FW-190 A-8 Specs (rate of climb, speed at alt, etc...)

[Reschke]

I light of the thread in the General Discussion mentioning that the 190's are wrong; I thought I might dig around a little. I can not locate my hard back copies at this time but this is what I dug up online.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a8.html

So if someone has the time and the inclination do a little comparison between the AH version and the versions that are listed on this link above. All testing listed on the link above came from German testing starting in 1943 and ending in 1945. One interesting table there shows many different variants of the FW-190 in the tests.

[Ruah]

the problem as I understand it is that the weight is of a heavily armored version but that we don't get the armor, and that the more standard 'lighter' version with the 4x20mm package would be what we have now except it would be a lot lighter (like 500kg lighter).  If this is the case - either the armor should be modeled in (so it becomes a premier bomber hunter that can shrug off a lot of BB hits) or the weight be reduced so it can dogfight more effectively.

I for one have given up on the A8.  The snapshot is great for sure, but it is simply too unstable for me to fly (it snap stalls too easily for me), it simply does not recover E at all, and if I want a not so nimble bird with a lot of cannon - I will get a typhoon (gasp).

[morfiend]

the problem as I understand it is that the weight is of a heavily armored version but that we don't get the armor, and that the more standard 'lighter' version with the 4x20mm package would be what we have now except it would be a lot lighter (like 500kg lighter).  If this is the case - either the armor should be modeled in (so it becomes a premier bomber hunter that can shrug off a lot of BB hits) or the weight be reduced so it can dogfight more effectively.

I for one have given up on the A8.  The snapshot is great for sure, but it is simply too unstable for me to fly (it snap stalls too easily for me), it simply does not recover E at all, and if I want a not so nimble bird with a lot of cannon - I will get a typhoon (gasp).

  I wish I knew were the 500kg/200kg extra weight idea came from?  Mr Baumer noted that there was a weight discrepancy but thats in the realm of 90kg or roughly 200 lbs. Anyone who can tell the difference with only 200 pounds take off is much more skilled than myself as I see little difference between 3/4 fuel and 1/4 fuel.



   

[Denniss]

Some real-world fully-equipped weights of the A-8:
A-8 without the 115l aux fuel tank: 4272 kg
Standard A-8  (with 115l aux fuel tank): 4391 kg
A-8/R2 (MK 108 outer wing gun): 4454 kg

Standard armor weight of the A-8 was 138 kg (801 D-2 engine), 165 kg (A-8 with 801 TU engine package containing the 801 Q-2 engine) and 249 kg on the A-8/R8 (using the 801 TU as well).
A-8/R8 weight = A-8/R2 weight + A-8/R8 armor weight - standard A-8 armor weight. Should be 4565 kg.

[bustr]

What is the difference in weight and engine between our A5 and A8 in their basic modes, 2-MG and 2 cannon?

Other than possibly weight, are there any dramatic aerodynamic differences in the two basic versions?

How much heavier is the 4 20mm cannon mode for each?
 
What is the cannon weight difference between MGFF gondola and MG151/20?

When you choose 4 cannon mode, 20mm/30mm for the A8, does the armor change with the selection? More weight added not accounted for by the additional cannon and fuel loaded.

Is our A8 a chimera of A8 and not any single specific type?

[pervert]

I bleed 190 but you cannot expect the a8 to be anything else but a wallowing turd to fly with all that weight on it, if thats the way it was thats the way you have to take it  the damage modelling is something a lot harder for anyone to prove. I am still running tests on the p51 vs 190d rad damage but all I found so far is that at higher speeds you are less likely to get hit by field ack and the p51 can stay faster for longer while manevouring than the 190d can. 

Is there any reliable way of testing armour or damage on a plane the same way you can do tests on a plane's performance?

[bustr]

You aren't going to like how involved of a test this is but, I call it a dismanteling test.

Offline I load up the target plane as a drone whose damage I want to test. Then I get behind it at 200+-, full zoom, and attempt to tap one round taps at it and count contact sprites, how many to cut off something and how many to kill the plane. While this is going on I'm running a film for later slow motion review from the drone's perspective close up to analyse the impacts. You can make this as exotic as you want by changing where you attack from to place rounds at angles closer to 90 degrees along the fuslage. Just try to hit with only 1-2 rounds and count your sprites and film it.

Pilot does not count because that kiils the plane as a golden BB. You are trying to "Dismantel the Airplane" one round at a time.

Often I will use a Yak9U for single tap 20mm and use say the the 51B using only a single gun pair or the SBD for 50cal testing. You get the idea. I want to create the opportunity to make single round incramental contact and count it. The film is to understand how damage is received over the entire aircraft. I haven't seen it in awhile but over the years a gun power list gets mentioned by the trainers. If that is factored into the damage produced by each specific gun in the game, conduct your testing with that in mind.

This is what made it obvious to me the Yak9U is best used as a killer of bomber pilots. Just dive in at the bomber's cockpit and open fire with a single tap inside of 200. Thats all the time you will get before avoiding the collision.

