Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: MANDOBLE on July 22, 2003, 06:17:51 PM
-
From Ecke's link:
http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/VBv190.htm
Climb:The climb of the FW 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights.
The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the FW 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the FW 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000'. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the FW 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.
Dive: Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the FW 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages.
Manoeuvrability. The manoeuvrability of the FW 190 is better than that of the Spitfire VB except in turning circles, when the Spitfire can quite easily out-turn it. The FW 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be most useful during combat.
Better climb up to 25000 feet?
Steeper climb?
Better zoom climb?
Better dive particulary during initial stages?
Better acceleration under all conditions?
What 190A was that? 190A9?? 190A10??
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
What 190A was that? 190A9?? 190A10??
I don't know, but that 190 is from another planet than those in AH.
-
Sounds like a good description of the AH Fw190A-5 vs the AH Spitfire Mk Vb.
What is the point of this post? More Spitfire whining?
You're getting pretty pathetic MANDOBLE.
Seriously MANDOBLE, you seem to have a huge case of "The grass is greener on the other side" going.
I've flown both the 190A-5 and Spit V in AH and the 190A-5 is a far, far better fighter. Drop the Spitfire bullcrap already.
-
I don't know Karnak.
Doesn't it remind you of the good ole days? How long has it been anyway?
The backward firing Typhoon; the C-Hog Crisis...
...those were the threads, my friend, we thought they'd never end, we'd type and type, forever and a daaaaaaaaaaaay........ we flew the planes we'd choose, we'd fight and never looooooose, those were the threads, oh yes those were the daaaaaaaaaazzzzzzzzze!
;)
-
Karnak, before demostrating your absolute ignorance, you can:
1 - Check the climb charts for substained climb at constant speed.
2 - Do climb/angle tests at several alts.
3 - Check initial acceleration at level and diving from slow speeds and several alts.
4 - And most important, fight a spitV in a 190A5/A8 from a co E state.
-
.. and to help the testings, please try the following tools :D
Acceleration rate comparison tool at Sea Level (http://kingcat.hihome.com/accel.html)
Roll rate comparison tool (http://kingcat.hihome.com/rollrate.html)
Climb rate comparison tool (http://kingcat.hihome.com/climbgraph.html)
Speed comparison tool (http://kingcat.hihome.com/speedgraph.html)
-
To prove your ignorance is total MANDOBLE, you can just look at those charts. Gee, the Fw190A-5 is better on every one of them across the board except fir a loss in climb rate at 8,000 to 18,000ft. And that is sustained climb rate, not the much more relevant zoom climb rate.
That also ignores the fact that the WEP on the 190A-5 lasts twice as long and it has more than twice the cannon ammo and better visibility.
Check you numbers again.
190A-8 is a non issue as it is over armored and comparing a Spit V to it is apples and oranges.
-
It's amazing that the same old debunked arguments keep coming up over and over on this forum.
The text that Mandoble posted is from the the same report as this page: http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/pro_190_survey_c_1.jpg
If you want to match AH to Mandoble's text, you need to use the power settings on that page. +12/3000 for the Spit V and 1.42/2700 for the 190. Otherwise any comparison between AH and that text is invalid.
-
Perk the Spit V!
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Funked, show respect or you shall feel the lash of the rear firing Typhoon guns! You have been warned!!!
-
Karnak, check at your stats of the last 15 tours and then come here and tell us your large experience flying 190A5/A8 or SpitV, against SpitV/190A.
If you want to check the ONLY two charts we have, 190A8 is outclimbed by far, 190A5 is outclimbed between 7 and 17k (substained climb), and spitV can climb steeper at any alt.
You can come here and tell us, hey these tests surely were wrong, or you can come here and show us you dont know a bit about any of these planes.
-
Gentlemen...
no need to throw with little stones.;)
I just sent a request to the webmaster. I hope he will give us more infos.
Calm down guys. It seems like its hard to discuss here on a serious level.
Ecke
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
Karnak, check at your stats of the last 15 tours and then come here and tell us your large experience flying 190A5/A8 or SpitV, against SpitV/190A.
Oh look, Mandoble pulls out the old "You don't fly it, so you can't say anything" line.
Well, how about this, Mandoble? I fly the Spit V. I've probably flown it more than any other person in this game. And I've fought oodles and oodles of 190A5s both in the MA and in scenario environments. The fact remains that the 190A5 matches up extremely well against the Spit V, and in a situation where surviving matters, I'd choose the 190 over the Spit V.
Give this one up before you embarrass yourself further.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by funkedup
It's amazing that the same old debunked arguments keep coming up over and over on this forum.
The text that Mandoble posted is from the the same report as this page: http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/pro_190_survey_c_1.jpg
If you want to match AH to Mandoble's text, you need to use the power settings on that page. +12/3000 for the Spit V and 1.42/2700 for the 190. Otherwise any comparison between AH and that text is invalid.
De ja vu.
I'm sure we have been here before.....
-
And there was me thinking the chip-on-my-shoulder luftwhiners had heard enough of their own arguments. Still good to see the deceased horse is worth flogging.
Keep it coming!
-
Thanks again to HT for creating the term luftwhiner.
Good reason for all snails to broaden the slimy path.
I am out of this thread. I only published some links because of a request.
Obviously, its not possible here, to discuss certain aspects of ww2 planes on a serious level. Unless they are RAF or USAF.
Ecke
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
In a situation where surviving matters, I'd choose the 190 over the Spit V.
I may agree with that only while 190s have some thousands of feet to dive. I suppose you have enganged 190A5/A8 a lot of times. Just like I've have enganged SpitV flying 190A5/A8/D9 a lot of times also. Now tell me, are your SpitV massively outclimbed by 190A5/A8 from a co E situation at any alt? Do these 190s climb clearly steeper than your SpitV? Do these 190s outaccelerate your SpitV at low speeds (not diving, of course)?
And now, for these that cant read, my question was: what 190A was that of the test? IMO it cant be our A8 nor our A5, may be A4?
-
And now, for these that cant read, my question was: what 190A was that of the test? IMO it cant be our A8 nor our A5, may be A4?
It was a 190A3.
For the speed tests, the 190 used 1.42 ata, 2700 rpm, the Spit V 12lbs boost, 3000 rpm.
For the climb tests, the 190 used 1.35 ata, 2450 rpm, the Spit 9lbs boost, 2850 rpm.
-
You might also wonder what kind of Spit V they were comparing it to, and what we have here.
See the climb rates listed here (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/x4922.html) and compare them to the ones you see here. (http://kingcat.hihome.com/climbgraph.html)
-
Sable you are repeating the mistake I explained above. The Spit V in Mando's quote was only using +12 psi boost. X.4922 was only using +8-3/4 psi. AH Spitfire is using +16 psi with WEP.
AA878 test used +16 psi: http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878.html
-
I don't really see how this is at all related to AH considering we don't even know what version of 190A we are talking about.
As far as boost goes the 190A had cooling problems in climb that meant taking boost down right up until the A5. The A5 was the first to really overcome this problem. Many of the captured FW190A's could not meet stated performance criteria until the A5.
BTW the reduction from 1.42 to 1.35 was just a reduction to max continous power. This does not mean the engine was derated for max power climb. The MAP for max climb of American fighters is listed the same way.
Give this one up before you embarrass yourself further.
I wonder what I could do to embarrass myself further:D
-
talk about beating a dead horse........
They are talking about the a3 F4
The scanned docs can be foung on the below site. The website mand refers to just paraphrases rather poorly from these docs.
http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/prodocs.htm
They can be found else where in better condition.
This particular topic has had it arse whooped about a million times.
Not only on this board but all over the net.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Sable you are repeating the mistake I explained above. The Spit V in Mando's quote was only using +12 psi boost. X.4922 was only using +8-3/4 psi. AH Spitfire is using +16 psi with WEP.
AA878 test used +16 psi: http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878.html
Well, that answers the question right there. If we had an earlier Spit V using only +9 - +12psi it would climb much worse, and the FW190 would be that much better in comparison. Thanks for clearing that up funkedup.
-
No problem sir.
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
What 190A was that? 190A9?? 190A10??
It was a captured 190A-3, with it`s engine limited to 1.35ata and 2450 RPM, ie. it`s German operational limits of that 190A-3 subtype.
The 1.42ata boost mentioned in one of the report is most likely a mistake, as the plane was WAY OFF from what 1.42ata speed specs should look like (415mph) Probably the Brits used full throttle, and didn`t realized at first they are using the derated powers and not 1.42ata.During the trials, they were using around 1400 HP perhaps at 1.35ata.
In the A-5 that came in early 1943, they were no longer restricted and the full 1800PS could be used with 1.42ata/2700RPM.
With A-8 and Erhohte Notleistung, it raised to 2100PS (but it was a lot heavier, whereas the A-5 was about the same weight as A-3).
A-9 was between 2000-2400PS, depending on variant.
In a US trial with an A-4, they runned the engine at 1.42ata and 2700 RPM (i.e. A-5 service limits in a similiar airframe), and achieved a maximum of 4000 fpm climb rate and 415 mph maxspeed, which agreed well with FW`s specs for A-5 at 1.42ata.
Here`s a doc on the issue:
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fw%20190%201[1]%20AIR%2016-658.jpg
-
V0101 there's no need to speculate. The A-3 had a boost gauge, and the AFDU used it. Here are the power settings used for the Fw 190 in the comparison test that Mandoble's text is taken from:
http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/pro_190_survey_c_1.jpg
This was an AFDU report, not RAE.
Edit: I think that site does not like direct links. You can go here: http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/prodocs.htm
Look for "VARIOUS FW190 TEST REPORTS (AIR 16/658)."
It's section D, Page 8.
You can find the text quoted by Mandoble on section C, Pages 1 and 2.
-
Perk the 190A5!!!!!!!!! ;)
Backward firing Typhoon... that brings back memories eh?! That was a classic! :)
-
Originally posted by Replicant
Backward firing Typhoon... that brings back memories eh?! That was a classic! :)
Only that I was not involved into that classic.
-
No, it was RAM if I remember correctly.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
V0101 there's no need to speculate. The A-3 had a boost gauge, and the AFDU used it. Here are the power settings used for the Fw 190 in the comparison test that Mandoble's text is taken from:
Yes I know that page and I have the test on my HDD. The actual ata that was used is in question, but either it was some much lower ata rating, or the plane itself was in very bad shape and was considerably slower than a normal plane should be at 1.42ata power.
If you go through the test, it says that the speeds are approx. the same as with Spit MkIXF at +15lbs at 21 000 ft. At this alt and this boost rate, the Spit9F could do 378 mph or so, according to trials with the similiarry boosted BF274 here :
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bf274.html
Now if you compare that with 1.42ata tests with 190A-4 and A-5s, they should be a lot faster than 378mph.
For example, US test of FW 190A-4 EB104 at 1.42 gives 410mph at 21k ft, and Focke-Wulf`s own specs for the A-5 at 1.42ata at 6400m give 655kph (406mph).
Also, the USN`s test vs. Corsair and Hellcat give the A-5 running at 1.42 ata 401mph at 20k ft, and 410mph at 25k ft, after 2 minutes of acceleration only.
So altough I am not sure wheter it is because ADFU`s 190 was really running on 1.35ata and not 1.42 as they believe, or because it was in bad aerodynamic shape, it was definietely worser than other 190s at 1.42ata. Perhaps it carried bomb rack(s)..?
But to your question, it`s definietely an A-3 (though mind you, in later tactical trials they used a fighter-bomber A-4)
-
V0101 You make a good case. Remember that the Spit 9 in the AFDU comparison test was only using +12 boost for level speed tests. So it should have been even slower than BF274 was at +15. Seems like the 190 should have been faster.
Yes I'm aware that the AFDU trial used a Fw 190A-3.
FYI EB-104 was a Fw 190G-3 which had all bomb racks and armament removed, and ballast added to simulate Fw 190A-5 armament. I have the complete text of the USAAF report and manual for EB-104, got it from the USAF Museum before they closed their archives. :)
I believe the USN Fw 190 trial vs. the F6F and F4U was also done with EB-104, although I can't find out for sure.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
FYI EB-104 was a Fw 190G-3 which had all bomb racks and armament removed, and ballast added to simulate Fw 190A-5 armament. I have the complete text of the USAAF report and manual for EB-104, got it from the USAF Museum before they closed their archives. :)
I believe the USN Fw 190 trial vs. the F6F and F4U was also done with EB-104, although I can't find out for sure.
Checked it, you are right. It`s the same aircraft in the USAAF and USN trials, I wasn`t aware of that until now, it can be confirmed by the painting and the W.Nr.160057 :
http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/ce2900.html
You can see it`s the same as in the USN trial docs.
It seems that during the USN, the G-3 style bombracks and inner guns were removed/missing, though their weight was emulated with ballast as an A-5 fighter. The cannons tubes hardly effected aerodynamics anyway, and if they did, the missing wheel covers probably made up for their drag.
I would be most intested with the USAAF`s full trial docs with EB-104, I only have the speed/climbs curves of the report. Could you pass it by email or post it, I will see what I might have in return, what you dont have yet (which is unlikely).
-
I haven't scanned the report yet. It will be quite a task. When I scan it I will post it here.
I also have similar manuals for the Me 262 and A6M3. Those ones do not include performance information. They were intended to be manuals for maintenance and operation of the airplanes by USAAF personnel.
-
The Spit IX was tested at 15lbs boost for speed runs.
The problem with the A3 seems to be speed at altitude, not speed across the range. The speeds the British obtained were approx 330mph at sea level, rising to around 390 at just over 17,000ft. However, I think they found a critical altitiude of less than 20,000ft.
Those figures, certainly the sea level speed, match well with most of the other tests, as far as I am aware (though the FW factory figures are very different)
Bear in mind that the 190 was being run at 1.42 ata for multiple performance runs, so the engine may have suffered towards the end.
-
MANDOBLE,
I spent a Tour in the Spitfire Mk V a long time ago, back before you idiotic Spitfire whiners made it too frusterating to fly Spitfires anymore.
I take the Fw190A-5 up every now and then as it is a fun fighter to fly. The thing is a brawling monster and you'd probably realize that if you stopped whining so much and just used it.
I have never dedicated a Tour to the Fw190A-5 though. I don't really do that anymore, but the Fw190A-5 is one of my favorite fighters in AH and will go on my short favorites list in AH2.
-
I don't think there's anything wrong with the A5, it matches up pretty well with the Spit V. The spit IX just absolutely dominates an A5 though.
-
Originally posted by Ecke-109-
Thanks again to HT for creating the term luftwhiner.
Good reason for all snails to broaden the slimy path.
I am out of this thread. I only published some links because of a request.
Obviously, its not possible here, to discuss certain aspects of ww2 planes on a serious level. Unless they are RAF or USAF.
Ecke
Just click "profile" and "add to ignore list". Works great to keep down the noise. :)
-
Urchin,
I have read a quote from a Fw190 pilot who stated that the only thing his Fw190 did better than the Spitfire Mk IX was roll. In every other way he felt the Spitfire Mk IX was better.
Now, we know that isn't precisely true and can name other things the Fw190 is better at, but it was how at least one 1943 Fw190 driver felt.
FWIW, my biggest area of suspicion in the AH flight modeling (and this is true of many aircraft, but wonderfully illustrated by these two) is dive acceleration performance. In a dive the Fw190 should pull away from Spitfire Mk IX much more markedly than it does (does it even pull away in AH?). So should the Bf109.
The Spitfire had a very high (for a WWII fighter) absolute dive speed, but it feels like AH has modeled this as very good dive acceleration as well and the Spitfire should not accelerate that well in a dive. Even the Mk XIV shouldn't accelerate that well in the initial moments of the dive.
The relative dive performance of certain aircraft just feels wrong to me.
-
Ecke-109-,
You were not being debated, nor was your link. It was MANDOBLE's forced interpitation of it.
You see, MANDOBLE hates Spitfires and has actively tried to get them removed from the game for a long, long time. So, anything he says on the subject is, to put it bluntly, dismissed.
