Author Topic: Anyone tested 190F8 vs the A8 damage model ?  (Read 2136 times)

Offline save

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2833
Anyone tested 190F8 vs the A8 damage model ?
« on: August 19, 2013, 06:13:33 PM »
I have been flying the 190F8 this month, in fighter mode.

I see no difference when hit in the A8 or the F8 from ground or air, anyone tested the differences ?

I have a sense that Lancs .0303 don't kill my F8 engine as fast when I approach from above in the F8 (tracers give them away),but its hard to count pings and I don't know where they hit.

From the Wirbies the F8 dies pretty much as other planes from what I've experienced, so is the armour useless in MA ?

Normally the A8 and the F8 both average 2-3 pings from field ack until something more critical than flaps or guns get hit, about the same as the p47.

They could be removed in the field afaik, is that something that should be a choice in ordnance?
I'm basically carrying 500kg armour extra, for little use it feels like.



My ammo last for 6 Lancasters, or one Yak3.
"And the Yak 3 ,aka the "flying Yamato"..."
-Caldera

Offline bustr

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12436
Re: Anyone tested 190F8 vs the A8 damage model ?
« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2013, 06:28:05 PM »
Can you get a friend to help you in a custom arena to perform Perverts jeep and 50cal test?
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 save

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2833
Re: Anyone tested 190F8 vs the A8 damage model ?
« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2013, 06:37:42 PM »
Isn't it hard to hit the engine underneath of the F8 at some hundred of range with the underneath angle so .50 do not always penetrate ?
Or do you suggest one fly and other one shoot from jeep ?

I was hoping someone already had more experience to tell if they have seen any difference between the F8 and A8 model.



My ammo last for 6 Lancasters, or one Yak3.
"And the Yak 3 ,aka the "flying Yamato"..."
-Caldera

Offline bustr

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12436
Re: Anyone tested 190F8 vs the A8 damage model ?
« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2013, 08:19:08 PM »
You may be the first man in with this observation. In the real world generally your peers would allow that you own it until you show it one way or another. Pervert pioneered a reasonable test method. You could always park a PT on shore next to a runway ending at that shore to test single 20mm rounds. Turn off kill shooter in the CM settings and your squad can help their CO test his question with a PT and a jeep.

Ever noticed the MK108 seems to have more random dispersion than it once did? The round also has a spin drift influence very unlike other cannons used in ww2 fighter aircraft. Something unique to the factors in play to create that specific auto cannon package for mounting in engine hubs. Around 2ft right hand at 400 yards. Not sure it's modeled, I'd like to think so but for the more accurate appearing dispersion patterns now at 400 yards on the offline target.

And again it could simply be my perception of Hitech tweeking the damage modeling to what constitutes a hit against different surfaces on different aircraft with different rounds. But, it looks good on the offline target when I compare it to the data from Rheinmetall - Borsig.

If you ever get a chance. Set the K4 cannon to 150. Offline fly on auto level at 312-318 IAS. This will adjust the cannon level with the ground when you shoot. Then look at how far rounds drop at 400 and the dispersion. Matches the Bf109 G6/u4 armorers ballistic diagram the closest. Then consider how far below the horizontal red line the center of your gunsight is to account for being able to aim a round that drops like a rock. That red line is your MK108 barrel line. Very few pilots had anything good to say about the MK108 in that configuration. Hitech fortunately allows you to half the drop at 400 with a 650 convergence making it easier to use in the game. So it's a game and Hitech does things with it.   
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 SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6166
Re: Anyone tested 190F8 vs the A8 damage model ?
« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2013, 09:17:13 PM »
The F-8 is indeed heavier by 489 lbs give or take a few lbs.  Fuel capacity is the same (%25 = 42 gal fuel and same flight time), base guns are the same, engine is the same (in theory, there are conflicting reports as to exactly which models AH's A-8 and F-8 models actually represent).  So the only place I could see the extra weight being from is the added armor around the engine and pilot as seen on the diagrams.

In terms of damage models, while I can't say I've actually tested them outright but I can say it sure does seem like the F-8 can take more hits to the engine cowling vs the A-8 and keep on trucking.  I notice this more from auto ack from the fields than from player controlled guns.  I get shot down just as easily in either model.   :D
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 Fruda

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1267
Re: Anyone tested 190F8 vs the A8 damage model ?
« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2013, 10:26:32 PM »
I've noticed that the F-8 is quite a bit more durable regarding the cowling and underside. Over the years, when strafing ground targets, I've gotten a lot more pings with the F-8, whereas with the A-8 I've gotten a lot more damage. One could say that this is purely coincidental, but the fact remains that the F-8 was better-armored for strafing ground targets. I imagine it has been modeled that way in AHII.

Now, if we could get all of those juicy jabo packaged the F-8 was known for...

Offline Zacherof

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3992
Re: Anyone tested 190F8 vs the A8 damage model ?
« Reply #6 on: August 20, 2013, 10:49:58 PM »
I feel the A8 takes more damage. But it could just be me.
In game name Xacherof
USN Sea Bee
**ELITE**
I am a meat popsicle

Offline bustr

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12436
Re: Anyone tested 190F8 vs the A8 damage model ?
« Reply #7 on: August 21, 2013, 03:24:56 PM »
This is where someone who is good at custom arenas steps in and says, "Hey guys, have I got a testing arena for you". Then three of you up, park an F8 at the end of the runway next to a PT pulled up on the shore, drive a jeep up to it and test, test, test. Counting one ping at a time.

