Replace 190a8 with a9!

[Brooke]

FuG216 V Neptun (AI-radar) with Letzler antennas. 

Excellent -- they are real!  (I thought they were just added in the artwork for looks.)

[killnu]

Josh I watched you not long ago, eating people up in an A8.  You seemed to handle it just fine

What doesn't it do that it should?

I just want all of them.  I would like a wider variety....

I know that is not realistic....but it is my "want"...so I am permitted to be unrealistic.

As far as the A8 goes, it does just fine.  If I knew how to post films, I would show a good film of a good 1 vs 1 against a G2.  Fight was about 8-9k..involved turning and such...dont think we got over 1k from one another during the fight. 

decent little spat with a 51 later as well (granted he was damaged some). 

[Krusty]

I'm not "cherry picking" anything. There certainly isn't anything incorrect about it, as far as I know the data comes straight from Focke-Wulf.  I'm just saying to which data the AH weight is most likely based on. I've seen different weights as well but nothing substantially different.

The weights you posted are weights at which the planes were tested with. It doesn't necessarily mean that's the full take of weight of certain configuration. I find a weight table like the one I posted a much more reliable source on what was the actual all up weight than a single weight reference in a performance chart.

Yes, it has all been discussed before, long before you registered on this board actually. As far as I know lot of the data on the Mike Williams' site had not surfaced yet when HTC produced the 190A-8 to the sim. That weight table is from a translated Focke-Wulf manual/document which Italian AH flier Gatt got hold of, scanned and sent to HTC. Climb and speed performance of the A-8 in AH also match the data found on that particular document.

Rather pompous of you Krusty to come here and tell us that a weight table which comes from Focke-Wulf is "incorrect". Hilariously priceless in fact.

Your pomposity knows no bounds, WMaker. You, sir, are a griefer most times a conversation comes up.

The weights are not calculated weights. They are fully loaded, fully armed, 100% fueled airframes. They break down subvariants (i.e. /r4, /r8) and these are not subvariants but stock planes.

You know for a fact that many "sources" are not credible, and you throw this in anybody's face if it suits your needs, yet you stand behind a questionable resource that does NOT break down all the weight details as thoroughly as some others do, and you stand behind it religiously, spouting your insults (at me) simply for the sake of making a furious sound, but signifying nothing.


Grow up. Seriously.

That one single weight chart is not very detailed and is probably the only one of its kind to spell out 4400kg, and you latch on to it (the very definition of cherry picking) just to prove your own point.


P.S. The most glaring condemnation is on that image itself. Can you find it?


P.P.S. wwiiaircraftperformance is back up, so I encourage you to go back to my quoted post and check the links out for yourself. They are also from the manufacturers, and there's a toejamload more of them than your 1, which does not reflect a standard configuration.

[Guppy35]

Krusty  for once and for all.  What is it that the AH 190 doesn't do that it should? You've been at the forefront of the never ending 190 whine for as long as it's gone on.  And no one can tell me what it doesn't do.

The heck with the numbers.  You are arguing about maybe 200 pounds?  That's nothing.  The same numbers variances show up with Spits too.  I don't see the Spit guys carrying on for years about it like this has.

What do you want the A8 to do beyond be the rallying cry of the Luftwhiners?

Unbelievable.  Same whine 12 years ago.  

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,27193.0.html

[Wmaker]

Your pomposity knows no bounds, WMaker. You, sir, are a griefer most times a conversation comes up.

The weights are not calculated weights. They are fully loaded, fully armed, 100% fueled airframes. They break down subvariants (i.e. /r4, /r8) and these are not subvariants but stock planes.

You know for a fact that many "sources" are not credible, and you throw this in anybody's face if it suits your needs, yet you stand behind a questionable resource that does NOT break down all the weight details as thoroughly as some others do, and you stand behind it religiously, spouting your insults (at me) simply for the sake of making a furious sound, but signifying nothing.


Grow up. Seriously.

That one single weight chart is not very detailed and is probably the only one of its kind to spell out 4400kg, and you latch on to it (the very definition of cherry picking) just to prove your own point.


P.S. The most glaring condemnation is on that image itself. Can you find it?


P.P.S. wwiiaircraftperformance is back up, so I encourage you to go back to my quoted post and check the links out for yourself. They are also from the manufacturers, and there's a toejamload more of them than your 1, which does not reflect a standard configuration.

   

Well have you seen another primary source (straight from the manufacturer) weight table of an A-8? I certainly don't recall seeing one. Another weight break down of an A-8 that I've seen is in the Kurt Tank's bibliography but the source is unmentioned.

You are saying that I'm using a source that fits my "needs"? I really have no "needs" on the issue but when it comes straight from the horse's (manufacturer's in this case) mouth I really have very little reason to doubt it. Certainly there are inaccurate sources but like I said I tend to believe primary source data.

And in the end I'm not latching on to anything here. I merely saying that AH matches that chart in the 4x20mm, 100% fuel condition and that's why I believe that it is this data that has been used in the modeling of the AH A-8.

Where did I say calculated weights? I said that those are the basic weights the planes were tested at (wwiiaircraftperformance.com -datasets). It is possible though that in some cases the weights are indeed "calculated" in that they are basis of dataset that itself is calculated instead of test flown data. That doesn't mean that the weights mentioned need to be the absolute full take off weight in particular config.

[Krusty]

Krusty  for once and for all.  What is it that the AH 190 doesn't do that it should?

Don't give me that crap Guppy... WMaker's taking a A8/R8 and claiming it's a stock A8 weight listing. The weight issue is a noticable issue. 100kg adds up. The outboard Mk108 weights are wrong (too heavy) and the outboard MG151 weights are wrong (too light), and overall the performance suffers.

