please adjust the 190A8

[Wmaker]

So in other words, we got shafted.

Moronic comments such as this certainly won't help.

801D-2 was by far the most common engine of the A-8 series and it already runs at the highest boost setting that I know for that particular engine. The later T-versions of the 801 had higher output/MAP but they weren't nearly as common.

[Tank-Ace]

Moronic comments such as this certainly won't help.

801D-2 was by far the most common engine of the A-8 series and it already runs at the highest boost setting that I know for that particular engine. The later T-versions of the 801 had higher output/MAP but they weren't nearly as common.

And so? If the 801T's were more representative of the engines mounted on uparmored versions of the A-8, or even just the version we have in particular, then OUR 190A-8 is being missrepresented in multiple ways, and is a poorer substitute for both mid and late model 190A-8's than a true late model would be for a mid model, or vice-versa.

[Guppy35]

And so? If the 801T's were more representative of the engines mounted on uparmored versions of the A-8, or even just the version we have in particular, then OUR 190A-8 is being missrepresented in multiple ways, and is a poorer substitute for both mid and late model 190A-8's than a true late model would be for a mid model, or vice-versa.

Nope.  You've got a 190A8 that represents the 190A8 line the way the AH Spitfire IX represents the entire Spitfire IX line.  Somewhere in the middle.  No shafted.  Just not the latest and greatest of either.

[Wmaker]

And so? If the 801T's were more representative of the engines mounted on uparmored versions of the A-8, or even just the version we have in particular, then OUR 190A-8 is being missrepresented in multiple ways, and is a poorer substitute for both mid and late model 190A-8's than a true late model would be for a mid model, or vice-versa.

Lot of ifs here. I've yet to see any evidence that the weight is from an "uparmored" variant. Instead of making noise based on assumptions I suggest you make some research instead.

[dhyran]

well

i highly recommand to read this source!

http://www.airpages.ru/eng/lw/fw190a7.shtml

tons of great information inside!

[SouthLanda]

Hi guys, this threads seems to have a lot of attention at the moment. So I was hoping I could ask people their view on something, and show my view.

- I can fly the 190A4 competitivly against nearly all fighters except the Spit16. I fly it with great manouverability, turn, climb and level speed.
- I can fly the 190D against any aircraft and dictate the fight. Whether a slow turn fight, or a high speed energy fight, I have a fighting chance.

However, I am totally useless, in the 190A8... even attacking a bomber, the aircraft aparently exceeds what appears to be a tiny maximum angle of attack. I try to turn or raise the nose and it starts to stall, with an appaling angle of attack and turn rate.
Is this histroically correct? Can an improved 190, be such a backward step compared to every other fighter and 190 version A4, D9)?
It confuses me and makes me question the modelling of HTC for this simulator.
To me, if it is historically accurate, then why wasnt the Focke Wulf design team shot for espianage and in-competence? They are basically suicide machines... even if you use the higher roll rate, the incredible useless low angle of attack before the stall removes any manoverability.

Is there a way to learn what the historical angle of attack the 190a8 was capable of... compare it to the 190a4 and 190d9?
That way I can see if HTC are accurate in their moddelling or have made an error... (even if the climb and speed is right, something feels off).

Is it true that the same NACA airfoil shap is used in the F6F or other US fighter (which has GREAT manouverability)?

Thanks guys.

[SouthLanda]

FYI.
http://www.ae.illinois.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html says that the 190 has the same wing as the Corsair.
http://stephenesherman.com/discussions/best_fighter.html plenty of opinions about 'whats the best' but some info on wing loading too. I didnt know the 190a3 and mustang were the same...

Heavy discussion on turn rates
http://simhq.net/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1284449/Everything_you_wanted_to_know_.html


To put my questions in a slightly different like, I would also ask, shouldnt the 190A8 have the same max AoA as the 190A4 and 190D9.... if its a bit heavier, wont it just be a bit more nose high initially, however in a turn situation, shouldnt the extra horse power have some say at high P factor angles?

[Wmaker]

This chart kinda illustrates why I think it would be so neat to see some more (yes, more) late-war 190s.

