Any plane on introducing KI-84 and FW190 D9?

[funked]

WTG Naudet!

You might like these:   http://www.raf303.org/funked/a-8manual/
 http://members.xoom.com/mikewaltz/F-TR-1102-ND.htm
 http://www.raf303.org/funked/usn190a5.htm

 

[danish]

Good info ;=)
Also there is http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/prodocs.htm

danish

[Lephturn]

What makes you think the D would turn better than a Pony?

Guys, am I out to lunch here?  If I remember right in WB the D9 was almost as big of a truck as the A8 when it came to turning.  I'd expect it to be similar here.

------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs  http://www.flyingpigs.com
 

"A pig is a jolly companion,
Boar, sow, barrow, or gilt --
A pig is a pal, who'll boost your morale,
Though mountains may topple and tilt.
When they've blackballed, bamboozled, and burned you,
When they've turned on you, Tory and Whig,
Though you may be thrown over by Tabby and Rover,
You'll never go wrong with a pig, a pig,
You'll never go wrong with a pig!"
-- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"

[This message has been edited by Lephturn (edited 11-28-2000).]

[F4UDOA]

Niklas,

Why would the D9 have a better turn rate than the A4? It was heavier with poorer wing loading. Not exactly ideal for maneuvering fights. I see the 190D9 having very good E-retention as well as good high speed handling. But nothing that tells me that it should be a good turning plane.

[niklas]

   

What makes you think the D would turn better than a Pony
If I remember right in WB the D9 was almost as big of a truck as the A8 when it came to turning. I'd expect it to be similar here

ROTFL
hey Lephturn, if you think the WB FM is a good reprentation how WW2 AC really performed than you´re really naive.

190D9 did outturn in low-med altitudes the P51.Clmax 1.59 (dora) compared to 1.28 of P-51. 2100Hp compared to 1600Hp. Naca230 airfoil compared to laminar airfoil. comparable wingloading. Elector-hydraulic autotrimm compared to manual. Single-lever engine control for optimum engine performance in every flight situatiation compared to manual control.

F4Udoa the Dora was much more powerful. Less drag, more power > faster and tighter turn. The missing cannons in the outer wing section> higher AoA usually possible. Much better aerodynamic in the nose section > better airflow around the fuselage and wing root section
Less frontal area, but longer fuselage can maybe also have an influence ("floor area"), you also need less elevator deflection with a longer tail which reduce your total lift less.
Bigger propeller > bigger propwash effect

These are explanations from me.
I heard this first that the 109D9 outturned the 109G from an german WW2 veteran who did fly 190D and me262. And also from other sources.

A 190D is more than a 190A with another engine.
Did i already mention that a fighter is more than only weight, power and wingarea?
Look at the wingloading of a Ta152-H. Smiliar to a 190D9. And a Ta152-H was famous for it´s abillity to turn.

And btw, a 190D in AH without 2100HP would be a joke. All efforts in german engine technology after ´43 had 2 aims: Better high altitude performance, and a 2000+ HP engine for fighters.

niklas

[This message has been edited by niklas (edited 11-28-2000).]

[This message has been edited by niklas (edited 11-28-2000).]

[Naudet]

The idea why the D9 should turn as good as a Pony, is coming from the point that the 109 G and the P51 turned very close to each other, but with a little advantage for the P51.

And as GE pilots reported the D9 was able to fly tighter turn than the 109G, which means it must be as good as the P51, but more likely it was better. The JG26 pilots stated that the D9 was more than a match for P51, "more than a match" means, it was superior.

Last thing, as niklas said, the D9 had 2100 hp compared to only 1600 hp in the stang, both planes were similar in combat weight, with the D9 being a bit lighter. What this means for E retention in a turnfight is very clear. The D9 had better hp/lb. ratio, which means better acceleration, too. Another point that is very important in turnfights.

[brady]

   WTG Naudet

         Brady

[Jekyll]

Geez Lephturn.... don't tell me you've been basing your comments on AH aircraft performance on the way those aircraft maneuver in Warbirds!

Fer goodness sake... look at the WB P47's.  Do you really think they had such anaemic vertical performance in real life?

