Author Topic: 190A5 climb rate (Read 1624 times)

ra · « **on:** July 26, 2000, 09:29:00 PM »

I've always thought the AH 190A5 climbrate was way over done, but today I took it on a jabo mission and found that with 2x20mm, full fuel, and a 1000 lb bomb its initial climb rate is 3500 fpm with WEP. Add a couple rockets and it goes down to 3200 fpm. That doesn't sound right. It seems to me the AH 190A5 climb with full jabo loadout is about what it should be with no external stores. William Green's 'Warplanes of the Third Reich' lists the 190A3 as having an initial climb rate of 2830 fpm (no stores), does anyone have published figures for the 190A5?

This isn't just about climb, it would also effect acceleration and ability to fight in the vertical plane.

ra

funked · « **Reply #1 on:** July 26, 2000, 09:52:00 PM »

http://members.xoom.com/mikewaltz/p76.jpg

http://members.xoom.com/mikewaltz/F-TR-1102-ND.htm

That's 4,000 fpm at 4,000 feet.

But the plane they tested has no cowl guns.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 07-26-2000).]

Fishu · « **Reply #2 on:** July 27, 2000, 12:06:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by ra:
I've always thought the AH 190A5 climbrate was way over done, but today I took it on a jabo mission and found that with 2x20mm, full fuel, and a 1000 lb bomb its initial climb rate is 3500 fpm with WEP. Add a couple rockets and it goes down to 3200 fpm. That doesn't sound right. It seems to me the AH 190A5 climb with full jabo loadout is about what it should be with no external stores. William Green's 'Warplanes of the Third Reich' lists the 190A3 as having an initial climb rate of 2830 fpm (no stores), does anyone have published figures for the 190A5?

This isn't just about climb, it would also effect acceleration and ability to fight in the vertical plane.

ra

190A5 did climb good in real life too, it was not A-8 and it had more power than A-3...
What doesn't sound right to me is P47 E retention, Hispanos....

RAM · « **Reply #3 on:** July 27, 2000, 01:56:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by ra:

This isn't just about climb, it would also effect acceleration and ability to fight in the vertical plane.

It is clear that very few people knows to admit a good, nimble and competitive plane in Luftwaffe. And when they find one they start yelling "its overmodelled"

Ra, this is your second (or maybe third?) thread about Fw190A5 being "too much" something or "too much" other thing. Maybe you have 190-itis?...before you were told 190A5 had accurate stats, referred to historical facs and data.

Now you are told the same. Took a look into Funked's links...again. And find out...again, that the Fw190A5 is accurately modelled in A5. And please next time when you have doubts about A5's performance, look at these posts and then look at those links.Maybe that can calm you down.

BTW I dont mind that data is of a 190A5 with no MGs...because 2xMG17s dont weight too much anyway.

/rant mode off.

RAM · « **Reply #4 on:** July 27, 2000, 01:58:00 AM »

BTW, yes I have SpitXIV-itis. But at least I admit it

and Hispano-itis too, ok

But this thing about A5 is starting to be annoying.

gatt · « **Reply #5 on:** July 27, 2000, 02:47:00 AM »

I too have to admit my Spit-itis and Hispano-itis. What can I do RAM? Maybe a D-9

Anyway, the february 1943 documents (I have the original scanned) about combat trials between the 190A-5, 109G-4, G.55, Re.2005 and Macchi C.205V and N, clearly state that the 190A-5 performed like the other fighters in climbing ability (up to 19,600ft) and was more maneuverable (as far as roll rate was concerned, IMHO) and fast in level flight.
However, IMHO, the 190A-5 performance above 20-25K is "probably overmodeled". I've met 190A-5 at 28-30K+ who performed too well and climbed like rockets. Big problem for my C.205V.

<EDIT> "probably overmodeled"

[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 07-27-2000).]

Jigster · « **Reply #6 on:** July 27, 2000, 03:26:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by RAM:
It is clear that very few people knows to admit a good, nimble and competitive plane in Luftwaffe. And when they find one they start yelling "its overmodelled"

Ra, this is your second (or maybe third?) thread about Fw190A5 being "too much" something or "too much" other thing. Maybe you have 190-itis?...before you were told 190A5 had accurate stats, referred to historical facs and data.

Now you are told the same. Took a look into Funked's links...again. And find out...again, that the Fw190A5 is accurately modelled in A5. And please next time when you have doubts about A5's performance, look at these posts and then look at those links.Maybe that can calm you down.

BTW I dont mind that data is of a 190A5 with no MGs...because 2xMG17s dont weight too much anyway.

/rant mode off.

Hmmm...there is a hidden agenda here. A Fw driver content with his ride? ... hmmm ...

btw G6 snap rolls are undermodeled.

