. and wotan, if you're going to boast your great killing skills in real-life-like environments, I may remind people that I destroyed 12 enemy planes (2 corsairs, 6 F6Fs, 1 Lancaster and 3 Avengers, IIRC) in TWO FRAMES of Hostile Shores (or whatever it was called that great scenario of defending Tirpitz in Norway a couple years ago)...with a 4x20mm Fw190A5.

So, the only thing I see from your numbers is that you're a damned great stick flying the Fw190A (something I already know), not that the 2x20mm loadout is better than the 4x20mm one. I'm pretty sure you'd have had exactly the same kill tally or better with the 4x20mm configuration

My example wasn't to brag, it was to point out that lethality did not suffer. There isn't 'skill' needed to shoot down bombers. They flew level and and my 2 x 20mm was more then enough to bring them down.

I was in Hostile Shores as well, flying a FW 190F-8 and IIRC I ended up with 6 or 7 kills myself. This was in addition of spending 2 frames flying about looking for ships to bomb and running out of fuel. My 2 x 20mm in the F-8 was effective in bringing down aircraft with just 2 X MG151.

I died in the last frame of that event after being switched to A-8s. I was killed by F4U-s after rearming. I had just upped and the base was hit. I had time to get up and turn hard into the attack but took hits from multiple attackers and was killed.

However, none of what I am saying has anything to do with 'skills' it is only provided as an example of lethality not adversely suffering as some claim.

I get killed all the time by nachwuchs and veteran a like. My lifetime k/d in the A series 190s is only like 4 to 1 but I never was a b-n-z'r in the main and only flew as high is it took for me to get to the target area on auto climb. There are plenty of great 190 pilots in AH. I recall you being a damn good as well.

[Wotan]

Mister Fork's last Acceleration Results posted in this thread on 11-03-2004.

New planes have been added since then so keep that in mind as well:

New Acceleration Results for AHII

My results from AHII have been completed. There are a few surprises, and I'm able to draw a few conclusions.

Several points:
1. Notably, most aircraft have slowed down in their acceleration by an average of 3.8s or .28m/s^2.
2. All fighter aircraft accelerate an average 12% slower than AHI .
3. Both the Spitfire V and Seafire II boosted their ranking by 8, and 11 places from AHI.
4. The Yak-9U boosted its ranking by 11 places.
5. The F4U-C moved up 15 slots in acceleration.
6. F4U-4 moved down 19 places in ranking.

You can view the entire list here: Acceleration Excel Sheet

Testing Criteria
a) All aircraft were loaded with 100% fuel, minimum weapons loadouts.
b) Altitude for all tests were 1000ASL
c) Aircraft speeds were recorded from 150-250 using the E6B.
d) Aircraft speeds were brought below 140mph. Aircraft were applied 100% full throttle and WEP engaged (if available). At 150mph TAS stopwatch was engaged.
e) Timer was stopped at 250mph TAS.
f) Test was repeated four additional times.
g) Average of time was calculated. Scores are +/- .1s.

Acceleration Forumula
(Vf - Vo) / t m/s^2
(250mph - 150mph) / time
(111.8m/s - 67.1m/s) / t = 44.7m/s / s

Where:
Vf = 250mph = 111.8 m/s IAS
Vo= 150mph = 67.1 m/s IAS
Vf - final velocity
Vo - initial velocity

Here is the list in rank from fastest to slowest:

