please adjust the 190A8

[Babalonian]

Why do you keep insisting on speculating with this and not checking if that really is the case or not?

Here's a translated version of the weight table found from the last page of this technical description: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/td284.pdf ...

(Image removed from quote.)

As you can see, it gives the weight which is the same as in AH in 4x20mm configuration for "FW190A-8". There's no Rustsatze on it, nothing. Then it gives a higher weight for A-8/R2 even that doesn't include any "up-armoring" as it only replaces the outer 20mms with 30mms. If the table would list the weight with R8-Rustsatze (Sturmbock/Rammjager -config) it would weigh even more. Also, nothing that I've read says the A-8/R8s had T-series engines as standard. T-series engines were rare in general and I think it's good that more representative A-8 is modeled.

A-9 with BMW801TS would be a lot of fun in the MA and I hope it gets added at some point.

1661.3kg = BMW 301D-2, circa Feb '44 ?

[bustr]

Dhyran,

You are still walking the bleeding edge without directly insulting Hitech for disagreeing with your feelings that you have a superior knowlege and or experience in this matter over him. His program responds to number inputs not feelings or memories. Give him superior data that he can verify from sources or mathmaticly to change his mind.

By the time I was 16 I had 200 hours along with rebuilding an Aeronca Champ when I was 17 becasue of my father and his pilot freinds. My father ended up a multi engine commercial instructor out of BWI, cargo, air ambulance and charter pilot which started with those gliders at Dunstable Downs. This walk through memory lane doesen't change the requirements of the game's physical modeling engine. Nor do my experiences in the past. I stopped flying in my 20's so I leave it at that for my lack of current experience out of respect to the pilots with current tickets in this game.

If you have real and superior data I beleive Hitech will change the A8 for you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Babs,

Go for an A9. What the heck.

If the D9 is the most that could be gotten from that wing then maybe an A9 will be something in between. I could only find one reference for engine and speeds.

1944 Oct. BMW 801F (108S) 2,000 PS
FW190-A9 basic fighter 2-MG131, 2-mg151\20, 2-MG151\20 4370kg  347mph SL and 413mph at alt.

I wonder if these speeds were really with an 801S since the 801F was still under development.

1944 Oct. BMW 108D 1,700 PS
FW190-A8 basic fighter 2MG131, 2 MG151\20, 2 MG151\20 4300kg 352 mph at Sea Level 405 mph at 18,045

I wonder at what alt the A9 108S at 4370kg equalises speed or passes the A8 108D at 4300kg? I found no mention that the overall wing had been changed. Just added to in some cases.

[Tank-Ace]

What is the 'significant' weight we're talking about.  I keep coming across 200 pounds in this thread.  Is that what the fuss is about?  In terms of the Spit IX, the weights changed upwards of 500 pounds depending on armament, fuel tankage, external hard points, etc.

What do you think the A8 should do that it doesn't?  It's a heavier bird the then the A5 which is going to be the better knife fighter.   It traded agility for better armament and brute force while performance wasn't much different in terms of speed.  The job it had was different then the A5.

Any of the WW2 fighters went through that.  Bigger engines and power to carry more fuel, armor and guns.

Depends on the model of 190A8 we have. Some had upto 30mm of extra armor in places. Yeah, the 190A5 should be a better knife fighter, but thats not what we're talking about.

If the A8 is weight wise an uparmored version featuring 30mm of canopy and windscreen armor, but is powered by a mid-model engine, then thats a problem. If it turns out that we have a non-uparmored model, powered by a mid-model engine...... well we'll have to see if the Spit IX has a higher or lower power to weight ratio for the model thats reprsented graphicly. If its higher, it should be brought down to the correct level at the very least, since the 190A8 is going to be at a lower power to weight ratio than is historical

[Guppy35]

So what does the A8 not do that you think it should?  Where is it said that we have the armor glass, extra armor version?  How much weight do you think it's off?

[Tank-Ace]

I'm not saying that it IS off, I'm saying that it MIGHT be off. I'm still trying to find the weight of various models so we can see exactly which one we have.

