Tips on flying the 190A5 needed........

[Lephturn]

Nath, I know what you mean.  However, I feel some sense of duty to keep folks from being mislead by some of Ram's posts.  Oh well.

Lephturn

[This message has been edited by Lephturn (edited 01-24-2001).]

[RAM]

Heh. I edited it not because I have any problem with people reading what I had to tell you, but because in the past people (just like you) yelled at me to stick to private emails if I had to send personal messages. I tried to, but I couldn't. That message was for you only and so I edited it after you read it, but I see that you are a bit hypocrite, huh?.

Maybe because this time was directed at you?. Whatever. The message in the e-mail is pretty clear, and full in validity.

[edit]BTW and back on topic, the kind of fight you describe is available for almost any plane in AH that attacks other with less E. So all planes are great e-fighters?

(and I know that some planes keep e better than others, but the plane in the defensive can be forced to bleed more E than the attacker if the latter flies smartly)

Happens that once the P47 has lost its E-advantage has lost its edge. If it has enough dive it can disengage, but it wont turn tables again, unless the spit gets close and the P47 forces an overshoot with big E-burning by the spit with relatively low E-burning in return. Doable, but dangerous (and hard as hell against the spit).

A 109G10, a Yak9U, a La5FN, can use its great acceleration to recover the lost edge after the E-burning. And can turn a defensive fight into an offensive one without having to force an overshoot, just by accelerating enough and using the E he has just gained to level the balance. G10 can do it with the great climbrate and acceleration, but has the problem of the control lock at 400 IAS.

La5 is not good over 15K feet.Not a big problem, but anyway is a weak point

But the Yak9 has not this problem,and holds E very well.

So, while the P47D has a relatively low endurance into an E-fight, the 109G10 ,and any other plane with high powerloading, has a lot of it. And that is what I call E-fight. Maybe is not what is commonly taken as it, but THAT is for me e-fight. To win E over the enemy and NEVER lose it. And if lost, to be recovered very fast.

Nah, don't answer...I'm out of this thread.[/edit]



[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 01-24-2001).]

[Lephturn]

 

So, while the P47D has a relatively low endurance into an E-fight, the 109G10 ,and any other plane with high powerloading, has a lot of it. And that is what I call E-fight. Maybe is not what is commonly taken as it, but THAT is for me e-fight. To win E over the enemy and NEVER lose it. And if lost, to be recovered very fast.

Now if only you had stated your original argument in such terms, we could have had an informative and interesting discussion.

We disagree clearly, I don't agree that only fighters that have good acceleration are good E fighters.  The F4U is generally acknowledged to be one of the best E fighters in the game, and it doesn't accelerate for beans.  Although any plane can be used as an E fighter, not every plane can be called a "great E fighter"; indeed I mention above that the P47 is not one of the best, but I feel it is above average.  My issue was not with your particular evalution of what an "E fighter" is, but with your statement that "There is NO other way a P47 can kill a spitfire", which I hold is false.

Although we disagree, I salute you for finally making a decent argument instead of blithly making statements of opinion as if they were fact.  I hope to see more reasonable arguments like this from you in the future.

Lephturn


[This message has been edited by Lephturn (edited 01-24-2001).]

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by Lephturn:
 Now if only you had stated your original argument in such terms, we could have had an informative and interesting discussion.

Something you and many people uses to forget is that English is my second language, and that I am far from talking it well.

One of the parts were most is seen my lack of skill with this language is that its quite difficult to state things without affirming them. And sometimes I may be mistook.

I'm not saying this is one of them (but in part I am sure it is). I affirm cathegorically, and under both your and Mandoble's standards that Fw190A5 is better E-fighter because what it lacks in dive and firepower, it has in e-keeping and acceleration.

Maybe you are right and I should have put in clear words what my conception of E-fighting. But I dont think that to throw the load of...well you get the idea, over me was a good solution either.

I have the feeling that people reads my posts with a predisposition to interpretate them for bad. Sometimes rightly so   but not always.

(SIGH) I wish I talked english a bit better  



[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 01-24-2001).]

[StSanta]

Maybe I can help you out, RAM  .

The 190A8 is a good fighter - when it has energy, which usually comes with having alt or diving towards a target. It can make a series of passes, bleeding e on every pass, but due to lack of acceleration and climb rate, will soon find itself on equal e and will be forced to rethink its plans.

