Author Topic: Fw 190A-8 and Fw 190F-8 (Read 2336 times)

53gunner · « **Reply #45 on:** January 06, 2007, 10:41:26 PM »

Now this is a threat I like

Knegel · « **Reply #46 on:** January 07, 2007, 01:25:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by 1K3
err how much power is AH 190A-8 making anyway. It seems that our 190A-8 has the same power as 190A-5 but running at higher boost:noid

I dont know what power it make, but its incredible E-bleed at highspeed, in relation to the A5 show that something is wrong regading the E-bleed calculation. The much more heavy A8 at least should outperform the A5 in downward acceleration and it should keep more energy at highspeed, if it have more power, it should be better in almost all aspects but the turnradius and maybe sustained turn.
With the extra boost, the A8 did climb with(actually it did climb a bit faster)
the A5 up tp 5500m and was also faster up to this altitude.
But in AH even the D9 have some problems with the A5, if it comes to energy bleed, althought its performence should be much better. Why the D9 have problems to outperform low power/inertia planes, like the La7 and Spit16 at highspeed, regarding the E-bleed, is a miracle for me. Even the 190A8 should have some good advantages, once its at hight/speed.

We simply miss a late44/55 190A in AH(A8 with boost or A9).

Greetings,

1K3 · « **Reply #47 on:** January 07, 2007, 03:30:14 AM »

Nevermind, 190a-8 has the same power as a-5 (1700 or 1800 i think). I always thought the 190A-8 had 2050 hp engine but i guess i was wrong. I guess 2000+ hp 190s were given to Dora series instead.

Krusty · « **Reply #48 on:** January 07, 2007, 03:29:47 PM »

The A-8 did have more power than the A-5 because it ran at a higher boost (thus giving more horsepower). It was supposed to turn better than the A-5 if I recall. The D-9 was supposed to turn even better than the A-8. We kind of see the opposite results in AH.

As for the G-3 and A-5 charts, somebody brought up long ago that the G-3 would have different performance than the A-5 due to the different climb angles, climb speeds, and weight distribution. There was a call to model the A-5 off of actual A-5 numbers instead of G-3 numbers a long while back, but nothing came of it.

Charge · « **Reply #49 on:** January 07, 2007, 04:01:29 PM »

Isn't G3 actually a JABO A6?

My impression is that our A8 can't reach its rated speed at deck. It depends on the thrust/drag ratio how much effect that has on handling.

I have wondered the high speed E-bleed too. I don't think that is should be vastly better than it is now, but something feels wrong. Of course it would help if I had flown one IRL...

If veterans said the A8 was the best fighter of all versions I really wonder why they said that.

-C+

1K3 · « **Reply #50 on:** January 07, 2007, 05:42:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Charge
Isn't G3 actually a JABO A6?

If veterans said the A8 was the best fighter of all versions I really wonder why they said that.

-C+

then the A-8s they flew were the later A-8s... right?

1K3 · « **Reply #51 on:** January 07, 2007, 05:48:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty

As for the G-3 and A-5 charts, somebody brought up long ago that the G-3 would have different performance than the A-5 due to the different climb angles, climb speeds, and weight distribution. There was a call to model the A-5 off of actual A-5 numbers instead of G-3 numbers a long while back, but nothing came of it.

What ever happened to the guy who claimed he had all information on 190 developments. He has not posted for the rest of 2006:noid

Krusty · « **Reply #52 on:** January 07, 2007, 06:07:34 PM »

PNG. He thinks of himself as a God in TargetWare forums. Folks, for the most part, believe everything he says there, as well.

Mind you I shouldn't speak ill of him, it's not fair, but TW has a lot of problems, but somehow he likes it over there more.

Knegel · « **Reply #53 on:** January 08, 2007, 01:01:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
The A-8 did have more power than the A-5 because it ran at a higher boost (thus giving more horsepower). It was supposed to turn better than the A-5 if I recall. The D-9 was supposed to turn even better than the A-8. We kind of see the opposite results in AH.

As for the G-3 and A-5 charts, somebody brought up long ago that the G-3 would have different performance than the A-5 due to the different climb angles, climb speeds, and weight distribution. There was a call to model the A-5 off of actual A-5 numbers instead of G-3 numbers a long while back, but nothing came of it.

The A8 started to run on a higher boost from mid 1944, before this it had same power like the A5. Thats why i think it would be good to have the 190A7 and the 190A8, or the early 190A8 and the 190A9.

The 190A8 for sure wasnt supposed to turn better than the 190A8, at least 250kg more weight for sure did hinder the 190A8 to turn better.
Inertia, diveacceleratio and firepower made the 190A8 to the better plane.

The 190 wasnt made to turnfight the oponents, its was a typical B/Z plane.

On the Spitfire Performence testing page once was a FW190A(3 or 4) comparison to varius Spitfires. Only the Spit14 could upzoom with the 190A, while the tested 190A was a pretty early one. In AH the 190A8 only can run and even a Zero outzoom it.
Missing inertia in the E-bleed calculation might be the problem.

Static datas, like Vmax, climb ratio etc are not much worth as long as the E-bleed formula is not correct!!

Maybe someone remember European Airwar, in the default game the 109E4 was 80km/h faster and could climb much better than the Spit1a, but while gaming only experienced pilots could win in the 109E, simply cause the Spit, once fast, didnt bleed energy at all.

Most e-bleed calculations seems to neglect the advantage of inertia into flight direction, while the inertia(mass / rotational force) get included to explain the need of a higher AoA and the resulting a higher drag and a less good climb.
But even at max AoA around 70% of the inertia point toward the flight direction and at very smal AoA´s, needed for a smooth upzoom, almost all inertia point forward!
Specialy at highspeed, where the induced drag get pretty smal in relation to the zero drag, the inertia can be a real bringer!

I dont know exact where and why, but at least at highseed the AH e-bleed formula dont fit always. It dont seems to base on one and the same rule for all planes and i dont think this have to do with a biased point of view!!

Greetings,