Aircraft | Seconds
Me-163 15.1
Tempest 19.0
Bf 109G-10 19.2
SpitFire Mk XIV 19.7
La-7 20.0
La-5 FN 20.8
Fw 190D-9 22.2
Bf 109G-2 22.8
F4U-4 23.8
Bf 109G-6 24.0
Yak-9U 24.3
NIK-2 24.4
Bf 109F-4 24.5
Fw 109A-5 24.5
C205 24.6
P-38L 24.9
Fw 109A-8 25.3
Typhoon 25.4
SpitFire Mk IX 25.9
Ta-152 26.0
Ki-84-Ia 26.1
SpitFire Mk V 26.4
P-51D 27.0
SeaFire Mk IIC 27.1
Fw 190F-8 27.8
C202 28.0
F6F-5 28.2
P-47D40 28.3
F4U-D 28.4
F4U-C 29.1
Me-262-a 29.4
P-47D25 30.3
P-47D11 30.5
P-51B 30.7
Mosquito IV 30.8
Yak-9T 31.6
Bf 110G-4 32.2
A6M5b 33.0
F4U-1 33.1
FM2 34.0
Ki-61-I-Tei 34.1
P-40E 34.6
SpitFire Mk I 35.5
Bf 109E4 37.0
Hurricane Mk IIC 38.4
Bf 110C-4 40.7
F4F-4 46.1
Hurricane Mk IID 47.2
A6M2 47.7
Hurricane Mk I 53.2
P-40B 61.0

[Wotan]

Just to clarify a few things:

I will offer some quotes from this thread on Butch's AAW2 forum (requires registration to view).

The weight of both MgFF and ammo was only 135kg or about 3% of the 190's total weight? How much effect could removing the outer guns have on performance?

Were our guns frequently removed on later 190A versions (A8/A9)?

Thanks,

Faustnik

Butch replied (referring to the earlier (A-2 - A-5s):

I think they were removed because they were quite ineficient. Indeed the ballistics between the inner guns and outer guns were very different and with 60/90 ammo, they did not delive the bang for the buck. Better to get a few more km/h or a few ° in roll rate than firing shells in thin air.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Wotan
Mister Fork's last Acceleration Results posted in this thread on 11-03-2004.

New planes have been added since then so keep that in mind as well:

Markedly flawed test method... Acceleration can only be accurately measured from a stable constant. He was backing off power, slowing well below 150 mph and then applying max power. He then attempts to begin timing as speeds go up in large bites. Better to begin at a constant speed, start the watch while applying max power.

In addition, to get a more accurate measurement of acceleration over the entire speed envelope, you need to begin somewhere well above stall speed with the nominal speed being closer to the middle of the speed envelope. I also prefer 200 mph as the baseline as this is far more representative of combat speeds.

Likewise, not many fighters will be flown at 150 mph, or 140 mph where he begins acceleration. When was the last time you were flying an A-5 at 140 mph in a fight?

Here's an example of my point. A Nissan Pathfinder can accelerate from 5 to 30 mph as fast a Chrysler 300 Hemi. However, the 300 beats it to 60 mph by 3 seconds. If you did not test beyond 30 mph you may falsely conclude that the Pathfinder accelerates as fast as the Hemi Chrysler.

My regards,

Widewing

[Wotan]

I didn't offer Fork's conclusions as evidence of anything other then to rebut the claim made by Krusty.

IMHO Fork's tests are completely pointless in trying to establish the real advantages of acceleration between aircraft because like you said the speed range of his tests are unrealalistically slow. Second due to the the fuel load out. Finally he limited his tests to just 1000ft. We all know that climb/acceleration vary with altitude.

I don't know any one who flies Ami with 100% fuel...

However, these are 'tests' and as a reference to what Krusty claims in regards to the 190s acceleration even at the low speed range used in Fork's test they don't jive with his claim.

Testing acceleration between speed ranges of 250 - 350 mph is much more 'realilistic'. As shown in your own tests even at its best of around 42 seconds the A-5 isn't that remarkable. However, that 42 seconds without the MGFF is still better then 44 with them.

I don't know what altitude you did your tests at but the results are even worse for the A series at or around 3000m when the supercharger changes gears. Above that the A-5 compares some what better to planes like the La-5FN and Spit V. However, there are many planes in the hangar that will easily beat it.

The question really is which do you prefer? A marginal increase in acceleration, roll and better climb or at best a marginal increase in lethality.

