Pyro, AH's 190A5 SL speed??

[R4M]

Niklas posted this chart in the other thread, but I think this deserves a thread on its own:

     


AH's 190A5 with WEP makes (barely)  335mph@SL-that is around 542km/h. The above posted chart shows that with WEP on, the Fw190A5 topped 565km/h at sea level, that is, 350mhp. SL speed is one of the most important assets of AH's planes given the low level nature of the fights.

15mph would be indeed a substantial error. And,given the nature of combat in AH's Main arena is a significant speed loss. The chart posted avobe is from Focke-wulf itself, dated 20-10-1943, so I'd say it is a quite true and trustable source of information.

The SL speed,according to that chart, is lower than what it should.. but I'd mention too that, the A5's top speed at around 4000 feet is 605km/h, that is around 374mph. AH's 190A5, according to help files, makes around 360-365mph at 4K. Still quite slower than the real life plane (and really important in AH's MA  ).

Pyro, please increase the low-level speed of the 190A5 following that table. THe one we have in AH right now seems to be off-target, and is not a minor trouble of a couple of miles per hour.

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]

[funkedup]

Yep looks like 12 mph faster on the deck than the AH A-5.  Whoever scanned this needs to get in touch with HTC.

However statements like "absolutely off target" and "WAY slower" are hyperbole, and don't help your case.  In terms of normally occuring differences in test results between aircraft of the same type, 12 mph is not a huge difference.

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

[funkedup]

Note also the 4000 kg weight.  This is ~300 lb heavier than the AH A-5, which appears to use weight and performance from a USAAF test of a stripped-down Fw 190G-3.

[funkedup]

Further note that the critical altitudes in each supercharger gear, and the altitude for gear change, match very well with AH/USAAF.  This lends creedence to the Fw chart.

 

[funkedup]

One last thing:  Looks like the Fw chart shows three power settings, with two speed curves for each setting.  The notations are illegible but it looks like the leftmost ones are compensated for instrument errors due to density and speed of sound, and the rightmost are compensated for errors due to density only.  Which makes the leftmost curves most accurate I think.

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

[R4M]

Originally posted by funkedup:


However statements like "absolutely off target" and "WAY slower" are hyperbole, and don't help your case.  In terms of normally occuring differences in test results between aircraft of the same type, 12 mph is not a huge difference.

hehehe funked hyperbole?     I'd like to hear what would ppl say if the P51D was modelled with an speed 12mph lower than it should be    .

IMO is off, and is off target...12mph makes a big difference in an arena where a couple of miles per hour will save your head a lot of times    . In AH's MA 12mph is a WORLD   .


 

Originally posted by funkedup:
One last thing:  Looks like the Fw chart shows three power settings, with two speed curves for each setting.  The notations are illegible but it looks like the leftmost ones are compensated for instrument errors due to density and speed of sound, and the rightmost are compensated for errors due to density only.  Which makes the leftmost curves most accurate I think.

?...dont get your point here. All curves seem to be identical for me. If you are referring to the formulas written over the chart, the arrows link all the curves with the formulas. So if those notes are indeed what you say (I dont have a clue on what they mean   ) I dont know where you see that only the 2 left ones are calculated taking everything in account, as the arrows link them to all curves, not just the 2 leftmost.

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]

[Wotan]

give us our 15mph......or 12 whatever the case

[funkedup]

RAM if you look at a lot flight test data like this, you will see that 10-15 mph is not an uncommon difference.  Same plane, same fuel, same operating condition.  But due to unaccounted-for factors, the number comes out differently.

To answer your question:  There are three pairs of curves.  Each pair represents the same power condition.  In each pair, the right curve is compensated for density only, and the left curve is compensated for density and sound speed - it is the true air speed.

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

[Zigrat]

certainly is good evidence. it is test data of the aircraft in aces high (a real a5) not a g3. now where is the climb data for this?

on the other hand the fw-190 test data for their a8 makes it look like a piece of garbage. according to this data the a5 would be superior to the a8 in nearly every imaginable way other than firepower. kinda sad that in three years they couldnt squeeze a single drop more hp out of their engine.

