Author Topic: Observations on the FW190-A8  (Read 1736 times)

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: Observations on the FW190-A8
« Reply #15 on: April 22, 2012, 09:15:38 PM »

Both times I dumped the MG ammo.


 :rofl
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline USAF2010

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 171
Re: Observations on the FW190-A8
« Reply #16 on: April 22, 2012, 09:24:43 PM »
Those MG's are crap lol
Defensor Fortis - Defenders of the Force
"INCOMING"

Offline save

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2873
Re: Observations on the FW190-A8
« Reply #17 on: April 23, 2012, 03:44:56 AM »
those mg's are close equivalent to .50 in the a8, in the a5 they a be-be 7.7mm guns, best used at garden-parties.
My ammo last for 6 Lancasters, or one Yak3.
"And the Yak 3 ,aka the "flying Yamato"..."
-Caldera

Offline Torquila

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
Re: Observations on the FW190-A8
« Reply #18 on: April 23, 2012, 06:44:00 AM »
I JUST FOUND THESE AGAIN TODAY!!! MUST POST MOAR!!!! GRRAWAARRR!!


Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: Observations on the FW190-A8
« Reply #19 on: April 23, 2012, 09:28:13 AM »
Those MG's are crap lol


Obviously, you've not felt the powuh of the dual 13mm (.50 cal) MG's mounted in a cowling.  You'd be very surprised at what they can do, they are highly accurate (flat shooting) and if nothing else you can remain in the fight long after your 20mm/30mm cannons are empty.  Even in the 190A-5 with the dual 8mm MG's, do not underestimate the powuh of the cowling mounted MG's.    :aok
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline Torquila

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
Re: Observations on the FW190-A8
« Reply #20 on: April 23, 2012, 09:30:04 AM »
Anyone care to take up a 190a8 2gun, drain its cannon pre-flight and see if it performs better then with the 13mm drained?   :confused:  :lol

Offline bustr

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12436
Re: Observations on the FW190-A8
« Reply #21 on: April 23, 2012, 05:27:10 PM »
Tourquila,

Other than your intuition, do you have anything in a Hitech convincing real world verifiable source of data sets that can be substituted into his 3D physics engine for the A8? Ive never seen him turn away from verifiabley good math to change his view on his own product. You will either have to convice him his 3D physics engine, then so all aircraft in AH is wrong, or just the subset data that becomes the A8 on our screens. Thats a tall order in either case.

It's easy to cast aspersion on me but, it's his scholorship and research you are really insulting by using me to not have to challenge him to his face sans data in hand. I'm only using the results of his work. Yes it sissored quite well horizontaly but, I had no intention of staying available to the hoard behind me any longer than it took to snap shoot my con and boost out of reach of a loosing scenario. The A8 gives away E like toys from santa's toy bag on christmass.

I have zero interest in the DA. Did all of that when I was payed by my sound card company in the early 90's to play AW to tech support sound problems with that game. Now I couldn't give a rat's hairy bum which anonymous narcasist is which chasing around in circles in a cartoon world. It would be a bit more honest to challenge Hitech directly over his A8 in person rather then snipe him from behind conveinient proxies off handedly. That would be one epic DA challenge worth watching the film.

Check with Baumer on how to accomplish it. His math gave us the 512x512 1Mil=2Pixel gunsight mode.
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.

Offline USAF2010

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 171
Re: Observations on the FW190-A8
« Reply #22 on: April 23, 2012, 09:11:10 PM »
hmmm, my mistake, i dumped them thinking they were the 8mm....

... well in any case, helped me focus on the cannon rounds hitting, and kept accuracy up on the runs... ran low on fuel before running out of ammo


-INCOMING
Defensor Fortis - Defenders of the Force
"INCOMING"

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Observations on the FW190-A8
« Reply #23 on: April 25, 2012, 04:48:01 PM »
Any evidence to prove my point?

First of all, the "recent posts" referenced change nothing. They add nothing. It's all been reviewed ad nauseum.

The evidence has been posted thousands of times, and I have posted dozens and dozens of primary sources to back this up in past threads. Threads I KNOW the people "asking" about it have seen and visited before.

I put "asked" in quotes because they are not really asking. They are trying to stir up false controversy.