There have been many detailed discussions of German aircraft. In fact, outside of the P-47, P-38 and F4U, there are no non-German aircraft that I can think of that have had detailed discussions.
I do agree that it is too bad that the good threads about German aircraft attract those who automatically slam anybody who likes German aircraft as a "whiner" or some other derogatory term, but this thread was never going to be a good thread simply due to the proven agenda of the thread originator.
-
AIR 40/151, contains a chart comparing the speed results obtained by the R.A.E (from tests with the A3) with makers upper and lower limits, the speeds obtained by the R.A.E fall within these limits.
Neil.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
I believe the USN Fw 190 trial vs. the F6F and F4U was also done with EB-104, although I can't find out for sure.
hi funked, just out of interest how did the f4u compare to the 190? if you have seen the test reports of course.
And, all you spit whiners are just jealous ;)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_71_1057058539.jpg)
-
There maybe an accelleration problem with the 190s (ask Fork). This maybe where most guys get in trouble. The Spit 9 will catch a 190 in a dive and then holds its E longer after pulling out. Then level accelleration in ah its just slam throttle forward. No rpm or prop adjustments. The constant speed prop in ah is an instant speed prop.
But this goes to the eng model. Theres no over revving the eng, (so theres no need to reduce rpm or throttle in these dives) We just fly around at max boost. Theres no need to manage heat (rad flaps) etc. So all planes go vert, full throttle, straight at the ground.
I took an a6m2 above 600mph and pulled out. I am testing niki dive speeds and pull outs now for a scenario. Unless you pull real hard most planes will make these high speed pull outs.
As has been pointed out to recreate whats in these test then you need to fly the ah planes in the same way they did in the tests. Running the planes at max boost then crying that your data doesnt match will get you mocked and laughed at. Especially this beaten to death, buried, dug up and beaten again horse. This discussion started 30 sec after ah got the a5.
Next we will see the roll charts and the infamous "the a5 is 12 mph to slow, thats scandalous".
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
The Spit IX was tested at 15lbs boost for speed runs.
The problem with the A3 seems to be speed at altitude, not speed across the range. The speeds the British obtained were approx 330mph at sea level, rising to around 390 at just over 17,000ft. However, I think they found a critical altitiude of less than 20,000ft.
Certainly not. The British found the A-3 7-8mph faster than the Spit MkIXF at +15lbs, which could do 312mph at 2000ft.
That would give apprx. 320mph at 2000ft for the A-3, and probably around 310-315mph at SL for the A-3.
Which is 507kph, and is just ridiculusly slow for 1.42ata and a plane with good condition.
As for my part, I haven`t seen any test that would give it so slow at 1.42 at SL.
FW Factory chart for the A-5 at 1.42ata give 352 mph at SL, and 362mph at 2000ft.
The trials with EB-104 of A-5 standard give 341 at SL, and 352 at 2000ft, which is rather close to the FW factory data, as I assume that in the EB-104 test wing racks were still present.
The USN tests with A-5 at 1.42ata give 334mph at 200ft with the same plane, however those test were only made with 2minutes of acceleration, which was not enough to develop full speed according to the report.
So, it seems that the ADFU`s A-3 was 20-30 mph slower on the whole altitude range when running at the same (?) 1.42ata setting, whatever the reason to that be. But it`s seems either some VERY wornout engine, or airframe, or both.
-
Karnak,
Better climb up to 25000 feet?
Steeper climb?
Better zoom climb?
Better dive particulary during initial stages?
Better acceleration under all conditions?
What 190A was that? 190A9?? 190A10??
With all respect, but that was all what Mandoble asked in his post.
I cant see any forced interpretation in it. Might be, i would ask the same.
Although i know Mandoble loves the FW190, i dont know much about his relationship to the spitfire.
I only see a couple of question marks in his post. And that should be allowed without any forced interpretation.
I am far away of beeing an expert in flight datas and planes subtypes. But i am very interested in reading about that.
I am very impressed how deep some of you guys knowledge is.
I know about the difficulties to compare e.g. spit vs FW190 just 60 jears after they were in active service.
And as long as HT dont talk about his sources of datas, its almost impossible to compare any planes in AH.
But anyway i enjoy disscussions about that.
The only point that pisses me off is the fact that whenever a LW lover have some questions or critics, he becomes stigmatized as a LuftWhiner.
And at last:
@Pei
De ja vu.
I'm sure we have been here before.....
You should learn to live with that.
Lots of vets are leaving and are replaced by a great amout of newbies.
So, whats a De ja vu for you, is a completely new fact for others.
So swallow your boredom and let them live.
Ecke
-
MAIN POINT MISSED HERE::::
The 190 in that test was the 190A-3 which was some (from memory) 400 lbs lighter than the 190a5. This would account for the much less of a difference we see now but im not sure to what degree this would be so I cannot assk for change only for a rechecking of figures to be sure its right as it is now. Personally i think it seems to be too sluggish in acceleration and a bit useless in the zoom as it is now. This doesnt match up to descriptions ive seen by allied and axis pilots alike.
the 190A-8 is a whole different ball game to the 190a-5. Its almost a thousand lbs(190a8 normal gross weight 9,660lbs) heavier than the 190a-3(190a-3 is 8,770 lbs)
More armour and heavier wing, SAME engine (BMW 801 D-2) so not enough to counteract the added weights.
If there is something wrong with our 190A-5 i would look into the powerloading of the 190s. To me they seem as though they are carrying more weight than other aircraft.Just my 'feeling'.
for instance the power loading on a 190A-6 for instance is 5.3lb /hp. Thats 5.3lbs of weight for every hp the engine produces.The lower this weight the better usually the acceleration. (As a general rule)
the power loading for a TEMPEST V for instance is 4.5lb /hp
for a YaK-9 4.5lb/hp
basically if you look at this figure you will notice the lower this number the better acclerator the aircraft is. It at least gives you a clue as to which aircraft should be quick. If your aircraft has a bad score here expect it to accelerate in a flat trajectory slowly. This doesnt factor in the dive/power dive or include the figures for induced drag which make some perform worse than they appear the should.I think some in here perfer to dismiss anything concerning 190 questions because its more fun to wind up those asking than it is to actually listen.If you flew the 190s you would know that sometimes it seems to behave like its hitting a head wind as you manouver!. while in other aircraft you suddenly feel like you are floating more at the top of flip over stalls etc.Its hard for anyone to pinpoint where this 'feel' comes from but its definately there.I think you have to be much more gentle on the stick with LW stuff. If i fly LW like I fly P51s I lose all my speed yet the p51 seems to hold onto its speed even in tight reversals. Try to follow a P51 in a 190-9 and you will come out of the turn 100 mph slower. the p51 will look like its a rocket ship! same for the ever popular LA7. it holds onto speed where it should have lost a lot to 'mushing' through the air It should i would guess still lose a lot of speed in very tight turns, it would just reaquire that soeed faster than others due to its acceleration. well thats my latest theory hehe.
-
Ecke -109-,
I think you missed my point.
It was MANDOBLE making the post and it mentioned both German aircraft and Spitfires in the same post. Therefore it was a whine. MANDOBLE's record on this subject is too strong for apparently innocent phrases (and those were loaded phrases anyways) to make a thread valid.
Any thread of MANDOBLE's that includes the word "Spitfire", or some other term for that aircraft, is automatically doomed.
-
I will start questioning wether the Spitfire is modelled correctly the minute the endless whines cease about it, untill then...I know God is in his heavan, and all is well in AH. :)
Spitties forever.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
And there was me thinking the chip-on-my-shoulder luftwhiners had heard enough of their own arguments. Still good to see the deceased horse is worth flogging.
Keep it coming!
Ever hear of Billy Mims?
-
I didn't read the entire thread, but I do fly 190's almost exclusively, and I can tell you from experience in the MA that every spit in the MA can, givin equal energy, outclimb any Fw. I don't know what the charts say, I don't look at them. I don't care what the charts say, bacause the only thing that matters is how the planes perform in the virtual airspace that we occupy.
Now if the 190 is suposed to outclimb the lighter and less powered spits, then maybe we should have it like that. Many many sorties have ended with a co-alt spit out diving with me and catching my 190a8, even with energy states pretty equal.
-
Some months ago I tried a Spitfire IX for a whole TOD. Well, I'm not a FM guru, but, hell, looks like that MkIX handles to well at very high speeds. Moreover, while I can live with the higher sustained ROC of the Spitfire I find her E retention after a zoom climb .... well, too much "P51ish".
I remember WB2, when during a dogfight bettween a 190 and a Spit their respective strenghts/weaknesses looked more close to what a I've read on the books/manuals/trials.
That said, I was wondering why those Spitfire have instruments in their cockpits. After driving a 109/190/205 you can dogfight in a Spitfire without checking your speed/ROC/alt at all .... :p ;)
-
It's the longe range gunnery aspect.
Outzooming Spits with a 300~400 yards margin is easy.
Problem is, in every given situation the 190s must prepare excessive Energy that will alow it too zoom with a margin wider than at least 600 yards. Anything under that, and any body can snipe everything out of the sky, as long as he is willing to pull the trigger down long enough.
Another problem is the way Spits or N1K2s stall out, while compared to how the other planes stall out. Even with manual trim, a straight vertical to 0mph will often cause a inverted flat spin. In the case of the Spit or N1K2, almost no such problem. Since there is no fear of it, their aim remains rock solid during the vertical.
Another interesting thing is how the torque forces work in the Spit9 or the N1K. I'm mentioning this because, the other planes show very different flight characteristics between combat trim and manual trim. However, when I fly Spits, N1K2s or such, I keep get confused whether I'm flying with MT, or CT - can't tell the difference. The only indicator to me, is the nose pitch-up movement when speeds increase, in MT.
Ofcourse, all empirical feelings, nothing more.
But I think there are valid reasons that the Spit9 or Spit5, maybe inevitably, are better than they should be. Of course, that don't necessarily mean the reasons are exactly as Mandoble gave.
-
Originally posted by gatt
Well, I'm not a FM guru, but, hell, looks like that MkIX handles to well at very high speeds.
Can you elaborate on that?
-
Originally posted by Furball
hi funked, just out of interest how did the f4u compare to the 190? if you have seen the test reports of course.
And, all you spit whiners are just jealous ;)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_71_1057058539.jpg)
Off the top of my head... The Fw climbed a little better at low speeds. F6F and F4U were faster at high altitudes. F4U and F6F could turn easily inside the Fw. Fw could out roll F6F but F4U had about the same roll rate as the Fw. I'll put the report back on the web this weekend so you can read it.
-
Thx funked!
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Off the top of my head... The Fw climbed a little better at low speeds. F6F and F4U were faster at high altitudes. F4U and F6F could turn easily inside the Fw. Fw could out roll F6F but F4U had about the same roll rate as the Fw. I'll put the report back on the web this weekend so you can read it.
I wonder what F-4U was that? The report mentions boosted ailerons, which might be the case why the pilots felt it similiar to the FW190 (to my knowledge no serial F4U had boosted ailerons) in the test:
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Fw%20190%20vs%20F4U%20roll%20rate.jpg)
BTW, here`s the complete Hellcat vs. 190 vs. F4u evalutation:
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/page1.jpg
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/page2.jpg
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/page3.jpg
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/page4.jpg
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/page5.jpg
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/page6.jpg
-
All Corsairs had balance tabs on the ailerons and elevator, which made controls very light at high speeds. These are sometimes called "boost tabs" also.
Here's a good explanation of balance tab function: http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Theories_of_Flight/control/TH28G6.htm
-
Quick notes on that F4U-1D used during the test.
1. It was not a paddle blade used for the test mentioned in the report.
2. It was overheating at high power because of mixture problems.
3. That FW190 was actually a G model. I think someone already mentioned that but the AAF also tested with that aircraft.
4. The boost tabs were added somewhere in the early F4U-1 production series. They also re-enforced the elavators to prevent shredding them somewhere in the F4U-1 series.
-
It became clear quite some time ago that AH is not an accurate simulation, and we really cannot expect it to be considering it's a simulation of 60 year old aircraft. It still annoys me from time to time that AH sometimes fails to capture the "feel" of the difference in performance and that is most noticeable with the Fw/Ta series (although the A8 does feel like the brick it was). We got an A5 that dosn't feel like the flying engine it was (acceleration), we got a D9 that can't dive with a fully laden 51D with bombs and rockets, we got a Ta-152 that can't turn or climb and snaps wingtips off at relatively low G-loads. This was perhaps the single biggest disapointment for me since the 190 is my favorite LW plane. I stick to 109's in this game.
-
Oh and the Spitfire seems to accelerate to quickly in a dive, and retain E too well in tight turns compared to other low wingloading planes.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
All Corsairs had balance tabs on the ailerons and elevator, which made controls very light at high speeds. These are sometimes called "boost tabs" also.
Here's a good explanation of balance tab function: http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Theories_of_Flight/control/TH28G6.htm
That`s a Flettner tab I see at your link. So the Corsair had Flettners? Interesting, I didnt know that (I amnot much into F4U development). Since I am going today to an air race where they have a F4U4 displayed, I will definietely check it. ;) Still, the British measuerements give very much better roll figures to the 190 vs. the corsair - unless we concentrate only on 350mph IAS.
-
AFAIK Flettner tab is any movable tab on the trailing edge of a control surface.
Balance tab is a specific type where the tab deflection is proportional and opposite to deflection of the control surface.
There are also trim tabs, control tabs, geared tabs, spring tabs, geared spring tabs, etc. Unfortunately a lot of authors don't understand the distinctions between them so things get messed up in books.
This is US nomenclature though, might be different overseas.
-
GScholz, our D9 cant dive with a P51, but A8/A5 almost can.
-
Btw..
Are there any infos at which speed 190s could use their flaps?
Ecke
-
Just did a quick test , 10k at 360 mph for the 109G-2 and Spitfire IX, clean condition.
5Gs through 360 degree turn to the left, full wep, both a/c end up at @280 mph TAS. There is no great advantage to the Spitfire compared to other types, at least no more than you would expect.
Dive from 15k both ac at 370 mph. Spitfire IX at 45 deg dive, 6 sec to 400, 10 sec to 450, 13 sec to 500. 109G-2 same dive, 5 sec to 400, 9 sec to 450, 11 sec to 500.
I can probably put a 5 percent error in there for both tests, whatever.
There is a difference, sure, but small, and nowhere near enough for a claim that the Spitfire is somehow overmodelled?, not even close.
Just a bunch of heresay bunk... its quite amazing there doesnt seem to be one single LW ac that suffers from this terrible blight over overmodelling either, which sends the credibility of these types of claims re the Spitfire into the trash heap. .
-
Originally posted by Squire
(1) Just did a quick test , 10k at 360 mph for the 109G-2 and Spitfire IX, clean condition.
(2) 5Gs through 360 degree turn to the left, full wep, both a/c end up at @280 mph TAS. There is no great advantage to the Spitfire compared to other types, at least no more than you would expect.
(3) Dive from 15k both ac at 370 mph. Spitfire IX at 45 deg dive, 6 sec to 400, 10 sec to 450, 13 sec to 500. 109G-2 same dive, 5 sec to 400, 9 sec to 450, 11 sec to 500.
I can probably put a 5 percent error in there for both tests, whatever.
There is a difference, sure, but small, and nowhere near enough for a claim that the Spitfire is somehow overmodelled?, not even close.
(4) Just a bunch of heresay bunk... its quite amazing there doesnt seem to be one single LW ac that suffers from this terrible blight over overmodelling either, which sends the credibility of these types of claims re the Spitfire into the trash heap. .
1. Like I said ... I stick with the 109 in AH, although the 190 was known as the better "Spitkiller".
2. The 109G is not a low wingloading fighter. Try matching E retention with a turning plane that match the Spits turning ability instead.