Highlight the current models we have, pick a couple from inbetween those gaps, and BAM!, a more complete plane-set to those who care (or maybe don't) about the 190 plane set.

Edit: as you can see, our current latest-production radial-engine model representative is waaay in last of the "latest" category.

Babalonian,

The T-series BMW801s were rare. They were are in A-9 as the A-9s themselves were relatively rare and everything I've read says that they were rare in A-8s aswell. What AH A-8 currently has is by far the most common engine with its highest power setting. It would certainly do more harm than good to model A-8 with a totally unrepresentative engine instead of the very representative one it currently has. Most aircraft in that chart you posted are prototype/very limited production planes and most of them are powered with inline engines. Comparing our A-8 to them makes a rather poor argument. When the A-8 was introduced to AH some 12 years ago a lot of the performance data online today was yet to be uncovered. I guess it could be some 7mph faster on the deck but that's about it.

I think A-9 would be a nice and great "MA-toy" which could be introduced with minimal development effort and would prove highly popular I'm sure.


To others,

The climb/speed data set AH modeling is based on refers to it as "Normaljager" and the 4300kg test weight mentioned in that chart doesn't have to be the all up weight (4x20mm) but a test weight especially when the weight table is included in the same document and that gives the same all up weight as AH.

EDIT/Only possible viable weight change that I can see is in the reduction of weight when using only the inboard 20mms. The weight table below gives them (guns+ammo) a weight of 176,5kg. In AH the outer wing 20m  loadout weights 137,3kg./EDIT

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/td284.pdf

[dhyran]

well wmaker,

but compare thel feeling about the 190A8 and a 190A5 and a D9??? Do you think it bleeds its E correctly?

[Wmaker]

well wmaker,

but compare thel feeling about the 190A8 and a 190A5 and a D9??? Do you think it bleeds its E correctly?

Well, mine like anyone else's subjective opinion is irrelevant. When an "opinion" is based on hard facts and science then it becomes a conclusion and starts to matter. Unfortunately, I can't help you there as I can't offer you a conclusion because I haven't made one. I will say though that when the weights, speeds and climb rates match a data set they are meant to match, there's very little that can be wrong especially considering that something has gone wrong inadvertently.

[Ardy123]

Well, mine like anyone else's subjective opinion is irrelevant. When an "opinion" is based on hard facts and science then it becomes a conclusion and starts to matter. Unfortunately, I can't help you there as I can't offer you a conclusion because I haven't made one. I will say though that when the weights, speeds and climb rates match a data set they are meant to match, there's very little that can be wrong especially considering that something has gone wrong inadvertently.

Does anyone know of any Lift/AoA graphs available regarding the 109A8 wing? It would be interesting to see if the stall in game lines up with the graph. Ie, the aoa where the lift co-efficient drops off,  matches up with in game.

[Babalonian]

So in other words, we got shafted.


And I thought the F-8 was later than the A-8 (being based on the A-8, after all).

Oh, no no no, NO!  I wouldn't use such definitive terms as none have been used by HT or HTCs.  I believe there was only one statement made from HT/HTCs, a number of years ago, and in regards to that it was as good as we were gonna get (unless we prooved them wrong on something) or that they were satisified with the representation of the line-up the way it is (insert personal *groans* *crys* *moans* *spits*).

To be more precise, if not completely mistaken from past statements, HT/HTCs believes the D-9 is an adequate representative of the last/latest radial-powered 190.... (insert more-vocal personal *groans* *crys* *moans* *spits*).
 

[Babalonian]

Babalonian,

The T-series BMW801s were rare. They were are in A-9 as the A-9s themselves were relatively rare and everything I've read says that they were rare in A-8s aswell. What AH A-8 currently has is by far the most common engine with its highest power setting. It would certainly do more harm than good to model A-8 with a totally unrepresentative engine instead of the very representative one it currently has. Most aircraft in that chart you posted are prototype/very limited production planes and most of them are powered with inline engines. Comparing our A-8 to them makes a rather poor argument. When the A-8 was introduced to AH some 12 years ago a lot of the performance data online today was yet to be uncovered. I guess it could be some 7mph faster on the deck but that's about it.