So if we DO have an armor glass, up-armored version being powered by a mid-model engine, then we can go about asking for it to be corrected.

And the issue isn't that we (might) have an up-armored A-8, the issue is that we might have an up-armored A-8 being powered by a mid-model engine, in an attempt to have the A-8 cover a wider time span. The up-armoring (could be) making it heavier, and more wallowing than a true mid-model A-8 would be, while the weaker engine of a mid-model gives it poorer preformance than a true late-model.

If thats the case, then its preforming poorer than it did historicaly in both situations, albeit in different ways, and hence splitting it into two different models would be a better way to do things, as we might already have part of both in game right now.

[Guppy35]

I'm not saying that it IS off, I'm saying that it MIGHT be off. I'm still trying to find the weight of various models so we can see exactly which one we have.

So if we DO have an armor glass, up-armored version being powered by a mid-model engine, then we can go about asking for it to be corrected.

And the issue isn't that we (might) have an up-armored A-8, the issue is that we might have an up-armored A-8 being powered by a mid-model engine, in an attempt to have the A-8 cover a wider time span. The up-armoring (could be) making it heavier, and more wallowing than a true mid-model A-8 would be, while the weaker engine of a mid-model gives it poorer preformance than a true late-model.

If thats the case, then its preforming poorer than it did historicaly in both situations, albeit in different ways, and hence splitting it into two different models would be a better way to do things, as we might already have part of both in game right now.

So in essence we're back to it doesn't seem right?

don't mean to be pushy about it, and in the end it's not my call, but this discussion has happened many times over the years when the latest 190 fan decides one of them doesn't perform up to standards they have for it.  The Russian tests have been brought up in the past, as have most all the docs posted in this thread.  If you search 190 threads they'll generally all be there.

I was watching KillnU the other night in a 190A8, which he was flying to see what the fuss was about, and he seemed to be doing just fine in it, flying it to it's strengths.  A while back for giggles we took up F8s, just because they were supposed to be such dogs.  I was quite impressed with how effective it was as a fighter.  I killed things faster in that then I ever do in a 38

I believe folks get caught up in what they think it should do in the MA environment, and don't fly it to it's strengths and then assume somehow HTC got the numbers wrong.

[Tank-Ace]

Its not that it doesn't 'seem' right. I personally wasn't aware of the fact that it had a mid-model's engine untill this thread; I thought that HTC had simply decided to model an up-armored version (with late-model engine included).

[dhyran]

Dhyran,

You are still walking the bleeding edge without directly insulting Hitech for disagreeing with your feelings that you have a superior knowlege and or experience in this matter over him. His program responds to number inputs not feelings or memories. Give him superior data that he can verify from sources or mathmaticly to change his mind.

....

Well, you try to put words in my mouth, that a real insult! I never said they don't have the knowledge or something else, i just pointed onto a situation about the FM inside a Series of planes, example the 190A8, the same strange FM Feeling i got with the Spit 14, which should be a superb Spit8. I never would insult someone as a person, i make a clear diffference between Persons and things, concentrate and focus on results is on my mind, and not insulting Programmers, designers or even HTC! Please try to make a difference between a disscussion about a FM and Persons! We are discussion only a FM thing here, it has nothing to do with the Company HFC or even a Person doing his Job. How you will make things better when you try to disband a product discussion?

back to Topic: There are different Variant of 190A8, maybe you can agree with this one?

[Wmaker]

our up-armored A8 should have the upped engined varient modeled...

Why do you keep saying that our A-8 is "up-armored" while there's absolutely no proof of this? AH A-8 is fitted with the highest output version of the engine which was by far the most common in it. I've yet to see any proof that the added armor (R8 Rustsazt) and T-series engine go hand in hand either.

From The History of German Aviation: Kurt Tank: Focke-Wulf's Designer and Test Pilot:

(not making it super, but an improovement, especialy for the LWA crowd... it could be done, much like (and I hesitate to say it, as its also prob a horrible example ontop of a spontaneously combustable topic) the sole Brewster Buffalo in-game).