3. Why you persist in testing the Spit vs. 109 I dont know, it's the 190 we're discussing here. The 190 was a better diver than both the Spit and the 109, but not in AH it seems. I've read P-47 drivers complaining that Spits are catching them in dives ... which is of course completely wrong, the P-47 should be the best diver in the game AFAIK. Instead try matching the Spits diving performance with other turnfighters.
4. There is debate on the 190 A5's turn radius, it might be overmodelled. F4UDOA got quite upset when a 190A5 handed him his butt in a turnfight with his F4U. So you're wrong about LW planes not being considered overmoddeled by some.
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
GScholz, our D9 cant dive with a P51, but A8/A5 almost can.
And I for one can't imagine why the D9 can't dive as well as the A. It was heavier, more streamlined and had more power???
-
Here is another interesting note on the 190A5 or G depending on what version you believe was captured and tested by the Navy. The captured German flight card in the cockpit was restricted to 466MPH at 10,000FT and below.
Here is that page of the report.
(http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/page4.jpg)
-
Been down this road before. Exiting stage left. I cant wait for AH2, a whole new batch of Spitfire conspiracy theories will undoubtably follow, because Im sure it will be just as it is now.
-
Thx fellas. This thread was a refreshing. I havent' seen this old conspiracy (is it or not) in quite some time.
Reminds of early times in AH..ahhh.
-
and thanks ammo for being the first to suggest 'a conspiricy'. As usual you try to make everyone with any concern about AH behaviour that in any way involves the 190 to be accusing HTC of doing it all on purpose to annoy LW flyers.
Well as usual the thread goes the way you intend it. Turns into a personal slanging match. we can get as pissed off with your reaction as you seem to be if you read anyone questioning the 190.
Consider this: Had mandoble said this exact same thing only substituting the P47 or P38 and described the same thing you would have probably given him your straightforward opinion. You would maybe go try what he says and either agree or disagree.
Since he said 190 though the immidiate reaction is the same old sh*t. You say he whining etc and a few join in and fill the thread with nonsense.
AMMO I want you to answer a few things for me please.
1) do you believe all aircraft to be modelled perfectly as they are now in AH?.
2) Do you feel 190 flyers have less of a right to question the things they experience in the game, and does this includes anyone who flies the 190?
3) Did you read the paper posted above about the 190vs F4u?
or did you ignore it? did you read any of the thread with an open mind is what im getting at.
for once dont just think 'whiner with no basis in truth' and try to consider it as you would someone like frenchy saying the P47 has a weird querk.You wouldnt jump on frenchy's back for asking it would you? You'd at least read it and consider it.
Well i read mandobles and i pointed out that test was a 190A-3 not an A-5 , I gave the weight difference as a guide and i hoped someone with better math than me might be able to give us some figures to show what we should see. But no, nothing like that, just the old crap about us claiming conspiricy again. I dont think theres a conspiricy at all but i do think people make a concerted effort to piss off the people who ask about them in here. Thats not HTC but it seems to make the threads get so personal that it gets ignored by any sane games player or developer alike.
choose to ignore evryone who flies them if you wish but i feel when people who regularly fly certain types notice discrepencies they are a credible source of info. Ammo do you truelly believe mandoble is just making this all up to get the aircraft better? so he can get more kills? shhesh we've been here years! we arent bothered about winning or losing fights , its just we want to see what we read about and want ACCURACY. most are fans of AH.Why would we bother for this long?
I get fed up, even in this very thread ive just read something ELSE which pissed me off, I had noticed whilst flying the 190 that i tend to black out an awful lot if i ever tried to sustain those high g turns for too long. Never seemed to happen when i flew other planes, I have often wondered just how i can go about finding out how they really were. The problem was i read in a book the 190 used a sloped position which impressed the RAF types for its ability to help the pilot tollerate more G. Again now in that posted doc I read about the same thing, this time written by the USA test pilots.
In AH i have often been lost by a hard manouvering P51B at blackout. Its almost impossible to see the p51 to follow his moves. He gets some G effect but the D-9 goes totally black.
So now how do i do anything about it? It's just a feeling that I seem to black out more but it could be a correct assumption.Am i a whiner if i question it? Isnt it fair that i should be able to say 'why do i seem to black out more in my 190d-9 in AH when ive read they used the sloping seat which afforded a greater tollerance of G force's ill affects (much the same as modern fighters and stunt planes do now)'.
Its a reasonable question but because it says 190 and not P47 or P38 immediately its a whine.I could be WAAYYY off the mark and completely wrong in my assumptions but I need to read where i got it all wrong before i accept it.
I merely wish to know if how it is now is right.its not whining.Ammo if you posted info that proved how it is in AH is spot on it would be different, but you dont , you just have a go at anyone in here whos interested in the 190.it sucks.
I suspect it is just a 'feeling' that i may have wrong but theres no law saying you cant ask questions. If you dont agree ammo why not show us how we are wrong instead of starting this conspiricy twaddle again>? :)
-
Punt . for hazed,
btw giving each month my 14 euro to HTC and even not bother log in AH anymore, :(
-
Because this way he gets to see some "Luftwhiner" get mad and start tossing insults back, and then we get to see some bannings. Good time can be had by all.
-
But in regards to the blacking out, there was a P-47/Fw-190 test posted here several times, and it mentioned the Fw pilot kept blacking out or graying out in the high G turns. So, yes, there is mention at least in one test of 190 pilots blacking out.
As far as the "conspiracy" talk, I don't think the LW fans really believe there is one, but..........from the perspective of others, when you look in the "Aircraft/Vehicles" forum and see thread after thread after thread with LW planes in the title, and you read them and see nothing but complaints or "notes" on how those planes "should be" as compared to AH, well, you do tend to develop an attitude about the thread author and yes, sometimes it does appear that they are alleging that HTC purposely models the LW planes' performance deficiently.
Are all the planes in AH modelled correctly? Who knows? I wasn't even born yet when the planes in here were built and flying combat. I suspect that neither were 95% of the players in the game.
Do Allied planes fans complain? Sure they do. Are they as voracious and aggressive with their complaints as the LW types? In my opinion, no.
From what I have seen, whenever a LW plane complaint thread starts, it starts out civil, then if HTC doesn't respond instantly, the author or another LW fan starts in with sarcastic comments, i.e. "it does no good to post this, they won't listen anyway." Then within a couple hours, we get the replies from other LW fans with ":mad: " smilies in them, and from there it generally progresses into a flame war.
HiTech himself commented on the topic about LW threads some time back. Search it out, read it, get it straight from him. That thread tells a lot about how he regards a thread just from the syntax and wording from the players.
Simply put, if ya got a complaint, and don't want a flame war, email HTC directly. You may not get a reply, but you will have handled your complaint in a more mature manner than airing it out here and starting yet another flamefest.
BTW, if you reread the whole thread, you will see that ammo was NOT the first to mention "conspiracy". Squire did that in the reply above ammo's. Maybe you owe ammo an apology for your lengthy diatribe and should address your comments to Squire instead?
-
I have thought the same.
The fury should be directed at Squire, hazed, not ammo.
Sure, it's got a lil' sarcastic tone, but as the post stands, the sarcasm could be against Squire, or the 'Lufties', or even both.
I don't think it's that serious a thing to get angry over... take a deep breath, hazed! ;)
-
I'll bite, I suppose.
Speaking as a "Luftwhiner" that has been playing for two years and seen the same old issues brought up time and time again with no response other than "quit whining" from other players and from HT himself, I would think it would be completely obvious why us "Luftwhiners" are aggravated beyond belief. As a group, we fly the planes with the most ineffective guns out of any in the game. If anyone wonders why the guns are so amazingly poor, they get called a whiner and dismissed. We fly planes that as a general rule can't be considered the "top tier" of planes. As a consequence of choosing to fly a plane for a reason other than that it is the best plane available, we tend to be more knowledgable about our plane of choice and how it performed in the "real world". Of course, we don't know a thing when it comes to the true experts like, well, I'm sure you guys can fill in your own list of names here, I don't need to do that.
In short, if anyone even THINKS they MIGHT have an issue with anything about a german plane, it is automatically a whine. It isn't a concern, it isn't an attempt to reconcile a source of information about real life performance vs in game performance, it is just a whine. So yea, after months and years of saying, "Gee, why does the 109/190 do XXX or not do XXX" and getting replies like "J00 Sux0rs, Luftwh1n3r!", I think it'd be completely understandable if one became considerably less civil. Of course, when one side becomes to uncivil (and I'll leave it to you to figure out which side that is) the powers than be step in and start banning, etc. Generally performing crowd control.
The really amusing thing, for me personally, is seeing two years of "There is NOTHING wrong with ANY plane in this WHOLE GAME! They are ALL modelled 100% CORRECTLY!, Now quit whining because you got killed/some other inane comment".... and then seeing stuff like this (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=89309&highlight=flight+model)
Now.... if it was modelled absolutely correctly before... then whats the point? I actually asked someone this a while back. I said "Hey XXXX.. if you guys already HAVE the flight models right.. then why are you changing them?" "We are making them MORE right". Amusing, to me anyway.
-
Ok, lets whine a bit. Here are my main concerns about Dora, and these concerns do not involve comparisons with other planes:
1 - Poor elevator response at hi speeds.
2 - Too much trim dependant, very unestable/slow control responses if not perfectly trimmed.
3 - Radiator (the supposed armoured radiator): every hit seems to catch it, and then you can fly for no more than 15 seconds.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
[B As a group, we fly the planes with the most ineffective guns out of any in the game. If anyone wonders why the guns are so amazingly poor, they get called a whiner and dismissed. . [/B]
Urchin, a really bad example which serves to explain the "conspiracy" theory.
The ballistics issue is another horse that has been beaten to death. The simple explanation is in the picture Pyro posted of all the various nation's rounds standing next to each other. Seems just about everyone understands; just about. ;)
-
Im not angry and im certainly not too bothered by all this same old mush brought up. If it really did anger me i'd simply stop using and reading the boards.
The point is I like the idea of a game where you can add what you learn in books to the stock pile of knowledge in here and DISCUSS it with everyone else. That INCLUDES peoples OPINIONS as well as hard facts or official documents. I fail to see where anyone should be censored by the complaints of other customers with a holier than thou attitude. Its not the conspiricy theory that annoys me, its the way decent or relevant discussion break down into a slanging match.If you'll notice i did not try to insult anyone in my post. I simply wanted to know exactly what people think and why they have formed the opinion every LW fan is a whiner etc. So far ive not heard a decent reason other than the usual 'emotional' reaction where things end up in personal attacks.Those that perpetuate those old arguements are the same lot!. I like ammo as a player, often say hello etc which is why it always annoys me more when i see this sort of stuff when Im trying to follow a thread coming from him. Squire is not even worth mentioning, I missed squires reference but it doesnt change anything. The intent of the post is the same if not worse. Its just to annoy anyone in the thread who likes LW planes. Well great it works. Maybe people will act mature enough to realise its not too nice to piss off a few hundred fans of 190s just to have a dig at one LW guy in particular. If you have issues with what is said , Discuss it with that SINGULAR person. You dont throw insults around.
The first thing you will learn if you go to debates is you never get personal or you lose the debate.People dont like to see it used as a way to defeat a discussion when they have enough brains to see through the lines. As you get older you learn to see it being used (politicians love it, called 'spin' only they dont use 'name calling in the playground' as their tools. well not too often anyhow heheh). Take my post how you like. Decide im right or wrong. ranting or simply annoyed and replying. decide im fuming or actually read what I said and take it in, its up to you isnt it.I certainly dont feel i should appologise for anything said in that reply.
But what i will do is ask you eddiek to reword your statement .
"Your lenthy diatribe" I find offensive. it means 'a bitter and abusive speech or writing' and I in no way insulted anyone or was bitter. Bitter to me implies i have an unreasonable complaint or gripe to say it. Which i did not. The aim of posting the word 'Luftwwhiner or whiner' is purely to provoke an angry response. Its not pleasant ribbing or fun. neither is calling what people write 'lenthy diatribe' whilst failing to actually read what was written. Possibly wanting an emotional response from me eddeik? maybe you have the same intention as ammo? Then again you obviously take the word 'pissed off' to mean foaming at the mouth whereas i mean it as more 'disillusioned' or dissapointed. Re-read what i said with that in mind eddeik and maybe you can accept you got it wrong. If not then well, we both seem to be missing each others intent dont we.
-
Originally posted by Squire
Been down this road before. Exiting stage left. I cant wait for AH2, a whole new batch of Spitfire conspiracy theories will undoubtably follow, because Im sure it will be just as it is now.
Ah yes, the old "if you can't argue a point dismiss it" tactic. How predictable of you.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Urchin, a really bad example which serves to explain the "conspiracy" theory.
The ballistics issue is another horse that has been beaten to death. The simple explanation is in the picture Pyro posted of all the various nation's rounds standing next to each other. Seems just about everyone understands; just about. ;)
Ballistics have nothing ... NOTHING to do with the destructiveness of a HE or HE/I cannon round. IF it did the 30mm MK108 would be the weakest weapon in the game would it not? The Germans used HE and HE/I rounds even in the 13mm MG131, while the 12,7 mm Browning M2 (.50 cal) used only AP/I, ie. no explosive component. Yet in AH the Browning is the more powerful gun.
-
Originally posted by hazed-
and thanks ammo for being the first to suggest 'a conspiricy'. As usual you try to make everyone with any concern about AH behaviour that in any way involves the 190 to be accusing HTC of doing it all on purpose to annoy LW flyers.
Well as usual the thread goes the way you intend it. Turns into a personal slanging match. we can get as pissed off with your reaction as you seem to be if you read anyone questioning the 190.
Consider this: Had mandoble said this exact same thing only substituting the P47 or P38 and described the same thing you would have probably given him your straightforward opinion. You would maybe go try what he says and either agree or disagree.
Since he said 190 though the immidiate reaction is the same old sh*t. You say he whining etc and a few join in and fill the thread with nonsense.
AMMO I want you to answer a few things for me please.
1) do you believe all aircraft to be modelled perfectly as they are now in AH?.
2) Do you feel 190 flyers have less of a right to question the things they experience in the game, and does this includes anyone who flies the 190?
3) Did you read the paper posted above about the 190vs F4u?
or did you ignore it? did you read any of the thread with an open mind is what im getting at.
for once dont just think 'whiner with no basis in truth' and try to consider it as you would someone like frenchy saying the P47 has a weird querk.You wouldnt jump on frenchy's back for asking it would you? You'd at least read it and consider it.
Well i read mandobles and i pointed out that test was a 190A-3 not an A-5 , I gave the weight difference as a guide and i hoped someone with better math than me might be able to give us some figures to show what we should see. But no, nothing like that, just the old crap about us claiming conspiricy again. I dont think theres a conspiricy at all but i do think people make a concerted effort to piss off the people who ask about them in here. Thats not HTC but it seems to make the threads get so personal that it gets ignored by any sane games player or developer alike.
choose to ignore evryone who flies them if you wish but i feel when people who regularly fly certain types notice discrepencies they are a credible source of info. Ammo do you truelly believe mandoble is just making this all up to get the aircraft better? so he can get more kills? shhesh we've been here years! we arent bothered about winning or losing fights , its just we want to see what we read about and want ACCURACY. most are fans of AH.Why would we bother for this long?
I get fed up, even in this very thread ive just read something ELSE which pissed me off, I had noticed whilst flying the 190 that i tend to black out an awful lot if i ever tried to sustain those high g turns for too long. Never seemed to happen when i flew other planes, I have often wondered just how i can go about finding out how they really were. The problem was i read in a book the 190 used a sloped position which impressed the RAF types for its ability to help the pilot tollerate more G. Again now in that posted doc I read about the same thing, this time written by the USA test pilots.
In AH i have often been lost by a hard manouvering P51B at blackout. Its almost impossible to see the p51 to follow his moves. He gets some G effect but the D-9 goes totally black.
So now how do i do anything about it? It's just a feeling that I seem to black out more but it could be a correct assumption.Am i a whiner if i question it? Isnt it fair that i should be able to say 'why do i seem to black out more in my 190d-9 in AH when ive read they used the sloping seat which afforded a greater tollerance of G force's ill affects (much the same as modern fighters and stunt planes do now)'.
