190A5 vs 190A8 engine Performance

[Ardy123]

I'm taking Ack-Acks suggestion and starting a new thread where the last one left off (around page 2-3).

Ardy, I'd like to add that 1800ps figure comes from performance chart for BMW 801D Sr.Nr. 9-801:5401 dated 10.7.42 and is for the 1.42ata@2700rpm setting. The 1.58ata-setting, which was accomplished with ADI (C3-injection), developed more power.

hmm, so if the A-8 is engine performance is modeled to that document then it should be outputting  2021.92hp, now the only thing missing is the confirmation that it was modeled from that document or that the modeling is treating 1.58 ata as 2021.92 hp.

This would mean that the power to weight ratio for both the A5 and A8 is...
A8 = 9702lb / 2021.92hp ~= 4.7984lb per hp
A5 = 8802lb /  1676.71hp ~= 5.249lb per hp

I would expect the A8 to have better climb performance than the A5  and acceleration given that it has more power per lb of weight, this is not reflected in the game. What am I missing?

Hitech,
What is the engine power output of the A8 modeled in the game?

Thanks

[Wmaker]

Well, both A-5 and the A-8 had the same basic engine type, the BMW 801D-2 but the outputs changed during the development of the A-series due to different clearances, injection systems, etc. AH's A-5 is modelled with the 1,42ata@2700rpm setting so, according to the sources I've seen, it should produce that 1800ps figure even though it is commonly referred as "1700ps" engine.

The power figures HTC uses can off course differ from the ones I mentioned from one reason or another.

[Ardy123]

Well, both A-5 and the A-8 had the same basic engine type, the BMW 801D-2 but the outputs changed during the development of the A-series due to different clearances, injection systems, etc. AH's A-5 is modelled with the 1,42ata@2700rpm setting so, according to the sources I've seen, it should produce that 1800ps figure even though it is commonly referred as "1700ps" engine.

The power figures HTC uses can off course differ from the ones I mentioned from one reason or another.

I'm kinda looking for HTC's numbers, that may shed some light. At this stage we only have the numbers on sources we are able to find, and they may or may not be the same sources HTC used, so our calculations may be incorrect due to an inability to validate our input data. It could be our sources are incorrect, it could be that HTC's sources are incorrect, or it could be that none are incorrect but either way, but either way, we will have a more indepth understanding of the issue.

[FLS]

Ardy it seems you're comparing the A5 at normal power to the A8 with WEP?  They have about the same engine, the same wing, and the A8 is heavier.

[Ardy123]

Ardy it seems you're comparing the A5 at normal power to the A8 with WEP?  They have about the same engine, the same wing, and the A8 is heavier.

I may be, I may not, I don't know to be honest. Can you please point me to a source that states what the A5 and the A8 had in terms of power output?

I an unable to find any consistency in what the Fw 190 A5 or the Fw 190 A8 had. For example,

According to Wikipedia...

'BMW 801 D-2 engine, rated at 1,700 PS (1,677 hp, 1,250 kW). Some A-5s were tested with the MW 50 installation: this was a mix of 50% methyl alcohol and 50% water which could be injected into the engine to produce a short-term power boost to 2,000 PS (1,973 hp, 1,471 kW), but this system was not adopted for serial production.'

 Does the AH engine reflect the 1700 ps with when we have wep on, or is AH using the 2000ps with wep despite it not being adopted for production?

'Changes introduced with the Fw 190 A-8 also included the C3-injection Erhöhte Notleistung emergency boost system to the fighter variant of the Fw 190 A (a similar system with less power had been fitted to some earlier Jabo variants of the 190 A) raising power to 1,980 PS (1,953 hp, 1,456 kW) for a short time. The Erhöhte Notleistung system operated by spraying additional fuel into the fuel/air mix, cooling it and allowing higher boost pressures to be run, but at the cost of much higher fuel consumption. From the A-8 on Fw 190s could be fitted with a new paddle-bladed wooden propeller, easily identified by its wide blades with curved tips.'

So the A5 according to Wikipedia produced more power than the A8, or did the paddle blade prop make up for the difference in 20ps loss between the A5 and the A8?

Also, I've remember reading somewhere about a 'power-egg' modification to A8s? That may be not be worth talking about as HTC has stated before that they don't want to deal with 'field modifications'.

Idealy, HTC could state...
we modeled the FW 190 A5 to have ...
we modeled the FW 190 A8 to have ...

That would at least set a starting point to sorting out the inconsistencies between all the 'information' out there.

[FLS]

Ardy you posted that there is a 1% difference in WEP power and the A-8 is 900 lbs heavier. Does that answer your original performance question comparing the A-5 and A-8?

[Stoney]

I think FLS is corrrect.  Obviously there is either the same or marginally higher power from the engine and the extra weight to contend with. 

With respect to the powerplant, if it was a field mod or a one-of type of motor that generated that higher power number, its probably not used in AH2.  I would imagine that HTC modeled the aircraft that came out of the factory.  However, if you know the drag coefficients of both aircraft, perhaps you could compare the thrust numbers of the A5 to the A8 and see what results you get.