[pervert]

What about a static test on the ground? Would be a lot easier to point and measure rounds fired to were, is the jeep not armed with a single 50 cal? T
Would take 2 people to film it review and record what comes on the damage list. It would be interesting to see if an A8 was indeed more resistant than say an A5, I would also like to see if a 190 d9 will spring a leak if shot in the tail, or if I am full of it! 

[FLS]

What about a static test on the ground? Would be a lot easier to point and measure rounds fired to were, is the jeep not armed with a single 50 cal? T
Would take 2 people to film it review and record what comes on the damage list. It would be interesting to see if an A8 was indeed more resistant than say an A5, I would also like to see if a 190 d9 will spring a leak if shot in the tail, or if I am full of it! 

You could set up a custom arena and turn kill shooter off. Then you can spawn on the same field and the field ack won't shoot one of you. You can also add ammo to the jeep if you need to.

[pervert]

You could set up a custom arena and turn kill shooter off. Then you can spawn on the same field and the field ack won't shoot one of you. You can also add ammo to the jeep if you need to.

I am up for it need a partner to shoot though 

[bustr]

Tested the D9 12 times with a Yak9U. It's very tough all over except for one glaring weakness.

From it's 6 shooting into the under side wing fuslage\cockpit  join or from the side along the trailing edge of the wing into the fuslage where the wing joins the fuslage with 50cal taps causes a fuel leak. Sometimes 1 round was all it took.

Tap once again into the area of the leak and you ignite the D9. A single 50cal into the leak area ingnites it. Same with single taps of the 20mm. I pumped rounds into the engine doing side to side weave passes and got no oil leak or black smoke trail. The only time I got an oil leak/smoke trail was on a miss of the wing root area from the low 6 under the engine area forward of the wing leading edge.

Hmmm, flack shoots up even when the D9 is 20ft off the runway?? Answers that leak question.

Tested a number of fighters. The toughest was the P40N and the Ki84 is surprisingly tough. Everything about the P38 is tough except the pilot's pod. K4 has a similare issue as the D9 but, the second round sometimes dosen't ignite the fuel leak and just kills the pilot. Otherwise the K4 has a tough structure. It takes alot of concentrated 50cal to dismantel the rudder area and trailing wing edges on all of the fighters I tested. Even 20mm is random. Sometimes big peices drop right off in those areas. Sometimes it takes up to 3 single shot 20mm to cause the same damage.

All of the fighters fuel tanks would leak if I placed a 50cal directly into them. Depending on the fighter that second round to ignite the fuel leak was a pain to accomplish. Answers why for me many of my P51D kills looked like I only got a few rounds on the target while they flew away with a leak. Then the next green guy ignited the leak for me and the much later kill notice.

Just shooting into the trailing end of a fighter is almost ineffective with the average amount of time we get for a shot. Even shooting into wing panels that have no fuel tank, guns or landing gear is ineffective unless you can pour heavy fire into the area and cut it off.

Pervert this took me about 20 minutes becasue the drones respawn as soon as you kill them  and I set my ammo multiplier to 10. You are a better cartoon pilot than me so probably could have performed the test faster.

[wil3ur]

up an LVT and drive onto the runway and park bellybutton towards the 190.  Then do single click burst using your mapped keyboard key for firing weapons 1 round at a time (using the 30cal), and do this X amount of times with both planes and see what the mean amount of BB hits it takes.

You should be able to test distance with this, only thing that would change would be angle.  I'm sure some custom maps with custom spawn points could fix that as well.

[pervert]

Quick test on the FW190 D9 revealed that no matter if you shoot the spinner from any angle you will will get a rad hit every single time, weirdly shooting in the part of the plane that houses the rad was a toss up between an engine hit and a rad hit 50 50. Even shooting the prop spinner from behind and to the side resulted in a rad hit every time.

Other than that if you shot bits it tended to quite accurately drop them off the plane, tailwheel, landing gear flaps etc etc. I can presume it might be the close range but I killed the fw shooting 3 50 cal rounds to the engine. Which was rather surprising, and in general surprising the fw was so flimsy.

I will test the a5 and a8 tomorrow.

[save]

fly the plane with 2 20mm instead of 4 , that should be about the difference before and after weight change.

A8 will never be a good turner, but with the standard 1.56 ata engine A8 had ,it will fly away from pesky spit8's at low alt , and climb a bit better/turn a tad better , accelerate better specially at lower altitude than now. ( we have the lowest possible engine for the A8 right now)

It should be behaving like a A5 with less turning ability, since A5 is lighter still, but will pack a punch.
 I still think it is a bit suspicious when you try to do a fast pullup in the A8 you fail to with pretty much any plane in the game.
was the elevator this weak compared ?
Flying the A8 for a normal pilot with 1/4 tank instead of 3/4 makes all the difference in the world when you are scissoring with a enemy plane.

 I wish I knew were the 500kg/200kg extra weight idea came from?  Mr Baumer noted that there was a weight discrepancy but thats in the realm of 90kg or roughly 200 lbs. Anyone who can tell the difference with only 200 pounds take off is much more skilled than myself as I see little difference between 3/4 fuel and 1/4 fuel.



    

[save]

More about weight and ATA for the A8 in this wishlist thread with original documents :


http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,331614.0.html