Author Topic: please adjust the 190A8  (Read 7765 times)

Offline VonMessa

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11922
Re: please adjust the 190A8
« Reply #105 on: April 13, 2012, 11:16:36 AM »
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.





You are doing it wrong  :devil
Braümeister und Schmutziger Hund von JG11


We are all here because we are not all there.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: please adjust the 190A8
« Reply #106 on: April 13, 2012, 11:22:32 AM »
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.

I understand where you are coming from, but sometimes choices are made because something is more representative or because data is more readily available.

Consider in the Spitfire lineup we have a Merlin 61 powered Spitfire F.Mk IX.  Only a bit over 300 of these were made and they were the least capable of the Spitfire IXs.  Thousands of Merlin 66 powered Spitfire LF.Mk IXs were built, but they performed very much like the Spitfire Mk VIII or Spitfire Mk XVI in AH and in fact those two versions should be used as stand ins for later Spitfire Mk IXs in scenarios.  In actual practice the CMs almost always use the mid-1942 Merlin 61 Spitfire F.Mk IX in settings where the Spitfire Mk XVI should be used. The weakest Mk IX is useful for filling the 1942/early 1943 spot in the Spitfire series and thus should not be upgraded.  The Bf109G-6 is the same for most of 1943 in terms of Bf109s.  The Fw190A-8 may very well be the same.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Babalonian

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5817
      • Pigs on the Wing
Re: please adjust the 190A8
« Reply #107 on: April 13, 2012, 05:24:20 PM »
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?

Well... guppy, if it's not the up-armored buff-intercept version... don't you think any one of us that could open the in-game E6B would promptly come here to tihs board and start crying bloody murder a lot sooner?   :devil

I can dive into your first question 6-ways from sunday, much like you could about spitfires.  First, it does what it does pretty well...  some debatable issues keep popping up - a hundred pounds here, questionable armor performance there (definetley with the weight penalty though).  If you like/love 190s, especially A8s, the crux issue is we have only one given example/variety for an extremely WIDE and very complex varieties of aircraft to the A8 series.  If I had to put my finger specificly on something though, just one - it's not the best choice as an  AH-LWMA fighter (and there were A8 varients that we can speculate would be better to compete in such a setting).  I would love the day, and think it can be validated/justified for the work/effort involved, to expand the 190A-8 series with another varient or two.  The F8 is already an in-game expansion, however it doesn't differentiate too much from the current A8 moddeled.

Lets speculate on the scary side here and say I actually had control over such things at HTCs for one day, this is what I would do:

First, the two easy decisions -

Add the A-9 - make it "the K4" of the radial-powered 190s: fighter mode only, lower ENY than the rest, no wing cannons, DT optional.  Hopefuly find it resting in a sweet spot between a circa early or mid '44 A8 and D9.

Give the F-8 the toys it should of always had when it got added to AH.  Wing cannon options, more wing ordnance/bomb options, more centerline ordnance options (I believe, could be mistaken so will need to check, it could carry multiple smaller bombs rather than one really big egg on its centerline... that would be most awesome for GV supression duty in AH).  Definetley would have to lower its ENY though, both because it's going to be, properly, more menacing to GVs add destroyable objects, and because you don't want to see it at +20k hunting buffs that often (although a player still could if they wanted to).

Then, there's the A8... realisticly, I'd probabley waste the rest of the day thinking about what to do with the A-8, and ultimatley running out of time so then nothing gets changed...  Easy-mode - just make multiple A8s modeled in AH... but I'm inclined to try and keep it still within one (this would be the best/only/sane solution for those not unaturally attracted to the 190s).  Let's speculate the decision for the A9 has been made, so we have a competitive radial-powered late-war 190 fighter interceptor.  Going off that, I don't know if AH has the ability to change armor/toughness values for components with the inclusions or exclusion of an ordnance option, but if it could then no wing cannons on the A-8 would make it a drasticly lighter and more easily-abused bird.  If not, then I'd just go for making sure it's completely modelled as the A8/R-13 (IE: no no-wing-cannon option, doublecheck the wings toughness through its armor value, and keep its ENY as is... comical to me honestly after all this time on it and many A8 threads, of all 190 things I hypotheticly could change, it would be the least changed).

Oh, and on my way out, ask to look into disabling the bombs/attack option on the D-9.  I've, still, never come across documented use of it, although they could fit them to the drop tank rack...


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.





You sir, if successful, are my FPH of the month!  :aok
-Babalon
"Let's light 'em up and see how they smoke."
POTW IIw Oink! - http://www.PigsOnTheWing.org

Wow, you guys need help.

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20385
Re: please adjust the 190A8
« Reply #108 on: April 13, 2012, 05:32:32 PM »
So my using the same argument with HTC for a full span wing Spitfire LF IX with Universal wing and a Merlin 66 so it's more competitive in Latewar is ok too then?  Or the old LF Vc we used to have as well?   :)
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Babalonian

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5817
      • Pigs on the Wing
Re: please adjust the 190A8
« Reply #109 on: April 13, 2012, 05:40:51 PM »
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.

