Author Topic: AH Spitfire Mk V vs AH 190 A5 Tests (Read 5216 times)

Wilbus · « **Reply #135 on:** October 09, 2002, 11:28:00 AM »

Yeah I will redo the, however the A3 almost kept up with the Spit 9 in climb up to 22k and outclimbed the Spit 5. It outaccelerated both.

mustang · « **Reply #136 on:** October 09, 2002, 01:22:13 PM »

I'm just curious here, but why does it seem like every time someone questions the performance of a LW plane in AH there is an immediate backlash by others who seem to want to not even touch the subject. Every time an Allied plane is in question, it seems people are much more willing to listen and something ends up being done (i.e. the p38). It especially seems as though the spit jocks are in utter fear of the 190's performing the way they should. As in the real war the 190a5 should easily outperform the spit5. But as we all know this simply is not the case in AH. All I want is for every plane to be modeled as closely as possible to the real thing. And that certainly should mean some kind of adjustments to the 190's and ta-152. I think Wilbus has made the case for the 190's to be re-evaluated here, and to not do anything about it after all that has been revealed would be rediculous.

Wilbus · « **Reply #137 on:** October 09, 2002, 01:25:32 PM »

Quote

I'm just curious here, but why does it seem like every time someone questions the performance of a LW plane in AH there is an immediate backlash by others who seem to want to not even touch the subject. Every time an Allied plane is in question, it seems people are much more willing to listen and something ends up being done (i.e. the p38). It especially seems as though the spit jocks are in utter fear of the 190's performing the way they should. As in the real war the 190a5 should easily outperform the spit5. But as we all know this simply is not the case in AH. All I want is for every plane to be modeled as closely as possible to the real thing. And that certainly should mean some kind of adjustments to the 190's and ta-152. I think Wilbus has made the case for the 190's to be re-evaluated here, and to not do anything about it after all that has been revealed would be rediculous.

Right on! Thank you and ~~! Agree to 100%.~~

Bombjack · « **Reply #138 on:** October 09, 2002, 01:43:28 PM »

Wilbus or "mustang", I invite you to list what has been 'revealed' to be incorrect about the modelling of the FW190A5 in Aces High, in this thread. Be specific, and list sources. (5 marks)

bigUC · « **Reply #139 on:** October 09, 2002, 01:58:41 PM »

Big thanks to Wilbus for all his work. Clearly something is wrong, either with the Spit V or Fw 190. I hardly think Wilbus is the person who has to document anything further here...

Naudet · « **Reply #140 on:** October 09, 2002, 03:45:58 PM »

Bombjack, why should Wilbuz try to list anything?
There are a couple of "Luftwhiners" (as some like to call em) that have brough up several issues (most often very well investigated) that are atleast worth an answer by HTC (which is not the case) and Wilbuz has just brought up one new topic (FW190 accel contro Spit accel).
Again he has done a great job in testing and comparing AH data to real data, and what happens every result he post is questioned right away.
So what would a list help here? All topics he could give would we questioned right away, without a discussion or even the try to consider that those topics might really need a re-evalutation by HTC.

It still wonders me that Wilbuz has not given up yet. I have so, couple of month ago.

Wilbus · « **Reply #141 on:** October 09, 2002, 03:47:23 PM »

I've posted what's wrong with it about 50 times in this thread now. If it's not clear enough then I am sorry but not gonna spend more time posting another 10 times just as I had to do in the Ta152 thread where I proved the Ta152 to be wrong above 35k.

Sorry.

Nashwan · « **Reply #142 on:** October 09, 2002, 05:03:28 PM »

Wilbus, I think the power settings confused the issue. Comparing it to the Spits threw in too many variables, and confused it even more.

The Spit V just about matches the climb figures in the chart Neil Stirling posted (the AH Spit is a lower than the real Spit)

If you want a clear example of a problem with the A5, look at the climb figures in the chart Neil posted. It shows 3500 ft/min between 10 - 17,000ft, at 1.35 ata. AH shows about 2400 ft/min at 1.35 or 1.3 ata, and only around 3000ft/min at 1.42 ata.

DingHao2 · « **Reply #143 on:** October 09, 2002, 05:26:34 PM »

Announcer: "AXIS VS. ALLIES, ROUND 300,000,000!"

*ding*

Bombjack · « **Reply #144 on:** October 09, 2002, 06:11:52 PM »

Quote

Bombjack, why should Wilbuz try to list anything?

So that the cogent, documented, argument can be carried to Pyro to try and fix what's wrong, instead of making him piece it together from the blizzard of discussion on this thread? Never mind, Nashwan did it instead.

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #145 on:** October 09, 2002, 06:17:26 PM »

It is not only a question of HPs, propelor has also a big part here, drag, weight, even structural limits.

Our actual spits keep with even a D9 in a vertical dive without problems, they outzoom the D9 with ease, and can keep climbing steady while spraying 20mm bullets in impossible angles for any 190 at any altitude. Curiously, the spits are almost no affected by trim while any 190 is very dependant of it.

Wilbus · « **Reply #146 on:** October 23, 2002, 06:41:11 PM »

AtmkRstr · « **Reply #147 on:** November 21, 2002, 02:08:27 PM »

Imp · « **Reply #148 on:** November 21, 2002, 07:58:39 PM »

bump for a worthy cause

illo · « **Reply #149 on:** November 22, 2002, 07:30:43 AM »

Posted by nashwan.
If you want a clear example of a problem with the A5, look at the climb figures in the chart Neil posted. It shows 3500 ft/min between 10 - 17,000ft, at 1.35 ata. AH shows about 2400 ft/min at 1.35 or 1.3 ata, and only around 3000ft/min at 1.42 ata.

I will check 190A-5 factory chart for how it compares.