Brewster's issues were completely different. No one said it should have more power or less weight. The problems were with its handling characteristics and flying qualities which initially didn't correspond with the flight test reports available. On of those issues was too high propeller mass which caused a strong gyroscopic moment which in turn with too small fuselage lift characteristics caused very strong yawing tendency/poor directional stability. The issue was backed up with flight test data and partly diagnosed simply by testing the model in AH (too high prop mass). I don't recall anyone proving a discrepancy in the A-8s handling characteristics yet through testing/data.

[Wmaker]

Regarding Soviet published data for the A-8 (probabaly with 1.42ata setting?):


Gladly data like this is largely irrelevant when it comes to AH as where available, HTC tends to use manufacturers/nations data for the flight models which is for the most part the best way considering the amount and the quality of the data.

[Wmaker]

Bustr, The question I was trying to solve was that someone stated that the in game A8 can not handle very much AoA, without stalling. If I can get a graph that shows what AoA the wing can handle, then that could be compared to in game. Charts about its weight and climb rate are not relevant to answering the stated question, neither were the stats that you posted.

Yes, the wing was more complicated than one NACA airfoil shape, but with many programs such as winfoil one can make a 3d model of the wing and get a lift chart for the whole 3d wing shape. Hence why I asked if anyone had winfoil.

I've done some quick n' dirty math with the A-8. At 1000ft, 4x20mm, 100% internal fuel the aircraft stalls in clean condition at ~118mph in level flight power off. This yields Clmax of 1.42 in standard athmosphere. In D. Lednicer's CFD evaluation of three WWII fighters he gives the FW190 a Clmax of ~1.5.

[Ardy123]

I've done some quick n' dirty math with the A-8. At 1000ft, 4x20mm, 100% internal fuel the aircraft stalls in clean condition at ~118mph in level flight power off. This yields Clmax of 1.42 in standard athmosphere. In D. Lednicer's CFD evaluation of three WWII fighters he gives the FW190 a Clmax of ~1.5.

So its about ~.08-.1 off.

Also, what about the fuselage, doesn't it generate lift too?
I would expect due to the fuselage that the CLmax for the whole aircraft would be slightly higher than wing alone...

How do I calculate the Cd value, such that I can multiply it by the Cl/Cd value from the airfoil charts, to compare?

[Wmaker]

So its about ~.08-.1 off.

Even though some people like to take their "feelings" as facts I'm quite cautious about my calcs in general and considering the small difference, I'm not ready to say that anything's "off".

Also, what about the fuselage, doesn't it generate lift too?
I would expect due to the fuselage that the CLmax for the whole aircraft would be slightly higher than wing alone...

The 1.5 was for the whole aircraft.

[Denniss]

There was no BMW 801T engine in the Fw 190 A-8 - you may have confused the "Triebwerksanlage" (quick-change power-egg) designation with an engine designation.
Typically A-8 were equipped with the 801D-2 engine, from mid-1944 with a boost system delivering about 1950PS on take-off (may include the ~70PS required to drive the engine fan). The uparmored A-8/R7 and R8 had to have the 801TU engine package (CoG reasons) containing the 801 Q-2 engine, which is a 801 D-2 with larger oil tank and stronger oil tank/oil cooler armor.
Installing the 801 TS engine package (containing the 801S engine) onto an Fw 190 A-8 would make it an A-9. The 801S delivered 2000PS but this value includes the 70PS to drive the engine fan. A boost upgrade for 2200PS was planned.

[Grundle1]

I read this interesting thread - and marvelled at the technical knowledge of some of the contributors...

Here's my $0.02:

I'm merely an aircraft and military history enthusiast.  I'd like to fly the 190A-8 in the game, but it is not competitive as a fighter.  So, I'd like HiTech to look at making the 190 more competitive - provided adjustments are made that would be supported by historical data.   If HiTech Creations could reasonably choose between modelling a heavy aircraft used as a destroyer, or a lighter aircraft optimized for fighter vs. fighter, then I would like them to choose the latter and make most folks paying their $15/month happy.   Thanks.