What happened to LW?

[Wilbus]

They have guns G00B but even the A8 with its 4x20mm is far less potent than most US (and other allied) planes. A P51 with 6x50 cals is a far better plane for killing. They are far easier to hit with, they hit from much longer distances and you easily put more lead into the plane. Sure a plane will go down by 5 or 6 or so 20's from an A8 but you need to hit for them to cause any dammage.

Sure the 190 has got roll rate. Roll rate doesn't mean very much in AH. In most fights it means nothing. The only time it really means anything it when compared to two very different planes as far as roll goes (Tiffie and 190 for example).

As for speed, top speed, the Dora has it but it is out accelerated by very many planes in normal AH combats. K4 has got speed aswell but not enough to outrun 50 cal and Hizooka planes. Being a few mph faster then a Pony means being within his hit distance (800 yards or so) for WAY too long and we all know how prone the 109's (not to mention Mr. Glass Nose Dora) are to engine hits.

Playing your game in a 190 means you typically need Alt, and quite much of it. If you take more then a few passes on an enemy you will lose that alt advantage and be forced to run or fight it out. And fighting it out in a 190 is usually very stupid unless you are a vastly superior pilot.

I used to fly alomst only 190's for years and years after moving from the G10. I have always considered the 190 a more difficult plane to fly and especially dogfight in. I've stopped flying them since I came back from my 10 month break. You know why? Because they are not competative. Why should I fly around in a plane, no matter how fast it is if the guns are 10 times as hard to hit with and cause half the dammage? The 190's survive thanks to B&Z. While I enjoy B&Z I do not enjoy cherry pickin targets in a furrball for minutes and minutes at a time and that's basicly the only thing the 190's are good at. Hitting unaware targets. Why? Because the balistics and punch absolutely sucks.

I much rather take a 1943 P47 D11 over a Dora simply because the D11, although worse on the paper in terms of roll, climb, speed etc is by FAR the superior plane in AH.

[Krusty]

In general I agree Wilbus, but the 190a5 being the least-crappy of the lot is still quite capable. Last tour it earned me most of my kills, most of them in dogfight situations turning (in the vertical as much as I could help it) and burning.

[Sable]

Originally posted by Wilbus

I much rather take a 1943 P47 D11 over a Dora simply because the D11, although worse on the paper in terms of roll, climb, speed etc is by FAR the superior plane in AH.

Do you really believe that?

[Krusty]

Try it... I was flying the 47N a couple of weeks ago (taking a break from my usual ride, am branching out a bit) and was absolutely surprised how well it flew -- even while heavy with 8 guns and full ammo load!

Trust me, the Jug is better than the 190s because it lacks the problems that the 190s have in spades.

[Crumpp]

I like to use Basic weights as an indicator of wing loading and power loading to get a better picture of "combat weight".

Hi F4UDOA,

I agree that the relative performance will change based on individual aircraft loadout.  I do not think it will be a very dramatic change and the FW-190 would retain it's low speed advantages.

AHT list's 14,500lbs as the combat weight of the P 47D25 (+) and is used on all the performance graphs for the type. I would think that the P47D4 tested has the auxillery main internal tank installed as well as the auxillery tank and larger water injection tank.  However we do not know for certain and can only use what they have given us 60 years ago.

Anybody have a load sheet for the P47D4?

The FW-190 weight is listed as 3,855.54 kilograms.  That comes very close to a 60 percent fuel weight of the FW-190A5 with full wing armament or as the aircraft was set up, fully loaded combat weight of an FW-190A5 without full wing armament.  However it is impossible to pin down exactly what FW-190A they were trying to simulate based on the weight alone.

It is interesting BTW, that Focke Wulf determined there was no performance differences between an aircraft with or without the wing armament.  From the FW-190A5 and up, that version is not even a factory produced fighter variant.  Which makes sense when you consider the results of the Spitfire testing.  Another design which gained weight and power over it's lifetime.  

