Author Topic: I really wish Pyro would chime in soon (Read 1503 times)

RRAM · « **Reply #15 on:** June 16, 2002, 08:24:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 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?

1 to 2 mph at the best altitude. I checked it the other day, Fw190A5 makes less than 407mph@21500feet. Nothing like 416mph.

[edit] ran the test again, 407mph exactly at 21500feet. Film at http://212.73.32.211/hosting/0003d/ebringas/a5speed.ahf

USAAF tests said FW190A5 did how much?. 416mph at optimal altitude (being it 21000 feet or something like that)?. No way it's that fast at AH. You can see it in the film.

Luftwaffe charts says FW190A5 hits how much?. 350mph on the deck (in fact 565km/h=351mph). No way it's that fast at AH, where it does 335mph.

[edit 2] I repeat that when I say that Fw190A5 is too slow, I'm talking about LOW ALTITUDES ONLY. Please, wells, compare the deck-to-10K feet speed on the chart, and compare with AH's performance. You'll see what I mean. Fw190A5 should be as fast as a fw190A8 on the deck -in fact, 1mph faster-, but it just hits 335mph (barely).

We have a Fw190A5 too slow according to USAAF data at high altitudes

we have a Fw190A5 too slow according to Luftwaffe data at low altitudes.

I've been repeating it for months.

Need more proof?. Well, I just can't find more, because I found all evidence possible.

Intrepid · « **Reply #16 on:** June 16, 2002, 08:36:23 PM »

ya sure it's just an even 416? I hate to ya get ripped off that extra 3/10 ths

RRAM · « **Reply #17 on:** June 16, 2002, 08:38:48 PM »

Hey intrepid, Fw190A5 is in fact 1mph SLOWER than what it should be at proper altitude (I don't care about it), and between 10-15mph slower than what it should be at low altitudes (I DO care about it).

Proof is in chart and in film.

Hristo · « **Reply #18 on:** June 16, 2002, 10:33:44 PM »

The rightmost curve says 352 mph on the deck for Fw 190A-5. It is A LOT slower in the game.

Can anyone translate what is written in the chart ?

-tronski- · « **Reply #19 on:** June 16, 2002, 11:49:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by RRAM
Hey intrepid, Fw190A5 is in fact 1mph SLOWER than what it should be at proper altitude (I don't care about it), and between 10-15mph slower than what it should be at low altitudes (I DO care about it).

Proof is in chart and in film.

Was it a brand new AH 190, or had it seen a few hours?
How many hours did the engine have, and how many till its next check? What kind of fuel did you use and how well refined was it? How many hours did the airframe have again? What was the weather like when you tested (then again it'd be in the film wouldn't it). Did you use the AH FW test aircraft, or a front line issue aircraft? A prototype? The USAAF test aircraft? Was it armed?

Tronsky

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #20 on:** June 17, 2002, 12:13:04 AM »

"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. "

the thread was "190A vs 190D" ill bump it cause reading it made me wonder why they didnt answer at all . physics is a pure science. who has the phisics degree at htc again ?

Hristo · « **Reply #21 on:** June 17, 2002, 12:44:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by -tronski-

Was it a brand new AH 190, or had it seen a few hours?
How many hours did the engine have, and how many till its next check? What kind of fuel did you use and how well refined was it? How many hours did the airframe have again? What was the weather like when you tested (then again it'd be in the film wouldn't it). Did you use the AH FW test aircraft, or a front line issue aircraft? A prototype? The USAAF test aircraft? Was it armed?

Tronsky

You're joking, right ?

Furious · « **Reply #22 on:** June 17, 2002, 01:06:57 AM »

Quote

who has the phisics degree at htc again ?

you don't need a physics degree to understand physics.

LDV, you do nothing to help your cause. You just become a mildly annoying buzzing sound that gives other LW fans a bad name.

Feel free to engage in friendly discussions of the relative performances of different aircraft, but realize that HTC does not have any generic malice towards the LW planes they create.

F.

-tronski- · « **Reply #23 on:** June 17, 2002, 02:55:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hristo

You're joking, right ?

Obviously

Tronsky

Hristo · « **Reply #24 on:** June 17, 2002, 03:19:30 AM »

I missunderstood it the first time tho. sorry

But the question of deck speed for AH Fw 190A-5 vs its real life counterpart is still open !

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #25 on:** June 17, 2002, 03:30:40 AM »

The "190A vs 190D" thread was based on a serie of online tests in DA between these planes and some others. Acceleration (at lo level), roll rate, and elevator authority were all tested for these planes.
The result was that A series roll noticeabily better than D9 at any speed, they also have much better elevator authority at hi speeds. Typhoon and SpitIX surpassed all of them (A and D) by a very wide margin in elevator control at hi speed. Nor typh neither spit needed trim adjustements to exit a 8k vertical dive. In that dive, repeated several times, D9, La7 and G10 kept augerin in the sea over and over. Anther tested factor was the sensibility to trims, all 190s demostrated to be very sensible to trim adjustments while, in real world, they only needed a +-5 degree elevator trim control.

As a matter of fact, these tests derived in two threads, "190A vs 190D" and "190D elev auth".

There was no demostration justifying the advantage in roll rate of A series over D9, nor about the lack of elevator control above 350mph.

And yes, HTC kept radio silence.

Hristo · « **Reply #26 on:** June 17, 2002, 04:50:17 AM »

Tried the 190A-8 in il2 ?

Is a blast !

RRAM · « **Reply #27 on:** June 17, 2002, 04:55:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hristo
The rightmost curve says 352 mph on the deck for Fw 190A-5. It is A LOT slower in the game.

Can anyone translate what is written in the chart ?

The written text in the charts are explanations and formulas to translate the incorrect speed readings (because instrumental error) at different altitudes, to correct ones. That's why each curve is split in two, the rightmost one is the "instrumental reading", the left one is the true corrected airspeed.

BTW, this is something I dont know if it is done in AH, in other planes. We might have a Fw190A5 making 407mph@21500 and not 416mph for that reason, but what about the rest of the planes?. Have all of them speeds compensated for instrumental error or is just the Fw190A5 the only plane in AH which takes that in account?.

Anyway, question remains: FW190A5 should run at 351mph@SL. It does 335mph@SL. 16mph is A LOT.

Will it get fixed?.

Wilbus · « **Reply #28 on:** June 17, 2002, 05:20:31 AM »

I really hope so Ram, I really really hope so...

Hristo · « **Reply #29 on:** June 17, 2002, 05:43:05 AM »

So, if I got it right - the graph consists of 3 pairs of 2. Each pair has right curve as instrumental reading and left curve is corrected to TAS ?

So, each pair converges at the deck, where there is no correction.

OK, bring 352mph deck speed for Fw 190A-5 to AH !

To be honest, this thing alone would make the A-5 ride of choice among many FW types.