FW-190 A-8CLARIFICATION,FIX,DISPUTE

[alpini13]

  I have seen alot of posts on here concerning the weight and performance of the FW-190A8. looking over my research resources i have noticed that in many instances the original test reports have varying weights depending on fuel,armament and option loadout...and that the weights are within the limits that aceshigh currently have...but there is additional information that both supports the notion that the aceshigh flight model is a littoff and why there is a dispute in the first place......this concerns the original tests sheets from fockewulf. they show that from january 1944 they were performing tests on the fw-190a8 with emergency boost set at 1.65ata instead of normal 1.42ata...and that they snet a memorandum stating that from july 1944 all fw-190a8 aircraft would be delivered with the  higher emergency boostsetting by simply taking the current machine and bypassing the boost valve and resetting it to run at a max of 1.65ata for a maximum of 10 minutes.the result is the fw-190a8 performs better in both speed and climb rate.   SPEED 13.6mph faster at sea level and 15.5mph faster at hight altitudes with max speed at high altitude being about 4mph faster....this would be with the current weight and aircrafdt we have in aceshigh2.  CLIMBRATE would be increases at low altitude to 3600ft/min and 5000ft only a few hundred ft/min more.  this could explain why people say the 190a8 modeling is off and that it should be faster and hitech not doing it due to the data they can find...all original document are now available online,simply search fw-190a8 performance     and the link should appear. these are the original test data sheets and not some made upnopinion.   wish they fix the 190a8 in next update

[Plazus]

Paragraphs are your friend.

[Ardy123]

nvrmind

[gyrene81]

i've been seeing people claim 900 pounds here and there, and i was corrected recently in another discussion. according to the english translated technical publication i have (supposedly issued in july 1944), the ah model is heavier than the manual says it should be.

the e6b shows the 109a8 with full standard load 2x 13mm mgs and 4x 20mm cannons with 100% fuel on the ground at 9682lbs. according to the publication, the full loaded weight should be 9452lbs minus 55lbs for winter equipment which should bring it to 9397lbs. a difference of 285lbs.

here is the specific page with the weights
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/405468/AH%20Stuff/190a8.pdf

[FBCrabby]

nvrmind

Ditto

[4brkfast]

I'm not sure about it's speed characteristics, but you can know for sure that it's very incorrect. P47 pilots would claim that the Thunderbolt's only advantage over the FW 190 was it's roll rate. Isn't that the exact opposite of AH2? I'd take any of the Thunderbolts vs any of the FW's anytime in AH2, but in life that was near suicide. The fact of the matter is, the FW190 could out-turn the P47. It was the 190's fight to lose anywhere but on the deck and then it was 50:50.

I love the Jug, I feel I should say that, but I like the 190 too and I don't comprehend why to make the airplane inaccurate to a point where it's the exact opposite of what the real pilots claim. Is this a simulator or an arcade game?

Having said that, it should be known that the 109 is also inaccurate. Hans-Joachim Marseille(who Gunther Rall would call 'the best') would achieve kills with high deflection shooting with the 109's flaps. And no, not at 180 MPH true, more about 300.

It's already a fine aircraft, but it's sadly incorrect.

Wanna see what the planes were really like? What Buff hunting was really like and I think, if this is the right video, how maneuverable the 190 was, you can see a 190 A7 out-turning a p47 at the end and giving it a solid burst. The Jug's toughness is under-modeled in AH2, particularly it's R2800 engine. Also, if this is the right video, you get to see a p38 turn(who Robin Olds would say, you get a decent pilot in it, you can whip anything down low).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZOb0vx9y9I

[gyrene81]

i suddenly see a

[Stoney]

This seems to come up every 6 months or so.  Do some searches, otherwise, this'll turn into another epic 190 thread.  Someone have one of those pics of a guy kicking a dead horse???

[RTHolmes]

... paging Mr Gaston ... paging Mr Gaston ... Mr Gaston to the wishlist forum please...

[SmokinLoon]

I just wish HTC would give the 190F-8 the ability to mount for 4/50kg bombs under the fuselage.  Then, it would have 8/50kg bombs.  It was an ordnance load-out widely used on the Ost front.

HTC recently updated the Typhoon with the 4 rockets/dual DT's load-out, I'd hope they'd consider the addition of a new optionto the 190F-8 as well.



 

[Stoney]

... paging Mr Gaston ... paging Mr Gaston ... Mr Gaston to the wishlist forum please...

 

[alpini13]

keep the posts coming guys. i am still wondering if it is a weight issue or a performance of engine issue...or both....either way,it would be nice to see a more correct 190-a8 model

[curry1]

  I have seen alot of posts on here concerning the weight and performance of the FW-190A8. looking over my research resources i have noticed that in many instances the original test reports have varying weights depending on fuel,armament and option loadout...and that the weights are within the limits that aceshigh currently have...but there is additional information that both supports the notion that the aceshigh flight model is a littoff and why there is a dispute in the first place......this concerns the original tests sheets from fockewulf. they show that from january 1944 they were performing tests on the fw-190a8 with emergency boost set at 1.65ata instead of normal 1.42ata...and that they snet a memorandum stating that from july 1944 all fw-190a8 aircraft would be delivered with the  higher emergency boostsetting by simply taking the current machine and bypassing the boost valve and resetting it to run at a max of 1.65ata for a maximum of 10 minutes.the result is the fw-190a8 performs better in both speed and climb rate.   SPEED 13.6mph faster at sea level and 15.5mph faster at hight altitudes with max speed at high altitude being about 4mph faster....this would be with the current weight and aircrafdt we have in aceshigh2.  CLIMBRATE would be increases at low altitude to 3600ft/min and 5000ft only a few hundred ft/min more.  this could explain why people say the 190a8 modeling is off and that it should be faster and hitech not doing it due to the data they can find...all original document are now available online,simply search fw-190a8 performance     and the link should appear. these are the original test data sheets and not some made upnopinion.   wish they fix the 190a8 in next update

tldr

[Stoney]

keep the posts coming guys. i am still wondering if it is a weight issue or a performance of engine issue...or both....either way,it would be nice to see a more correct 190-a8 model

You're assuming its incorrect.  Baumer, I believe, was the first person to bring this specific issue up, and it was like, over two years ago.  That means HTC has had plenty of time to review it and correct the aircraft's weight, had they thought the weight difference was credible.  That being said, if its wrong, it should be changed, and HTC historically has changed aircraft when they found it necessary to do so; that they haven't yet on the FW-190A8 indicates to me that they don't feel a change is justified.  For whatever its worth...

[FLS]

These threads will keep appearing until there is a utube video of Hitech sayng that the FW190 is correctly modeled in AH.