The A5 can start off in the same way. Due to a more powerful engine and (down low in particular) a substantially better acceleration and climb rate, it can keep e for longer - or rather, it burns as much but is able to gain more due to the engine.

The YAK and G10 are the best e-figters in AH. Very powerful engines, they can make repeated attacks and the engine will enable them to maintain the offensive, even after several passes.

The A8 is a better b&z'er (which I gather can be said to be a form of e fighting) but it does not maintain e as well, so in strictly e fighting terms, it is not as good as the A5. It has other qualities however.

Down low, the A5 can keep its e much longer than the A8, and that's about what there is to it. In a co alt fight low, average skill pilots, the A5 will soon find itself in an offensive position; denying the A8 a shot by going vertical and using better climb rate, acceleration and maneuverability.

------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"

"I don't necessarily agree with everything I think." - A. Eldritch

[Cobra]

I'm confused....what does Leph's BIG prettythang have to do with the 109A5 or, now that I think about it, the price of tea in China.

Inquiring minds what to know!

Cobra
(I really have to pay more attention to Leph's BIG prettythang, seems to be important to the flight characteristics of the African Swallow)

[MANDOBLE]

 

Originally posted by StSanta:
The A5 can start off in the same way. Due to a more powerful engine and (down low in particular)

StSanta, AFAIK both planes use the very same engine.

Down low in particular is where the A8 boost system makes it faster than A5.

 

Originally posted by StSanta:
...denying the A8 a shot by going vertical and using better climb rate, acceleration and maneuverability.

Have you tested zoom climbs in both planes?

As a matter of fact, A8 or P47 can also deny the A5 a shot by lo level pure top speed.

It is something like comparing Typhoon with Spit IX. Spit climbs better, turns better, accelerates better, but Typh dives better and is faster on the deck (not comparing here zoom climbs due completety different drag factors).

[RAM]

   

Originally posted by MANDOBLE:
Have you tested zoom climbs in both planes?

As a matter of fact, A8 or P47 can also deny the A5 a shot by lo level pure top speed.

first of all your latest statement is not true. Fw190A5 is faster than A8 over 3-5K. Not in the deck ,tho.

Secondly I dont know StSanta, but I actually did some tests for the JG26 page in the medium days of 1.04. I have just retried that test, and the results are similar enough to post them here.

Way of testing: Taking off A1, towards south, in the beta map.

Planes tested:

-Fw190A8, 50% fuel, 4 cannons (most usual configuration)

-Fw190A5, 50% fuel, 2 cannons (most usual configuration.

Two tests, one at 1000 feet, 375mph IAS, other at 250 feet, 400 IAS.

2G pull up until land dissapears under the wing. Autopilot in angle from then onwards. Reference of altitude taken as soon as the stall horn starts buzzing.

1st test:
Fw190A5, Starts buzzing at 7300 feet
Fw190A8, Starts buzzing at 7000 feet

2nd test:
Fw190A5, Starts buzzing at 7000 feet
Fw190A8, Starts buzzing at 6500 feet

Conclussion: Fw190A5 is a better zoomer than A8, both because better e-keeping in the pull up, and because superior climbrate that allows the zoom to last longer.

Will repeat it again just now, just for making it sure. If dissimilar results are noted, I will edit this thread.

[edit]ok, did it again, tests are throwing similar enough numbers.

2nd experiment(the one I did before posting here)

1st test:
Fw190A5: 7500 feet
Fw190A8: 7000 Feet

2nd Test:
Fw190A5: 7200 feet
Fw190A8: 6500 feet

3rd experiment(the one I just did)

1st test:
Fw190A5: 7500 feet
Fw190A8: 6800 feet

2nd test:
fw190A5: 7100 feet
Fw190A8: 6500 feet

Ok, this is definitive, at the best altitudes for the Fw190A8 (right on the deck and at 1K) the A5 steadily zooms 500 feet more before the horn buzzs.

If you want to do higher speed tests, do it, but I am quite sure you will get similar results.

So my definitive conclussion is that A5 is better zoomer than A8.




[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 01-25-2001).]

[MANDOBLE]

RAM, sorry but IMO your tests have little value.

We are comparing planes with similar configurations, not with your configuration of choice. For example, I always fly A5 with 4x20, not 2x20 and 100% fuel, while I fly A8 with 2x20 + 2x30, 4x20 or 2x20 (those 2x13mm MGs do some damage) and 75% fuel.