The weights are there to be seen on the E6B. The weights of the historical A8 variants are there to be found. 4400 is the standard weight of a 4x20mm loadout fully loaded. Guess what ours weighs?

Game. Set. Match.


190A-8 2 guns 100% (169gal): 9360 lbs
190A-8 2 guns noaux% (139gal): 9178 lbs
190A-8 2 guns 0%: 8346 lbs
190A-8 2 guns (noMGAmmo) 100%: 9189 lbs
190A-8 2 guns (no20mmAmmo) 100%: 9118 lbs

190A-8 4 guns 100% (169gal): 9682 lbs
190A-8 4 guns (no20mmAmmo) 100%: 9304 lbs

190A-8 30mm guns 100% (169gal): 9891 lbs
190A-8 30mm guns (no20mmAmmo) 100%: 9506 lbs

169 gal = 1,014 lbs
1 gal = 6 lbs (per admission by HTC)
30 gal aux tank = 180 lbs
79 gal DT = 474 lbs
950 13mm rounds = 171 lbs
500 20mm rounds = 242 lbs
280 20mm rounds = 136 lbs
110 30mm rounds = 143 lbs
1x 13mm round = 0.18 lbs
1x 20mm round = .485/.486 lbs (in/out)
1x 30mm round = 1.3 lbs
2x MG151/20 plus 280 rounds = 322 lbs
each MG151/20 outboard = 93 lbs
2x 30mm plus 110 rounds = 531 lbs
each 30mm = 194 lbs

There is also a major set of inaccurate weights going on for the outboard 20mms vs the 30mms, as compared to historic kits.


The A8 is no more durable against bombers than the A5. It has a serious glass jaw and takes damage rather easily. It has none of the added armor plates protecting the guns, the oil, the pilot, that the Sturm version had, but it has all the extra weight.


And, no. I will not answer any more rhetorical "What's your source" BS type questions. They have been answered by many in the know so many times it's not funny. The majority of all primary war-time resources on the matter all agree. Our A8 is borked. If you can't accept that you're looking to believe what you want and ignoring facts.

Offline Denniss

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 607
Re: Observations on the FW190-A8
« Reply #24 on: April 25, 2012, 05:24:41 PM »
A-8 4-gun 100% is exactly at the reported A-8 weigths, both A-8 2-gun 100% and the A-8/R2 (A-8 with 30mm guns) are about 70lbs too heavy. A Sturmbock variant weigths ~110kg more than the standard A-8 with weight added from both armor upgrades and the 801TU engine package.
By removing MG 131 and ammo you could offset these weight gains by about 90 kg, this was done for most Sturmbock fighters.
The fuel weight is off though as standard + aux fuel should be 500kg

Offline Torquila

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
Re: Observations on the FW190-A8
« Reply #25 on: April 26, 2012, 04:57:27 AM »
Just as a generic observation/question, if I were to take 50%-75% fuel, the 2*20mm option, empty all the guns (including 13mm), would it weigh the same as the a5 and perform similarly?

Offline Torquila

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
Re: Observations on the FW190-A8
« Reply #26 on: April 26, 2012, 08:08:49 AM »
Just as a generic observation/question, if I were to take 50%-75% fuel, the 2*20mm option, empty all the guns (including 13mm), would it weigh the same as the a5 and thus perform similarly?

Offline pervert

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Observations on the FW190-A8
« Reply #27 on: April 26, 2012, 10:03:56 AM »
The A8 is no more durable against bombers than the A5. It has a serious glass jaw and takes damage rather easily. It has none of the added armor plates protecting the guns, the oil, the pilot, that the Sturm version had, but it has all the extra weight.

Go and test it in a custom arena like I did with the dora, come and tell us the results of the comparison test with an A5.

Offline FLS

  • AH Training Corps
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11621
      • Trainer's Website
Re: Observations on the FW190-A8
« Reply #28 on: April 26, 2012, 11:26:25 AM »
Just as a generic observation/question, if I were to take 50%-75% fuel, the 2*20mm option, empty all the guns (including 13mm), would it weigh the same as the a5 and perform similarly?

You could easily test that yourself if you care to know the answer.

Offline Torquila

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
Re: Observations on the FW190-A8
« Reply #29 on: April 26, 2012, 12:40:04 PM »
Indeed I will, thanks for the wise words :-P hehe