Author Topic: 190A5 vs 190A8  (Read 61171 times)

Offline Saurdaukar

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8610
      • Army of Muppets
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #90 on: April 01, 2010, 08:53:00 PM »
ARMAMENT CHARACTERISTICS
The armament consists of:

-Two MG17 guns of 7.92mm caliber fitted above the engine, synchronized, firing through the propeller arc.  
-Two MG151/20 guns of the 20mm caliber, synchronized, firing through the propeller arc are installed in the wing roots about 12in out from the engine cowling.
-Two Oerlikon FF20mm guns fitted in the wings outboard of the propeller arc.

GUN BOTTONS AND SWITCHES
The guns are fired by means of a button on the front of the control column.  A small selector switch at the side of tyeh column enables the pilot to select the following alternatives:

-MG17 and MG151/20 guns.
-Oerlikon FF20mm guns.
-All guns.

In addition to this it is possible, by means of cut-out switches, which are situated on the starboard side of the cockpit, to fire each pair of guns independently.  There are ammunition counters in the cockpit for each gun.

HEATING
Hot air from the engine cowling is led by means of ducts to the ammunition chutes of the MG17 guns and thence upwards to the breech mechanism.  The Oerlikon FF20mm guns are also heated by hot air from the engine cowling.  No special provision is made for heating the MG151/20 guns and its is thought that oweing their position near the engine this is unnecessary.

SIGHT
A reflector sight, type Revi 12-D, is mounted 1 ½ in to the starboard of the vertical centre line.  The graticule is 5 degrees 48 inches in diameter, which is the equivalent to approximately 95MPH for the high muzzle velocity of the German armament.  Vertical and horizontal lines are marked off in degree steps from the centre of the graticule.  Seven such lines are visible each way, these lines assist the pilot in range estimation and allowing for line.

HARMONIZATION
The harmonization ranges for each pair of guns are:

Two MG17 guns at 300 meters or 330 yards.
Two MG151/20 guns at 450 meters or 490 yards.
Two Oerlikon FF20mm guns at 250 meters or 270 yards.

The gun lines of the MG17 guns are not symmetrical about the vertical centre line.  The port gun converges whereas the starboard gun diverges with the result that they cross over 1ft 2in to starboard.  This my be due to incorrect harmonization.

SIGHTING VIEW
The sighting view, when sitting comfortably in the normal position, is about half a ring (of deflection) better than that from a Spitfire.  The view downwards from the centre of the sight graticule to the edge of the reflector plate holder is about 5 degrees.  This view is not obtained by elevating the guns (and consequently the sight) relative to the line of flight, but is entirely due to the attitude of the aircraft in flight, which is nose down.

TACTICAL TRIALS GENERAL
The FW190 is considered an excellent lwo and medium altitude fighter.  It is fast, well armed and very maneuverable.  The fighting qualities have been compared with  a Spitfire VB, Spitfire IX, Mustang IA, P-38F, Typhoon and the prototype Griffon engine Spitfire.  All aircraft were carrying full war load.




…to be continued... hope y'all dont mind me "reserving" a couple posting slots to keep the information contiguous.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2010, 09:34:04 PM by Saurdaukar »

Offline Saurdaukar

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8610
      • Army of Muppets
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #91 on: April 01, 2010, 08:54:50 PM »
FLYING CHARACTERISTICS
The aircraft is pleasant to fly, all controls being extremely light and positive.  The aircraft is difficult to taxi due to excessive weight on the self-centering tailwheel when on the ground.  For take off, 15 degrees of flap is required and it is necessary to keep the control column back to avoid swinging during the initial stage of the take off run.  The run is approximately the same as that of the Spitfire IX.

Once airborne, the pilot immediately feels at home in the aircraft.  The retraction of the flaps and undercarriage is barely noticable although the aircraft will sink if the retention of the flaps is made before a reasonably high airspeed has been obtained.

The stalling speed of the aircraft is high, being approximately 110MPH with the undercarriage and flaps retracted and 105MPH with the undercarriage and flaps fully down.  All controls are effective up to the stall.  One excellent feature of this aircraft is that it is seldom necessary to re-trim under all conditions of flight.