- Jig
-------
If it looks like a Fw190, sounds like a Fw190, and manuver likes a Fw190... it's probably a B-17. -- USAAF Ad for new depth perception, hearing, and reflex testing.

RAM · « **Reply #7 on:** July 27, 2000, 03:31:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by gatt:
However, IMHO, the 190A-5 performance above 20K is really overmodeled. I've met 190A-5 at 28-30K+ who performed too well and climbed like rockets.

Dunno...I NEVER go over 20K in Fw190A...

So I dont know about it

Quote

Originally posted by Jigster:
Hmmm...there is a hidden agenda here. A Fw driver content with his ride? ... hmmm ...

Humm? who said I am content with Fw190A5?

it is a 1943 aircraft with its limitations in speed...

Bring Fw190D9 with MW50 and THEN I'll be a content 190 driver

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 07-27-2000).]

funked · « **Reply #8 on:** July 27, 2000, 06:38:00 AM »

Fishu, same engine in A-3 and A-5.

Jekyll · « **Reply #9 on:** July 27, 2000, 07:01:00 AM »

Quote

Fishu, same engine in A-3 and A-5.

Hmmm. I always thought the A3 had the BMW 801D engine and the A5 had the BMW 801D-2 engine (both 1,700 hp), with slightly different supercharger gear ratios.

funked · « **Reply #10 on:** July 27, 2000, 08:19:00 AM »

Some of the A-3 were built with the 801C, maybe this is what you are thinking of.

Toad · « **Reply #11 on:** July 27, 2000, 08:44:00 AM »

There is an awful lot of -itis around here. In fact, I'm beginning to think there maybe be some itis-itis.

If we're going to jump on a guy everytime he brings up an old topic that's been mauled to death, we'll run out of electronic ink.

This will always be with us. There is always the "don't try to confuse me with facts! my mind is made up!" bunch.

There is always the "Look at this original test documentation I have that proves my point" that is countered by the "look at this original test documentation I have that disproves your point" bunch.

What we have too little of is "hey, sonny...I flew that plane in combat and here's how it was" <which isn't reliable either; those guys are near 80 now and the story gets more important than the truth

>

We also don't have enough "I have extensively tested this hypothesis in the game and here's what I found, including film so you can see for yourself".

Why not ease off on RA, so that you yourself may be eased off on the next time you post your own pet peeve for the 47th time.

He's just asking for information. Point him to what you have or help him out without all the extra stuff.

Have a nice day!

jedi · « **Reply #12 on:** July 27, 2000, 11:27:00 AM »

The limited stuff I have shows 190A4 able to go surface to 10K in under 3 minutes. I think maybe some of us were used to poor-climbing 190s from Air Warrior, and never got over it

I think a reasonable person would conclude that the 190 did indeed outclimb most of the US iron (except of course the awesome P-39)

How it should stack up against Spitfires is another question I guess.

Now, about that turning ability tho...

------------------

Fishu · « **Reply #13 on:** July 27, 2000, 11:37:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Jekyll:
Hmmm. I always thought the A3 had the BMW 801D engine and the A5 had the BMW 801D-2 engine (both 1,700 hp), with slightly different supercharger gear ratios.

I thought something like that too.. (I am not talking about difference between fokkers and doras engines)

ra · « **Reply #14 on:** July 27, 2000, 12:14:00 PM »

Funked,

Thanks for the link. Did this 190-G3 have the fuel injection which would boost power to 1,870HP, like later G3's did? That is a 10% boost, very significant. To give you an example, my glider club upgraded the engines on our SuperCub towplanes from 150 hp to 160 hp (7%), and the climb rate on tow increased about 30%. Also, 140 octane fuel, how does that compare to what the LW used?

Your link is very good, but I have never seen any other source which gives the 190A anything near a 4000 fpm inital climb rate, so I am still going to look for other sources.

BTW, I agree with you about the Jug's E retention. I posted a 'Why?' post a while back comparing the E retention of the Jug v. the Tiffie, no one had an explanation that was convincing. I love the Jug and I would continue to fly it even if the E retention was toned down. I'm all for making FM's as accurate as possible. There are no published measurements of E-retention, so this is a part of the FM that we can only guess at.

RAM,

Your conspiracy theory is not needed. I do fly LW planes, in fact if my goal was to run up the highest K/D ratio I could, the 190's would be my only ride.

I don't have any anti-LW bias, and no one else in this game does either. That bias exists only in your mind.

What are the differences between the A-3 (for which William Green's book provides the <3000 fpm initial climb) and the A-5 which would account for a 33% climb difference. It is very possible that Green's data was derived from half-baked tests, but I would like to see other sources to corroborate Funked's data.

In a scenario a while back the 190A5s were able to climb with us (109G6/R6) right up to 25 or 30K, holding formation the whole way. That also surprised me. Everything about the 190A5's climb rate surprises me.

ra