When testing zoom climbs you must consider the acceleration present at the moment of initiating the climb. Zooming in an aircraft that is still gaining speed at level has very different results than zooming in one that has is speed stuck in a fixed value.
The best way to do that is just from absolute top speed at level flight. So, you should have choosen the altiture where both planes have the same top speed with WEP.

And two more considerations:

1 - 50% fuel in A8 is more fuel than 50% in A5 (remember the third aux tank?). Set 50% fuel in A8 and 75% in A5 to "simulate" two planes with similar combat radius.

2 - You should test both planes with 2x20 or 4x20, not one with 2 and the other with 4.

I'm not stating that the winner should be the A8, only that your tests parameters put both planes in a very different configuration.

An interesting and also biased test would be to test A8 75% fuel and 2x20 + 2x13 against A5 with 100% fuel and 4x20 + 2x7.
Both planes with similar range and similar firepower (mostly due the 950 13mm rounds present in the A8, IMO better than the few 20mm rounds present in the A5 MGFFs).

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by MANDOBLE:

We are comparing planes with similar configurations, not with your configuration of choice. For example, I always fly A5 with 4x20, not 2x20 and 100% fuel, while I fly A8 with 2x20 + 2x30, 4x20 or 2x20 (those 2x13mm MGs do some damage) and 75% fuel.

No, excuse me. I compare the planes as I fly them. I say taht 2x20mm A5 is better e-fighter than A8, so I test a 2x20mm A5.

I test it with 50% as it is a normal fuel setting for the moment you engage in combat. 75-50% is the fuel load expected in that moment

When testing zoom climbs you must consider the acceleration present at the moment of initiating the climb. Zooming in an aircraft that is still gaining speed at level has very different results than zooming in one that has is speed stuck in a fixed value.

I did them while the plane was DECELERATING from higher speeds.

The best way to do that is just from absolute top speed at level flight. So, you should have choosen the altiture where both planes have the same top speed with WEP.

lol we are comparing similar zoom abilities from identical start points. So, same start of speed and altitude, sorry.

1 - 50% fuel in A8 is more fuel than 50% in A5 (remember the third aux tank?). Set 50% fuel in A8 and 75% in A5 to "simulate" two planes with similar combat radius.

so you want to add 25% of weight to a plane to simulate 10% on the other?...no. Again I am comparing planes in same configurations. In MA you wont call your enemy and say "hey wait till I burn the AUX fuel".

2 - You should test both planes with 2x20 or 4x20, not one with 2 and the other with 4.

no. My point is that fw190A5 with 2x20mm is better efighter than A8. So I test them with the configuration I am talking about.


An interesting and also biased test would be to test A8 75% fuel and 2x20 + 2x13 against A5 with 100% fuel and 4x20 + 2x7.
Both planes with similar range and similar firepower (mostly due the 950 13mm rounds present in the A8, IMO better than the few 20mm rounds present in the A5 MGFFs).

its not biased. Fuel load is what it is in each plane. If you test  P51 for comparison with 50% fuel what do you expect? Sorry each plane has its load, and each plane has its qualities. A5 has 10% less fuel, aprox. its 10% less fuel weight. Sorry, but the plane is that way, not my fault

and about the weapons, I repeat again that I am comparing the planes I AM TALKING ABOUT. in this thread I have stated several times that the 2x20mm A5 is a better e-fighter than A8. You said that it isnt. fine, I compare them with the loadouts I am talking of. so 4x20mm a8 and 2x20mm A5.

[RAM]

MANDOBLE, FYI I just tested 75% fuel loaded, 4 cannon Fw190A5.

TEst one: It zoomed up to 7250 feet before buzzing.

Test two: It zoomed up to 6900 feet before buzzing.

something more?

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 01-25-2001).]

[MANDOBLE]

RAM, it seems you, again, forgot your pills today. Sorry for the rest of readers, I know this reply is not going to give any extra info about A8 or A5.

 

Originally posted by RAM:
...No, excuse me. I compare the planes as I fly them...

Cant find any interest about comparing two different planes as a particular pilot prefers to fly them, even less interest if that pilot gives those planes completely different configurations.