Please don't mix me up with the luftwhiners asking for a super Fw190. I just want a representative one. Either give us the ARMOR that we have the weight for, or take the weight off.

We have a mixed breed with the worst of both worlds, and you yourself have decried HTC's frankenstein mixes in the past.

It's not a whine. It's a fact. We have the weight but not the added armor. You know better and you know me better. I'm not crusading for it. I simply interjected in the recent discussions what we already know. That you have to ask me is either rhetorical and you're trying to prove a point (which I surmise) or you never actually read any of the discussions since 1999.

[Krusty]

   

As a matter of fact I have seen a few weight breakdowns all from official sources. Same problem as with this one, though, they weren't very detailed and some were for different variants (often detailing what it has over the stock version).

You've listed a 190A8/R8 (with a BMW801TU engine -- oh and it's dated right at the time the sturmbocks were put into service which would indicate why they might want a weight breakdown on the new variant). The very engine "power egg" itself had nearly 2x as much armor around the oil ring, and the R8 standard also included armor over the guns, pilot, and vital areas.

German flight tests list full takeoff weights, not calculated in-flight reduced weights. Otherwise they make special note saying something to that effect (i.e. they comment about reduced fuel load, reduced weight, ballast added, etc).

You've just proven my point, though. We have the extra weight, but none of the extra armor. It should have almost the same armor as the 190F8. You fly an F8 in-game and you'll find you never lose oil. You'll find you lose parts of the plane before it stops functioning. Take an A8 up and the first thing you lose is oil, second thing is outboard guns, and third is pilot wound.

[Wmaker]

WMaker's taking a A8/R8 and claiming it's a stock A8 weight listing.

What makes you think it is an A-8/R8 instead of a standard A-8? In the column where it lists the weight (4391kg) which matches AH in the same configuration (4x20mm/100% fuel) it says "Fw 190 A-8". Below that it then lists different rustsatzes with their weight differences clearly naming them as /R2 and /R3. I don't see anything on that table that would make me think that the 4391kg figure is for A-8/R8 instead of standard A-8.

Here's the original Focke-Wulf document the one I first posted was translated from:

[Krusty]

Because the standard A8 had a BMW 801D, not a BMW 801TU.


EDIT: Further, every resource that states BMW 801D lists 4300kg max takeoff with 4x20mm loadout.

[Krusty]

From the same resource, note the weight differences with the different engines (and variants).

[Wmaker]

Because the standard A8 had a BMW 801D, not a BMW 801TU.

It says, in the end of the document: Installation of the BMW 801 TU engine increases aircraft weight by about 35kg

First it lists bunch of weights and then says that TU engine increases the weight by 35kg.

[Wmaker]

From the same resource, note the weight differences with the different engines (and variants).

Those are weights the planes were tested with. You said that you've seen other weight tables from official sources. I'm very much interested in seeing them as they should light the issue further.

[Krusty]

First it lists bunch of weights and then says that TU engine increases the weight by 35kg.

No, again. Many of us have been over this before. Allow me to clarify.

Here's the full document:

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


Page 5 shows an example of how much weight might be seen on the TU variant over the D variant. That's open to a bit of variation because some of the sturmbock had various armor panels removed, the extra glass panels, etc. There was also a progression in the development of the armor and it varied at different points in history.

From the get-go it's talking about 801TUs and TS/TH engines throughout. The note is there because this weight list is for a plane that has that engine. See the image I posted just above this. Note the weights match for the TU variant?



WMaker, as a standard, as a methodology, Germans listed fully loaded takeoff weight, NOT partially loaded weights. Different nations did different things. Germans listed fully loaded weight on charts. ANY exception to this rule was carefully and explicitly described in the chart itself.

[Wmaker]

No, again. Many of us have been over this before. Allow me to clarify.

Here's the full document:

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


Page 5 shows an example of how much weight might be seen on the TU variant over the D variant. That's open to a bit of variation because some of the sturmbock had various armor panels removed, the extra glass panels, etc. There was also a progression in the development of the armor and it varied at different points in history.

From the get-go it's talking about 801TUs and TS/TH engines throughout. The note is there because this weight list is for a plane that has that engine. See the image I posted just above this. Note the weights match for the TU variant?



WMaker, as a standard, as a methodology, Germans listed fully loaded takeoff weight, NOT partially loaded weights. Different nations did different things. Germans listed fully loaded weight on charts. ANY exception to this rule was carefully and explicitly described in the chart itself.

Check that sentence from the German weight table. It says: "TU-triebwerks ergibt ein Mehrgewicht von ~35kg". Mehr is more in German. A more fitting translation IMO would be "Addition of BMW 801 TU-powerplant adds an extra weight of circa 35kg". Ie. 35kg on top of the weights mentioned in the table when TU-powerplant is installed. I'll let native German speakers say what they think it says. I'll leave it at that.

[Krusty]

I know what it says. I've explained what it means.

The entire document is in anticipation of the BMW801TU and keeps mentioning it over and over including weights and additional armor, despite the fact that it was almost never put into service.

The TU was intended to be a 2000hp model as an intermediate step to the A-9 variant, which was also being pursued at this time (perhaps also why they released the manual in late 1944 instead of mid 1943). The BMW 801D-2 is the standard powerplant for the Fw190A-8. See the charts I've already listed. The performance charts for BMW801Ds all share a complete concensus with regards to the weight of this craft and the weight of an 801T aircraft.


I'll leave THAT to speak for itself. The info is there. It's been there for 70 years, pretty much.