Its a reasonable question but because it says 190 and not P47 or P38 immediately its a whine.I could be WAAYYY off the mark and completely wrong in my assumptions but I need to read where i got it all wrong before i accept it.
I merely wish to know if how it is now is right.its not whining.Ammo if you posted info that proved how it is in AH is spot on it would be different, but you dont , you just have a go at anyone in here whos interested in the 190.it sucks.
I suspect it is just a 'feeling' that i may have wrong but theres no law saying you cant ask questions. If you dont agree ammo why not show us how we are wrong instead of starting this conspiricy twaddle again>? :)
Hazed-
To tell you the truth about what I think..and only what I think. (1) I dont care at this point whether either AC is modeled absolutely perfectly (2) I have never thought there was some kind of HTC conspiracy against LW AC. However, Mandoble, and others have definately implied that. I think its funny. I didn't insult anyone. I just stated that we haven't seen this old debate in a long time. I wondered if it had finally died.
Yes I have read that report, it is very interesting. Should HTC make changes in their FM based on it? I dont know, thats there call. I dont know enough to counter that.
I truly dont care if my P-47 is not perfect. It does not keep me from logging in and having a good time with it. There are a few things that I have noted that were wrong with the D11 and the D30, and provided credible information to back it up. But you know what, I havent beaten the horse till its black over it. I presented the information, in that case they chose not to use it. It was a business decision that their staff must make.
If you have the time, the energy, and the will to make that repeated argument about the 190's being undermodeled, I say go for it. But don't get upset when you step out on the porch with that tired old subject and get a little ridecule.
"I merely wish to know if how it is now is right.its not whining.Ammo if you posted info that proved how it is in AH is spot on it would be different, but you dont , you just have a go at anyone in here whos interested in the 190.it sucks."
No hard feelings to mandoble, hazed, or any LW enthusiest. I have just as much right to comment on this thread as anyone. It was never personal for me. I really did enjoy reading all 67 replies in this thread. I am stuck at home in a post surgery setting and this was just what I needed.
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
However, Mandoble, and others have definately implied that
Really? So, if some one "whine" about F4U or P38 then he is implying some kind of conspiracy, right?. These guys are really funny.
-
I think that's been throughly discussed before as well.
Would you like to share with us just how much explosive compound is in the Sprenggranaten - Patrone 13mm?
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
Really? So, if some one "whine" about F4U or P38 then he is implying some kind of conspiracy, right?. These guys are really funny.
Yes, really. When I noted what I thought to be problems with P-47 models, and nothing changed. I assumed it to be a business decision on their part and nothing more, I really dont know. You have implied that HTC has something against LW AC and that the the things you have found to be wrong would doubtfully be fixed because of a bias toward allied AC types.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I think that's been throughly discussed before as well.
Would you like to share with us just how much explosive compound is in the Sprenggranaten - Patrone 13mm?
Well actually it's Brandsprenggranatpatrone. The 13mm HE/I projectile weight was 36.2 grams which is about 1/3rd of the 20mm MG151 projectile at 105 grams. Typical loadout was one Panzergranatpatrone for every two Brandsprenggranatpatronen. I do not know the weight of only the chemical compound though. The MG131 had a ROF of 900 rnd/min. The Browning had 750-850 rnd/min. The MG131 had a muzzle velocity of 730 m/s. The Browning had 880 m/s. Why is the .50 cal more destructive?
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
You have implied that HTC has something against LW AC
Ok, point where.
-
This thread is getting off topic. :(
-
Originally posted by funkedup
This thread is getting off topic. :(
Agree with that.
-
This really is a question for Tony Williams, a person with far superior knowledge in this area than either you or I.
That said, being an intelligent man, I'm sure you agree that the ballistic energy imparted by a hit from a round is a key factor in damage. The chemical energy added/imparted by an HE round is also a factor in damage, but not necessarily "key"; it would depend on the amount of chemical energy, right? The more explosive compound generally the better. Otherwise, they wouldn't have needed the 30MM Minengeschoß if the 13mm Brandsprenggranatpatronen was doing all the necessary destruction, right?
You compare the 13mm to the .50BMG.
Commonly published ballistics show:
.50 BMG Projectile weight 43.3g Muzzle Vel 880
13MM Panzergranatpatrone Projectile weight 36g Muzzle Vel 730
Now, focus on the 13mm Panzergranatpatrone. Does anyone dispute that this round was significantly inferior to the .50 BMG API? It's ~15% lighter and ~15% slower than the .50 BMG. Both of these rounds are "kinetic" rounds. As you say, 1/3 of the typical MG131 fighter belt was made up of these inferior rounds. 33% of the belt made up of rounds that are significantly inferior to the .50 BMG.
The 13mm Brandsprenggranatpatronen made up 2/3 of the belt. The projectile alone... no explosive... was even more markely inferior to the .50 BMG in terms of imparting kinetic energy because it was 4g lighter yet. It was left to the explosive compound to provide the punch. Now, this would depend on how much of what explosive compound was in the hollowed out portion, wouldn't it?
And this, you admit, you don't know.
So, what exactly are you basing your claim on then?
The Panzergranatpatrone slug is clearly kinetically inferior; that's 33% of the belt. The kinetic energy of the Brandsprenggranatpatronen projectile is even worse. You don't know the amount/type of the explosive compound in the Brandsprenggranatpatronen. What case are you making then, since you don't know how much explosive was in the round?
As noted in other places, these discussion have all been done, redone and overdone and RESOLVED before. I'd wager this exact ballistic discussion can be found in a previous version with the Search feature of this BBS.
Yet... it NEVER ends, does it? I think that may be a reason such threads draw the responses some find objectionable.
-
Actually, I thought that the guns whine was a good place to point out a "conspiracy". Why do the German guns suck so bad? Well, because of the way HTC chose to model the rounds. If I understand the modelling right, we use a "hybrid" round with the "stats" averaged out between the rounds and I suppose they have information on the ammo belting to use for a ratio. The only ammo belting I know was for the German planes, so I am not informed enough to give more than a rough example. But, for my rough example, lets take the Hispano 20mm. It was a large round with high muzzle velocity (130 grams at 860 M/sec for the Mk II). According to Tony Williams (who is a ballistics expert, as far as I know), the combination of kinetic energy and chemical energy rates a "damage" rating of 201. As far as I know, this damage rating is relative to the other guns, but you'd have to ask him to be sure.
Now lets take the German 20mm Mg151. I believe the Germans used a 2 AP, 2 HE, 1 Mine belt on the Western Front, and I've heard the proportion of Mine rounds was greater on the Eastern Front (although I don't know for certain). The MG151 AP round was 117 grams with a MV of 720 M/sec. So right away it is perfectly obvious that this round isn't going to do as much damage as a Hispano 20mm (its smaller and it is going slower). And sure enough, the "damage rating" on that round is only 110. The HE round has a damage rating of 109. The Mine round is where it gets good, in my opinion. It was 92 grams (of which 22% was explosive content), moving at 800 M/sec. Mr. Williams rates this round as a 236 for damage.
Now, to take this discussion out of the real world and back into the game, I've been flying German planes for a while now. I'd say I spend at least 75% of my time in them. Over the course of two years, I have NEVER seen 1 Mg151 round kill a plane. Over the course of one sortie in a Spit, I'll get at least one kill by taking someone's tail off with 1 round (either the vertical stabilizer or both horizontal stabilizers). With somewhat less frequency, I've gotten one hit kills in other cannon equipped planes. Now, one might say "Well of course you have never killed someone in one hit with the Mg151, it only hits about half as hard a the Hispano did". And you are absolutely correct. However, if the rounds were modelled as HE, AP, Mine, you would at least have a shot at landing one of the really good Mine rounds every time you fired. As it is now, the German guns are effectively nuetered by the way the ammo is modelled. I don't have enough information on Soviet or Japanese ammunition to say if it affects them as well, but I will say that the La-7s and N1Ks cannons hit harder than the Mg151 does, in my opinion.
-
Originally posted by Toad
This really is a question for Tony Williams, a person with far superior knowledge in this area than either you or I.
That said, being an intelligent man, I'm sure you agree that the ballistic energy imparted by a hit from a round is a key factor in damage. The chemical energy added/imparted by an HE round is also a factor in damage, but not necessarily "key"; it would depend on the amount of chemical energy, right? The more explosive compound generally the better. Otherwise, they wouldn't have needed the 30MM Minengeschoß if the 13mm Brandsprenggranatpatronen was doing all the necessary destruction, right?
I’m guessing you meant kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is of little importance when determining damage to a non-fluidal mass like an aircraft structure composed of sheet duraluminum skin and an aluminum structure as long as the round successfully penetrates. Against a fluidal mass target like a human being or a fuel tank kinetic energy would be a key factor due to hydro shock.
Originally posted by Toad
You compare the 13mm to the .50BMG.
Commonly published ballistics show:
.50 BMG Projectile weight 43.3g Muzzle Vel 880
13MM Panzergranatpatrone Projectile weight 36g Muzzle Vel 730
Now, focus on the 13mm Panzergranatpatrone. Does anyone dispute that this round was significantly inferior to the .50 BMG API? It's ~15% lighter and ~15% slower than the .50 BMG. Both of these rounds are "kinetic" rounds. As you say, 1/3 of the typical MG131 fighter belt was made up of these inferior rounds. 33% of the belt made up of rounds that are significantly inferior to the .50 BMG.
Kinetic energy differences are only important to penetration and ballistic trajectory. In this case the .50 API would only travel farther than the 13mm AP after passing through the target. The .50 BMG would not make much more than a 12.7mm hole through the target aircraft, the 13mm AP would make an approx. 13mm hole, nothing more … unless you are implying that the 13mm round would fail to penetrate, in which case the 13mm AP round would actually do more damage, not less.
Originally posted by Toad
The 13mm Brandsprenggranatpatronen made up 2/3 of the belt. The projectile alone... no explosive... was even more markely inferior to the .50 BMG in terms of imparting kinetic energy because it was 4g lighter yet. It was left to the explosive compound to provide the punch. Now, this would depend on how much of what explosive compound was in the hollowed out portion, wouldn't it?
And this, you admit, you don't know.
So, what exactly are you basing your claim on then?
The Panzergranatpatrone slug is clearly kinetically inferior; that's 33% of the belt. The kinetic energy of the Brandsprenggranatpatronen projectile is even worse. You don't know the amount/type of the explosive compound in the Brandsprenggranatpatronen. What case are you making then, since you don't know how much explosive was in the round?
I’m basing my claim on the fact that the 13mm AP and the .50 API are equal in damage potential. The .50 API was more effective in damaging critical components like the engine and fuel tank due to its higher kinetic energy, but not structural damage because there was not enough structure to stop the projectile, i.e. the projectile passed through the structure unable to transfer all its kinetic energy into damage. Now … that would make the 13mm Brandsprenggranatpatrone superior to the .50 API in damaging aircraft structures. Do you really think the Germans would use a HE/I round if it was inferior to a simple AP slug?
Originally posted by Toad
As noted in other places, these discussion have all been done, redone and overdone and RESOLVED before. I'd wager this exact ballistic discussion can be found in a previous version with the Search feature of this BBS.
Yet... it NEVER ends, does it? I think that may be a reason such threads draw the responses some find objectionable.
I don’t think this issue has been resolved, and I can’t find any thread where it has. That the issue has been discussed to death does not mean the issue has been resolved. I do however remember the thread were we discussed the .303’s ability to penetrate. It went so far that one guy actually went out ant did some test shooting at different aluminum and steel targets. The kinetic energy of a round is drastically overrated in these discussions, as the “live fire” test showed; despite all the different rifle rounds fired the .45 ACP pistol round did the most damage to the targets because it was able to transfer most of its energy to the target whereas the rifle rounds just flew off into the woods after puncturing a small hole, taking most of its energy with it.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
But, for my rough example, lets take the Hispano 20mm. It was a large round with high muzzle velocity (130 grams at 860 M/sec for the Mk II). According to Tony Williams (who is a ballistics expert, as far as I know), the combination of kinetic energy and chemical energy rates a "damage" rating of 201. As far as I know, this damage rating is relative to the other guns, but you'd have to ask him to be sure.
Now lets take the German 20mm Mg151. I believe the Germans used a 2 AP, 2 HE, 1 Mine belt on the Western Front, and I've heard the proportion of Mine rounds was greater on the Eastern Front (although I don't know for certain). The MG151 AP round was 117 grams with a MV of 720 M/sec. So right away it is perfectly obvious that this round isn't going to do as much damage as a Hispano 20mm (its smaller and it is going slower). And sure enough, the "damage rating" on that round is only 110.
This method of calculating damage is flawed. Both the Hispano AP round and the 151 AP round would do the same amount of damage to a wing or a vertstab, i.e. a 20mm hole. Only the difference in chemical power makes the Hispano shell more powerful than the MG151 HE/I.
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
No hard feelings to mandoble, hazed, or any LW enthusiest. I have just as much right to comment on this thread as anyone. It was never personal for me. I really did enjoy reading all 67 replies in this thread. I am stuck at home in a post surgery setting and this was just what I needed.
seriously no hard feelings here either, I just got a bit annoyed by the 'luftwhine' comment again as it is used to kill off threads.I doubt you intended it that way but just look at the reactions it causes.People know this and jump in to cause the thread to deteriorate into squabbles. This is usually when HTC have to step in and moderate and i bet this tarnishes the threads subject for them and they tend to ignore it.who can blame them when the thread looks like a bunch of kids in a school yard.
As for the conspiricy thing.I have I guess accused HTC of a lack of interest in sorting out the LW planes and i think this stands true. My own opinion is this distaste for threads broatching the subject of LW planes started way back in Warbirds?.Something must have happened there for this idea that all LW people are the same. People get pigeon holed right away , they get upset by it and feel like no matter what they do it will be ignored.There nothing worse in a BB than feeling youre not a part of it fully.Most like me never even played Warbirds, we're not all the same people.
I dont think HT sets out deliberately to change the model of the 190s and 109s BUT theres a catalogue of weird things which people can be forgiven for thinking is strange.
The fact the ballistics model favours an AP round when axis rellied on HE a lot more. This is one which is understandable as if you have read up about how the various forces try to rate guns they also have a problem with rating the AP verses the HE. Its so complicated that generally the two types are rated seperately!! So HTC can be forgiven for finding this dfficult to model. BUT having said that there surely is a compromise to be made with the game by adding what you 'guess' is the affect and add this to our AP based ballistics damage. This is what i think many would call for. LW used Mine shells, we dont have them so we get a gun which the real LW would not keep if they didnt have the specialist mine shells. Without them they are a poor gun. So AH players are forced to use guns that dont really reflect the real thing as such. The only real disagreement is many think, as it is now, its too weak but they seem to be classed by one and all as trying to 'game the game' or trying to gain some advantage over others so they can kill easier. please! after 3 years of some 10 thousand kills do you REALLY think this is why we are asking for it? This is a stereotypeing of us that is offensive if you ask me. I fly everything and i like to see the real character of planes Im here to play fairly by the rules and not try to game the game. I just want to see things appear as they really were.for asking we generally get abuse.
The way the 190A8 performs over 25k is so off of the charts its literally terrible as far as i can see. I have times to 30k in many references for the 190a8 and our 190a8 is out by over 10 MINUTES! I actually stopped at around 29K because it was so far off i thought it a waste of time finishing it.! I posted and it was said that it was the times for the MW50 190a8 i was reading.
DUH ok why the hell havent we got a MW50 190a8?? theres a lot of test done on it and there are the German figures in charts.If HTC suspects they are exagerated then by all means make it how you think it should be but please dont just not model it altogether.It was an integral part of the LW planes.
THe ju88a4 is the only pre 1943-44 medium/large bomber in the game. why such an early model? If it was for the battle of britain setups then why the ju88a4 that wasnt in the BOB?? its weird.