Something like to say 190A8 2x20 25% fuel turns better than 190A8 4x20 100% fuel. This is a so obvious statement as yours.

 

Originally posted by RAM:
I did them while the plane was DECELERATING from higher speeds.

Suppose you know a deceleration is just a negative aceleration, so, speed is changing at some ratio. If you can confirm that this ratio was exactly the same in A5 than in A8 in your tests, then ok, but I doubt you can.


 

Originally posted by RAM:
lol we are comparing similar zoom abilities from identical start points. So, same start of speed and altitude, sorry.

You, as expected, are missing the initial acceleration/decceleration factor.


 

Originally posted by RAM:
...no. Again I am comparing planes in same configurations.

A new contradictory affirmation, you are comparing 4x20 and 3 tanks at 50% against 2x20 and 2 tanks at 50%, tell me where is the "same configuration"?

 

Originally posted by RAM:
A5 has 10% less fuel, aprox. its 10% less fuel weight. Sorry, but the plane is that way, not my fault

wrong again, that aux tank has aproximately 40% capacity of AFT or FWD tanks, so your 10% is, in fact, about 20%.


 

Originally posted by RAM:...is a better e-fighter than A8. You said that it isnt.

Please, and this is very important, refer me to the point where I stated A5 is not better E fighter than A8 and post it here with quotations and bold text.

 

Originally posted by RAM:
2G pull up until land dissapears under the wing. Autopilot in angle from then onwards.

This doesnt seem a vertical zoom climb test.

[This message has been edited by MANDOBLE (edited 01-25-2001).]

[RAM]

Heh, this is really funny.

So... You want to test a Fw190A5 heavy to compensate for its lightness. In short: you want to pork the A5 because its lighter (its main asset of the A5 compared with the A8). I say that this is not fair. If the A5 is lighter, so be it.

 Or if you are going to test the zooming of the Spitfire IX and V, are you going to add 700 lbs of ballast to the V because it is lighter?. This, excuse me,is wrong from your part.

On the decelleration factor, the difference is minimal because both planes were slowing down REALLY slow.

Anyway if any plane is going to suffer from it, it should be the A5 because its lower high speed (I understand taht with less power available to keep the speed, it is going to deccelerate faster). But the decceleration was really minimal.

On the cannons thing, no, excuse me again, I dont test it as I fly it, I test it as I said it was better E-fighter. I said it repeatedly.

 I said "2x20mm cannon Fw190A5 is a better e-fighter than Fw190A8". You said that it wasnt (well you said that Fw190A8 is better plane and that its an e-fighter, so I conclude you say that 190A8 is a better e-fighter). Then I answered that it zoomed more than A8, and StSanta concurred. You asked for tests. You have them just above so look at them or run your own..

You say they are not valid because the Fw190A5 is too light. And I say that THIS IS THE MAIN REASON THAT A5 IS BETTER E_fighter!. A5 is lighter, yes. Period. I compared planes in the configurations we were talking about. And anyway is just the same, a 4x20mm, 75% fuel laden A-5 zooms still better than A8 as I had tested and posted. A four cannon one will still be way better.

You say that I miss initial acceleration/deceleration. I say that it is minimal. And if damaging for a plane, only for the Fw190A5 because of its lower top speed on the deck.-again,I'm talking from the assumption that the less power of the A5 makes it lose speed faster-

 I made the test from 250 feet and 1K feet, wich is the only point where A8 can take advantage from its extra power, still the 2x20mm A5 won by a fair margin, and the "heavy" 75% fuel laden A5 won by a slight margin. If the test is run from 5K expect the A8 to be lagged much more.

 If you dont like those tests,run your own and post them here. But you only tried to discredite mines in very arguable grounds (at their best, I think that you dont have a single point to discuss about, maybe the decelleration, but again and as I said, the penalty should be for the A5)

wrong again, that aux tank has aproximately 40% capacity of AFT or FWD tanks, so your 10% is, in fact, about 20%.

Look, Mate, enough is enough. The Fw190A8 was a heavy Fw190A5, with added weight in form of extra armor, guns and ammo, and an auxiliar tank for GM1 fuel or extra fuel. If the Fw190A8 is heavier than A5,then ITS HEAVIER. period.