F4UDOA, I think you're confusing turn rate with turn radius.  The Dora has a significantly better power loading than the A series, and should be able to maintain speed (and therefore turn rate) in a hard turn much better than its early-war cousins.

[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 11-29-2000).]

[RAM]

<RAM puts 5 12-beer packs on the fridge in prevision of the flames that will rage all across this board when:

A)-Fw190D9 with MW50 comes and its unperked (Allied flamewar)

B)-Fw190D9 without MW50 comes (kicking out all historical means to bring authentical late-1944 LW planes into AH)----->as you may see, Axis flamewar  

C)-Fw190D9 With MW50 comes and it is perked at relative low cost----->mixed flamewar, LW flames because anything slightly better than P51 is perked while the P51 isnt, and Allied whines because the perk points needed aren't enough to make LW people fly another thing if they can.

Hey, I'd better get loads of pop-corn too  

[Naudet]

 

but i still havent really understood the meaning of perk, how u get perk points or whatever is needed to get to a better plane

[This message has been edited by Naudet (edited 11-29-2000).]

[Lephturn]

Guys, guys... I wasn't using Warbirds as a guide to how they really did perform.  Woah up.  All I'm saying is that the SAME GUY (Pyro) did the research and flight models for that game as this one.  It follows then, that the planes should work compare relative to each other similar to how they did in WB.  Unless new or different data has been uncovered, the basics like climb, speed, and turn should still be the same even though some things may be different.  All I'm saying is that Pyro's data is Pyro's data, and unless that has changed, the relative performance should be comparable between the two games.

Now bear in mind, I'm talking old WB when Pyro was the man there, not whatever they have done to it now.



------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs  http://www.flyingpigs.com
"A pig is a jolly companion,
Boar, sow, barrow, or gilt --
A pig is a pal, who'll boost your morale,
Though mountains may topple and tilt.
When they've blackballed, bamboozled, and burned you,
When they've turned on you, Tory and Whig,
Though you may be thrown over by Tabby and Rover,
You'll never go wrong with a pig, a pig,
You'll never go wrong with a pig!"
-- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"

[juzz]

"the best time to 10km is only 12,5 min with MW50." "it could outclimb and outdive the allied fighter (yes even the Spit XIV, especially when using MW50."

From the chart, D-9 to 6100m with MW 50: 5.7min

Spitfire XIV to 20,000ft: 5.1min
Spitfire XIV to 34,000ft(10,365m): 10.25min

I don't know how the Spitfire XIV did when using 150 Octane fuel(British "equivalent" of MW 50, allowed higher boost pressure of +25lbs instead of normal +18lbs) - but a Merlin 66 engined Spitfire Mk VIII at +25lbs had an initial climbrate of about 5500fpm.  

[Nath-BDP]

MW 50 doesn't last forever.

[Naudet]

MW 50 on the D9 was enough for 40minutes, with a maximun of 10mins of constant use, i think this lasts long enough.

And were u found 5.1 mins for Spit XIV to 20K, all my sources say 7 mins. And a chart Captain E. Brown made after comparing Spit XIV and D9 rated the Spit with 4K/min and the D9 with 6+K/min (with MW50) and 4.1K/min (without MW50).
Only prob is the URL with this table is no longer available, so i can post it here.

[This message has been edited by Naudet (edited 11-30-2000).]

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by Naudet:
And a chart Captain E. Brown made after comparing Spit XIV and D9 rated the Spit with 4K/min and the D9 with 6+K/min (with MW50) and 4.1K/min (without MW50).
Only prob is the URL with this table is no longer available, so i can post it here.

That means they have deleted the joke. Because if you read that, it was a joke.

Come on, take a look at the weights of the SpitXIV and the MW50 Fw190D9, ok? powerloading is much better in the spit than in the MW50 Fw190D9, go figure without MW50, so the climbrate will be way better in the Spitfire than in the Fw...so what you are saying is nonsense.

6 K/m LOL!!!! Lazs will suffer a collapse when he reads this   ...and 4.1K /m without MW50 ROFL!!!!....1750HP make a plane only 300lbs ligher than a 1800hp Fw190A8 climb nearly 1500feet/minute more than it!!!

 

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 11-30-2000).]