The 109G6 again is missing the MW50 yet i would suspect it wouldnt take an awfull lot to add a 109g6 with better performance and say that it is the MW50 version yet theres not even a whisper of an answer as to why it has never been done even though it has been asked a hundred times.
Dive speed for the 190d9 at top speed is less than a fully loaded P51D with almost 3000lbs of drag inducing ordinance. Why? am i not allowed to question it?
Each time a chart is found and displayed (example the deck speed 190a5) we get the same answers , 'The version in the test isnt the right model' :( . 'Your results are for the 190a8 with MW50 not the AH 190a8' was said to me and i thought well why dont HTC use the data and model THIS version? I cant grasp why HTC decided to leave MW50 and GM1 stuff out.
The weird cooling times on wep systems too which now im not even supposed to mention yet I still feel its not very representative of the real systems. This i can accept is never going to change if the current wep system remains but i still dont understand why we cant 'represent' them a little closer even with the 'less than fully realistic' version of WEP we currently use. Its not just for an easier time of it. I just want to find out how good the real MW50 or GM1's really were. Is this a crime?
The fact that it took almost a year and a half of complaints/requests about the engine bug on the 190A's to be looked into and fixed yet for the whole time we were called names for even daring to mention it.THEN the P38 was fixed after a very short time of complaints/requests on BB (for it to be strengthened in the tail).I was astounded as i didnt see one document or anything else which would show the strength we should expect yet it was changed. No one accused the requesters of 'gaming the game' or 'seeking advantage' when this was done did they? Its like a double standard for Lw guys in here , No really it is.
Its this sort of thing which makes people question whats going on and jump to silly conclusions. There is no consiricy just it seems a strange choice of models coupled to a difficult wep system coupled to an AP orientated ballistics model which together have removed most of what was actually 'great' about these planes.I would have thought by now its obvious im not doing this just for the sake of arguements or for seeking a dumb advantage over the allied types. I fly the P40E for gods sake! :) how does that make me greedy? I WANT to see the Allied planes performing perfectly too! Bring on the P47M and P51H etc. Im happy to see them but lets not jump all over someone if they question their model in AH. Its what this BB is all about mostly.
wow i droned on! :D maybe eddiek was right, i do 'diatribe' heheh
anyhow again no hard feelings ammo just a heads up to the fact it does annoy ALL Lw people when you say things like that or damage the discussions in the thread by changing topic...just like we have! :) ok Back to the thread topic!..........
-
Hazed-
No problem at all my man. I have always enjoyed your virtual company in the arena and on the UBB.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
This method of calculating damage is flawed. Both the Hispano AP round and the 151 AP round would do the same amount of damage to a wing or a vertstab, i.e. a 20mm hole. Only the difference in chemical power makes the Hispano shell more powerful than the MG151 HE/I.
That is not true at all. Kinetic energy has a dramatic impact on something like the structure of an AC. A good example would be the little mini-14 I used to own. I was plinking in the country with both my mini-14 and my Remington model 541 some years back. The Mini-14 fires a .223 caliber round. I was using basic mil surplus ball ammo for it. I was shooting .22 LR from my 541. At one point I was shooting an empty 10 gallon metal can at around 100 yds distance. The terminal ballistics of the two rounds was dramatically different on the can. You would assume that both rounds would simply pass through metal can leaving it undisturbed on the ground. Not so. On several instances, the Mini-14 would literally lift the can into the air and the exit holes were much larger than the entry. In the case of when the round struck the thicker rims of the can, the can was shredded pretty good. When the 541 hit the can, you could here an audible plink when the bullet actually struck it and the can would move a little with the bullet passing through.
On an AC fuselage or Wing, if a 50 cal struck just the skin and passed through nothing but the other side, then I could see just a 12.7 mm hole. I actually doubt that though, the projectile would become "upset" and would move along its trajectory oblong. However if the round struck something hard like framework, its going to cause some serious damage.
The debate over what was more effective, Kinetic energy or Chemical energy of small cal AC weapons is an old one. Both the 50 BMG, and the 13MM were certainly capable of serious damage to AC.
-
The 109G6 again is missing the MW50 yet i would suspect it wouldnt take an awfull lot to add a 109g6 with better performance and say that it is the MW50 version yet theres not even a whisper of an answer as to why it has never been done even though it has been asked a hundred times.
The RAF/USAAF equivalent of MW50 was 100/150 octane fuel.
By the second half of 1944, almost all the Spits in the UK, and the VIIIth AF escorts, were running on it.
That would give a Spit IX a speed of about 360mph on the deck (current AH Spit IX is 320), and the Mustang close to 400 mph at sea level. That's not modelled either.
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
That is not true at all. Kinetic energy has a dramatic impact on something like the structure of an AC. A good example would be the little mini-14 I used to own. I was plinking in the country with both my mini-14 and my Remington model 541 some years back. The Mini-14 fires a .223 caliber round. I was using basic mil surplus ball ammo for it. I was shooting .22 LR from my 541. At one point I was shooting an empty 10 gallon metal can at around 100 yds distance. The terminal ballistics of the two rounds was dramatically different on the can. You would assume that both rounds would simply pass through metal can leaving it undisturbed on the ground. Not so. On several instances, the Mini-14 would literally lift the can into the air and the exit holes were much larger than the entry. In the case of when the round struck the thicker rims of the can, the can was shredded pretty good. When the 541 hit the can, you could here an audible plink when the bullet actually struck it and the can would move a little with the bullet passing through.
On an AC fuselage or Wing, if a 50 cal struck just the skin and passed through nothing but the other side, then I could see just a 12.7 mm hole. I actually doubt that though, the projectile would become "upset" and would move along its trajectory oblong. However if the round struck something hard like framework, its going to cause some serious damage.
The debate over what was more effective, Kinetic energy or Chemical energy of small cal AC weapons is an old one. Both the 50 BMG, and the 13MM were certainly capable of serious damage to AC.
Yes it is. The .233 round is balanced on the verge of being unstable in flight and is easily “upset”, not like any WWII ammo and even modern cannon rounds. Anyways, the kinetic energy difference of the .223 and the .22LR is astronomical compared to the .50 cal and MG131. They could both shred like you described, but they were not easily “upset”.
A more comparable test would be to shoot at that can with 7.62x51mm NATO and 7.62x63 Long. Do you think you would see any difference?
EDIT: Alternatively 7.62x39mm Russian vs. 7.62x51mm NATO.
-
The 109G6 again is missing the MW50 yet i would suspect it wouldnt take an awfull lot to add a 109g6 with better performance and say that it is the MW50 version yet theres not even a whisper of an answer as to why it has never been done even though it has been asked a hundred times.
Thats not correct we have a late war canopy but our g6 is an early g6. The later g6 had a wooden tail and looked a little different.
The g6/as (DB605AS) didnt have mw50. The serial produced g6/as with mw50 was the g14 (DB605ASM).
MW-50 wasnt not available until June 44.
You will see the designation g6/as and g14/as, the difference being that the g14 had MW-50 while the g6/as did not.
The g6/as had a larger supercharger that gave poor performance at low and medium altitudes. On the eastern front where almost all combat took place it wasnt so great. It was fine for the West, as mentioned by Knoke in his book "I flew for the Fuhrer."
The g14 ws better suited on the Eastern front because its at low-medium alt where mw50 is of the most benefit. Thats why when some folks claim that the a8 should have mw50 it doesnt make sense.
What we need is a 109g6/as and a g14. The g6/as for scenarios and a g14 so we can tool around in the main (low med alt ). This way the g10 could be perked.
The 109s needed for ah (all though there certainly are many other planes that are needed more) are:
109e7b (easily adapted from the e4)
109f2 (easily adapted from the f4)
109g6/as (easily adapted from our current g6)
109g14/asm (same as above)
109k4
I am not gonna touch gunnery except to refer Toad to Tony Williams work. The problem with gunnery is almost always a product of the range counters. But there would appear that rounds that relied on chemical energy get short changed a bit.
But AH is just a game like any fps its about fun 1st. If reading the report on the site linked by mando just pisses you off and takes away from your enjoyment dont read it. But if you get mad enough to post and repost and repost the same stuff (especially the stuff in the site linked) you most likely will be mocked.
Folks like ammo wont waste an opportunity to use the word "lwhiner".
-
Isn't the 109F4 just an unpressurized F2? If so why would we need an F2? (unless it's the F2Z with GM-1 boost)
-
no the f2 had mg151/15mm
For events and scenarios and in ah2:ToD the f2 would have a roll. Especially if an early eastern front scenario/ToD were to develope. The f4 wasnt on station in the east until the Germans were near Moskow.
The e7b had a db601n (same eng as the 110c4) and had a bomb and could carry a dt.
The e7 would fit into early med and earl east front.
If you judge planes by main useage then we dont need any more then the top 4 (el gay 7 p51 spit and what ever the hell the next one is).
-
Originally posted by Batz
Thats not correct we have a late war canopy but our g6 is an early g6. The later g6 had a wooden tail and looked a little different.
The g6/as (DB605AS) didnt have mw50. The serial produced g6/as with mw50 was the g14 (DB605ASM).
MW-50 wasnt not available until June 44.
The 109G5 had a DB605D with WM-50, it’s a 1943 model if I’m not mistaken?
Originally posted by Batz
The g14 ws better suited on the Eastern front because its at low-medium alt where mw50 is of the most benefit. Thats why when some folks claim that the a8 should have mw50 it doesnt make sense.
Then why does the charts mentioned show much better performance? Perhaps they mistake the WM-50 for the GM-1?
Originally posted by Batz
I am not gonna touch gunnery except to refer Toad to Tony Williams work. The problem with gunnery is almost always a product of the range counters. But there would appear that rounds that relied on chemical energy get short changed a bit.
But AH is just a game like any fps its about fun 1st. If reading the report on the site linked by mando just pisses you off and takes away from your enjoyment dont read it. But if you get mad enough to post and repost and repost the same stuff (especially the stuff in the site linked) you most likely will be mocked.
Knowing you’re getting “short changed a bit” does tend to take away some of the “fun”, doesn’t it?
-
You can serioulsy ask for 5 more 109 when some country have between 0 and not enought planes ?
-
straffo, Batz means in due course.
It's not like he's wanting to get all those 109s right now! ;)
Personally, I'm not sure about the E-7 or the F-2, but we do need a G-14. Much the same, the RAF needs a fMK.IX Spit.
-
The 13mm are very fine weapons, 2 of them in the cowl can shread any fighter in a matter of seconds at 200-300+ yards. In this respect they are identical to a pair of US .50 cal - I am in a position to tell as I am probably one of a very few people who have regularly flown Bf109G6/10 and SBD-5 (2x50cal) as fighters. The 13mm are very nice - and they are a substantial amount of firepower well worth the decrease in performance from G2 to G6 the vast majority of the time.
The 50 cal seems to be and is more powerful on average because it does have a higher muzzle velocity making it more powerful and accurate at longer ranges. The major factor IMO is that 50 cals are most often mounted in 4-8 gun packages. So even assuming the 13mm and 50cal were modeled with identical capability any offhand comparsion would have you testing the 13mm with 2 gun level of firepwer and comparing it to the 50cal with at least a 4 gun level of firepower - in other words at least twice as destructive if both are modeled the same.
Now I have no idea if the HE element is modeled in the 13mm. If it is then cool! If not then it would be cool if HTC puts it in...
-
Originally posted by Batz
Folks like ammo wont waste an opportunity to use the word "lwhiner".
Thats not true, I rarely use that term at all. What are "folks like ammo"? feel free to email me at zemke@satx.rr.com to keep from further sending this thread off topic.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes it is. The .233 round is balanced on the verge of being unstable in flight and is easily “upset”, not like any WWII ammo and even modern cannon rounds. Anyways, the kinetic energy difference of the .223 and the .22LR is astronomical compared to the .50 cal and MG131. They could both shred like you described, but they were not easily “upset”.
A more comparable test would be to shoot at that can with 7.62x51mm NATO and 7.62x63 Long. Do you think you would see any difference?
EDIT: Alternatively 7.62x39mm Russian vs. 7.62x51mm NATO.
My point is the difference in kinetic energy between a MG 151 round and a Hispano round or the 13mm and the 50 BMG was significant enough to have a considerable differences in terminal ballistics, and that the effects of a projectile expending kinetic energy on a metal AC structure would be dramatic.
note- The super velocities of the .223 in Rifle length barrels was not the stability problem. The problem was the 55 grain bullet was not well suited for the 1-10 twist for many common rifles. This was alleviated with many weapons getting a 1-9 twist.
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
My point is the difference in kinetic energy between a MG 151 round and a Hispano round or the 13mm and the 50 BMG was significant enough to have a considerable differences in terminal ballistics, and that the effects of a projectile expending kinetic energy on a metal AC structure would be dramatic.
Wrong. I’m sorry, but you are. I have personally shot up an M113 APC (which has more than 1.5 inch thick hardened aluminum armor) with 50 rounds of .50 cal MP1 ammo. The structural damage was little more than from the MG-3 using 7.62mm AP except that the .50 cal MP1 AP core went out the other side of the vehicle. Clean holes from both (some blast fragmentation at the entry point from the .50 cal MP1 chemical component though).
Originally posted by -ammo-
note- The super velocities of the .223 in Rifle length barrels was not the stability problem. The problem was the 55 grain bullet was not well suited for the 1-10 twist for many common rifles. This was alleviated with many weapons getting a 1-9 twist.
The .223/5.56x45mm NATO was designed to be almost instable in flight (heavy in the rear) so it would be upset easily to cause maximum damage to a human target (thereby avoiding Geneva Conventions against so called “dum-dum” bullets).
-
I very well could be wrong, and that will be OK too.
I have personally shot up an M113 APC (which has more than 1.5 inch thick hardened aluminum armor) with 50 rounds of .50 cal MP1 ammo. The structural damage was little more than from the MG-3 using 7.62mm AP except that the .50 cal MP1 AP core went out the other side of the vehicle. Clean holes from both (some blast fragmentation at the entry point from the .50 cal MP1 chemical component though).
WW2 Fighter AC panels were thin and the framework wasn't armor either. More kinetic energy= more damage on a typical WW2 fighter AC.
-
gsholz your killing me here
mw 50 was around for the whole war. It wasnt apart of standized production until 1944. The 190a4 had all the "plumbing" for mw 50 right off the production but very few actually had it.
There were odd ball test variants that could of had anything from GM1 to MW50.
The Bf 109G-5 was the first of the Gustavs to introduce the bulges (blisters) on the cowling to accomodate the breech and ammuntion feed chutes of the MG 131 machine guns. A few g5s recieved the DB 605AS . There were a smaller number of g5s with mw50 but the g5 had the 3cm hub cannon and 13mm cowl guns (the blisters).
The 109 with the db605d was the g10. Any 109 with a db 605 D would be noticable by chin bulges as a result of water tubing which on the DB 605 D went outside of the fuselage profile - probably due to the bigger head cams of the engine - thus necessitating a bulge to enclose it and causing a "slit" to be cut on the fuselage under the bulge.
Like our g10.
Through out the war the lw tested mw50 but as a part of standized production it wasnt until 44 when planes came out of the factory equipped for mw50.
There were technically g6 with mw50 but they werent wide scale.
mg131 had .74g of "explosive charge"
the 50 cal had .87g
I agree with gruen the 13mm are fine guns.
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
I very well could be wrong, and that will be OK too.
I have personally shot up an M113 APC (which has more than 1.5 inch thick hardened aluminum armor) with 50 rounds of .50 cal MP1 ammo. The structural damage was little more than from the MG-3 using 7.62mm AP except that the .50 cal MP1 AP core went out the other side of the vehicle. Clean holes from both (some blast fragmentation at the entry point from the .50 cal MP1 chemical component though).
WW2 Fighter AC panels were thin and the framework wasn't armor either. More kinetic energy= more damage on a typical WW2 fighter AC.
