guys your reading into what i posted.
The 190A8 climb times were in several books I didnt post any charts but i remember others added stuff like pics of engine performance charts etc :I just realised it may have bbeen GM1 they said it had, I can barely recall it it was so long ago.
The book i still have and it was 'Wings of the Lufftwaffe' by captain eric Brown (RAF testpilot)
in it is a description of the 190a8 which shows this for power plant:
One BMW 801D 14 cylinder radial aircooled engine rated at 1440HP at 18,700 ft(5700m) Fuel capacity 115.5 Imp gal (524 l) in two fuselage tanks, plus 25.3 Imp gal (300-l) drop tank.Notice it makes no mention of having the extra tank used for the MW50 or GM1 yet apparently this is supposed to be the MW50 version they are talking about.
It goes on to performance:
(clean): max speed 355 mph (571km/h) at sea level, 402 mph (647 km/h) at 18,045 ft (5500 m) Max speed with GM-1 nitrous oxide boost, 408 mph (656km/h) at 6,560 ft (200m)initial cimb rate 3,450 ft/min (17.5m/sec); time to climb to 19,685 ft (6000m) 9.1 min; to 26,250 ft (8000m) 14.4 min; to 32,800 ft (10000m) 19.3 min; service ceiling 33,800 ft and with GM1 boost 37,400ft (11,400m)now it has mentioned the GM1 boost now but theres no way to know if this is used for all figures or if indeed this version is the one with GM1 (doesnt put it in powerplant list). Maybe it had GM1 for the 19.3 minute climb to 32,800 and because of this unknown factor the info cant be argued against the AH model. I timed the climb in AH's 190a8 to an intended 32,800 ft but like i said i actually gave up around 29k because i was already at 29 minutes!!.I used a lighter fuel load too if i remember right so as to give it some leeway in terms of weights and it should have helped AH's 190a8 to beat any test report where they often used 100% fuel loads with normal combat weight armaments.
People then posted charts for the planes which unfortunately i havent got and they explained on those charts it took longer than 19 minutes to get to 32,800 ft. As far as i recall though it wasnt 29 minutes to 29k in these charts either but i found it hard to understand them as they were in German and eventually it was all forgotten about
heres a description of 190a8 which makes me wonder if MW50 WAS the more comon type produced : 'Warplanes of the Luftwaffe' by William Green :
By contrast with the 190A-7, the next, and in the event, last production A-series version of the fighter, the Fw190A-8, was to be built in larger numbers than any other sub-type. Possessing an essentially similar airframe , power plant and basic armament to that of the 190A-7, the Fw190A-8 embodied modifications permitting the installation of an MW50 tank aft, the fug 16ZY radio was moved forward and, when mounted, the ETC 501 rack was repositioned eight inches further forward.'Ive read all i can about the 190a8s and i have to say MW50 is pretty much always mentioned which has led me to believe it was used often, not rarely as some claim. Wouldnt the MW50 be a pilots preference and mechanics would install it if it was wanted? and in all honesty why wouldnt you want it? I have struggled to find much about climb speeds/times etc and when i found Capt browns book i was pleased to have such a detailed list of timings. (even though there wasnt much there)
It seems the majority of stuff ive found are rather poor quality copies of various documents from German tests or factory figures posted by people in here or off obscure web sites.There doesnt seem to be many if any 190a8 test reports floating around that are easy to find so i often wonder what HTC uses, an American official test maybe? then theres the problem that GM1 and MW50 fuel wasnt available for Allied tests so these tests arent exactly very representative of the MW50 190a8s. This doesnt mean the MW50 wasnt used by the Lufftwaffe but it seems because there isnt allied tests with the mw50 or GM1 being used people assume none of the original units used them.
