Vermillion:
"Increased Emergency Power: Commencing in July 1944, all Fw190A-8 aircraft will be fitted with the 'emergency power unit' "
The increases in boost pressures stated in that report and the increases in performance tally in almost perfectly with the use of MW-50, though in the report it states that this is not the case & is done by over-riding the normal blower boost regulator.That a GM-1 unit was probably not used in not in question.No sim but AW tries 2 use GM-1 in a Fw 190 ;-).I'll try 2 find more info on the A-8/MW-50 subject.Vermillion's stuff looks good so far though.
Look, as far as I'm concerned, whether the A-8 (even if it's just models built in the last 7 or 8 months of the war) used MW-50 or a mechanically based WEP system is of great interest 2 history buffs (ie many of us), and I love 2 learn new stuff re: LW a/c whenever I can.But as far as the A-8 in AH is concerned, can we agree on this? The AH A-8 does not appear 2 use either MW-50 or the blower over-ride WEP system mentioned by Vermillion.The performance graphs of the AH A-8 seem 2 match stated figures for an "unboosted" A-8 (I'm being diplomatic & not stating which form of WEP was used).
If Vermillion is right, and later A-8's were boosted, why is it not available in AH? At the moment, the AH A-8 almost feels like what u would expect an A-8/R8 Sturmbock would fly like! Now i'm not complaining about the A-8's handling - it was by all accounts still great in the rolling plane but a pig in the turn thanks 2 its greatly increased wing loading.What I take issue with is its performance - especially when u consider the contentious handling (and even some areas of performance) of AH's N1K.
Zig: Agree with what u said.As u mentioned, there is a disparity in wing area between the P-51D and 190A-8.The difference in wing loadings I believe is this (I calculated this myself so its probably very rough):-
*P-51D :- 43 lb/sq ft.
*P-47D-30 :- 49 lb/sq ft.
*Spit IX F. :- 31.5 lb/sq ft.
*Tempest V :- 38 lb/sq ft.
*La-5FN :- 39 lb/sq ft.
*Yak-3 :- 37 lb/sq ft.
*Bf 109F-4 :- 35.5 lb/sq ft.
*Bf 109G-2 :- 39 lb/sq ft.
*Bf 109G-6 :- 40 lb/sq ft.
*Bf 109G-10 :- 40-41 lb/ sq ft. (rough)
*Fw 190A-5 :- 40.5-41 lb/sq ft. (approx)
*Fw 190A-8 :- 49 lb/sq ft.
*Fw 190D-9 :- 48 lb/sq ft.
*Me 262A-1 - 60 lb/sq ft.
The above wing loadings are only a very rough guide, so plz don't consider them as canon...
Glasses:- U r 100% right.Fw 190A-8s equipped with 30mm MK 108's in the outboard wing cannon mounts had seperate firing buttons for the inboard MG 151/20s and the MK 108s.Surely this is one feature that HTC could add to AH without any major code revision? Having 2 use the 20mm & 30mm guns at the same time is useless unless the target is not maneuvering and <300 yrds.At any greater range and/or if the target is maneuvering hard and a high deflection shot is required, the vastly differing ballistic properties of the MG 151/20 & MK 108 makes the possibility of landing shells from both cannons on2 the target *extremely* difficult.That's why u see old Fw 190A-8 heads like Nath always using quad 20mm's .
Btw, I believe that not all A-8's carrying outboard MK 108's were Sturmbocks as I've heard some people playing AH suggesting.I have several photos of JG 300 A-8's (JG 300 was one the main Sturmbock units) *without* extra panel armour & armour glass (definitely *not* simply 'unblinkered' Sturmbocks) with outboard MK 108s.Also, I have photos of JG 300 A-8s with only inboard MG 151/20's (as well as 'standard' quad 20mm's), so it appears JG 300 flew the complete gamut of Fw 190A-8 armaments.
[This message has been edited by C_R_Caldwell (edited 02-12-2001).]