[Wingnut_0]

maybe "some" of that weight difference is in ammo.  You'll notice that is show's 2x90 for the FF cannons, instead of 2x60.  Now that's only 60 rounds difference but that makes up some of that weight.

[Zigrat]

wow good evidence that we should have more mg/ff ammo too?

[Wingnut_0]

Dunno..i gotta say that's the 1st time I remember at least, seeing 90 rounds listed per FF gun.

I tried to read the text near the weapons listing but zooming in I just can't make out half the letters.  Plus the words are older tech terms that my Bad Deutsch can't translate.

[HoHun]

Hi R4M,

>THe one we have in AH right now is absolutely off-target, and is not a minor trouble of a couple of miles per hour.

I guess AH models the Fw 190A-5 after the on that was captured and evaluated in the USA. It made 340 mph at sea level, compared to the 359 mph from the manufacturer's data.

A 19 mph sea level top speed difference is a major affair, especially when sea level is typical combat altitude. However, the captured Fw 190 outperformed the factory figures by 5 mph at around 7500 ft, and by about 15 mph around 25000 ft.

Since the RAE came up with another different speed curve for the Fw 190A-4 they tested (7 mph slower at sea level, 5 mph faster at optimum altitude), I'd say the variation we see in AH is within the range reasonably to expect.

I admit that a Focke-Wulf that performs according to the factory numbers would be more desirable, though, tactically as well as historically :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Wingnut_0]

Originally posted by funkedup:
One last thing:  Looks like the Fw chart shows three power settings, with two speed curves for each setting.  [ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

I don't see exactly where u believe any were corrected funked.  Just seems it shows 3 power settings and their related engine powers/speed up thru 10k meters.  With any figures applying to all 3 curves.

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: Wingnut_0 ]

[R4M]

Funked, I dont reach to understand what you mean. All three curves have the same "double" curve...So all three are correct aren't they?

Regarding the assessment of the same plane/loads but different results I'd say that factory charts (the ones wich will eventually find their way into the pilot's manual of the planes) will be the result of multiple tests, in different conditions, done by the manufacturers -the ones who best know their plane-, and so will be the MOST trustable and accurate figures to follow isnt it?.

AH's Fw190A8 is modelled after the charts found into its pilot's manual. You know well that the A8's manual carries a chart very similar to the one posted avobe -as you own a copy  -.
 I'd say that AH should model the 190A5's performance following the data I linked in my first post, as is the most reliable source possible on the Fw190A5's performance.

 Bottom point is: if the manual charts were a source reliable enough to model the Fw190A8's, the A5 should be modelled in a similar fashion, using similar charts.


HoHun:

 

Originally posted by HoHun:
I admit that a Focke-Wulf that performs according to the factory numbers would be more desirable, though, tactically as well as historically :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

-First of all; Aces High's Fw190A8's performance is almost identical to what is shown in the Focke-wulf pilot's manual, wich in turn shows Focke-wulf factory charts very similar to the one I posted avobe (wich are also posted in this forums by verm, some time ago).

IN other words: Fw190A8 is modelled after factory data, but the Fw190A5 not?. If one is modelled after factory data, IMHO, the other should be, too.


-Secondly, I can understand that planes were modified in field to give better performances at certain altitudes at the cost of losing some performance at others. That would explain that the speed of the captured planes varied so much on different altitudes.

 But this is not the case. AH's charts in help files tells us that at the best altitude (around 21K), Fw190A5 reaches a topspeed of 410-415mph. The chart I posted above lists best speed as 670km/h@6000m.- in other words, in the chart, at 21K the Fw190A5 reaches, exactly 414mph. Said it briefly; AH's 190A5 speed at 21K matches the factory data almost EXACTLY.

In other words: we have correct and accurate speeds at high altitudes but definitely lower speeds than they should be at low altitudes. I doubt ANY Fw190A5 on the field would get this kind of performance. To sacrifice 15mph at SL to win ,say, 7mph at 20K+ (to intercept allied bombers, for instance) is perfectly understandable for me, but to sacrifice 15mph for NOTHING, not. So this is not an issue of that kind.

The 190A5 speed needs a look, that is for sure. And I can't wait to see if Niklas has any charts on the Fw190A5's climb, too  

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]