190 A5 and A8

[Debrody]

Why is the A8 as much slower than the A5, except a very tight altitude zone near the deck? Whats the difference between the two models?

[save]

Good question, I think earlier forum's referred to weight.
One more thing , if you pull up with speed , you almost always stall the A8, whereas in the A5 you have to work harder to do the same.

[Debrody]

I dont know much about their weights, the only thing i noticed is the A8's speed curve is strange, looks like its engine is weaker than the A5's, at least a poorer performer.
What forced the germans to put a worse engine into the same plane's newer model when the A5 is better at every alt (or at least equal), except a small alt window under 3k?
Doesnt seem logical to me.

[Denniss]

Still the same good old BMW 801 D-2 engine in the A-8, many even received a boost system to regain speed lost from weight increase.

[GScholz]

Same engine but with more airframe weight and drag on the A-8. The A-8 gets more power from WEP below full pressure height since it has C3 injection (functions the same way as MW50, but using fuel instead of water/alcohol).

[Debrody]

Same engine but with more airframe weight and drag on the A-8.

The AH's speed curve says just a tiny bit otherwise...

[GScholz]

What do you think it says?

[Debrody]

If it would be the same engine but with more drag and weight, the speed curve would be nearly identical, with peaks at the same alts. Of course the heavyer-draggíer aircraft would be a little bit slower, just as on the 109G2-G6, or the Spitfire8-16.

The peaks on the A8's speed curve are at different altitudes than on the A5, also the A8 is slower than the A5 everywhere, except under 3-4K. Especially at higher altitude, the A5 is pretty good up to 23-24K while the A8 falls sharply back over 19K. Is the BMW 801D engine even turbocharged? (exuse me for my aknowledge...) If so, looks like the A8's one is geared towards the lower altitudes, but the A8 isnt faster at all... ergo, it seems, its engine is weaker.

Are the speed curves correct? If so, what was the logic behind decreasing the performance? The germans were focusing on the low-alt ground attack missions that much, so they sacrificed the high alt speed?

Please enlighten me, im curious.
Thanks,
Debrődy

[Krusty]

Are you sure of that?




Seems like a slight speed benefit at all alts except where the power dips don't overlap at the same alt. Above FTH is another matter, but up at those alts the weight will make a major difference.



P.S. The focus was on putting better and better armament into the plane. MG/FF in the outboard position was very outdated. Underwing gunpods were too draggy. The MG151/20s outboard, the option for Mk108s outboard, and the cowl guns upgraded to 13mm, were the main concerns. There were other changes, of course, but the main impetus for the update was to keep the firepower up to the level of what they had to shoot.

IL2s on the Eastern front were soaking up tons of ammo for little results. Bombers on the Western front were very resilient, even before big heavy US formations (lancasters, etc). They needed the firepower more than anything else.

[bustr]

Krusty,

We both know that the focuse of this game with fighters is to wring every possible ounce of aerobatic potential from the airframe even if the fighter was specificly designed to move mud or mug bombers in the real WW2. Before the A8 in 44 and the build up of P51 in the theater. The earlier FW airframes were concidered air superiority fighters on par with their contemporaries. Daylight bombing and the war in the east changed the focus on what the FW airframe was needed for.

1.) When the A8 was released, was it released as an air superiority fighter or as a mud moving bomber mugger?

2.) Granted just like in AH there were a handful of pilots who were the exception not the rule. What happened to A8s that were unfortunate to not be able to dive away from spitfires, Tempest, Typhoon, P38, P47, P51, Yak, Lavochkin they ran into?

[Krusty]

Simply because something was improved doesn't mean that it must be faster. Look at the differences between the G-2 and G-6. Most pilots liked the improvements and would trade the small amount of speed for them. They meant the difference between life and death sometimes.

Whether it was against the heavy fighters, heavy attackers, medium bombers, or heavy bombers, they needed the firepower. The Mk108 was already being rushed as much as possible, but it didn't get there until 1944 for most planes. It's also why the push for performance-killing gondolas on 109s. They just needed more firepower more than they needed speed or manueverability.


EDIT: Also, the term air superiority is a very modern concept only developed with the F-15. At the time they were just "fighters"... Multipurpose fighters. Yes, they were designed to kill, and they did that quite well. Even the A8 was quite lethal. Keep in mind the quality of pilot was also diminishing, as green recruits were rushed in as replacements for veterans. More firepower meant more killing with less firing time, and more chance to move on to the next target or get the hell out of dodge. Even when considering fighters this is true in AH as well. You're in a furball, you get behind somebody... the faster you can pop him the faster you can break to avoid being targetted, or get onto the tail of the next target. Either way, more firepower helps you out a great deal.

[GScholz]

The only place where the A-8's power curve is different from the A-5 is for WEP. That's because the A-8 has higher WEP boost which reduces full pressure height for each supercharger stage. More boost = more fuel burn = more air needed = lower altitude where the supercharger can deliver the needed pressure for full boost.

[MiloMorai]

1.) When the A8 was released, was it released as an air superiority fighter or as a mud moving bomber mugger?

The mud mover was the F-8 just as the F3 (based on the A-5) was a mud mover.

[Babalonian]

The mud mover was the F-8 just as the F3 (based on the A-5) was a mud mover.

F-3 is corelates to the A-3, F-5 on the A-5, F-8 on the A-8, F-9 on the A-9, etc..

Would be nice if our F-8 got a little revamp (more ord/canon options/variety), and we got an earlier A-8 and turned the current A-8 into a much later A-8 (or leave it as is and add an A-9 ).

The "problem" with our A-8 is that it's been too averaged for a very wide-ranging and extremely dynamic plane varient (when looking at all of it's various possible production models and enmass field/powerplant upgrades).  Having two of it's heavier (and underpowered) varients as the ONLY available options in Aces High IS it's only "problem", at least imho.

[GScholz]

The mud mover was the F-8 just as the F3 (based on the A-5) was a mud mover.

And following that the G series.