I think you have compared completely empty weights too.  A completely empty FW-190A5 without, oil, fuel, pilot, ammo, etc.. weighs 7,301.71 pounds (avoirdupois).  You would have to remove all the radios and service gear to reach 6700lbs and it would not be representative of an FW-190 accepted for Luftwaffe service.  It would be an empty aircraft sitting on the factory floor.  Same with the P47D4.  AHT list's the basic weight as 10,700 lbs for both the P47C and D25 (-).  

That comes out to:

FW-190A5 = 37lbs /sq ft empty

P47D4 = 35.6lbs/sq ft. empty


It is not the wingloading that determines angle of bank and minimum radius of turn.  It is the powerloading.  Weight wise there is little to no difference between a P47D4 and a P 47C.  I can post the P47C tactical trials but that one is really ugly for the Thunderbolt.  It concludes that the best chance the P47 has is to spot the FW-190 first and dive away.

The P47C is outclassed by the FW-190 in all performance parameters except top diving speed in the tactical trials vs the same FW190A5.

 

Wingloading P47C vs FW-190A5 at fully loaded take off weights fighter configuration:

Fully loaded:

FW-190A5 = 46lbs / sq ft

Even at the listed weight the FW-190's wingloading is a whooping 1 lb heavier than the P47C fully loaded.

P47C = 42lbs / sq ft

All the P47D4's performance improvements are the result of better powerloading/thrust over the P 47C.  In spite of the added weight of water injection, additional armour, and internal auxillery tanks.

Here we see that the Spitfire Mk XIV gains 1000lbs and 5 lbs / sq ft more wingloading than the Spitfire Mk IX.  Yet it has exactly the same turn performance as the lighter, less wingloaded Spitfire Mk IX:

The tactical differences are caused chiefly by the fact that the Spitfire XIV has an engine of greater capacity and is the heavier aircraft (weighing 8,400 lbs. against 7,480 lbs. of Spitfire IX).

The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14afdu.html

It would be nice to see a load plan for the P47D4 with paddle blade prop and water injection however.

It would be nice to see a comparision of an FW-190A8 with a wide chord wooden prop too, but that is wishful thinking!

All the best,

Crumpp

[g00b]

Originally posted by Wilbus
They have guns G00B but even the A8 with its 4x20mm is far less potent than most US (and other allied) planes. A P51 with 6x50 cals is a far better plane for killing. They are far easier to hit with, they hit from much longer distances and you easily put more lead into the plane. Sure a plane will go down by 5 or 6 or so 20's from an A8 but you need to hit for them to cause any dammage.

I feel they are fairly equal overall. The 50's give you a bit more reach, bu the 20's do hit pretty hard.

Originally posted by Wilbus
Sure the 190 has got roll rate. Roll rate doesn't mean very much in AH. In most fights it means nothing. The only time it really means anything it when compared to two very different planes as far as roll goes (Tiffie and 190 for example).

Roll means alot in AH. Not just for scissors and defensive manuevers, but to get your shots lined up. The A5 is simply a joy to fly, largely because of the phenomenal roll rate.

Originally posted by Wilbus
As for speed, top speed, the Dora has it but it is out accelerated by very many planes in normal AH combats. K4 has got speed as well but not enough to outrun 50 cal and Hizooka planes. Being a few mph faster then a Pony means being within his hit distance (800 yards or so) for WAY too long and we all know how prone the 109's (not to mention Mr. Glass Nose Dora) are to engine hits.

The K4 is darn near uber in this game. What is it, a 4500ft/min climb? No american plane can even come close. Plus it's still fast as hell. Translate this into an extended run to even out energy states of pursuers followed by a slow climb or spiral climb, and coming over the top of the rope with a 30mm canon pointed at the cockpit of the would be pursuer. Bang! Even I have a hard time missing a stationary target at 200 yrds. In comparison, the P-51 has the speed but not the climb, and the Spitfire MKXVI has the climb but not the speed. The only non-perked aircraft that hold a candle to the K4 in shear performance numbers is the LA-7, and that's only down low. I don't seem to have the problems you do with pony's tearing me apart at 800 yards or the "glass nose".

