I really wish Pyro would chime in soon

[Sachs]

A lot of data has been thrown out in the last week about MW-50 and GM-1.  When wil Pyro help out here and explain some of these to us.  I am really curious as to know what we have and don't have.  Pyro any chance of a chime in anytime soon?

[Wilbus]

Yup

[Hristo]

...and ban someone ?

gdr

[Vermillion]

Guys, this whole A4/A5 with Mw50 arguement has been done many times before. No one yet in the 8 years I've been flying online flight sims has yet to produced a good reference doc that shows either plane had MW50.

And to be honest, you haven't in this latest round either.

Its very rare for Pyro to chime in on these arguements, and it usually takes substantial "definitive" proof to get something changed.

[Furious]

Vermillion,

I think at this point it is just an academic exercise.  It's interesting.

I am not looking to have anything changed.


F.

[Wilbus]

Nor am I looking to have anything changed.

I do however trust Otto Stammberger when he says they used Water-methanol injection, wether it was on all 190's or just his or just some in his squadron I do't know but obviously he used it and this was prior to the 190 A8.

[funkedup]

If it's a quest to have something changed in the game, then the most you can expect is probably a yes or a no.  In that case you'll need to pose some yes and no questions.  

If it's an academic exercise, then don't expect a comment.  We may well be covering ground that Pyro covered by himself years ago.  And even if we are finding something new, I'm not sure it's in HTC's best interest to comment or to share research.  I'm pretty sure they are an entertainment software company, not a provider of educational services.  

I don't pretend to speak for Pyro here.  This is just my best guess based on what I know about HTC and this business.

[RRAM]

Originally posted by Vermillion


Its very rare for Pyro to chime in on these arguements, and it usually takes substantial "definitive" proof to get something changed.

Wich kind of Proof?

Proof, for instance, such as showing a Focke Wulf chart of the Fw190A5, showing that AH's 190A5 is 10 to 15 mph slower than what it should be at sea level and low altitudes?.

I did that some months ago and still there is nothing new on the issue coming from HTC, at all.


No,Verm, showing proof isn't enough to see an answer coming from Pyro. And I say it without anger neither with any kind of desire to stir the pot, as I no longer care about it.

I just point at the fact.

[lord dolf vader]

there have been several instances where substantial proof has ben offered to total scilence on pyros part.  the compression on the d9 compaired to the a8 proplem was proven to be wrong by naudet . responce none at all.  criticism is not allowed so i wont.

[eddiek]

Last summer I went and visited the HTC offices.   Several of us (I was in the 56th FG at the time) discussed FM's and such with HiTech.  He said something that made a lot of sense, and it has stuck with me every since:
"You can't argue with physics."
AH is a complex game, blending virtual physics, graphics, etc....into a playable game.
HT mentioned the 205 and performance data they had received on it.  Once they plugged all the physical data into the system (engine HP, thrust, drag, etc.) none of it matched the "expected" performance.  I believe in HTC.  I believe they know enough about physics and aerodynamics to build a believable FM.  So either the data they received was skewed, or.........
If the FW190 is slower in AH than what charts show it should be, don't be so quick to blame HTC.  The guys do a whale of a job at this.  Could be the test data is in error.  Remember, the environmental conditions in AH are set, unlike in RL where varying barometric conditions can and do have an effect on instrument readings.
Just my thoughts...............

[RRAM]

Originally posted by eddiek
If the FW190 is slower in AH than what charts show it should be, don't be so quick to blame HTC.  The guys do a whale of a job at this.  Could be the test data is in error.  Remember, the environmental conditions in AH are set, unlike in RL where varying barometric conditions can and do have an effect on instrument readings.
Just my thoughts...............

I don't buy it. Aces high's Fw190A8 performance matches Focke-Wulf performance charts almost milimetrically, but Aces Hihg's Fw190A5 performance doesn't match an IDENTICAL performance chart.


So, one yes, the other no?. Nope, eddiek...sorry but I simply don't buy it.

[Vermillion]

Wilbus, nothing against Otto but consider several things.  For one, its been at least 60 years and memory is not perfect. Especially when you consider that between 1942 and 1945, they probably changed aircraft versions (not to mention different aircraft within the unit) at least every 6-8 months.  So who's to remember the exact difference between a A5 in late 1943 or early 1944 and a A8 in early 1944 to late 1944 when its wartime (ie its quiet a hectic time) and your memories are 60 years old.  Plus most of these guys were pilots, not engineers or even mechanics.  I've talked to many many WWII vets who flew combat, and commonly when I ask a very technical question regarding an aircraft I get a response like "I don't know, I just flew them".

RAM, yes proof as in a technical document issued by either FockeWulf or the Luftwaffe that shows the use of production usage of MW50 in a A5 (or even an A8 for that matter) and a performance chart like I sent you for the A8 and the A8 with GM1.  If it was used in production aircraft there would exist the exact same aircraft handbook, as I sent you for the A8.

Lord Dolf Vader, definitive proof of what??? That there is a physical difference between the handling of a D9 and a A8?  Ummm guess what.  There SHOULD be a difference. You have the same wing, but a different CG plus a different moment arm about which the elevator works, in other words the distance from the aerodynamic chord of the wing to the elevator is different. This will cause a different pitching moment. I'm admittedly no expert in aerodynamics or the modeling of aircraft, and I may have used a term incorrectly in this description, but I've learned alot lately on the subject.  Now, is what we have in AH correct? I don't know.  And no one has presented information to suggest that the D9 is wrong, just that its different from the A8. Which is correct.

And don't think I'm against you guys, I'm very interested in the subject myself, and I frequently fly the 190's myself, they're my favorites.  I'm just trying to keep a perspective on the issue and look at it subjectively.

[RRAM]

Originally posted by Vermillion

RAM, yes proof as in a technical document issued by either FockeWulf or the Luftwaffe that shows the use of production usage of MW50 in a A5 (or even an A8 for that matter) and a performance chart like I sent you for the A8 and the A8 with GM1.  If it was used in production aircraft there would exist the exact same aircraft handbook, as I sent you for the A8.

I'm not talking about MW50, Verm, but about the Fw190A5's speed, is too low according to the data of this chart.




is a chart almost identical to that of the Fw190A8's speed in the A8's handbook you own, and which you sent me (which btw, I still own you a beer for it...someday )

[Wilbus]

Verm, very very true, however, I don't think he remembers wrong about water-methanol as it was what brought them up to speed once again.

One more thing, he said it was introduced quickly after the spit 9 entered service, thus being late 42/early 43 sometime. Might have been his + a few other planes only though.

[wells]

Ram,

That chart says the A5 could do 655 km/h (407 mph).  It would do 416 if there was no such thing as compressibility.  How much slower is the AH model?