 You can't claim "mi plane is heavier than yours" because, in effect its the difference between A8 and A5, A8 is quite more heavier than A5. To try to compensate for that is like if I take a P51 to compare with both and I take only 25% fuel because the fuel load is way bigger than in the 190s. Or as I said, you are't going to put 700 lbs of ballast on a Spit V to compare its zoom with the one in the Spit IX.

Please, and this is very important, refer me to the point where I stated A5 is not better E fighter than A8 and post it here with quotations and bold text.

Er...there is no need to quote you. you state that Fw190A8 is a better plane than Fw190A5. You said that Fw190A8 is a pure e-fighter. So, if its an e-fighter and its better than Fw190A5, then it is because it is a better E-fighter right?. Excuse if my logic is wrong, but from your words I only extract that conclussion.

If you answer "no" to this, then you are admitting that A5 is a better aircraft, if you say "yes", then there is a little paradox here for you say that A5 is better E-fighter, yet you deny the validity of the tests that demonstrate it.

Lastly you suggest that Fw190A8 is a better zoomer than Fw190A5, by asking santa is he has "tested it". the implicit messaget here is that its NOT better zoomer.

I did the tests- and hte A8 is worse zoomer.

Again, mandoble you are quite good to spoil other's tests, why dont you run your own, and come with them here?. Of course, zooms from 0K comparing 25% 4cannon Fw190A8 at 360 vs 75% 4 cannon Fw190A5 (to achieve parity about the ammo load, armor and extra fuel of the 190A8   ) at 340mph (so the planes don't deccelerate    , wont be taken as valid here.

[edit] AuX tank has 115 litres of capacity. Forward tank 232 litres, aft tank, 293 litres. Total capacity aproximately 17%.


[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 01-25-2001).]

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by MANDOBLE:
This doesnt seem a vertical zoom climb test.

Heh, so now are you talking especifically about VERTICAL zooms?

 

Originally posted by Mandoble:
Have you tested zoom climbs in both planes?

Where is the word "vertical" there?

I could do it ,but frankly I wont do it. I let that for you, so you can accomodate the A5 as you like.

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 01-25-2001).]

[MANDOBLE]

RAM, it seems you forgot your pills for the entire week.

Your conclusions are so chaotic that I hardly understand why I'm commenting them.

1 - You test 190A8 with more weapons, ammo load and fuel than A5, so, you make the heavier A8 even heavier.

2 - If you state that acceleration is better in A5, then, deceleration is greater in A8. Cant understand why you state that A5 acelerates better but decelerates quicker.

3 - If you think A5 2x20 is better plane than A5 4x20, then I suppose that the use of your logic should imply the same for A8.

You next texts are jewels, so I'm going to bold them.
...I said "2x20mm cannon Fw190A5 is a better e-fighter than Fw190A8". You said that it wasnt...

Where?

...You say they are not valid because the Fw190A5 is too light.

Where? AFAIK I've said only that your A5 had a different fuel quantity and weapons than A8 in your tests.

You can't claim "mi plane is heavier than yours"

LOL Where?

you state that Fw190A8 is a better plane than Fw190A5. You said that Fw190A8 is a pure e-fighter. So, if its an e-fighter and its better than Fw190A5, then it is because it is a better E-fighter right?.If you answer no to this, then you are admitting that A5 is a better aircraft... blah blah blah

ROFLOL, you, for sure, forgot your pills for the entire year.
1 - Stating that A8 is an E-fiter means nothing less and nothing more that its success resides only in the E management, this is your only real resource to fight with. This doesn't mean 190A8 is the best E fighter.
2 - Stating that A8 is better plane than A5 involves factors as important as fire power, range and the extra speed to get out adverse situations, no only E.
3 - As a matter of fact, Zeke is better E fighter than A8, so, I suppose you think Zeke is better plane.

Lastly you suggest that Fw190A8 is a better zoomer than Fw190A5, by asking santa is he has "tested it".

Yep RAM, in fact, if you read carefuly all my posts with your interpretation skill you'll find out some camouflaged messages:
1 - 190A8 way is better than F15C
2 - 190A8 can transport more tanks than C5 Galaxy.
3 - 190A8 historicaly had a tail gunner with 6 tube 30mm gatling cannon.
4 - Mr. Tank put a foot on the Moon years earlier than any Apollo mission flying his 190A8 in a zoom climb using WEP.
5 - 190A8 engine oil tastes way better than any bourbon.
6 - The sun will fall on us in 2010.