Author Topic: Fw190A-8: acceleration? (Read 4624 times)

gatt · « **on:** February 07, 2006, 02:41:04 AM »

Has any1 tested the acceleration of the thing at various altitudes? It looks *so* slow to get his maximum speed, even with WEP on and obviously without any ext ord. and rack

Glasses · « **Reply #1 on:** February 07, 2006, 06:55:03 PM »

Me thinks not only as Crumpp has said that our 190s are modeled off Allied test data, but our A-8 ,I think, is the R-8 kit that was made for bomber destruction not the general lower weight sample. That's why our A-8 accelerates like and old woman with a walker in the mohave desert at 110 degrees fahrenheit heat, while having turberculosis.

1K3 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 07, 2006, 08:33:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Glasses
Me thinks not only as Crumpp has said that our 190s are modeled off Allied test data, but our A-8 ,I think, is the R-8 kit that was made for bomber destruction not the general lower weight sample. That's why our A-8 accelerates like and old woman with a walker in the mohave desert at 110 degrees fahrenheit heat, while having turberculosis.

lol no

190A-8 is right, 190A-5 is modeled on allied data

Krusty · « **Reply #3 on:** February 08, 2006, 02:19:22 PM »

There's some question whether the A-8 is right or not.

The A-5 we have is from allied testing of a 190G that was ballasted with weight where the 7mms normally are on A-5s. However the 190G and the 190A5 are very different beasts, and supposedly had very different climb angles.

Crumpp · « **Reply #4 on:** February 09, 2006, 07:59:12 PM »

Quote

There's some question whether the A-8 is right or not.

The FW-190A8 is modeled off of TD 284.

That report does not match the data reported to the RLM on 10 Nov 1944 for a clean configuration FW-190A8. The "clean configuration" graphs in TD 284 match the "with ETC" performance reported on 10 Nov 1944. Both reports reference earlier flight test data which I have a copy.

The "clean configuration" graph in TD 284 both references and matches the "with ETC 501" data in the flight test.

All the best,

Crumpp

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #5 on:** February 09, 2006, 09:55:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
The FW-190A8 is modeled off of TD 284.

That report does not match the data reported to the RLM on 10 Nov 1944 for a clean configuration FW-190A8. The "clean configuration" graphs in TD 284 match the "with ETC" performance reported on 10 Nov 1944. Both reports reference earlier flight test data which I have a copy.

The "clean configuration" graph in TD 284 both references and matches the "with ETC 501" data in the flight test.

Uhhh ... so does this mean that the numbers on the AH2 190A-8 are "right" or not?

And if the numbers are correct, why is the acceleration different than the first hand accounts?

Grits · « **Reply #6 on:** February 09, 2006, 10:39:34 PM »

He is saying the AH numbers for a completely clean A-8 are actually the numbers of one tested WITH the ETC rack. If the difference is similar to the drag the ETC rack adds to the D-9 (in AH, not real life) this would add somewhere along the lines of 8-9 MPH to the speed of the A-8. Add to that the fact that our A-8 is overweight and you see why it handles like a refrigerator full of bowling balls.

1K3 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 09, 2006, 11:30:16 PM »

i saw a thread here back then that all 190A-8s were required to carry those ETC racks to shift the plane's CG to front. without them the a8's CG is dangerously too far back

justin_g · « **Reply #8 on:** February 10, 2006, 02:17:47 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Grits
Add to that the fact that our A-8 is overweight and you see why it handles like a refrigerator full of bowling balls.

The normal loaded weight on the HTC plane page = 9682lbs(4393kg), TD 284 weight charts give loaded weight = 4391kg to 4400kg.

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
The FW-190A8 is modeled off of TD 284.

That report does not match the data reported to the RLM on 10 Nov 1944 for a clean configuration FW-190A8. The "clean configuration" graphs in TD 284 match the "with ETC" performance reported on 10 Nov 1944. Both reports reference earlier flight test data which I have a copy.

The "clean configuration" graph in TD 284 both references and matches the "with ETC 501" data in the flight test.

Ah! I was wondering how the A-8 could possibly be ~20km/h slower than the earlier models at the same power settings. The ETC issue explains most of the difference, I guess the rest is due to the larger upper cowling bulges and a tiny bit from weight increase.

gripen · « **Reply #9 on:** February 10, 2006, 02:32:19 AM »

Simple fix; just make the ETC visible. The AH A-8 has the extra tank so it must have the rack too and the military speed of the AH A-8 matches well with A-8 flight tested data at start/kampfleistung (1,42ata@2700rpm) with rack.

gripen

Crumpp · « **Reply #10 on:** February 10, 2006, 03:52:40 AM »

Quote

Simple fix; just make the ETC visible.

The tank was not always mounted. So that is a simply fix allied players would like to see but is not representative of the aircraft.

Because of the rearward shift in CG it is more common to see just the rack mounted and the 300 liter tank used than the Zusatzkraftstoffbehälter im rumpf.

Charge · « **Reply #11 on:** February 10, 2006, 04:02:51 AM »

"I guess the rest is due to the larger upper cowling bulges and a tiny bit from weight increase."

But wasn't it stated elsewhere that eg. the wing mounted cannons (outer) did not affect the performance of FW (A4)? so it was no use to leave them out?

Two MGFFs and their ammo weight probably quite much more than single ETC rack?

-C+

gripen · « **Reply #12 on:** February 10, 2006, 05:53:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
The tank was not always mounted. So that is a simply fix allied players would like to see but is not representative of the aircraft.

Hm... there is plenty of pictures of operational A-8s with racks but only few without. Apparently the extra fuel was very often needed.

gripen

justin_g · « **Reply #13 on:** February 10, 2006, 06:56:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Charge
"I guess the rest is due to the larger upper cowling bulges and a tiny bit from weight increase."

But wasn't it stated elsewhere that eg. the wing mounted cannons (outer) did not affect the performance of FW (A4)? so it was no use to leave them out?

Two MGFFs and their ammo weight probably quite much more than single ETC rack?

Allow me to clarify my statement.

Fw 190A-8 is listed as 20km/h slower than A-5 at same power. Crumpp pointed out that the commonly seen charts from TD 284(the english translated one on the web) are with the ETC rack equipped. The ETC rack reduces top speed by 16 km/h(weighs 61kg btw).

I suggested that the other 4 km/h was due to a combo of: the larger upper cowling bulges covering the MG 131's and(a tiny bit) from the weight increase over the A-5, which is in the region of 200-300kg(2x MGFF + ammo = 135kg btw).

gatt · « **Reply #14 on:** February 10, 2006, 08:46:04 AM »

Guys,
I am puzzled by the (apparently) ridicuolus acceleration of our 190A-8. Try a clean A-8 with 75% fuel, climb to 20K (at default climb speed), then hit autolevel and WEP, and measure the time it takes to get to 375mph. Rack or not, it seems weird.