What happened to LW?

[Crumpp]

What evidence is this statement based on? Did you test something in the game to come to this conclusion? Or did HT and Pyro post the "AH weight" of the 190s in a thread somewhere?

Look on the AH Home page under:

game data


planes vehicles, and boats

FW-190A5 = 8583 lbs or 3,893.18Kg's

The FW-190A5 Take off weight for full wing armament is 4106Kg's

[Sable]

So assuming that the numbers on the webpage are the actual numbers coded into the game, the one FW that actually handles pretty good is underweight.  That's encouraging for the LW fans.

[Crumpp]

So assuming that the numbers on the webpage are the actual numbers coded into the game, the one FW that actually handles pretty good is underweight. That's encouraging for the LW fans.

Actually IMHO that should be encouraging.  It does not change what the aircraft was capable of doing.  HTC's model is in fact lighter than Faber's FW-190A3 as tested.

All the best,

Crumpp

[gripen]

If someone is interested about real flight tested data from Fw for the A-8, below is a chart from the Shockwave productions site. If compared to the AH A-8, there   is a very good agreement with at military power (assuming that 30 min rating for the A-8 was 1,42ata 2700rpm). Only other issue I can see is that the AH A-8 should have the ETC rack visible because it has the 30gal extra tank.

gripen
 

[Wilbus]

Gripen the discussion is still not about top speed or top climb rate so while the chart is interesting in its own way it is not really about the discussion...

Wilbus: What milian is refering to is CAS, i.e. calibrated air speed. Btw that is also modled in AH's air speed indicator. It is do to the fact that as the plane changes AOA, the pitot tube is no longer square with the air stream, and hence induces an error. Normaly it actualy works the other way at very high AOA's (I.E. your real speed is faster than what your air speed indicator is showing) but that is not always the case.     CAS to IAS is not a simple caculation , it realy requires a table per airplane type.    

And finaly unlike milian claims, we do not simply take a given stall speed and use it as he claims, We use many different methods for comming up with a CLMax that we use in game. And btw in AH the FW's CLMax is higher than the spitfires, once again exatly the oposit of what milian claims.  

And finaly, do not take what I am saying that I belive the FW or any other model is absolutly accurate, and can not be improved. As with any of our planes, they are what data we have, the more data we have the more precise we can model an aircraft. But the model data , has absolutly nothing to do with how we model things.

Thanks for the answers, appriciate it!


Another question. In this thread there was a discussion/question about how many HP the AH 190 D9 has got.

The discussion allso mentions Tourqe.

"Mister Fork" was kind enough to explain some of it and mentioned a modell he made for it in "Screaming Deamons over Europe", the 190 D9.

He explained that when increasing/decreasing engine tourqe the thing that changed alot was acceleration. Top Speed and climb rate didn't change much/any at all.

This is also backed up by the page posted by  "DoKGonZo".

One thing about that page. It is not comparison tests made by Sweden during WW2. They are calculations based from aerodynamics and physics made by the person who made the homepage.

[gripen]

Originally posted by Wilbus
Gripen the discussion is still not about top speed or top climb rate so while the chart is interesting in its own way it is not really about the discussion...

Hm... if I look back this thread, I can see a lot of claims about the speeds of the AH FWs starting from the page 1 of this thread. So far no one has actually posted real flight tested performance data here. Note that hitech claimed (page 1 of this thread) that:

"HTC Never modiefies a planes performance based on anything but our best interpitation of the flight data we have availible to us."

And if the AH A-8 is compared to the real A-8, there is a very good agreement.

gripen

[Wilbus]

Have you actually read the last few pages here??

I think it has been stated quite a few times that is is not about top speed and top climb rate.

Stall behavior, maneuverability and acceleration is up for discussion now.

Thanks for the chart though, will save it (think I have it somewhere already but can never have too many copies).

And if the AH A-8 is compared to the real A-8, there is a very good agreement.

Speed and climbwise yes.

[Crumpp]

What is the set up of that aircraft Gripen?


Which thermostat, Lufterrad, pistons, Kommandogerät, propeller, baffling changes, etc....

Was it summer or winter and did the engine have the changes made?

All effect the performance of the FW-190.

Interesting too that the graph does not show any Jagd-einsatz weapon set up for the FW-190A8 that was ever produced.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

If someone is interested about real flight tested data from Fw for the A-8, below is a chart from the Shockwave productions site.

This statement works both ways too:

It is when people pass off data at the upper end of these percentages as the "average" that destroys the balance.

Passing off lower end data as the "average" also creates an imbalance.

All the best,

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Crumpp
What is the set up of that aircraft Gripen?


Which thermostat, Lufterrad, pistons, Kommandogerät, propeller, baffling changes, etc....

Was it summer or winter and did the engine have the changes made?

All effect the performance of the FW-190.

Interesting too that the graph does not show any Jagd-einsatz weapon set up for the FW-190A8 that was ever produced.

All the best,

Crumpp

The serial number of the 801 as well as the WNr of the 190 (AGO built) is stated on the chart so you being the expert should be able to tell us what the 'set-up' of the engine and a/c is.