Then share with your audience who will be waiting with high expectations anything about German Iron that might gain them something good for their ride. That's why Pervert did it.
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 SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6166
Re: Anyone tested 190F8 vs the A8 damage model ?
« Reply #8 on: August 21, 2013, 09:29:51 PM »
I've noticed that the F-8 is quite a bit more durable regarding the cowling and underside. Over the years, when strafing ground targets, I've gotten a lot more pings with the F-8, whereas with the A-8 I've gotten a lot more damage. One could say that this is purely coincidental, but the fact remains that the F-8 was better-armored for strafing ground targets. I imagine it has been modeled that way in AHII.

Now, if we could get all of those juicy jabo packaged the F-8 was known for...

INDEED!!!!  I'm really surprised that HTC has yet to include any these options:

8/50kg bombs  [this is something currently not available in AH on ANY aircraft, it would truly be unique!!!]  This variant ESPECIALLY should be available!!!
3/250kg bombs (1 center line and 1 under each wing) [currently only the P47D and P40N offer the ability to mount 3/250kg or 500lb bombs]  A very common loud out on the Ost Front!!!
1/1000kg bomb
2/30 mm MK 103 cannons (via pods or internal mount, I'm not sure)
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 SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6166
Re: Anyone tested 190F8 vs the A8 damage model ?
« Reply #9 on: August 22, 2013, 12:36:45 PM »
The interwebs has pictures of a 190F-8 named "yellow 14" showing the 8/50kg bombs mounted. Though, those pics may not be exactly what HTC wants for "proof", but they do show four 50kg bombs mounted center line and two 50kg bombs under each wing.   ;)

This variant would be unique in AH, no other single engine plane can carry 8/50kg bombs.    :aok
« Last Edit: August 22, 2013, 12:45:30 PM by SmokinLoon »
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 Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: Anyone tested 190F8 vs the A8 damage model ?
« Reply #10 on: August 23, 2013, 07:14:07 PM »
The interwebs has pictures of a 190F-8 named "yellow 14" showing the 8/50kg bombs mounted. Though, those pics may not be exactly what HTC wants for "proof", but they do show four 50kg bombs mounted center line and two 50kg bombs under each wing.   ;)

This variant would be unique in AH, no other single engine plane can carry 8/50kg bombs.    :aok

I have posted dozens of photo of this bomb rack, including the G series etc. We should be able to get 8x 50kg bombs on a Fw190F.
JG 52

Offline Zacherof

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3992
Re: Anyone tested 190F8 vs the A8 damage model ?
« Reply #11 on: August 24, 2013, 12:20:59 AM »
I have posted dozens of photo of this bomb rack, including the G series etc. We should be able to get 8x 50kg bombs on a Fw190F.
And a 190G :old:
In game name Xacherof
USN Sea Bee
**ELITE**
I am a meat popsicle

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6166
Re: Anyone tested 190F8 vs the A8 damage model ?
« Reply #12 on: August 24, 2013, 08:52:57 AM »
I have posted dozens of photo of this bomb rack, including the G series etc. We should be able to get 8x 50kg bombs on a Fw190F.

Do you have any sources (pictures) showing the 190F-8 with the 3/250 kg bombs? 

I'm quite confident that HTC will, sooner or later, add in the 8/50kg and hopefully the 3/250kg options as well.  After all, someone posted a simple pic of the Typhoon with a combination of 4 rockets and 2 fuel drop tanks and BAM! the next update that option was added.  One would think that HTC would add certifiable ordnance options for the 190F-8 and both the 8/50kg and 3/250kb options were as popular and as important as the current options available.  I'll give HTC kudos for adding the SAP bomb to the 190F-8's ordnance options, I was surprised they didn't add in the two options in question when they added the SAP.   
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 Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Anyone tested 190F8 vs the A8 damage model ?
« Reply #13 on: August 24, 2013, 04:20:32 PM »
The lines start blurring between F and G, with regards to their bombloads. Suffice it to say there was an underwing bombrack that could carry a 250kg bomb under each wing. Both the F and the G could mount this bomb. Think of it as similar to the Ju87 swapping the 2x50kg racks for a single 1x250kg rack. This was common amongst almost all Luftwaffe craft that carried 2x50kg wing bombs -- they were relatively ineffective and most eventually upgraded to better loads as aircraft development progressed.

This 250kg wing rack for the 190G was often paired with a centerline drop tank because of the extra fuel needed to lug such a load. 190Gs were often tasked with longer-ranged missions anyways. The 190F is often seen with a centerline 250kg and 2x50kg under each wing.

190F-8 with outboard wing rack capable of 250kg load:




P.S. Loon, no 30mm gunpods were used operationally on any single-seat fighter in the Luftwaffe in WW2. The Mk103s were found to be too heavy and draggy and when fired were radically unsafe for the airframe under which their pods were slung. After preliminary testing they were dropped from the Fw190 as far as weapons development goes.

Also, the Me410 should be able to carry 8x50kg internally, as well as another 4x externally, for a total of 12x50kg.

Now THAT would be interesting, IMO. Not overly effective, but interesting nonetheless.

Offline Hap

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3908
Re: Anyone tested 190F8 vs the A8 damage model ?
« Reply #14 on: August 24, 2013, 08:42:06 PM »
INDEED!!!!  I'm really surprised that HTC has yet to include any these options:

8/50kg bombs  [this is something currently not available in AH on ANY aircraft, it would truly be unique!!!]  This variant ESPECIALLY should be available!!!
3/250kg bombs (1 center line and 1 under each wing) [currently only the P47D and P40N offer the ability to mount 3/250kg or 500lb bombs]  A very common loud out on the Ost Front!!!
1/1000kg bomb
2/30 mm MK 103 cannons (via pods or internal mount, I'm not sure)

:aok :aok