Seems like we will just have to agree to disagree, because IMHO you don’t make sense at all. A thin aluminum skin would take less damage than a thick aluminum plate since the projectile can only transfer a tiny part of its energy before penetrating. The thicker the plate – the bigger the hole as long as the projectile penetrate. It would still be a clean hole though, no shredding.
Again the issue has been debated to death … without being resolved
-
I can live with that. I also agree that a projectile cannot expend energy on empty space. However, AC fuselages and wings were filled with components of all sorts. They provide the medium for the bullet to transfer its energy into the AC. Again, more kinetic energy, more damage. Makes perfect sense to me. Some AC like the Allied heavy bombers were not like that at all and I agree that API would generally just pass through without alot of damage.
-
Originally posted by Batz
gsholz your killing me here
mw 50 was around for the whole war. It wasnt apart of standized production until 1944. The 190a4 had all the "plumbing" for mw 50 right off the production but very few actually had it.
There were odd ball test variants that could of had anything from GM1 to MW50.
The Bf 109G-5 was the first of the Gustavs to introduce the bulges (blisters) on the cowling to accomodate the breech and ammuntion feed chutes of the MG 131 machine guns. A few g5s recieved the DB 605AS . There were a smaller number of g5s with mw50 but the g5 had the 3cm hub cannon and 13mm cowl guns (the blisters).
The 109 with the db605d was the g10. Any 109 with a db 605 D would be noticable by chin bulges as a result of water tubing which on the DB 605 D went outside of the fuselage profile - probably due to the bigger head cams of the engine - thus necessitating a bulge to enclose it and causing a "slit" to be cut on the fuselage under the bulge.
Like our g10.
Through out the war the lw tested mw50 but as a part of standized production it wasnt until 44 when planes came out of the factory equipped for mw50.
There were technically g6 with mw50 but they werent wide scale.
mg131 had .74g of "explosive charge"
the 50 cal had .87g
I agree with gruen the 13mm are fine guns.
I'm I killing you? ... I'd better stop doing that then lest you die.
Didn’t the 109G10 have the DB605G?
According to the evolution table at bf109.com the
G1 had DB605A-1 with GM-1
G5 had DB605D with MW-50
G6 had several variations of the DB605
G10 had DB605G with WM-50
You still haven't answered why the climb chart that hazed mentioned showed a vastly better climb rate (10 minutes!) to 30k with MW-50 if it was only effective at low levels?
The .50 cal AP/I had no explosive element, only incendiary chemicals.
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
I can live with that. I also agree that a projectile cannot expend energy on empty space. However, AC fuselages and wings were filled with components of all sorts. They provide the medium for the bullet to transfer its energy into the AC. Again, more kinetic energy, more damage. Makes perfect sense to me. Some AC like the Allied heavy bombers were not like that at all and I agree that API would generally just pass through without alot of damage.
Yes, like I said the higher kinetic energy of the .50 cal would give it a greater chance of damaging critical components like the engine or fuel tank (because they have the mass to be damaged by kinetic energy transferred at a small point). Structural failures from .50 cal hits were very rare (from MG131 too I'm sure).
EDIT: Aircraft structures are mostlly filled with two things: Air or fuel. Especially the wings.
-
Ammo gscholz is right. Think of it this way, lets say you shoot two bullets, one at a piece of paper and the other at a sheet of steel. Which bullet would have less energy after penetrating the material it was shot at. obviously the one shot at the steel as that extra lost energy was transfered from the bullet into generating the penetrating effects on the much harder steel - no more no less - remember the bullet will try to find the path of least resistance. So actually unless the total obstacles exceed the total energy of the 13mm there should be no difference in effect vs the power 50cal. Now we know the 50cal has more muzzle enegy and keeps it better over distances but unless there is more to punch through it doesnt matter. In fact the lower velocity bullet could sometimes be more dangerous because it, unlike the faster bullet which would simply pass through, might not be able to penetrate all the material and would keep bouncing around with enough energy possibly cutting wires, cables, people, fuel tanks and setting fires. and there are very few areas of most ww2 fighters which were armored in any significant way.
So I still think the major difference in 50cal vs 13mm is ease of aim at longer ranges and the fact that there are least twices as many of them firing at any given time. Actually if there is one thing that intrests me about AH gunnery setting these days is the ability to set convergence at 600 yards, is there any historical precednt for this?
-
Hazed hasnt posted any chart that I see.
Also you dont understanding what that evolution table is telling you. Its not giving an evolution table of standardized production. The db601as with GM1 were recon aircraft etc...I gotta head out for tonight but if you arent busy head over to Butch site and pose these same questions there and you may find I am right.
http://pub131.ezboard.com/ballboutwarfare
ww2 air war here
http://pub131.ezboard.com/fallboutwarfarefrm31
Tony Williams covered all this stuff in previous post. Unless a 50 cal hits something the best you will get in a cleaner hole. With M'geschoss you dont need to hit something vital because the explosive content is enough blow out the stressed skin. The brits looked at 50 cals prior to BoB but were happy with 303s. They had a higher rate of fire and you could have more 303s then 50s.
But the Brits were thinking that they main target would be slow moving 1920s style bombers they wererelatively unprotected. They learned quickly that the 303 wasnt going to cut it. The 50s have greater penetration and as such were effective against all armor plate with in given ranges.
50cals hold energy better and hit harder at range. But range wasnt much of a factor in choosing gun load outs. The us would have went to 20mm had it been problem free. The seriously looked a round similiar to the german mg151/15mm.
What 50s do for you is with a high velocity and flat trajectory is allow you to get more rounds on target at convergence, or shooting range.
search the board for Tony Williams.
or go check his site.
I dont have time right now but all this has been beaten as much as the original topic.
-
Originally posted by Batz
Hazed hasnt posted any chart that I see.
No, he mentioned the chart that was presented to HTC and HTC said it was for a 190A8 with MW-50.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I’m guessing you meant kinetic energy.
Yeah, I guess I did. Because that's the term I used throughout that post with the one exception you seized on. ;)
You can dispute the unimportance of kinetic energy all day long but you're still left with the fact that those poorly equipped USAAF aircraft still shot down other aircraft.
The LW, using their ammunition, did too.
As Hazed pointed out, "This is one which is understandable as if you have read up about how the various forces try to rate guns they also have a problem with rating the AP verses the HE. Its so complicated that generally the two types are rated seperately!!"
Now Urchin, Hazed, et al, you can argue that HTC doesn't model the individual round types in the typical LW beltings. They average them; that's the way I remember Pyro's explanation.
Now is the glass half empty or half full?
Using Urchin's example, one out of five rounds, 20%, should have "more power". If you had individual round modeling, you'd get that. Of course, the HTC programming would now have to track the belting, where you were in the belt on each trigger pull, which round/type hit and then apply appropriate damage. And, of course, take into account the different beltings for different aircraft.
For example: (I think I have this right. I'm not deep into the minutiae of the WW2 airwar.)
Fighter belting for the 13 mm (MG 131)
1 Panzergranatpatrone L'spur o. Zerl
2 Brandsprenggranatpatronen L'spur o. Zerl
Bomber belting for the 13 mm (MG 131)
1 Panzergranatpatrone L'spur o. Zerl
1 Brandsprenggranatpatrone o. Zerl
1 Sprenggranatpatrone L'Spur Üb m. Zerl
I have no idea how difficult it would be to add programming to track beltings and aircraft, where you were in the belting and applying appropriate damage. I'd guess it would not be an insignificant task and I'd guess it would add something to the server load. I have no idea how much though.
OTOH, in the present situation, you have that one round in five that is hitting with less force than it should BUT the other four are hitting with more force than they should due to the averaging.
So, is the glass half empty or half full? One way with a detailed model you'd get a "golden BB" type effect 20% of the time if you hit. But the other four out of five rounds would do decreased damage from what they do now.
The "average" model gives 80% of your rounds a statistical boost and the other round takes a statistical "hit". I haven't heard anyone complaing that the other four rounds are benefitting from the averaging.
Which is better?
I think reasonable people would accept the compromise because in the great scheme of things it really isn't making any difference in the gameplay. It is, after all, just a game. IMO, of course.
I think reasonable men would take Ammo's P-47 approach.
I truly dont care if my P-47 is not perfect. It does not keep me from logging in and having a good time with it. There are a few things that I have noted that were wrong with the D11 and the D30, and provided credible information to back it up. But you know what, I havent beaten the horse till its black over it.
That's me. I don't care if it isn't absolutely perfect down to the last rivet. I just want to log in and have fun.
Now, since this has none of the earmarks of a reasonable discussion, I think I'll be on my way.
You may want to check into selling the pulverized horsemeat to dog food company though........
-
Talking about 190A8's and .50 cals. A few minutes ago I did a head-on attack on a B17 in a 190A8. Dipped down at 2k and pulled up into him *ping* *ping* *bang* and my left wing goes flying by itself. This is .50 caliber BS.
-
Yeah, it's kinda like when you make a vertical diving attack on a JU=88 in a Spit I. You're whaling away on his wing tip for 3 seconds with 8 .303's and his single 7.92 goes "ping ping ping" and your wing comes off as he flies a away.
I don't think it's just the .50's on the buffs...........
-
You may be right about that. Btw if you're up in a B17 or B26, don't worry. I won't bother you anymore, I'm tired of this.
-
Oh, you don't bother me in the least. Have no worries.
If you see me up in any buff, grab your girlfriend and have one last fling because it probably means it's the end of days. :D
-
:D
-
Don't make me do it Gscholz.
-
atleast take out ur a8 manual and show him there aint no mw50.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Don't make me do it Gscholz.
What?
-
Don't make me bring out the Colonel.
-
Who? Colonel Sanders? Why not, I am a bit hungry.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Can you elaborate on that?
I can't. But I'd like to have the time to make a comparison between real and AH's roll rates (for the MkIX and the 190A) at various speeds.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
straffo, Batz means in due course.
It's not like he's wanting to get all those 109s right now! ;)
Personally, I'm not sure about the E-7 or the F-2, but we do need a G-14. Much the same, the RAF needs a fMK.IX Spit.
oups :)
so it's not before I got my Yak9 UT or Yak3 in NN colour ?
-
hi guys..funny..we have the 190 debate at Wb too.
for the 109ers here...batz you are wrong with some stuff.
the 109G5 is an g6 with pressurized cockpit..nothing more
the G6 Ah and WB has is the "old" one...with the DB605a1 and NO mw50 of course.
what both sims need is a BF109G14 (NO AS version)
the G14 had the DB605A-1 but with MW 50-> DB650AM
aviable in the planeset from spring 44 on.
-> gives very good low and mid alt performance with 1800PS max
the G6/as would be an high alt fighter , and would suck at low to med alts.
the G14AS(M) (DB605ASM) would be the same as your G10..even with better high alt performance (the AS had higher ratedalt than the 605D according tothe engine data sheets).
so..funnyly ..for both communities, we have a big hole in the planeset between the g6 and the G10/K4(WB)..that can only be filled with the G14 (No ASM :-) )
wastel (habicht)
wb pilot..forme AH pilot
-
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 :D 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? :D is it 5 mph off top speed with wep? 8 mph off top speed non wep? I wonder ;) hehe
-
Maybe the LW guys just need to learn to fly better....I've flown LW stuff from time to time and have had no problems killin stuff and I suck.
Shoot....a Zeke will catch a pony if you fly it poorly.
Some of you guys are wound a little too tight or are just bored....the games still fun for me:)
-
Hazed
The 190as used a system called "Erhonte notleistung" . C3 fuel was used exactly like the Mw50 to cool down the mixture so that you can increase the pressure in the cylinders. The C3 system did not require any special installtion to work. IIRC the mw50 installation on the BMW801 was a real problem.
If I am not mistaken it could be used up to 5500m. It was usable for 10 minutes. It was tested on a A5 in August 43 was standard on the A8 by June 44.
No A series outside a few a4s used mw50.
Verm posted charts in the other thread that matches up with the ah a8. Our a8 doesnt have GM1.
Dont put to much faith in Green.
I know Funked, Naudet, Gatt and Verm have posted on this before in here.
hi guys..funny..we have the 190 debate at Wb too.
for the 109ers here...batz you are wrong with some stuff.
the 109G5 is an g6 with pressurized cockpit..nothing more
the G6 Ah and WB has is the "old" one...with the DB605a1 and NO mw50 of course.
what both sims need is a BF109G14 (NO AS version)
the G14 had the DB605A-1 but with MW 50-> DB650AM
aviable in the planeset from spring 44 on.
-> gives very good low and mid alt performance with 1800PS max
the G6/as would be an high alt fighter , and would suck at low to med alts.
the G14AS(M) (DB605ASM) would be the same as your G10..even with better high alt performance (the AS had higher ratedalt than the 605D according tothe engine data sheets).
so..funnyly ..for both communities, we have a big hole in the planeset between the g6 and the G10/K4(WB)..that can only be filled with the G14 (No ASM :-) )
wastel (habicht)
wb pilot..forme AH pilot
Thanks for straightening that out Wastel :)
-
About Fw 190A-8 WEP:
(This has been posted many times)
Gatt found a translated manual for the Fw 190A-8 in a bookstore and sent me a copy, and I sent a copy to Verm. I used to have a bunch of pages of it on the web but don't have it anymore after computer and ISP changes.
The manual covers three WEP systems:
1. Boost control override modification.
2. C3 injection like Batz describes.
3. GM-1
1 & 2 are said in the manual to have the same performance. The performance charts in the manual (for 1) match AH Fw 190A-8 almost exactly. There is also a chart in the manual for 3 which shows some performance gains at high altitude.
I forget the exact wording, but the manual suggests that 1 was most common, and that 2 and 3 were less common. The modification required to enable 1 was very simple, so it makes sense that it would be most common. It's similar to Spitfires LF IX being modified to run +25 boost or the modification of P-47D's to generate as much power as a P-47M.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
About Fw 190A-8 WEP:
(This has been posted many times)
Gatt found a translated manual for the Fw 190A-8 in a bookstore and sent me a copy, and I sent a copy to Verm. I used to have a bunch of pages of it on the web but don't have it anymore after computer and ISP changes.
The manual covers three WEP systems:
1. Boost control override modification.
2. C3 injection like Batz describes.
3. GM-1
1 & 2 are said in the manual to have the same performance. The performance charts in the manual (for 1) match AH Fw 190A-8 almost exactly. There is also a chart in the manual for 3 which shows some performance gains at high altitude.
I forget the exact wording, but the manual suggests that 1 was most common, and that 2 and 3 were less common. The modification required to enable 1 was very simple, so it makes sense that it would be most common. It's similar to Spitfires LF IX being modified to run +25 boost or the modification of P-47D's to generate as much power as a P-47M.
Funked i asked for batz refernce not yours ;) let him show it hehe.
I havent read that post post a link plz.nowusing the info you show the 3 systems but does this mean that the top speed at sea level should be 5mph slower for the 190a8 with system 1.? I thnk not myself. even if it did then are we to believe every book we have that,top speed in is quoting the 190a8 with system 2 and 3. ?. (C3 injection and GM1). come on its just another spin to avoid the simplest of tests.
read the books to see the top speed. BETTER STILL read HTC's own quoted speeds. I mean what else are we supposed to use as a basis for testing in the game? Its no big thing but it is slightly off whether people choose to accept it or call people whiners, its all old hat for me. The issues are lost in an endless flood of replys that focus on a single point in order it seems to avoid the answers or whole subject. I gave up trying to fight it long ago. Im not about to go through it all again, I just want people to lay off making people out to be whiners with no clue. If the questions were answered in a straight forward manner we could have threads be one tenth the size they are. you end up like me having to describe my life story of AH in order to make a point. what a waste of time really. Its all been said before and it hasnt been resolved but to continue to ask is classed a whine. with a year passing since the thread you kind of lose interest dont you.
anyhow for any further questions after this heres a pre-written supply: :D
'I refer the gentleman to the answer i gave earlier'
-
Hazed I haven't the faintest clue of what you are talking about. Hope you enjoyed the info. Cheers. :)
-
Hazed go read the reply from HoHun in the other thread.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=92512
No disrespect but this is why some lw guys get mocked and laughed at. Some guys just cling onto nonsense as gospel. "My a8 is 28 mph to slow". "My a5 is 12 mph to slow". This is why HT doesnt reply because some folks just dont know when to quit.