The best approach speed for landing with flaps and undercarriage down is between 130 and 140MPH, Indicated, reducing to about 125MPH when crossing the edge of the aerodrome.  Owing to the steep angle of glide, the view during an approach is good and the actual landing is straightforward, the touchdown occurring at approximately 110MPH.  The landing run is about the same as that of the Spitfire IX.  The view on landing is poor due to the tail-down attitude of the aircraft.  The locking of the tailwheel again assists preventing swing during the landing run.

The aircraft is very pleasant for aerobatics, even at high speed.

PERFORMANCE
The all-around performance of the FW190 is good.  Only brief performance tests have been carried out and the figures obtained give a maximum speed of approximately 390MPH, True, at 1.42 atmospheres boost, 2,700RPM at the maximum power altitude of about 18,000ft.  All flights at maximum power were carried out for a duration of two minutes only.

There are indications that the engine of this aircraft is de-rated, this being supported by the pilot's instruction card found in the cockpit.  Further performance tests and engine investigation are to be cartried out by the RAE and more definite information will then be available.

Throughout the trials the engine has been running very roughly and as a result, pilots flying the aircraft have had little confidence in its reliability.  The cause of this roughness has not yet been ascertained but it is thought that it may be due to a bad period of vibration at certain engine speeds which may also affect the injection system (Author's note: this toughness was later found to be due to fouling of the Bosche spark plugs after short periods of running; the fault was cleared by fitting Siemens type plugs taken from the BMW801A engine of a crashed Do217).

ENDURANCE
The total of 115 gallons of fuel is carried in two self-sealing tanks and each tank is fitted with an immersed fuel pump for use at altitude.  A total of 9 gallons of oil is carried in a protected oil tank.  The approximate endurance under operational conditions, including dog-fights and climb to 25,000ft is approximately 1 hour 20 minutes.  There is a red warning light fitted in a prominent position which illuminates when there is only sufficient fuel left for 20 minutes flying.

CLIMB
The rate of climb up to 18,000ft under maximum continuous climbing conditions at 1.35 atmospheres boost, 2,450RPM, 165MPH is between 3,000 and 3,250ft/min.  The initial rate of climb when pulling up from level fliht at fast cruising speed is high and the angle steep, and from a dive is phenomenal.  It is considered that the de-rated version of the FW190 is unlikely to be met above 25,000ft as the power of the engine starts falling off at 22,000ft and by 25,000ft has fallen off considerably.  It is not possible to give the rate of climb at this altitude.

DIVE
The FW190 has a high rate of dive, the initial acceleration being excellent.  The maximum true speed so far obtained in a dive is 580MPH True, at 16,000ft and at this speed the controls, although slightly heavier, are still remarkably light.  One very good feature is that no alteration of the trim from level flight is required either during the entry or during the pull-out.  Due to the fuel injection syhstem it is possible to enter the dive by pushing the control column forward without the engine cutting.

SEARCH VIEW
The view for search from the FW190 is the best that has yet been seen by this unit.  The cockpit hood is of moulded plexiglass and offer an unrestricted view all around.  No rear view mirror is fitted and it is considered unnecessary as the backward view is so good.  The hood must not be opened in flight as it is understood that tail buffeting may occur and that there is a chance of the hood being blown off.  This, however, is not a disadvantage for day search as the quality of the plexiglass is excellent.  During conditions of bad visibility and rain, or in the event of oil being thrown on the windscreen, the fact that the hood must not be opened in flight is obviously a disadvantage.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2010, 09:33:48 PM by Saurdaukar »

Offline Saurdaukar

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8610
      • Army of Muppets
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #92 on: April 01, 2010, 08:55:55 PM »
Reserved:

INSTRUMENT FLYING

LOW FLYING

FORMATION FLYING

NIGHT FLYING

ENGINE STARTING AND QUICK TAKE-OFF

FIGHTING QUALITIES

Offline Saurdaukar

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8610
      • Army of Muppets
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #93 on: April 01, 2010, 08:57:12 PM »
Reserved:

FW190 V. SPITFIRE VB

CLIMB

DIVE

MANEUVERABILITY



Offline Saurdaukar

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8610
      • Army of Muppets
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #94 on: April 01, 2010, 08:58:04 PM »
Reserved:

FW190 V. SPITFIRE IX

CLIMB

DIVE

MANEUVERABILITY


Offline Saurdaukar

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8610
      • Army of Muppets
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #95 on: April 01, 2010, 08:58:54 PM »
Reserved:

FW190 V. MUSTANG IA (P-51A)

