please adjust the 190A8

[Wiley]

Interesting,to say the least.



This is a good lesson in how to properly bring a possible issue up. Do it like some jerk, and HT will eat you four breakfast.

The thing is, I'm pretty sure I've seen this doc posted here before, and wwiiaircraftperformance.com is not exactly an obscure website.  There has to be a reason these numbers are different.

On the one hand, it would be nice to see a 'once and for all, this is why...' type post from HTC.  On the other hand, it would become a maelstrom of 'well why are you using this number instead of that one?' etc etc and they'd wind up justifying their stuff until the end of time.

In another thread, I saw someone mention 200kg being the amount they're off.  The documented number I've seen thrown about appears to be more along the lines of 90kg or roughly 200lbs.  That's just one example of why these things get so muddy so quick.

Maybe they should just hire a full time flight model justifier to sit on the boards and deal with this sort of thing.

Wiley.

[dirtdart]

My interest is piqued.  Does changing the weapons loadouts on the airplane change the weigh for the FM?  Ammo I believe does.  Is the heavier feel of the four cannon or tater loadouts felt as a result of system or ammo or both?

[Wmaker]

AH's A-8's speed and climb performance matches this set of data: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-25oct44.jpg

The all up weight in AH in same configuration as mentioned on that chart is 200lbs heavier.

[Torquila]

I think HT has modeled the 190a8 in the past without the 'exta' claimed weight, and im pretty sure it turned into an instant uber-unstoppable-killing-machine-with-wings; obviously this was probably back in the WB days, but its been a constant curiosity of the community since then...

I think the claim was around 900lbs or sorts?

I'd say its probably for the best that its just a crappy turning fighter, they are scary enough as they are.

[Melvin]

The all up weight in AH in same configuration as mentioned on that chart is 200lbs heavier.

That's approximately the weight of 100 20mm rounds.

I'm not a 190 guy myself, but is there a noticeable performance increase after losing 100 20mm rounds?

20mm = ~0.531lbs

[Ardy123]

\ Do it like some jerk, and HT will eat you four breakfast.

un yeah.... HT eats 'Gaston flakes' for breakfast....
quick someone change their name to 'scheisse' and then complain about a flight model.

[Wiley]

That's approximately the weight of 100 20mm rounds.

I'm not a 190 guy myself, but is there a noticeable performance increase after losing 100 20mm rounds?

20mm = ~0.531lbs

Just in the interest of accuracy, that's backwards.  If one 20mm is 0.531lbs, that's the approximate weight of about 400 rounds.

Wiley.

[Melvin]

Just in the interest of accuracy, that's backwards.  If one 20mm is 0.531lbs, that's the approximate weight of about 400 rounds.

Wiley.

Yikes, it's been a long day. Thanks for pointing that out.

So, any noticeable performance gains after losing 400 20mm rounds?

[Babalonian]

Our speed and climb rate charts are nearly a perfect match to the charts shown.

So what is the specific issue?

In a nutshell: 
Heaviest production model (one "performance" extreme, not seen until mid '44) paired with an engine that at the time of initial production (in late '43) was months short of seeing it's own performance extreme but that, unlike in our game, ultimatley it did recieve.

That which is so complicated nobody has yet, or will ever dare to answer for us:
Why HTCs paired a late-'44/early-'45 A8 with an early/mid-'44 engine... OR, perhaps better, why HTCs feels the extreme of an individual aircraft's airframe IS NOT deserving of being paired with it's own, documented and ultimatley equiped (for over a half a year of the war) powerplant's extreme performance?

Now, to compound the issue with AH's A8, we have PLENTY of represented earl-model radial-powered 190s, and aparently since it's acuratley modeled, NOTHING to represent the extreme of the series performance envelope, as WAS PRESENT throughout nearly the ENTIRE LAST YEAR of the war with Germany.

It adds salt to the wound that the SAME engine equiped on A8s throughout most of '44 was the SAME engine that at the end of '44 and THROUGHOUT '45 was aprooved for the signifigant performance boost.  Define: same?


So Skuzzy, I know you were sincerely here to try and help us and not throw keroseene on the "your pre Oct-1944 A8 is acuratley modeled to pre Oct-1944 performances" or else you would be only blatantley trolling us like so many other antagonisers on this issue in the forum.... or, just what exactly is in that coffee in the office this week?


I try to stay outa these topics now, for personal and (I feel) practical reasons.  I love the 190s, and this boils down into a very ugly personal stew over personal preferences and ponderings about "why does HiTech err on giving us the wimpy and heavy A-8 varient mashup over ANY OTHER (and there were MANY) in HIS game?".  And earlier A8 varient (and lighter) matched with an earlier A8 engine would of been better, or a later airframe with a later powerplant.


It's not like those in support of it can do anything that already hasn't been done, and it's not like those who don't humbley care love eating our trivial frustrations up.


*gives up before it starts, again*

[Babalonian]

Interesting,to say the least.



This is a good lesson in how to properly bring a possible issue up. Do it like some jerk, and HT will eat you four breakfast.

O'Realy?....  please, do tell us where the lesson from the last years worth of threads on this 190 issue went wrong?

[Babalonian]

That's approximately the weight of 100 20mm rounds.

I'm not a 190 guy myself, but is there a noticeable performance increase after losing 100 20mm rounds?

20mm = ~0.531lbs

Is 200lbs noticable?  Yes.  How noticable in the A8? only HT or someone with the ability to remove that weight from (in addition to gun packages removed) the flight model can tell until after it's been done.  It's barely noticable at the wing root cannons compared to the outer wing cannons - located out from the center roughly 2/3 of the span.

[FLS]

How would you change the sea level speed without changing the higher alt speeds and climb rate which, if I understand correctly, are accurate?

[Wmaker]

In a nutshell:  
Heaviest production model (one "performance" extreme, not seen until mid '44) paired with an engine that at the time of initial production (in late '43) was months short of seeing it's own performance extreme but that, unlike in our game, ultimatley it did recieve.

Here's the weight break down that gives the same all up weight as in the game with standard armament (the last page of the document): http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/td284.pdf

I don't really see anything out of the ordinary on that weight break down. There really isn't anything there that could make the plane much lighter considering what normally came with it.

That which is so complicated nobody has yet, or will ever dare to answer for us:
Why HTCs paired a late-'44/early-'45 A8 with an early/mid-'44 engine... OR, perhaps better, why HTCs feels the extreme of an individual aircraft's airframe IS NOT deserving of being paired with it's own, documented and ultimatley equiped (for over a half a year of the war) powerplant's extreme performance?

The plane already is modelled with higher WEP setting than it had initially. Or are you talking something else than 801D2 with 1.58/1.65ata WEP-setting which was cleared in mid '44, T-variants perhaps?

[clerick]

O'Realy?....  please, do tell us where the lesson from the last years worth of threads on this 190 issue went wrong?

was really a comment made about the numerous FM/ vehicle dynamics posts that are more whine than well reasoned and researched and respectful dialog with HTC.

[Guppy35]

Which of the primary fighters in AH perform at their extreme engine performance?