William Green is not a source to quote. In the quote you provide isnt even correct.
By contrast with the 190A-7, the next, and in the event, last production A-series version of the fighter, the Fw190A-8
The a8 wasnt the last version the a9 was.
Even in the thread you link Naudet tells you that Greens numbers are off. Also in a thread about the 109k series you were told that William Green is wrong. Arent you one of the guys that claimed there was 15mm cowl guns on Kurfurst 109?
Go ask your question here
http://pub131.ezboard.com/fallboutwarfarefrm31
and Here
http://pub157.ezboard.com/bluftwaffeexperten71774
Read this thread as it goes right to the point about mw50 on a 190 A series
http://pub157.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessage?topicID=66.topic
Funked answered you from the manual. Verm linked it so you can see the relevant charts.
At this point you need to see that its irrational to keep on something that has been answered (not just in this thread but in many others)
No A series had mw50 as standard. If you cling to that as a background to claim that ah planes are undermodelled or under perform then theres nothing to say.
Search this board and the one I linked and if you read it enough you may learn to accept it. :p
Good luck with all that..........
-
"Erhonte notleistung"
Must be "Erhöhte Notleistung", if you have no "ö", its also correct to write "oe".
The same is with:
"ü"<--> "ue"
"ä"<--> "ae"
Ok ok, there are more important things on earth. ;)
Ecke
-
I cant ever remeber the windows key for them little dots.........:p
Being an unejumakated Amurikan and all
-
salvation is close...
-
batz "wipe the rabid drool from your chin" and read what ive written. :)
The speed of 355mph as top speed for the 190A8 is stated in loads of books its also in those photocopied charts that are often posted by vermillion.In Ah you get 350 max. The speed of 338 without wep was given to me by him in that thread i linked to. I then went and flew it in AH and could only get 330mph. (Are you saying HTC believe it to be 350mph max speed and 330mph max speed without wep? Im not aware that they had said this anywhere although their web chart does seem to point to that being what it is.If this is the case why doesnt someone link us to where they have said it? sheesh is it so hard?)
(*This has nothing to do with the contested speed of the 190A5 at sea level btw. I never even mentioned it as its something i have no information for.)
back to the 109a8 if you cant accept 355mph as top sea level speed why dont you give me a reference that says different that YOU consider accurate.I dont think it has been contested even in these boards.The test can be done by anyone offline with 0mph wind. try it yourself.
Also why dont you take a look at some other writers works and see how many mistakes you can spot in their publication. It just happens to be convenient that william green is branded a complete liar for making mistakes on a few obscure marks of an aircraft. On a subject which even today is hotly debated on many a BBS.
Again you say something like dont trust anything William green says and yet you have not given me a way to prove once and for all he was wrong. Its probable he has made a mistake I'll agree but only because I agree it was unlikely they managed to fit the 103's in a 109 because of size but...
As for your other comment to distrust everything william green says as rubibish you need to step back a moment and maybe even PURCHASE the book? The error for the 109K is one of 2 errors in a book numbering some 600 pages and some half a million words.it is regarded as the most complete work on the entire LW aircraft collection. One error is he states the 109K had nose-mounted MK 103 30mms when in fact it seems there was only the MK103 wing-gondolas OR one that DID fit the MK103M which was a different type to the MK103 with much less preferable ballistics. The other mistake is he claimed the 15mm cowl guns were in production when it has since been found they were only used on a prototype. Its actually not that bad a mistake to make but it seems everyone who wants to go with the US tests rather than RAF or German uses to debunk what is a Twenty year research project of LW planes with an unprecedented access to German records and pilots.It was written BEFORE computers were invented so he wasnt trying to get a 109K with a MK103 30mm so he could shoot anyone down. What possible gain does William Green have for saying it was on the 109K. other than because he made a mistake there isnt a secret plot to make all the German planes sound better than what they were. They won the best aircraft race hands down with the Me262. why would he need to boast about a 109K with MK 103 30mm ?? who is he trying to impress? his bank manager? You see its pretty preposterous to claim he did this in a deliberate way to fool people. These authors get to know those old pilots and engineers who provide him with information. These sort of people are unlikely to add their own ideas without some sort of evidence that either proved it or led them to believe it. What do you know about william greens sources? How do you know he doesnt have some records that show they did indeed have nose mounted MK103s? If they lengthened the area between the rear of the engine and the cockpit or perhaps had somehow made some modificated MK103 we havent got records on today then our stance of 'its unlikely' would crumble to dust. The unlikelyness of its fitting the 109 is the ONLY basis ive seen for debunking williams's book.
As for your link which apparently proves the 190a8 didnt use MW50 have you read it ? and i quote:
"here is what i know.
Fw decided against MW50 for the BMW801 D and Q (TU)
because it was not worth the effort. (that what the FW engeener said anyway)
a 45 report mention that even for the Bmw801 E(TH) and S (TS) where installation of mw50 used in the D9 was possible gives the preference to the Erhonte notleistung.
the bMW801 D with mw 50 is about 2100 ps 2700 rpm ??ata
the bmw801 D with erhonte notlesitung is 2050-PS 2700 rpm 1.65 ata.
the erhonte notlestun was really simple and esy to install and did not need any special equipement (just a cable to bleed the airline.
It did not need any special tank nor special line.
It was use fullup to 5500 m
The output of the bmw801 is 1780 ps at see leval (1840 ps at 300-500 meters. 2700 rpm and 1.42 ata
All that a speed 0.
(this is from fw and bmw captured documents)
The erhonte notleistung is not really petrol injection as such (neither is the system used on the Jabo called C3 injection). the Bmw 801 used injectors and not carburator. the fuel was used exactly like the Mw50 to cool down the mixture so that you can increase the pressure in the cylinders.
I hope that helps"
several points ...this captured document i take it has been verified somehow? or even seen?
If it is true it still mentions that the C3 system was almost had the same result as MW50. Does it matter that it was a MW50 or C3? the point is it still had increased power and performance. New evidence like this about the C3 if real is bound to turn up as people nowadays have better research capabilities and links all around the world while writting. It doesnt mean because we find new evidence that this somehow makes everything before it nonsense. It just means we REFINE the ideas or knowledge. Do you not think that theres been mistakes made of allied planes too that later are realised has been assumed incorrectly? Its why people re-research things. to try to find out more detail. Who knows maybe authors saw it and thought it wasnt relevant as it only made 50 hp difference? or maybe they didnt have access to this 'stolen report' :rolleyes: and even if this turns out to be correct, ie MW50 is found to have not been used, AT THIS MOMENT the accepted facts are it did have it at least in current litrature. There have been no books made with this claim and from your link theres no document to see. If that board you point to did have some byall means post them or a link to them. Im not about to trawl the boards trying to prove MW50 was on the 190a8. For one thing Captain eric Brown RAF test pilot for some 25 years during and after WW2 has a book which shows he flew a captured 190's with MW50 systems installed but they had no MW50 or GM1 fuel and so often had to test without it. For now until the evidence is shown to the contrary they did use it. Unless you are prepared to call the actual war veterans liars? why would an RAF test pilot make it all up, its hilarious how these bulletin boards work!
just the simple stuff now. the 190A8 does 355mph top speed with wep (the real one with or without the need to decide if it was MW50 GM1 C3 or cats urine ;))the AH one 'appears' to max out at 350mph. Its not rocket science or in need of any special 'stolen document'. Its the accepted top speed and a test of AH offline. go test it and stop pointing me to discussions which arent even proven or at least in print in order that we can all decide if its correct.Dont use some obscure BB as a basis to deflect a simple testable question.
this is definately the last reply.well maybe one more if you start to talk nonsense again :) and Btw Verm was the one who gave me the 338mph figure for top speed sea level at non-wep and the 355mph top sea level with wep speed in the post i made a year ago. Funked didnt quote me from any manual as far as i saw, in this thread you mean?
(p.s sorry mandoble this has detracted from what you asked about i just cant let it go hehe)
-
I cannot let this thread die without any mention of the Typhoon dive speed !
-
hazed, raw top speed issues are of little importance. To reach max top speed at level you will need several minutes. The really important factor is the acceleration, not just pure top speed.
-
Again, do you see why HT doesnt reply?
5 mph? Big deal. Other planes in the set have the same "problem". If you could call that problem.
C3 injection isnt MW50.
From Verms chart the 190a8 on wep says about 353 @ SL. (Where it says 550 Below to the right 350mph is written in.) So I will give ya 355.
The HT charts say 350. I just tested it and hit 351. But I didnt run the test long maybe I could squeezed out 2 or 3 mph.
You say 349 in your test at the top of the thread but further down in a reply to Verm you say 350. Verm says he hit 355 right on. For 4 or 5 mph you posted 10,000 words?
I have flown the a8 in AH since I started going on 3 years. In Big Week we climbed to 30k and I killed 10 b17s and 1 p38 and an p47 in 4 Frames. We had guys kill p51bs.
You have been flogging this horse for well over a year.
Theres no drool on my chin. You better check the mirror. :p
At this point i agree with Funked
Hazed I haven't the faintest clue of what you are talking about. Hope you enjoyed the info. Cheers.
-
fyi those "obscure BBS" I linked you to have a far greater knowledge base then this board. Far more then yourself who continually quotes Green as a source.
-
As for the conspiricy thing.I have I guess accused HTC of a lack of interest in sorting out the LW planes and i think this stands true. My own opinion is this distaste for threads broatching the subject of LW planes started way back in Warbirds?.Something must have happened there for this idea that all LW people are the same. People get pigeon holed right away , they get upset by it and feel like no matter what they do it will be ignored.There nothing worse in a BB than feeling youre not a part of it fully.Most like me never even played Warbirds, we're not all the same people
Hazed and you realy wonder why the Luftwhiner terms rings true?
You accuse us as having somthing against LW in that quote. And you still belive it today.
Could it be you have a totaly clueless view of all the planes modled in AH and only consern your self with the LW, and therefore think the LW planes are some how different than all others?
-
Spewed coffee out my nose and all over the keyboard and monitor on that reply. ;)
-
(http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/tmp/fw190a-boost-doc1.jpg)
-
HT you become a wery bad comercial lately, you will sunk this time AH without JAI from WB
learned somewhere when was litle, never underestimate your oponents
-
Posts to fix a/c that are all of 5mph off a posted top speed in a book make me laugh. You have got to be kidding.
#1 As if the 5mph would make squat difference? please.
#2 355mph taken from one 190A-8 flight, of that particular a/c, load, fuel, weight, weather conditions ect...as if every 190A-8 maxxed at 355? again, thats silly.
#3 Ughh, how about a raft of other non LW ac that dont hit their max speeds from SOME sources. The Spit XIV doesnt do 448. I think it only does 440. OMG!!! Its a POS!!! :)
#4 How about we look at that 450mph 109G-10 again huh? seems ok when it does 20mph faster than any published source I can find on a 109G-10, any model. What? is that the sound of silence? yes, because we dont give a tinkers s*** about it unless its about giving favorite rides more speed, it has ZIP to do with being "accurate", and we all know it.
No, I dont lose a lot of sleep over #4 either, but its an interesting observation, and I have seen the raft of posts attempting to explain the discrepancy...so pls dont bother repeating them, been there, read that.
Btw, your "Bible of the LW" sim, IL-2 Forgotten Battles gives the 109G-10 with the DB605DCM a top speed of 423mph.
Cheers.
-
Hazed,
When you check speeds are you using the game interface or the external AH Film viewer?
I ask because there is some built in slop in the intruments. If you look at the digital speed it is often quite a bit different. I have seen a difference of as much as 20MPH TAS.
BTW, Butch2k has as much real data on the FW190 as I have seen anywhere. Check with him for hard data. If it is out there he has it.
-
Originally posted by Squire
#4 How about we look at that 450mph 109G-10 again huh? seems ok when it does 20mph faster than any published source I can find on a 109G-10
The often quoted 685 km/h quote /425mph for the G-10 is without MW-50. Just check the corresponding altitude
niklas
-
Nice find Butch!
-
"The often quoted 685 km/h quote /425mph for the G-10 is without MW-50. Just check the corresponding altitude."
Prove it.
-
corresponding altitude is 7,500m.
Theres your "proof".
You are basically saying the same thing Hazed is. That HT and crew are lying.
Who told you that FB was "Bible of the LW"?
You dont what the heck you are talking and are just here to join the pile on.
-
Show me any credible doc that has a 109G-10 capable of that speed. One 109 varient I can find a source that gives the famous "452 mph" is the 109K-14 with a DB601L engine using MW50.
I didnt say anybody was lying, those are your words not mine. Is AH capable of having errors in the flight model? yes. Does that mean that Hitech was the second shooter on the grassy knoll?, ugh, no.
Disagree with me if you want to, thats fine, but I am justified in making a comparison of an a/c in Aces High that has a higher speed than sources indicate, to make my point about why things are pointed out, and by who.
I will even concede right now that its possible the 109G-10 did go that fast, and if it did, HTC certainly is giving it the benefit of the doubt, despite being so anti-LW.
-
So you have K14 data.... Thats nice seeing as most likely none were ever built or flight tested....
BTW projected speed for the K14 with new 605L engine, four blade prop, new aerodynamic refinements, was much higher than 452mph. :)
But you are ignorant and dont care, you are just whining for whinings sake. We have the best possible G10, high alt speed near identical to K4 - 450mph at around 22k.... HTC knows this! :P
-
Fine with me, just dont go on about how the poor LW is abused. Best posible 109G-10? would be nice if that got more press amongst some, yes?, instead of how the Spit is overmodelled?
As for the rest, sticks and stones. I could care less Grun. Its interesting how fast some of you throw insults as soon as a post with a different view comes up. "Liar" "Whiner", ya you been on the AH BB awhile now eh? hard to tell. :)
-
Squire,
The Bf109G-10s were a hodge podge. It was a program to bring Bf109G-6s up to Bf109K-4 standards. Most of them received engines that took them up to about 425mph, but some, such as the one in AH, got the full blooded Bf109K-4 engine and could make 452mph.
That is how I understood it anyways.
I'm not a big afficiando of German engines so I'm afraid I can't rattle off the actuall engine designations.
-
Originally posted by Squire
Fine with me, just dont go on about how the poor LW is abused. Best posible 109G-10? would be nice if that got more press amongst some, yes?, instead of how the Spit is overmodelled?
As for the rest, sticks and stones. I could care less Grun. Its interesting how fast some of you throw insults as soon as a post with a different view comes up. "Liar" "Whiner", ya you been on the AH BB awhile now eh? hard to tell. :)
Me going on about the LW being abused here, lets see both my posts basically said there is not much real difference between individual LW 13mm and the dreaded US 50cal? But you are really arguing with hazed and mandoble and trying to be a bit self righteus...
It is intersting how quickly people throw out the "whiner" tag isnt it? But that was intentional in my post, happy you noticed it...
-
erla produce 109 g10s with the db605AS eng. IIRC they produced under 100 and had to modify the eng cowl. As wastel pointed out a 109 with the db605ASM is almost exactly like the ah g10 (it may be).
Some g10 were refits some were new. I tested the ah g10 w/out wep at 24,280 ft and hit 426mph. It kinda falls inline with what niklas said. But either way no one has to prove anything to you.
By implying that the g10 "over performs" you are doing the exact samething that Hazed did.
-
well, as long as we/you don't know the engine type HTC modelled, you can't know what is right.
but for the G10 we have only SOME DB605ASM engines built in like batz say..the rest was the 605D....but which D?
but when saying the G10 is in AH fastest at 25k...it must be
the ASM...and even then the alt is little to high.
if you have the engine charts, don't think that the rated alt is the alt with the top speed. the rated alt is fon an NOT MOVING engine. but if the engine travels 600km/h+ the preassure in the air intake rises the rated alt. look athe the Db605A-1 of the G6,
the rated alt is 5.8km....but the historically G6 reaches its top speed of 650-660km/h (not the F**** 625km/h all sources tell..these are from an G6/Rvariant) at an alt of 6300-6400m.
i studied the 109G/K lots lately for the upcoming patch for il2-fb...and belive me...its horrible :-)
wastel
PS. i think AH and Wb both have the G6/R6 top speeds for the clean g6 :-(...only il2 is right there in the moment.