[storch]

Originally posted by Mime
listen to me for a sec

I have played this game since beta.  In the past 2 years or so it seems like all the allied planes have been increasingly made easier to fly (incredible almost anti gravity, turn radius increasing, little drag flaps and cockpits with very little obstructions) while axis planes (specifically the LW fleet)  have only become worse.  The 190A series flies the same as it always has, like a pig.  For example the P47 used to be much more like the 190 in terms of flight model -- they were almost an even match in a 1on1 situation with the P47 being slightly more manueverable.  Everything has changed now and the P47 no longer difficult to fly.  The P51 also used to be much more difficult to maintain around the stall, but now it flies like it resists gravity.  Both the 190 and 109 series haven't changed at all in any FM respects from what I can tell, while the competition has for some reason become a fleet of EZ Mode planes.  And to mention the fact that the 190 and 109 cockpits after revision have become so obstructive to render them increasingly harder to aim with, while the older Allied cockpits became slimmer or retained the older cockpit bar dimensions.  I don't understand this.  How do the Axis planes get worse and the Allied the same or get clearer views?

I admit I do not have any technical tests on how the planes performed in the game from the various updates, but it is just a way I have felt the flight models and cockpit models change (or lack thereof in the case of the LW birds) throughout Aces High.  

Has anyone else noticed this too??  Maybe it is just me.

Thx for reading...
NathBDP

back to the original question and it's relevence to ingame play.  last night in the CT I was goaded by a player of more or less (more to the more than to the less) equal skill to a "duel".  Now, generally I do not accept such challenges, much preferring to spar on the text buffer than in a cartoon "duel".  This time however I rose to the challenge and stipulated that I would "choose the weapons".  The "challenger"  accepted and I selected that he fly any LW aircraft and I would fly the spit of my choosing.  the fight is on.  I'm cruising along at 3k heading to the appointed dueling grounds in Weehawken NJ to meet mr hamilton when I'm pounced!!!! frantically calling for my wife to remove my granddaughter from my lap (she came laughing her head off at my distress and relieved me of my burden thus lightening my spit of 26 extra pounds) in the interim we had done three turns me guessing where he is by sound alone, (I'm missing half of my right thumb so my views are under my left thumb on the X45 throttle, my left hand up to this moment suspending my delighted granddaughter, chicks dig fighter pilots) and I had yet to identify this "threat".  Behold!!! before me was a sleek and deadly MC205.  He was in a sharp starboard bank while slighly nose up (I estimate 45 degrees) come back on the throttle just a bit, apply a little right rudder while increasing my angle, pull the nose a little ahead, cross control with a little left rudder pressure, he disappears beneath my nose, lightly tap the "fire both" trigger.  the next thing I see on the text buffer is a accusation of being a HO'r from my non LW flying "challenger".  any idiot can win in an AH spit.  that's the reason they are here.  something has to keep the US$14.95 rolling in every month.  The spits do it for the new guy that needs to get kills while they climb the steep learning curve or low skill and self esteem crowd.  Once again, I say leave it as it is, my skills have improved and killing spittards is fun and all the more rewarding when you know you start every fight with the deck stacked against you.  Perhaps in another life I was a pacific salmon.  anyway HTC has a good though not "balanced" formula which allows us all to participate in as close as possible to the long ago but hopefully never to be forgotten event that was aerial combat in WWII.  having said all that, go and fix the damn 190 already.

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp

Which thermostat, Lufterrad, pistons, Kommandogerät, propeller, baffling changes, etc....

Was it summer or winter and did the engine have the changes made?

Maybe you should ask these from Shockwave productions. The basic configuration is given in the chart as well as the dates.

Originally posted by Crumpp

Passing off lower end data as the "average" also creates an imbalance.

It's the only flight tested data posted to this thread so far and it appears to agree very well with the AH A-8. I don't see a reason to assume imbalance.

gripen

[Crumpp]

so far and it appears to agree very well with the AH A-8.

I just checked it with the production trial data and it does have good agreement.  

It is below the average for an FW-190A8 Jabo-einsatz at 1.42ata @ 2700U/min with ETC 501 rack mounted but within 3% guarantee performance for level speed.

You've posted this graph before.  

It's the only flight-tested data posted to this thread

The data I posted earlier is based on over 100 flight tests and represents the numbers given to the RLM for production Focke Wulf single engine performance.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

An example of Focke Wulf test flight procedures:

Test Schedule:

http://img105.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=a3c_flight_test.jpg

Test results:

http://img21.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=2a3_FW190A9.jpg

Gripen says:

The basic configuration is given in the chart as well as the dates.

This is the kind of statement that smacks of aircraft performance ignorance.  Where do you even begin to see enough information on the graph you took from Shockwaves site to draw any conclusion about average production performance of the FW-190A8?  Facts are your are ignorant of this test's background or set up.

Something as simple as the intake set up can have huge effect on recorded performance.  

http://img106.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=561_Intakes.jpg

All the best,

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Crumpp
An example of Focke Wulf test flight procedures:

Test Schedule:

http://img105.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=a3c_flight_test.jpg

That is not a test schedule but a flight log. No indication of how many a/c either.