Originally posted by Wilbus
Playing your game in a 190 means you typically need Alt, and quite much of it. If you take more then a few passes on an enemy you will lose that alt advantage and be forced to run or fight it out. And fighting it out in a 190 is usually very stupid unless you are a vastly superior pilot.

I used to fly alomst only 190's for years and years after moving from the G10. I have always considered the 190 a more difficult plane to fly and especially dogfight in. I've stopped flying them since I came back from my 10 month break. You know why? Because they are not competative. Why should I fly around in a plane, no matter how fast it is if the guns are 10 times as hard to hit with and cause half the dammage? The 190's survive thanks to B&Z. While I enjoy B&Z I do not enjoy cherry pickin targets in a furrball for minutes and minutes at a time and that's basicly the only thing the 190's are good at. Hitting unaware targets. Why? Because the balistics and punch absolutely sucks.

Sounds like we are on the same page. I don't think the guns are THAT bad though, maybe you just need some more practice with them?

Originally posted by Wilbus
I much rather take a 1943 P47 D11 over a Dora simply because the D11, although worse on the paper in terms of roll, climb, speed etc is by FAR the superior plane in AH.

Not sure what to make of this comment. I don't agree with you, neither in a duel or MA environment is the D11 superior to the D9. The D9 is the much more "surviveable" aircraft. The D11 is certainly more fun with the TnB capability and the 8 .50 lead hose.

g00b

[Apar]

Well said Wilbuz.

For me it was the other way around, I started of flying 190's (A8 mostly) and switched to the 109g10 in AH1. The g10 handled much better in close combat and it didn't snap roll as easy as the 190 in AH. Furthermore it had better low speed handling, so much better that I used to stall fight many planes in it and came out on top. It's vertical performance was great compared to many other planes allowing successful ropes and fast wing over in the fights (especially when using flaps). The plane was naturally nose heavy and turned over quick on top.

I flew the K4 quite a bit in the last week and came to the conclusion that it performs less then the G10. High speed handling hasn't changed much but it seems as if its turn rate at medium and low speeds has decreased (i can't measure it but feel it when flat turning la's and yak's now in K4 compared to G10 before). It decelerates accelerates less then before (takes longer, more overshoots against other planes now). The most noticeable change is its stall fight performance. It is "less stable" in roll around stall and it doesn't wing over as easy as before (even with flaps).

In total it simply feels as if the plane is heavier then before, maybe even a shift in CG.

[Wilbus]

Originally posted by Sable
Do you really believe that?

I've got enough experience in pretty much every single plane in AH to know. It is not a question of believing anything, it's a question of knowing. And I know.

Stop trying to be arrogant.

Sounds like we are on the same page. I don't think the guns are THAT bad though, maybe you just need some more practice with them?

Uhm.... ok, need more practice with them. OK... sure. After all, I've never flown any LW planes in AH so I wouldn't know how they perform or how the guns perform.

Not sure what to make of this comment. I don't agree with you, neither in a duel or MA environment is the D11 superior to the D9. The D9 is the much more "surviveable" aircraft. The D11 is certainly more fun with the TnB capability and the 8 .50 lead hose.

Pretty much the only reason the Dora is more survivable is thanks to its speed. But you don't get kills by running. Maybe that is most peoples idea of fun (judging from MA environment lately I'd say it is) but it's not mine.

As for 20's vs 50 of course the 20's hit harder when they hit but the 50's are far superior to the Mg151's thanks to balistics and the ability to saw planes to pieces from very long distances.

...I don't seem to have the problems you do with pony's tearing me apart at 800 yards or the "glass nose".

