Author Topic: Fw190A-8: acceleration? (Read 4625 times)

Widewing · « **Reply #45 on:** February 12, 2006, 09:20:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
I don't think that is the point Widewing. The point is the data is wrong for the type.

I'm simply supplying data for the 190s in the game. Whether they are modeled right or wrong is a seperate issue.

There are several aircraft that appear to fall short of their real-world counterparts in terms of performance. These include:

All P-38s lack acceleration. Of all USAAF fighters in service in the summer of 1944, the P-38 was the fastest accelerating of the lot. This is not the case in AH2.

Our P-40B is significantly down on speed (332 mph when it should be at least 352 mph) and down somewhat in climb from sea level.

Likewise, the Bf 109G-14 is about 14 mph too slow at altitude.

Handling issues with most of the 109s, specifically poor rudder authority at low speeds and a tendency to snap-roll at relatively low AoA/moderate g.

109s should have the ability to deploy flaps at higher speeds

The F6F-5 is 14 to 20 mph too slow at altitude (depending upon which test we look at).

Finally, we have the arguments that some of the 190s are modeled on suspect data, or weigh too much.

All of these things can and likely will be addressed by HTC when and if they are supplied with adequate test data to support changing them.

HTC said the 109 flap issue will be corrected on the next update, and that they were looking at the 109G-14 speed discrepancy as well. I have forwarded test data related to the P-40B. You have posted (and probably e-mailed) 190 test data. I have additional F6F-5 data that I intend to forward.

My opinion is that Pyro and Hitech are smart, well educated guys. Give them the data to review and rely on them to adjust flight models if the data supports a modification.

That said, there will always be people who swear that their particular favorite must be modeled wrong because they are unable to get the results they expected. More than likely this is a reflection of the pilot more than the airplane, which is why HTC needs to see supporting documentation.

My regards,

Widewing

Grits · « **Reply #46 on:** February 12, 2006, 11:17:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Widewing
There are several aircraft that appear to fall short of their real-world counterparts in terms of performance.

My opinion is that Pyro and Hitech are smart, well educated guys. Give them the data to review and rely on them to adjust flight models if the data supports a modification.

That said, there will always be people who swear that their particular favorite must be modeled wrong because they are unable to get the results they expected. More than likely this is a reflection of the pilot more than the airplane, which is why HTC needs to see supporting documentation.

Exactly. I get accused of both allied and axis bias, when all I want is to see EVERY plane done right. Widewing has stated my view on all this perfectly.

Crumpp · « **Reply #47 on:** February 12, 2006, 08:33:04 PM »

Quote

My opinion is that Pyro and Hitech are smart, well educated guys.

I don't see mention of either one in this thread.

Quote

The AH A-8 has 170 gallons internal fuel capacity so it should have the rack or the internal capacity is wrong.

AH allows no way to model the tank seperately or optionally. The aircraft always comes with the tank. Technically it should always have the ETC 501 rack installed as well then, as the CG is out of limits without it. The rack being moved forward it what allowed the aircraft to be flown with the tank installed.

All the best,

Crumpp

Mr No Name · « **Reply #48 on:** February 12, 2006, 11:18:22 PM »

No thread hijack attempt here fellas, i agree the LW planes are artificially handicapped, particularly the A8 which was a bomber hunter but as modeled here it BARELY keeps pace with the bombers and frankly does well just to perform basic flight maneuvers ABOVE 19 or 20K Allied bombers generally came in at 25K. Surely the Germans wouldnt have flown a pig like we have into formations, well armed or otherwise

Also on my mind is the ease that even .30 cal weapons kill the engine oil, often on first ping on the A8. The A8 was heavily armored compared to earlier variants.

The A2A rockets were remodeled awhile back and I'd love to see what the changes were. Before the change I got ALMOST a kill every day with them. In all of the months since that time I have gotten exactly ONE kill with them.

SLIGHTLY off topic here, wasnt weight also added to the CHOG?

justin_g · « **Reply #49 on:** February 13, 2006, 01:24:27 AM »

Allied bombers didn't fly at all-out maximum power during ww2 either - that might skew any relative performance...

Mr No Name · « **Reply #50 on:** February 13, 2006, 01:39:08 AM »

Neither did LW fighters! LOL

Glasses · « **Reply #51 on:** February 13, 2006, 01:50:17 AM »

No Name the A-8 WAS NOT a bomber Hunter it was a fighter that was modified to be a bomber hunter with different kits. That's common myth of any fighter when the 8th was sending the raids over Germany in early 44.

There were bomber kits that made the A-8 clumsy at alttitude especially due to the fact it was gasping for air at higher altitudes. But a normal 190 was not the bomber destroyer you're implying.

It's like Saying that a P-47 or a P-51 was a ground attack aircraft just because it could carry rockets or bombs.

gatt · « **Reply #52 on:** February 13, 2006, 02:14:23 AM »

Widewing, thanks for the numbers. I'm really puzzled becouse in the game the perceived difference between different a/c (for example the C.205 and the A-8) looks *much* bigger going from their best climb speed to the max speed at altitudes.

Crumpp · « **Reply #53 on:** February 13, 2006, 06:03:45 AM »

Being the heaviest fighter version HTC can model is going to hurt it's accelleration.

We have a an August - Sep 1944 or later variant of the FW-190A8 as the Zusatzkraftstoffbehälter im rumpf was not included in serial production FW-190A8's until that time frame. A timeperiod when the FW-190A9 was entering service and two months later the FW-190D-9 had arrived.

All the best,

Crumpp

Crumpp · « **Reply #54 on:** February 13, 2006, 07:09:43 PM »

Quote

tiny bit from weight increase.

According to Dean, you can anticipate a 2-3mph speed loss for each 1000lbs of weight gain. That is weight gain of the entire BMW801D2 powered FW-190A series.

Rechlin figures are 555kph at 1.42ata @ 2700U/min for the FW-190A8. The increase in drag is from the F66 MG covers, larger intake, and tightenend baffling. It also makes a large difference for the FW-190 whether the test was conducted in the summer, winter, or with the attenuating ring.

All the best,

Crumpp

Charge · « **Reply #55 on:** February 14, 2006, 04:20:39 AM »

Attenuating ring?

Is that external ring which can be inserted to modify the intake hole diameter in FW?

How many different kinds of rings were there? Summer and winter rings?

-C+

JAWS2003 · « **Reply #56 on:** February 14, 2006, 03:45:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp

2100PS or 2050hp at 1st gear supercharger FTH using 1.58ata@2700U/min. The FW-190A8 also had a more efficient propellers in service.

All the best,

Crumpp

Thank you Crump.

Crumpp · « **Reply #57 on:** February 14, 2006, 09:11:02 PM »

Quote

How many different kinds of rings were there? Summer and winter rings?

There was only one ring. When the FW-190A5 was given the extended engine mounts to restore the CG limits it caused overcooling in the front bank of cylinders and a loss of power. This was corrected by adding the attenuating ring.

A summer and winter fuel mixture were developed to keep the engine running at optimum temperature as well.

All the best,

Crumpp

Crumpp · « **Reply #58 on:** February 14, 2006, 09:11:53 PM »

Quote

Thank you Crump.

Your most welcome.

Charge · « **Reply #59 on:** February 15, 2006, 04:28:50 AM »

Rgr, was asking because some plastic models seem to have incorrect measures in the cowl ring. Thought it was intentional...

So if there is two 190A8 models and they have different cowls the other is wrong.

-C+