Thanks, it is easy to confuse (TU/TS).

Now, to add to the confusions - the captured A8s by the allies equiped with 801Ss and the ~900 produced A9s equiped with them...

I read an article not too long ago, citing some FW or LW documentation citing that the LW recieved from BMW a large number of 801Ss, that's something I'd like to see for myself.
-Babalon
"Let's light 'em up and see how they smoke."
POTW IIw Oink! - http://www.PigsOnTheWing.org

Wow, you guys need help.

Offline Babalonian

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5817
      • Pigs on the Wing
Re: please adjust the 190A8
« Reply #110 on: April 13, 2012, 05:52:08 PM »
So my using the same argument with HTC for a full span wing Spitfire LF IX with Universal wing and a Merlin 66 so it's more competitive in Latewar is ok too then?  Or the old LF Vc we used to have as well?   :)

Well... uh... hey now, at least I'm willing to keep the A-8 the dog that it's been modeled after with alternative expansion of the series!  :devil
-Babalon
"Let's light 'em up and see how they smoke."
POTW IIw Oink! - http://www.PigsOnTheWing.org

Wow, you guys need help.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: please adjust the 190A8
« Reply #111 on: April 13, 2012, 05:54:32 PM »
Going off that, I don't know if AH has the ability to change armor/toughness values for components with the inclusions or exclusion of an ordnance option,
This came up in reference to the Mosquito FB.Mk XVIII and Pyro said that armor/toughness could not be changed via loadouts.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20385
Re: please adjust the 190A8
« Reply #112 on: April 13, 2012, 07:09:55 PM »
Well... uh... hey now, at least I'm willing to keep the A-8 the dog that it's been modeled after with alternative expansion of the series!  :devil

Ok then i'm back to trading the A9 for a Spit XII  :)
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Ardy123

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3417
Re: please adjust the 190A8
« Reply #113 on: April 13, 2012, 11:48:08 PM »
Ok then i'm back to trading the A9 for a Spit XII  :)
vhy vould jou vant tü make der fw-190 falsely spit-like über? So girly man vho fly das spit kann also fly der 190 and feel akkomplished in all their video game greatness? bah, vat a disrespekt to die pilots vho fly der cartoon von-90, let the spits be for die girly-manen.

 :D

In all seriousness, if there is something wrong with the 190 it should be fixed but it should not be altered because it does not meet some 'easy-mode' requirement.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2012, 11:54:43 PM by Ardy123 »
Yeah, that's right, you just got your rear handed to you by a fuggly puppet!
==Army of Muppets==
(Bunnies)

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: please adjust the 190A8
« Reply #114 on: April 14, 2012, 12:03:16 AM »
Hmm me410 or a plane nobody in this thread has flown recently... or within the past YEAR....

/yep ok, moving along
JG 52

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Re: please adjust the 190A8
« Reply #115 on: April 14, 2012, 04:32:30 AM »
1661.3kg = BMW 301D-2, circa Feb '44 ?

I don't see how the weight of the powerplant on that particular weight table is relevant when it is clear that AH's A-8 has 801D-2 with its highest boost setting that as far as I know stayed that way until the end of the war for 801D-2. Again, the few that had T-series engines, as per the earlier quote I posted, were rare.


If you like/love 190s, especially A8s, the crux issue is we have only one given example/variety for an extremely WIDE and very complex varieties of aircraft to the A8 series.  If I had to put my finger specificly on something though, just one - it's not the best choice as an  AH-LWMA fighter (and there were A8 varients that we can speculate would be better to compete in such a setting).  I would love the day, and think it can be validated/justified for the work/effort involved, to expand the 190A-8 series with another varient or two.

Again, I don't see anything particularly complex about the A-8 variant alone. What powerplant and max. power setting is a no brainer is already modeled with the right combo.


Add the A-9 - make it "the K4" of the radial-powered 190s: fighter mode only, lower ENY than the rest, no wing cannons, DT optional.

A-9 had the same standard armament (2x13mm, 4x20mm) as A-7 and A-8:



Give the F-8 the toys it should of always had when it got added to AH.  Wing cannon options...

What wing cannon options? It already has 20mm on the inner mounts as it should and it never had the outer wing 20mms. If you are talking about the possible wing mounted MK103s, those were experimental only.
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: please adjust the 190A8
« Reply #116 on: April 14, 2012, 08:15:15 AM »
Hmm me410 or a plane nobody in this thread has flown recently... or within the past YEAR....

/yep ok, moving along
Actually the Fw190A-8 gets surprisingly heavy usage.  That said, I don't advocate making it better unless there is a good reason.  I am more concerned with gaps being filled and I think if people want a super Fw190 they should just grab the Fw190D-9.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline DrBone1

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4896
Re: please adjust the 190A8
« Reply #117 on: April 14, 2012, 11:42:00 AM »
So this is a discussion on planes we wont see ingame?  :uhoh
=The Damned=
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6jjnCoBobc
I see DrBone has found a new Sith apprentice. Good, good, let the hate flow through you.  :devil
Move up, move over, or move aside.  Simple kombat 101.