CLIMB

DIVE

MANEUVERABILITY

Offline Saurdaukar

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8610
      • Army of Muppets
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #96 on: April 01, 2010, 08:59:42 PM »
Reserved:

FW190 V. P-38F LIGHTNING

CLIMB

DIVE

MANEUVERABILITY

Offline Saurdaukar

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8610
      • Army of Muppets
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #97 on: April 01, 2010, 09:01:39 PM »
Reserved:

FW190 V. 4-CANNON TYPHOON

CLIMB

DIVE

MANEUVERABILITY



Offline Saurdaukar

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8610
      • Army of Muppets
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #98 on: April 01, 2010, 09:02:48 PM »
Reserved:

FW190 V. GRIFFON SPITFIRE (Mk XII)

MANUVERABILITY


CONCLUSIONS:

Offline thorsim

  • Parolee
  • Restricted
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
      • The Luftwhiner Lounge
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #99 on: April 03, 2010, 03:38:34 AM »
just doesn't sound to me like our 190s ...

thanks for all the effort Saurdaukar
THOR C.O. II ~JG-27~ Afrika-AH
Axis Co-Op
Quote from: any number of idiots here
blah blah Blah
Quote from: oldman
Good call.  Ignore the people who actually flew the real planes against each other.

Offline Motherland

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8110
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #100 on: April 03, 2010, 12:04:51 PM »
just doesn't sound to me like our 190s ...
What exactly?

Offline BnZs

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4207
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #101 on: April 03, 2010, 01:21:25 PM »
just doesn't sound to me like our 190s ...

thanks for all the effort Saurdaukar


And to me it sounds exactly like our 190s. When I was a noob I found that the combination of roll-rate, rudder-authority, stability as a gun platform, and firepower allowed me to get kills easier than any other plane with my lousy gunnery, making it worth accepting certain inherent performance limitations.
"Crikey, sir. I'm looking forward to today. Up diddly up, down diddly down, whoops, poop, twiddly dee - decent scrap with the fiendish Red Baron - bit of a jolly old crash landing behind enemy lines - capture, torture, escape, and then back home in time for tea and medals."

Offline mtnman

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #102 on: April 03, 2010, 08:09:38 PM »

so yes, prove me wrong if you can    


Actually, I have zero interest in proving you wrong.  Show the facts, get the models changed.  I'd like them to be as accurate as possible, frankly.  That goes for the whole plane-set.

That doesn't mean I'm convinced by your arguments- it just means I'm not opposed (as if that would matter, lol)...

Your last comment though- "that doesn't sound to me like our 190's" leaves me hanging though.  Why doesn't it?  It sounds like them to me... 

I didn't check to compare the weight issues brought up earlier though; was that what you're referring to?

MtnMan

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not". Thomas Jefferson

Offline thorsim

  • Parolee
  • Restricted
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
      • The Luftwhiner Lounge
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #103 on: April 03, 2010, 11:12:54 PM »
well lets start with posts 92-98 ...

those do not sound like our 190s ...
Actually, I have zero interest in proving you wrong.  Show the facts, get the models changed.  I'd like them to be as accurate as possible, frankly.  That goes for the whole plane-set.

That doesn't mean I'm convinced by your arguments- it just means I'm not opposed (as if that would matter, lol)...

Your last comment though- "that doesn't sound to me like our 190's" leaves me hanging though.  Why doesn't it?  It sounds like them to me... 

I didn't check to compare the weight issues brought up earlier though; was that what you're referring to?


And to me it sounds exactly like our 190s. When I was a noob I found that the combination of roll-rate, rudder-authority, stability as a gun platform, and firepower allowed me to get kills easier than any other plane with my lousy gunnery, making it worth accepting certain inherent performance limitations.
What exactly?
THOR C.O. II ~JG-27~ Afrika-AH
Axis Co-Op
Quote from: any number of idiots here
blah blah Blah
Quote from: oldman
Good call.  Ignore the people who actually flew the real planes against each other.

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #104 on: April 04, 2010, 06:10:57 AM »
well lets start with posts 92-98 ...

those do not sound like our 190s ...
Typical...

Post some data or stop luftwhining. Sounds like, feels like, pilot x said... ect... ect.... ect... are not hard DATA. If there is a weight issue, document it (with multiple sources if possible) and HTC will address it. They did so when the p-38g was to LIGHT. This was brought up by a 38 pilot who wanted an accurate model.
See Rule #4