In my opinion the MGFF are useless in AH unless you ae inside 240 tards. I haven't checked the stats to see what the 'average' hit percentage is at in AH2 (in AH1 it was around 15%) but cearly all 120 rounds will not land on target. Even if your hit percentage is a decent 15% it takes aout 10 rounds to cause any considerable damage beyond 240 yards (absent the magic bullet). Add to that the different ballistics and I fail to see how the MGFF makes the A-5 more 'lethal'or increases hit probability.

From my own past experiences 2 x MG151 at 500 rounds are plenty lethal...

[MANDO]

The easiest way to test the relative acceleration of any plane at any speed, select the desired speed, engange auto speed A/P and once the speed is constant take note of the climb rate.

Best way to do that is to choose an alt, accelerate close to the desired speed and then proceed with the auto-speed test.

[Krusty]

I don't need rebutting. Nor have I proclaimed the world flat, to be disproven. I have given my opinion on the matter. A lot of planes don't have a noticable "kick" when going to full throttle. The 190A does have a "kick". And whatever speed you're at you can very easily gain a lot more with a shallow dive (similar to a P47).

One need not get hostile when other opinions don't match theirs. Many people notice a marked difference with outboard guns, no matter how many claim the ballistics are different and that they won't hit -- they do and people that go back and forth between 4x20mm and 2x20mm know what I mean.

I do the same with 30mm on the A8. THEIR trajectory is WORSE than the MG/FF, and yet I know for a FACT I can get at least 3-4 kills off of the A8s 30mm before they run out (How do I know? Instant boom, single ping and a wing disintegrates, single ping and the tail is floating to the ground).

It's an opinion. But it's a widely held one, and one that can be backed up by those that know what I'm talking about.

Don't go overboard trying to devise a 30-page thesis paper on why Krusty is wrong. There's no need.

[Wotan]

One need not get hostile when other opinions don't match theirs.

First off no one is hostile.

190s have one of the fastest acceleration rates in the game. even with heavier internal weight, you can still just nose down and pick up 50mph instantly. Or hit WEP and not have to wait at all.

That's a statement not an 'opinion' which can easily be proven or disproven. In this case both Widewing and Fork's test show it to be inconsistent with their results. Its completely inconsistent with my own experience as well.

An opinion would be 'root beer is good"...

many people notice a marked difference with outboard guns, no matter how many claim the ballistics are different and that they won't hit -- they do and people that go back and forth between 4x20mm and 2x20mm know what I mean.

Who?

If you fire all your guns at once how do you know you hit with the MGFF? or how many hit?

Back when I was involved in scenarios we tested lethality many times. The Type 99 MK 1 on the A6M2 were the worst of the 2cm. The MGFF were only  marginally 'better'.

I do the same with 30mm on the A8. THEIR trajectory is WORSE than the MG/FF, and yet I know for a FACT I can get at least 3-4 kills off of the A8s 30mm before they run out (How do I know? Instant boom, single ping and a wing disintegrates, single ping and the tail is floating to the ground).

Comparing the Mk 108 3cm to MGFF/2cm is pointless and completely irrelevant.

When we speak of worse ballistics were are not just referring to trajectory. Many test by various players have been done. All are consistent in showing that the MGFF are the very weak.

It's an opinion. But it's a widely held one, and one that can be backed up by those that know what I'm talking about.

The claims that you have made in this thread aren't consistent with some one 'who knows what he's talking about'.

Ram is different story. His experience in the A series in AH is well known going back to to pre- 1.04. I am not sure how much experience he has in AH2 but that doesn't really matter for this discussion.

If you claim things like 'an instant gain of 50mph' or that there is a 'marked increase in lethality' by taking the MGFF then those things, if true, ought to be 'provable'.

Mandoble (Mando) has more time in the 190 series then all of us put together in this thread. How about you ask him about that 'instant 50 mph increase in speed'? Or if lethality of the A-5 shows a ' marked difference with outboard guns'.

I am not rebutting your opinion, but your claims. There is a difference. As Widewing said:

Hey, fly whatever you like, but you ARE reducing your performance by adding weight.

YMMV