If someone could show us the figures for the 190a8 we have and then show the AH model matches it closely then id have resolved this in my mind ages ago, unfortunately ever since i did those tests in AH and timed it Ive always felt it wasnt right or at least appeared to have a disapointingly long climb/ poor performance to various alts vs time.
its only one source so its not enough to base an appeal to htc on but the feeling something might be way off remains.I have over 40 WW2 books 32 of which are based on aviation and the pilots, 25 of these are Lufftwaffe based books. In all of these theres only maybe 3 books that describe the aircraft in ENOUGH detail to be of any relevance to AH and model discussions.Batz you obviously have the info to disprove any claim that the MW50 190a8 wasnt common or ever used? If so post the titles and authors and better still add the isbn numbers so we can buy them and can read it for ourselves. I would hazard a guess that unless you like me love LW planes you're unlikely to have any book that goes into technical detail. Theres too many books out there that are exactly the same. Basic info and long drawling explanations of operation numbers or fail to really attempt to print any old documents, gap in the market for sure if there arent any.
Anyhow please batz understand im not really that bothered by the current AH model now, er as in im not all upset by it. I have accepted thats the way HTC want it. I long ago lost all my enthusiasm for posting info and trying to improve modelling etc. I realised that with the current wep system (which i do like) we are never going to really see what these engines were like. To get this im better off buying a non online sim. AH cant afford to get too technical or it bores the average player. I have accepted that AH is the most detailed and accurate(almost spot on) WW2 sim thats available ONLINE. Offline maybe theres a few that get it more precise, as in almost anal about it
hehe.I have learned to accept it how it is and i havent posted about the model for a long while. I do however get annoyed when i read what mandoble posted which i dont see as anything terrible, in fact how else are you supposed to question something? you ask a dang question right? what is it exactly that hes written thats so terrible?
In all these posts we are saying its what we perceive or see and how we see things. Its perfectly ok for anyone to show us where we have it wrong or indeed to add stuff to help prove its right. What I dont appreciate as im not a schoolboy is people who add their opinions on what the 190 could or couldnt do or just insult the poster without ever attempting to prove they are wrong or add real info.
Sure ive been told the 190a8 wasnt using MW50 or GM1 commonly, if at all but wheres the proof? wheres the reference to the book where i can learn it for myself? No instead i got abuse (generally) and opinions and was told i was wrong and im supposed to take their word for it? its nonsense.so please the same for you, why are you so sure about it?
The other problem is feel. 'Feelings' are obviously relative to the person whos playing. How he's set up his joystick, the speed of his computer, the quality of conection etc etc. Also the state of mind they are in when they believe they have seen something wrong. In anger at getting killed, people often say things that they dont really mean or misinterpret stuff. If they post in anger its often not thought out. BUT when a player takes time to do tests, like i did for the 190a8 then they at least deserve a quick answer. It would take a few minutes to grasp what they are asking and a simple 'our data says different, you might want to read.....'
and not 'shut up you whiner' or 'you are trying to get the aircraft changed for selfish reasons' lol.
Well heres the link to the thread, as you can see it looks as though it was the GM version not MW50 that was being talked about so earlier in this thread i made a mistake from memory. but its all horses for courses, almost the same thing hehe:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48770&
Point is although eventually the differences were smal they are quite relevant. take a look:
(8 mph) difference of top speed at sea level non wep
(5 mph) difference of top speed with wep added.
Only 2 or 3mph difference at 18k though so funny enough thats where i like to fight in it .In that thread i ended up saying this: "HTCs climb times in AH are slightly off what my book says up to 17-18k then really off above that so now i'll wait to see what people think.
I honestly thought HT would check it out but some year later still not a single mention about it. I havent mentioned it until recently. I have shown extreme patience wouldnt you agree? what i dont like to see is people people being called whiner for noticing similar errors.
Im resigned to the fact its never going to be changed as its obviously considered within HTC's tollerances.what other explanation is there?
Has anyone just out of pureinterest tried similar tests on say.....ooo ....the p51d maybe? is it 5 mph off top speed with wep? 8 mph off top speed non wep? I wonder 
hehe