Offline Denniss

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 607
Re: please adjust the 190A8
« Reply #118 on: April 14, 2012, 02:46:06 PM »
MK 103 experimental installation was in an underwing mount with the outer wing guns removed.
Many Fw pilots not fighting the US heavy bombers preferred to have the outer wing guns removed to save weight and increase performance.

Offline bustr

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12436
Re: please adjust the 190A8
« Reply #119 on: April 16, 2012, 03:43:59 AM »
So our A8 is the basic fighter from March 44 with the puny 1700hp on boost. Remember the /R2 with MK108 is about 10mph slower from SL to Max Alt for the whole spectrum. Or how dog slow would the /R8 with 2-MK103 be where each gun was more than twice the weight of the MK108.

THE BMW 801 D, G AND Q.

Similar in general construction to the 801 A but operating on 96 Octane fuel. The 801 D was a bare engine, the 801 G was a power-plant for multi-engine installations, and the 801 Q was fitted with a bi-fuel system and provision for nitrous-oxide injection.

Compression Ratio: 7.22 : 1.
Supercharger Drive Ratios: 5.31 : 1 and 8.31 : 1.

Performance (801 D and G):

Take-off and emergency 1,700 h.p. at 2,700 r.p.m. at 1.42 ata. at sea level, 1,440 h.p. at 2,700 r.p.m. at 1.42 ata. at 18,700 ft,

Climbing 1,500 h.p. at 2,400 r.p.m. 1.32 ata. at sea level, 1,360 h.p. at 2.400 r.p.m. at 1.32 ata. at 17,000 ft.

Maximum cruising 1,300 h.p. at 2,300 r.p.m. at 1.2 ata. at sea level, 1,215 h.p. at 2,300 r.p.m. at 1.2 ata. at 18,000 ft.

Fuel consumption .54 lb./h.p./hr. maximum cruising, sea level.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So regardless of the package designation like Power Egg or TU, TS and such. Utimatly this is what everyone wants which  eventulay found it's way into A8's and was standard in the A9. BMW801 S. 2000hp on boost. Effectively it delivers OFF boost at SL what the 801D on boost does. And to get more confusing, the Focke-Wulf manual states "With the TS/TH engine installed, the Fw 190 A-8 is redesignated Fw 190 A-9." Power Egg module but, the engine in that power egg is now the 801 S.

Initially the Fw 190 A-8 was equipped with the BMW 801 D-2 engine with the 12 bladed cooling fan. In July 1944, the 801 D-2 was beginning to be replaced by the BMW 801 TU with a 14 bladed cooling fan, as an interim engine until the more powerful BMW 801 TS or TH engine could be built in quantity. All three engines had the 14 bladed cooling fan. With the TS or TH engine the Fw 190 A-8 airframe became an A-9. The standard A-8 was equipped with a 6.5 mm armored cowl ring. With the new BMW 801 TU, TS and TH engine, a new 10 mm cowl ring was required along with the 14 bladed cooling fan.

                      Fw 190 A-8 (3.44)      Fw 190 A-8 (7.44)   Fw 190 A9 (9.44)                                                           
Engine             BMW 801 D-2            BMW 801 TU             BMW 801 TS
Cooling fan          12 bladed               14 bladed                   14 bladed                                                               
Armored cowl ring    6.5 mm               10 mm                        10 mm

This kind of looks like spit9, spit8, spit16, spit12, spit14 and your choices of 3.44\A8, 7.44\A8, 9.44\A9 or 8.44\D9. And we don't even have the A2, A3 or A4 let alone A6 or A7.......whew numbers. I can see an argument to introduce the most powerful of the 801 radial engined versions since we do have the P47M\N and multiple P40, P38, spitfires and Mitsubishi. 

Would this be the source of OP's Luft pilots memories of his time flying the A8 and it's performance? 7.44\A8?

THE BMW 801 E, F AND S.

Similar in general construction to the 801 D but fitted with different supercharger gear ratios.

Modifications to the 801 S consisted of an improved and simplified master-control, chrome cylinder liners, modified rocker housing cover, modified piston rings and altered magneto timing.

Supercharger Drive Ratios: 6 : 1 and 8.3 : 1.

Performance:

Take-off and emergency 2,000 h.p. at 2,700 r.p.m. at 1.56 ata. at sea level, 1,700 h.p. at 2,700 r.p.m. at 1.65 ata. at 18,700 ft.

Climbing 1,650 h.p. at 2,500 r.p.m. at 1.45 ata. at sea level, 1,500 h.p. at 2,500 r.p.m. at 1.45 ata. at 18,000 ft.

Maximum cruising 1,440 h.p. at 2,400 r.p.m. at 1.3 ata. at sea level, 1,340 h.p. at 2,400 r.p.m. at 1.3 ata. at 19,000 ft.

Fuel consumption .545 lb./h.p./hr. maximum cruising, sea level.
bustr - POTW 1st Wing


This is like the old joke that voters are harsher to their beer brewer if he has an outage, than their politicians after raising their taxes. Death and taxes are certain but, fun and sex is only now.