I think A-9 would be a nice and great "MA-toy" which could be introduced with minimal development effort and would prove highly popular I'm sure.


To others,

The climb/speed data set AH modeling is based on refers to it as "Normaljager" and the 4300kg test weight mentioned in that chart doesn't have to be the all up weight (4x20mm) but a test weight especially when the weight table is included in the same document and that gives the same all up weight as AH.

EDIT/Only possible viable weight change that I can see is in the reduction of weight when using only the inboard 20mms. The weight table below gives them (guns+ammo) a weight of 176,5kg. In AH the outer wing 20m  loadout weights 137,3kg./EDIT

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/td284.pdf

I definetley agree, rare in A-8s (especialy when you take into perspective how many total A8s there were), but I believe ~900 A-9s were constructed with them...  I am tight on time, but I would like to dig further into this as there is an obvious contradiction somewhere.

PS - I believe the BMW 801T* was frequentley labeled (if not near identicle/more-complete (with only an additional component I think?)) to the 801S... I know the 801S was documented as what was equiped in at least one of the A8s captured at the end of the war, and I believe multiple other 8s, but I don't want to guess (because I'm really am just too short on time today, and I look forward to looking it up hopefuly tomorrow...).

[bustr]

Aircraft..................... .............Wing Root..........Wing Tip
Focke Wulf Fw 190 Wurger.....NACA 23015.3.....NACA 23009

In the past a few members of this board could calculate what to expect from the airfoil and wing shape. I suspect Hitech can also. Since he has some kind of application(s) to pop numbers into and possibly virtual wind tunnel his creations. You need to provide numbers at that level of engineering to pop into his programs. He admits he is a numbers kinda guy. Speculation and feelings cannot be popped into a numbers entry slot.  

Is the wing the same from the A5 to the D9? If the D9 kept the A7 or A8 wing, then the only difference would be the increase in fuslage length, HP from the Jumo 213 engine, prop design,  and frontal cross section to the air stream. The wing continues to have all of it's previous aerodynamic weaknesses and strengths.

1.) What is the overall difference in the A5 engine from the base A8 fighter engine, R2, R8?
2.) What is the difference in weights A5, A8/R2/R8?
3.) How does the weight of the MG152\20 outboard in the wing effect stability?
4.) Do those differences constitiute enough to effect the performance of the A8 making it's handleing in the game preceptably different than the A5?
5.) Which version of the A5 do we have in the game?
6.) Are you trying to argue Hitech into a more powerful engine for the A8 to produce near D9 performance in a 4-20mm package?
7.) Why did Kurt Tank design the D9 sans outboard cannon different from the A8?
7.) As for the D9's performance. If the wing did not change then you need to provide different numbers that Hitech has not seen so far to turn it into the K4 on roids. Or possibly the D13 or Ta152.

You gents are trying to prove Hitech wrong without going through "all" of the numbers he did to settle on the decision giving us our current A8. First reconstruct his research and mathmatical path to his results. Then argue his results with him as an equal.

Aircraft..................... .............Wing Root..........Wing Tip
Focke Wulf Fw 190 Wurger.....NACA 23015.3.....NACA 23009

[Tank-Ace]

Nope.  You've got a 190A8 that represents the 190A8 line the way the AH Spitfire IX represents the entire Spitfire IX line.  Somewhere in the middle.  No shafted.  Just not the latest and greatest of either.

If the A8 is, graphicly and weight wise, an up-armored late model, but is powered by a mid-model engine, and the spitfire IX is graphicly and weight wise a mid-model, but powered by a late-model engine (or even a mid-model engine), then the A8 is at a greater disadvantage in AH than it was in real life.

Do you see why thats a bit unfair? Incase you don't, I'll explain:

The A-8 could be representing a less common up-armored version (greater weight than normal), and is powered by a mid-model engine, with less power than the engines that were used with the up-armored versions. I'm trying to find out exactly what variant we have by weight right now, but I haven't nailed anything down, so its an open question.

However, the spitfire IX (I don't think) didn't go through any significant weight increases, as did the A-8. So powering a late model with a mid-model engine wouldn't make the power to weight ratio significantly far off of historical values, unlike with the A-8.