questions about the 190 a5 versus a8

[juzz]

Only about +150HP at emergency power. And that shows in the charts -> A-8 is faster low and even climbs better for a little bit... "more power" would have been an increase to 2,000HP or more(eg: BMW 801TS).

[HABICHT]

ok, other question.

in every book i've got about the 190, it had
"excellent dive and climb!!! abilities.
ok, dive is ok, but in every sim i know the
"great climb" ability is not there. it's a brick.
like the 109, the construcorsof the 190 swapped turn ability for climb and dive ability.
it's not a whine, only a copy of the advantages the 190 had. and one of it was the
climbing ability.
comments pls
(have no book saying 190 climbed bad..)

[funked]

Sage the A-8 got more power at low altitude via a modification that allowed the pilot to override the automatic boost control and overboost the aircraft at low altitudes, with a penalty in oil temperature and engine life.

There was also a supplemental fuel injection system which injected fuel directly into the supercharger inlet, but the handbook for the aircraft indicates this was phased out, and that the boost override gave similar performance.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 11-13-2000).]

[juzz]

I'd say near 4000fpm is fairly good for an early 1942 fighter...

[Macchi]

Habicht,
mostly they mean zoom climb ability.

Macchi

[funked]

Yep Juzz the AH Fw 190A-5 outclimbs most of the 1941-2 Allied birds.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 11-14-2000).]

[Zigrat]

I would like to have 190-a6

ability for 4 20mm mausers, but not the crappy performance of a8.

[Zigrat]

bump

[Zigrat]

and no i dont want hitech to make up data for 190a8

i want him to do same thing for how he got f4u-1c flight model, he took f4u-1d and subtraced a few hundred pounds

in this case, take 190-a5 add the appropriate weight and power boost at low alt.

tit-for-tat

[MANDOBLE]

Zigrat, as I posted in other thread, we have an A8 with the extra 118 liters tank (aux) desingned for boost mixtures (MW 50). BMW 801D was, by design, able to accept MW 50  mixture and nitrous oxide for GM-1 devices.
We have all the installations, but we dont have the mixture (MW50). So, each time you fill up your tanks in A8, you are, for the same %, adding more weight to A8 than to A5, because our boost liquid tank is being used as a normal fuel tank, you'll have a heavier A8 without the extra 350 hp courtesy by the anti-detonation methanol/water mix.

As a matter of fact, range was not a primary key for the A8 role in the war. The primary key was top speed at medium and hi alts for bomber interceptions as much as climb rate. If that auxiliary tank was present in all 190A8s (with its extra weight, pipes, control system, etc) and IMO this is an evidence of the usage of MW50. If not MW50, then GM-1 (or even both), but something to justify the substitution of A5 by A8.

With the actual performances, A5 is way better suited for buff interception than A8. I can hardly catch a B17 at 20k with my A8 (wep on), and this was supposed to be its normal duty during WWII.

[MANDOBLE]

 

Originally posted by funked:
Sage the A-8 got more power at low altitude via a modification that allowed the pilot to override the automatic boost control and overboost the aircraft at low altitudes, with a penalty in oil temperature and engine life.

There was also a supplemental fuel injection system which injected fuel directly into the supercharger inlet, but the handbook for the aircraft indicates this was phased out, and that the boost override gave similar performance.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 11-13-2000).]

funked, the systems you describe, without any coolant or antidetonation system like MW50, will produce a quick overheat. That means that 190A8 WEP time should be considerably shorter than 190A5.

In our AH case, A5 and A8 have similar WEP duration before overheat.

Anyway, we are talking'n talking about this topic withoput any real idea of what Pyro implemented here.

Cmon Pyro, write a pair of lines spreading some light over us, mortals.

[funked]

Very good point Mandoble.

Also note that the in-game A-5 and A-8 have the same manifold pressure with 100% throttle and with WEP, and that these manifold pressures correspond to the 30 minute and 3 minute power settings for the standard BMW 801.  If there is boost override or petrol injection or MW 50 I would expect to see higher pressures on the A-8.

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

[funked]

Zig, why not do this:  For the A-5 model, take the A-8 and subtract the appropriate weight and power boost at low alt.  It's just as valid as your proposal.  I think your waffle marks are showing.  

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by MANDOBLE:
funked, the systems you describe, without any coolant or antidetonation system like MW50, will produce a quick overheat. That means that 190A8 WEP time should be

not as I understand it. The high octane petrol injection into the air intake acted as antidetonant by itself (According to the info I have posted in this forum several times), so I think that this is correctly modelled.

[MANDOBLE]

 

Originally posted by RAM:
not as I understand it. The high octane petrol injection into the air intake acted as antidetonant by itself (According to the info I have posted in this forum several times), so I think that this is correctly modelled.

RAM, can you, please, refer us to the post where you have the proof of petrol injection acting as an antidetonant system? As a side note, the antidetonant effect alone doesn't mean that the engine will not overheat quicker.