Issues that have been mentioned so far...

[J_A_B]

from that "other" thread that has somewhat degenerated, as well as some other issues I've seen on this BBS from time to time"

FW-190A-5 possibly too slow at low altitude.

FW-190F-8 missing important loadouts that would improve parity in AvA setups (most notably 250 KG wing bombs).

Many aircraft have wrong trigger grouping, 190A's in particular are affected negatively

Mosquito not tough enough

Ta-152 too slow at altitude

P-47D (at least some of them) too slow at altitude

Ar-234 needs sight to work right

A-20G is missing its lower gun position

Ki-61 has wrong designation and fueltank and/or weapon loadout

Several planes have artwork problems, including Ki-67, F4F/fm2, Bf-110's

Bf-109G-10 doesn't match HTC charts; either change plane to match charts or change charts to match plane.

IL-2 could use extra loadouts

B-26 lacks torpedo option

EDIT (added):  109F4 and G2 should have 200 rounds of 20mm instead of 150


Feel free to add more  


Does anybody feel like actually going out and trying to prove (one way or the other) these claims WITHOUT turning it into a pissing match?  Some of them, particularly speed info, are rather simple to determine.  Some have already been proven or are blantantly obvious (there is clearly a problem with the 234's bombsight and perk level).

For example, Karnak and I did extensive testing with the Mosquito, and while we couldn't determine the exact cause of the problem, we found plenty of evidence to suggest that HTC might want to take a closer look at the Mosquito's damage model (such as both engines being damaged by bullets only hitting 1 from below)

Complaining and infighting won't get anything changed, and I know that one thing you guys CAN agree on is you'd like to see the broken things fixed regardless of what paintjob is on what plane.

As for weapon loadout requests....it might be wise if you guys tried to settle upon 1 or 2 loadouts that you'd feel are most important to a particular airplane; HTC cannot be expected to add 10 different options to say the 190F-8 even if it had them.   They might however be perfectly willing to add 1 or 2 options if there seems to be consistent demand for it.

J_A_B

[FDutchmn]

Originally posted by J_A_B
Feel free to add more  

We need a Japanese airborne torpedo.

Type 91 Mod 3 800kg Torpedo

and

Type 91 Mod 7 1055kg (1070kg) Torpedo

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61478

[Elysian]

The ENY of 25 for the 190F-8.

[Glasses]

Climb and accel of the Ta  Jab forgot that  too

[gatso]

Hurri D 40mm, want them to have a synchro option to make aiming easier.

from here

[gatso]

Far as I can tell the A5 deck speed thing originated with this.

[J_A_B]

THANK YOU Gatso, stuff like this is what we need brought up.  I know it's been posted before (I remember RAM's thread), but sometimes it helps to bring things back into the limelight.  

Now, what is the deck speed of the current A-5 converted into metric?  

Then that chart needs to be verified somehow.

J_A_B

[Innominate]

Deck speed of 190A-5 with WEP is 339mph, or 542kph.  Tested offline with 100% fuel.

[Karnak]

The chart gatso posted has the Fw190A-5's deck speed at 352mph (567kph) and its top speed at 416mph (670kph), when converted to Imperial measurements.

[J_A_B]

Ok, so it's confirmed that the AH 190A-5 is slower than the charted 190A-5

So now the chart itself requires verification.  What is the source, testing conditions, etc?   Play devil's advocate, say to yourself "well how can I prove to HTC that the Germans didn't just pull this chart out of their arse".  

Once the chart is "authenticated", the final step is to make a good case to HTC as to why this plane needs its performance adjusted as such (like the F4U-1D, it's quite possible that different 190A-5's had different levels of performance).  What would the impact on AH be?  

J_A_B

[Innominate]

What do the three lines on the graph represent?

[HoHun]

Hi Jab,

>Then that chart needs to be verified somehow.

I'm afraid the chart is misleading. It doesn't match the BMW801 engine charts, and according to my calculations is not realistic in its high low-level speeds.

My guess is that this chart was calculated by substituting the altitude-dependend engine thrust with a constant power figure. (This method was occasionally used in WW2 Germany for lack of exact data as well as to make quick slide-rule calculations possible.)

This substitution introduces two sources of error (assumption of constant top speed, assumption of constant thrust) that both yield higher than realistic low-level speeds.

There's a US test (F-TR-1102-ND) of a Fw 190A-5 available that achieved a deck speed of 340 mph at 1.42 ata and a maximum of 415 mph at 22000 ft. This chart matches the BMW801 power charts much better and probably can be considered accurate.

(I believe the German chart was prepared to demonstrate the effect of compressibility on speed indicator readings without much regard for accurate portrayal of actual aircraft performance.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Karnak]

HoHun,

So you're saying that the AH Fw190A-5's deck speed is more accurate than this chart?

You're also saying that this chart is not based on flight tests, but rather on paper calculations?

[ra]

Regarding the B-26 torpedo option, I don't think it should be added to AH.  I know a guy who was an engineer for Martin during the war.  He said they only converted about 12 of them to carry torpedos, and only about 6 of them made it to Midway in one piece.  The rest were cracked up by the inexperienced pilots who ferried them out there from Maryland.

ra

[J_A_B]

Thanks for the information HoHun.  This is the kind of stuff we need (as opposed to mud-slinging).  

How fast does the AH 190A-5 go at 22,000 feet?  Anybody feel like checking?

Can anybody post anything wich refutes HoHun's claim?

Ra--thanks for the infor regarding the B-26's torpedo option.  Clearly it was, at best, an uncommon modification.  So far such uncommon mods haven't normally been included in AH.  

J_A_B