[jdbecks]

Quotes of the posts made by krusty and baumer,

I'm not sure where this fit's in exactly but this is what I have for the A-8 weight's in various configurations.This is from T.2190A-8 issued (Sep/44). I'm not saying this is the end all document, it's always wise to compare sources.


In summary comparing the various gun packages in AH (from the E6B) to this I came up with the following ranges;

• 2 MG131's, 4 MG151's- in AH it's from -.2 under to +20 pounds over weight (this is the only configuration the AH weight falls within the range in the document)
• 2 MG131's, 2 MG151's- in AH  it's from +67 to +77 pounds over weight
• 2 MG131's, 2 MG151's, 2 MK 108's- in AH it's from +68.8 to +78.8 pounds over weight
• 2 MG131's, 2 MG151's, ETC 501 carrier, SC 500kg- in AH it's from +40.7 to +41.1 pounds over weight

Also doing a little more math,
The ETC 501 rack in game is 23.8 pounds to light.
The GP 500kg in game is 2.5 pounds to light.

BTW I wonder how it would handle with the /R-3 package?  

I hope that helps with the weight discussion.
 

Just going to compile a little list of different tests and different airframes on different dates (including the untranslated version of the 2 images I linked earlier in this thread), all listing weights and loadouts for the test.

These are not meant to really debate what performance we have or should have, but are only used as examples of historic weights in wartime testing (battle loaded) airframes. Also note dates are day/month/year, NOT the normal month/day/year.

New links:
serial no.: 801-048
date: 13.11.1943
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-level-speed-13nov43.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm
Lists 4350kg for fully loaded 2x20/2x30

serial no. 801-051
date: 13.11.1943
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-climb-13nov43.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm
Lists 4350kg for fully loaded 2x20/2x30

serial no. 801-132
date: 25.10.1944
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-25oct44.jpg
Already previously listed, but translated chart:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-25oct44.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm

serial no. (A-8 not listed, ta152 comparison)
date: 3.1.1945
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-3jan45.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm.

serial no. (A-8 not listed, anothe rta152 comparison)
date: 12.1.1945
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-12jan45.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm

serial no. (A-8 not listed, compares multiple variants)
date: 1.10.1944
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/leistungsdaten-1-10-44.jpg
already previously listed, but translated chart:
http://www.vermin.net/fw190/translated-fwchart.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm

[Wmaker]

With respect to the powerplant, if it was a field mod or a one-of type of motor that generated that higher power number, its probably not used in AH2. 

If you mean the 2050ps figure I posted, no it isn't. Like I already stated, AH has A-8 modelled with the 1.58ata@2700rpm setting (low blower). This setting saw common use but it initially appeared only in the Jabo variants but was also used with the A-8 variant. This setting was achieved using the fuel as an antidetonant.

801D-2 showing the 1800ps figure on the deck with the 1.42ata@2700rpm -setting:


The table from Mr. Hermann's article:

[Charge]

1.42 ata figure (1730PS?!?!) seems to fit the HTC's speed chart with 410mph tops for A5, so if A8 is modeled with 1.58ata the power loading figures are very near but still on A8's favor. The better power loading obviously does not compensate for the higher wingloading at altitude so the A8 is still slightly slower at alt. Although the figure of 410mph at 20k for A5 includes deck speed of 348mph on deck, where as HTC A5 is slower for some reason, even if it should be nearly as fast as A8 on the deck?  

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5.html

-C+

[Krusty]

HTC's "A-5" most closely matches the testing of a repaired/captured G-3, hence some of the complaints about A-5 performance in this game. It's definitely one of the worst performing captured tests out there.

I'm not too sure about the horsepowers without looking some things up, but I wanted to caution about using power levels for the MW-50 powered A-8s or anything. That aux tank in the back of our AH A8 was the MW storage tank, but most never used it. Instead they used it for extra fuel instead of MW50. Maybe the higher horsepower listings are using that instead?

[Wmaker]

I'm not too sure about the horsepowers without looking some things up, but I wanted to caution about using power levels for the MW-50 powered A-8s or anything. That aux tank in the back of our AH A8 was the MW storage tank, but most never used it. Instead they used it for extra fuel instead of MW50. Maybe the higher horsepower listings are using that instead?

Nobody in this thread has mentioned "MW-50 powered A-8s".

[Baumer]

If notleistubg is emergeny power, what is sondernot? My translating abilities are not very good, and my wife (who speaks German) isn't home this week.

[Wmaker]

If notleistubg is emergeny power, what is sondernot?

It means "Special Emergency Power". Usually associated with the use of some sort of power adding injection in German planes. Either ADI-type injection like the C3/MW-50 or nitrous oxide (GM-1) injection.

[Baumer]

Thank you Wmaker, I was wondering if it specifically meant that there was a power adder involved (water/alcohol/nitrous).