FW-190 A5 Speed@sea level.

[Tank-Ace]

Sorry, must have missed that; was on my phone, which currently needs a new screen.

[BnZs]

Yes, as I pointed out to him earlier when he was touting his simplistic "more is better" argument for the Typhoon's guns.  Against single engined fighters the Fw190's or Spitfire's two 20mm cannons are more than adequate.
Would the best way to do that be to get a 1.42ata A-5 or would an A-6 or A-9 be better?  Certainly an A-2 or A-4 would be nice for earlier stuff.

Or all of the above :-)

[Tank-Ace]

The best-performing MW 190 would be the 1.57 ata 190A-5.

EW would be the A-3, from what I can tell.

Best PERFORMING 190, in terms of pure engine performance, and not overall combat ability would be the A-9.


So we could add the A-3, change the A-5 to either a 1.42 or a 1.57 version (still not sure if the 1.57 ata was exclusive to JABO units), update the A-8 so it doesn't suck, and add the A-9.

[Karnak]

It isn't always the goal to get the best performing version of an aircraft.  Most representative is generally the best target.  It is nice when the most representative is also the best though.

So, looking at it from that perspective, what is the most representative way to get Fw190s covered?

[Tank-Ace]

A-3, two A-5's (1.37 and 1.42 version, since IIRC, the change was universal and somewhere within shouting distance of midway through the production run), A-6, update the A-8 make it represent a standard late model instead of a bomber hunter, add the A-9.


At least if we want to do full coverage.


We could get by with an A-3, a 1.42 ata 190A-5, and two A-8's (split into early and late production models).

[Karnak]

I've never seen HTC do two versions of a single, diverse airframe.  Look at the Spitfire Mk V, Spitfire Mk IX and Bf109G-6 as examples of aircraft that could be divided like that, but aren't.  Anything that includes two A-5s or two A-8s I think is DOA as an option.

[GScholz]

I wonder why they don't?

[Mike Williams]

This chart for the 190-A5 operating at 1.42 ATA
(Image removed from quote.)
And this is the chart for the 190-A5 in AHII
(Image removed from quote.)

These two appear to be in agreement, except below 5K.

Hi BnZs:

Have a look at the following report which appears to be a good match with your AH chart:

PERFORMANCE AND HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FW-190 AIRPLANE AAF NO. EB-104

[bozon]

... I mean, look how many variations on the theme of P-47 we have right now, including the M. There have been no changes to the 190 lineup since the F8 arrived, how long ago?

I count 5 versions of the P-47 and 5 versions of the 190 (TA152 included). Also, we are missing the most representative P-47s that handled most of the air combat - razorbacks equipped with paddle blade props. All razorbacks were retrofitted with that prop and our D11 and even earlier models did most of their career equipped with it. Our D-11 can be downgraded to an earlier model, perhaps even lose its WEP, and make room for a late razorback with all the bells and whistles. D-23 would be the ultimate razorback with a paddle blade, aux fuel tank, and wing mount points for DT/bombs. An earlier D with a paddle blade prop and no wing shackles would be the best performing D and best Jug overall on MIL power.

The D25 and D40 are somewhat redundant through the D25 has cooler paint schemes and a nicer cockpit. The most significant performance difference is the lack of HVAR rockets on the D25 that makes it a little less of a bomb truck than the D40 (for MA use).

That does not mean that there is no room for another radial 190.

[Karnak]

I wonder why they don't?

I think to make it easier on the non-grognards to understand what is what.

Spitfire Mk VIII
Spitfire Mk IX
Spitfire Mk XVI

and

Bf109G-6
Bf109G-14

vs

Spitfire F.Mk IX
Spitfire LF.Mk IX
Spitfire LF.Mk IXe

and

Bf109G-6
Bf109G-6/AS

The first makes the progression seemingly a bit clearer.  It isn't because of other things, but at least a Spit IX is a Spit IX is a Spit IX.

[Karnak]

I count 5 versions of the P-47 and 5 versions of the 190 (TA152 included). Also, we are missing the most representative P-47s that handled most of the air combat - razorbacks equipped with paddle blade props. All razorbacks were retrofitted with that prop and our D11 and even earlier models did most of their career equipped with it. Our D-11 can be downgraded to an earlier model, perhaps even lose its WEP, and make room for a late razorback with all the bells and whistles. D-23 would be the ultimate razorback with a paddle blade, aux fuel tank, and wing mount points for DT/bombs. An earlier D with a paddle blade prop and no wing shackles would be the best performing D and best Jug overall on MIL power.

The D25 and D40 are somewhat redundant through the D25 has cooler paint schemes and a nicer cockpit. The most significant performance difference is the lack of HVAR rockets on the D25 that makes it a little less of a bomb truck than the D40 (for MA use).

That does not mean that there is no room for another radial 190.

bozon,

P-47s are currently the most represented aircraft in the game as far as density vs service time goes.  While there are more Bf109s and Spitfires and as many Fw190s, those models have to cover a significantly greater span of time.

[BnZs]

Captured airframe. Tend to think the aggregate of the original tests for the 190A5 are more accurate.

Hi BnZs:

Have a look at the following report which appears to be a good match with your AH chart:

PERFORMANCE AND HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FW-190 AIRPLANE AAF NO. EB-104

(Image removed from quote.)

[BnZs]

The best-performing MW 190 would be the 1.57 ata 190A-5.

Performance for the A-5 matching 1.42 ATA charts would be enough.

[J.A.W.]

Yes, as I pointed out to him earlier when he was touting his simplistic "more is better" argument for the Typhoon's guns.  Against single engined fighters the Fw190's or Spitfire's two 20mm cannons are more than adequate.
Would the best way to do that be to get a 1.42ata A-5 or would an A-6 or A-9 be better?  Certainly an A-2 or A-4 would be nice for earlier stuff.

If you are suggesting that less is better cannon-wise Knak, that might apply to a lightweight like a Spit or 109,
for fighter vs fighter A2A, or for 190 JABOs for ordnance reasons - but def' not to Typhoon/Tempest/Beaufighter/Mosquito
 & any suggestion to that effect in the actual combat setting would have been described as ludicrous..

I recall reading in Johnny Johnson's memoir about the relative fear of impact of the light 109 armament vs the 4 cannon,
190 fit-out, & when Spitfires finally got beefy enough, in the 20 series, they too standardised on the 4 cannon that the Hawker fighters had toted since 1940..

[GScholz]

Hi BnZs:

Have a look at the following report which appears to be a good match with your AH chart:

PERFORMANCE AND HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FW-190 AIRPLANE AAF NO. EB-104

(Image removed from quote.)

It would be a travesty if they modeled the A-5 on the performance of a G-3...