Not having experienced or seeing glass nose in the Dora as a problem only proves one thing, and that's that you don't fly it often.

As for 800 yard shots, they are less common now since after AH2 was released but they still aren't all that difficult to hit with 50 cal.

[Krusty]

I have to agree with Wilbus on this one goob....

You state that the K-4 is uber. I wonder how much you fly it (if at all), because it is far from uber. It climbs like a bat outta hell, sure, but it's unstable compared to the G10 and the 30mm-only armament has basically defanged it as a fighter craft. It can climb... It can only run for a short time... It can evade... But that's all it can do. It can rarely ever get kills. Uber? No. Good climb with no bite = space shuttle... might be fun to ride but you won't get any kills in it.

[Crumpp]

Facts are as can be seen from the any of the original reports even untrained personnel could get some very good "at least" performance.

The aircraft was fighter in every sense of the word, not a ponderous aircraft that needs a huge altitude advantage to be successful.

Against its contemporary adversaries, on even terms it gave an even fight.

All the best,

Crump

[g00b]

Originally posted by Krusty
I have to agree with Wilbus on this one goob....

You state that the K-4 is uber. I wonder how much you fly it (if at all), because it is far from uber. It climbs like a bat outta hell, sure, but it's unstable compared to the G10 and the 30mm-only armament has basically defanged it as a fighter craft. It can climb... It can only run for a short time... It can evade... But that's all it can do. It can rarely ever get kills. Uber? No. Good climb with no bite = space shuttle... might be fun to ride but you won't get any kills in it.

30mm = no bite? Can't get kills in it?

Stats from the last 3 tours

Tour 70
Bf 109K-4    22 kills and 9 deaths
             Bf 109G-14  13 kills and 3 deaths
             Bf 110G-2    33 kills and 6 deaths
             Fw 190D-9    5 kills and 2 deaths
           

Tour 69
 Fw 190A-5  11 kills and 3 deaths
             Bf 110G-2   19 kills and 6 deaths

Tour 68
 Bf 109K-4    13 kills and 4 deaths
             Fw 190A-5    6 kills and 1 death
             Fw 190D-9  14 kills and 7 deaths
             Bf 110G-2    19 kills and 7 deaths

Nope, I don't fly LW a whole lot, but certainly enough to form a valid opinion. I just don't agree the LW planes are handicapped, porked or anything else. You simply must fly them the way they were designed to be flown. And by that I don't mean timidly, anyone who flies with me on a regular basis knows I have quite the gung-ho attitude.


g00b

[Crumpp]

You simply must fly them the way they were designed to be flown.

Problem Goob is the FW-190 was not designed to be flown like it has to be in Aces High.

If you flew it in reality like you do in the game against say, the P47, you would be flying to the enemies strengths.

Even against the Spitfire, it was not flown with single high speed slashing attacks followed by miles of extension.  FW-190 pilots stuck to the Spitfires to prevent them from regaining energy.  Something you are not able to do in AH.

The facts do not support the current FM characteristics.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Krusty]

Tour 68 the K4 wasn't out yet. The G10 flew better than what we've got now.

[g00b]

I think you are simply seeing the effects of what the aircraft "could" do vs. what the pilots/planes "did" do in real life. It's standard procedure to pull 'till blacked out in a Spitfire in game, in reality, maneuvering was much less violent, pilots didn't pull 6g+ corners on a whim. I'm sure you've seen tons of guncam footage, quite a few of these engagements were rather sedate afairs by Aces High standards. Even though the planes were capable of extreme performance, very few pilots ever pushed these planes anywhere near as hard as we do in Aces High.

My 2 cents...

g00b

[Sable]

My Tour 71 stats:

Fw 190A-5 16 kills 4 deaths
Fw 190A-8 88 kills 11 deaths
Fw 190D-9 60 kills 9 deaths

I guess I'm just playing a different game or something.