-
I think that the ah g10 hits max speed at a lower alt. I mentioned 25k because Squire was comparing the ah g10 with the data provided in FB. I believe thta the object viewer says the FB g10 hit 690kmh @7500m.
Heres a Java Chart with what I believe is taken from testing the ah g10
(http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/Info/Clipboard02.jpg)
Heres the AH chart. They are slightly different.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/109g10speed.gif)
Like you said I dont know what eng HT modelled.
Thanks for the input.....
-
Like wastel said, even the AS supercharger was not powerful enough to build up 1.8 or even 1.92 ata for MW-50 in 7.4km. This engine was probably the early D engine (1550PS) that had it´s rated altiutde in 6.5km, so with a little RAM effect you get up to over 7km.
In this old sheet that is filled out with the test data, they even mention the standard A engine, but i think it´s wrong (the D would have been correct). On the other hand it lists a drop tank, but once more i don´t think that with standard boost and a drop tank 550km/h was possible on ground. It just gives you the information that the speed was reached with a ETC501 rack.
(http://de.geocities.com/stefan_l_01/fzg/G_685.gif)
The same data, or speed curve, is listed in the Tsagi Charts btw. . There you can see the altitude of 7.4km too. Definitly no usage of mw-50
Stefan
-
I think this may be of some help.
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/109+G.jpg
Neil.
-
Interesting chart Niel. For all that read this chart, notice under Bewaffnung that this 109 had the MG151/20 gondies.
-
From Butch2k's site on a question on the G-10
http://pub131.ezboard.com/fallboutwarfarefrm31.showMessage?topicID=3062.topic
Butch
" This type doesn't exist. About 50 G-10 were produced with DB605AS instead of DB605D but they kept their original G-10 desingation."
" The G-10 was defined as the evolution of G-6 fitted with MW-50 and DB605D. The fitting od DB605AS was an "accident", not a deliberate attempt from the industry to create a new version.
What you describe is the Type 110 cowling used on Erla built G-10s."
veltro
" I confirm what Butch said.
Earlier theories about the "G-10/AS" (one was in my books...) were caused from the wrong assumptions started both by the external look of the planes and by the fact that two of the only about fifty of them produced with the DB 605 AS (a fact caused by a shortage of "D" engines), ended by chance their career abandoned in an airfield in Northern Italy, where were duly recorded and brought to the attention of my researches...
But it was only a series of unfortunate coincidences.
The historical truth is that the G-10s produced by Erla were equipped with a engine upper and (especially) lower cowling of new design to enclose the DB 605 D engine with no need of "chin bulges". The lower cowl design was so refined that the difference can be only seen at certain angles and knowing what to look for.
The advanced situation of the war and the disruption of the production system prevented such design to be used also by the other factories.
So, no "G-10/AS" but, rather, G-10 Erla...
P.S. the "Type 110" codification given to the version of cowl designed by Erla isn't and never was an official one, but was created for ease of catalogation by the French researcher J.C. Mermet, whose studies in the past few years allowed to discover a lot of informations and set the records straight about many later Bf 109 versions. "
-
I think Pyro has overtorqued the prop retainer bolt on the 190A. You know it was machined to .0003 and correct torque, depending on source can vary as much as .009 (!)
Could have a lot to do with it. Pyro is know to be biased against LW torque procedures and he always hated FW prop nuts.
-
No Batz, Im saying that #s dont always add up (no surprise), and Im saying that when the #s dont add up for LW a/c, that its isnt always to their detriment, wether in the end the source is correct or not.
You cant deny that the vast majority of the sources for the 109G-10 (any model) give it a lower speed (for whatever reason, Im not the author of those docs, I dont own one either) than what HTC gives, and because of that, claims that they are somehow "screwing" the axis planesest (some either imply it or claim it outright) seems hollow, especailly compared to the avalanche of posts going on and on about the Spitfire.
As to the 109G-10, well, maybe a different thread to debate it is in order, bottom line, there seems to be a lot of "foggy" data on that plane.
On a different tact, I must say the 109G-10 is one of the more interesting versions of the 109 to read up on, it is usually overshadowed by the 109K, and its development and use is quite a story.
-
Originally posted by Squire
You cant deny that the vast majority of the sources for the 109G-10 (any model) give it a lower speed
What speeds do you know then? I bet it´s always the same, 550 near ground, 685 at altitude
niklas
-
Something close to that, yes.
Oh yes, back to IL-2. Either IL-2 has theirs 20mph too slow (DB605DCM engine with MW50) or HTCs is 20mph too fast (DB605DCM engine with MW50). Same a/c different speeds, if the IL-2 web page describes their 109G-10s max speed accurately.
Also, their 109K-4 is faster by about 20mph than thier G-10. Not that that proves anything, but its an interesting point.
As for the quote of 7500m, ask them about that, its not my sim and I go by the quotes they provide.
Has anybody asked Oleg about it? I suppose its a moot point in IL-2 anyways, if you want the 450mph Bf109 you just grab the 109K-4, its a boxed sim and you can fly what you want, so I suppose nobody cares that hard about it.
-
sugestion last real data about G 10 g 14 becose they was realy turned around, go check, source Ceska Republika, Ceskoslovenske Vojenske Museum, they own last real measured data about those G 10 G 14 wariants < btw all is only about the engine and oil radiator how above mentioned DB605D is just a DB 605 AS with higher compresion and biger cilinder cubature, something like this the G 14/AS become the G 10 /AS they also mention MV 50 amd oil radiator FO 987 some source say max speed 690 km/h at 7500 m
well about the data source how told G 10/as or G 14 /as are the same maybe only diference is the oil radiator but it existed many other variants with litle diferent details
about source credibility CSSR after war build 20 of Avia s-99 alias G 14 AS < there no Fo 987 radiator > nad the engines used was the DB 605/AS , why only 20 becose some clever bellybutton burn up al lthe 800 engines on stock !
swis also owned G 14 but those G 14 used DB 605/D othervise named ,, just a litle beter G 6
i to leazy to dig all out and traduct but i thing those data more credible if u not beleve go in PRAGUE , u will have big time , many prety girls and u can look at the museum and dig for data
-
Problem with the G-10s and K-4s is the number of engine fitted, there were actualy three different engine model fitted. In fact two as DB and DC are one and the same but let's consider they were different for the discussion.
To identify which engine has been modelled in game the easiest way is to get the max speed @ alt and comparing it with the max power @ alt delivered by the various engines.
The DB605DM delivered 1500PS@1.75ata@2850rpm@8.0km (C3+MW50)
The DB605DB delivered 1600PS@1.80ata@2800rpm@6.0km (B4+MW50)
The DB605DC delivered 1800PS@1.98ata@2800rpm@4.9km
-
Like Ferdinando and I said there was no such beast as a G-10/AS.
Besides the difference between a DB605AS and a DB605D is Huge !!!
Technicaly speaking they were quite different, sure both shared the DB603G supercharger, but the boost regulator was totaly different on the DB605D as it used the DB603A Ladedruckwähler while the DB603AS still relied on the DB605A Ladedruckregler, etc...
I own a document listing the difference between the two engine and it's two pages long...
-
I'm really not partial to either aircraft and recognize that the variables (engines, settings, model variations) are beyond my limited understanding of the subject.....but.....two specific points can be documented easily:
1) Historically the germans NEVER engaged in prolonged dogfights if they could be avoided. They used vertical slashing attacks and rarely fought when confronted with a bad tactical situation. However, during the period in question accounts clearly indicate that the germans in the 190's were clearly dominant and DID inflict massive losses on the RAF.
2) The british clearly indicate in there own documents that the RAF took a major beating at the hands of the early 190's and that that beating continued until the IX's arrived in reasonable numbers.
As a side note the majority view (RAF & Luft.) was that the IX and 190 (a-4) were about equal in overall qualities with various points offsetting each other. I've always felt the relative climb diff of the 109 and 190 were "off" a bit. In my limited (compared to many here) reading I find no mention of dissapointment in the performance of the 190 vs the 109 it was replacing. Many of the accounts I've read indicated that the 190a4 could outturn the 109's it was replacing?
Personally as it relates to AH in a coalt 1 vs 1 the a5 should dominate the spit V....as long as the 190 driver fights the right fight. Similiar to the 109f4 vs spit V. Obviously pilot skill is an issue but in an E fight the german plane will win (on paper).
-
spit why isn't it on fire i H A T E SPIT DWEEB'S ive learn to use my 190 to kill those dweeb's and also my my formation of 17's to make them crash and burn:D very fun i even redord them going down i love seeing a spit on fire so munch:D :D :D :D all spit's can be beaten rest assured ive even kills a spit14 with my form of 17's very easy he pulled up on my 9 o clock after i scared the watermelon out of that spit14 and i just open fire and next i know im say and he is on fire:D
skull12
-
Butch i asume your German is sure beter like my English ??? becose if you anderstud what those 2 words mean you stop about what is the real diference betwen D and AS version ;)
-
Originally posted by Batz
Again, do you see why HT doesnt reply?
5 mph? Big deal. Other planes in the set have the same "problem". If you could call that problem.
C3 injection isnt MW50.
From Verms chart the 190a8 on wep says about 353 @ SL. (Where it says 550 Below to the right 350mph is written in.) So I will give ya 355.
The HT charts say 350. I just tested it and hit 351. But I didnt run the test long maybe I could squeezed out 2 or 3 mph.
You say 349 in your test at the top of the thread but further down in a reply to Verm you say 350. Verm says he hit 355 right on. For 4 or 5 mph you posted 10,000 words?
I have flown the a8 in AH since I started going on 3 years. In Big Week we climbed to 30k and I killed 10 b17s and 1 p38 and an p47 in 4 Frames. We had guys kill p51bs.
You have been flogging this horse for well over a year.
Theres no drool on my chin. You better check the mirror. :p
At this point i agree with Funked
Batz like I said the 190a8 was one of many small discrepencies and no i didnt post in here because we are missing 5-8mph from the 190a8s model. I tried that over ayear ago and got nothing in answer.At the time several other supposed 'allied' types didnt have answers either.It was merely added in here to show that regardless of how i worded my questions they were EITHER ignored or like i said HT basically jumps in and insults me for asking, accuses me of seeking advantages , as if i really care about advantages after 3 years of playing and which i find rediculous, then calls me a luftwhiner which again i find incredibly offensive coming from the developer off a game AND expects that to stop me thinking something is wrong with his attitude?.Now that I do find amazing. Lets just look at his answer:
Hazed quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the conspiricy thing.I have I guess accused HTC of a lack of interest in sorting out the LW planes and i think this stands true. My own opinion is this distaste for threads broatching the subject of LW planes started way back in Warbirds?.Something must have happened there for this idea that all LW people are the same. People get pigeon holed right away , they get upset by it and feel like no matter what they do it will be ignored.There nothing worse in a BB than feeling youre not a part of it fully.Most like me never even played Warbirds, we're not all the same people
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazed and you realy wonder why the Luftwhiner terms rings true?
You accuse us as having somthing against LW in that quote. And you still belive it today.
Could it be you have a totaly clueless view of all the planes modled in AH and only consern your self with the LW, and therefore think the LW planes are some how different than all others?
Quite simply HT no.
HT you really do not read what i post so i guess you will never see what ive been trying to say to you for well over 2 years.I find your habit of actually answering in some of my posts but not even attempting to show me where i have it wrong or even answering the questions posed, but merely to call me names and again infer that im saying you deliberately have developed incorrect LW models. This isnt the case EVEN in the QUOTE you posted. What im saying is you do not seem to answer anything posted involving LW and this, and your attitude toward ALL LW fans is what i believe you ARE biased about. For instance how many corrections have you made to LW models in the last 3 years? By my count its just one.The engine bug on the 190A's. GLad it was done but it took over a year and a half of people saying it 'felt' wrong or 'seemed' wrong. During those years did you consider anyone who said they agreed a whiner? if so what did you think of those who thought the P38 had a glass tail? by the time you do post in the treads they have already degraded into slanging matches and to add insult to injury YOU also insult your customers, its amazing.
Why did you not merely say The 190a8 in AH is spot on the charts and then tell me why MY version of tests might read wrong? perhaps the readouts on these dials being wrong is the reason it appears off as f4udoa suggested? if so how the hell are we supposed to know this?
why dont you explain why the D9 cannot keep up with a fully loaded P51D in a full speed dive? or the acceleration of 190s or any of the other many many still unanswered questions?(not mine) You have often said you dont write the models and so wouldnt know but then if that is the case why are you so adament everyone who questions it is wrong? perhaps you dont like answering about them? perhaps you prefer to slap us down along with everyone else? who knows.
You wont read this as its intended, and id guess many others wont either, I thought you stepped in a while back to try to stop all the unecessary 'slap-down' crap that goes with every post but it seems you enjoy doing it yourself. Id really like to know the reasons behind your attitude toward a so called 'group' of players.
Remember i came to your game at the start of AH not warbirds and ive developed my view on your attitude toward me as a fan of LW SINCE then , not before. You say we all accuse you of having something against the planes of the LW but perhaps we are wrong, perhaps you just have some strange hate of the fans?.
and btw before you accuse me of constantly repeating questions as the reason you ignore them check how many times since you slated me a year ago I have asked anything flightmodel orientated for LW since then. batz your claim... 'You have been flogging this horse for well over a year.' is nonsense. Ive only even posted about the 190 maybe one in the last year with regards to modeling. I have steered myself away from that area and just concentrated on history stuff or loadouts due to the fact when i do i get ignored or called dumb names.
-
No Batz, Im saying that #s dont always add up (no surprise), and Im saying that when the #s dont add up for LW a/c, that its isnt always to their detriment, wether in the end the source is correct or not.
BS Squire,
You are jumping Hazed's arse for questioning 5 mph but then throw out crap like the "ah g10 is wrong". You quote websources (all based on the same source) as fact and state quite clearly HT is wrong. The g10 has been discussed before in AH. No one has to prove anything to you.
Posts to fix a/c that are all of 5mph off a posted top speed in a book make me laugh. You have got to be kidding.
#1 As if the 5mph would make squat difference? please.
#2 355mph taken from one 190A-8 flight, of that particular a/c, load, fuel, weight, weather conditions ect...as if every 190A-8 maxxed at 355? again, thats silly.
#3 Ughh, how about a raft of other non LW ac that dont hit their max speeds from SOME sources. The Spit XIV doesnt do 448. I think it only does 440. OMG!!! Its a POS!!!
#4 How about we look at that 450mph 109G-10 again huh? seems ok when it does 20mph faster than any published source I can find on a 109G-10, any model. What? is that the sound of silence? yes, because we dont give a tinkers s*** about it unless its about giving favorite rides more speed, it has ZIP to do with being "accurate", and we all know it.
No, I dont lose a lot of sleep over #4 either, but its an interesting observation, and I have seen the raft of posts attempting to explain the discrepancy...so pls dont bother repeating them, been there, read that.
Btw, your "Bible of the LW" sim, IL-2 Forgotten Battles gives the 109G-10 with the DB605DCM a top speed of 423mph.
Oh yes, back to IL-2. Either IL-2 has theirs 20mph too slow (DB605DCM engine with MW50) or HTCs is 20mph too fast (DB605DCM engine with MW50). Same a/c different speeds, if the IL-2 web page describes their 109G-10s max speed accurately.
You dont know what eng the AH g10 has any more then the rest of us. You can test the ah g10 and see that the java chart I posted is more accurrate then the chart posted by htc.
@ 20k 445 (wep)
@ 25k 441 (wep)
So you are just running your mouth and taking a "shot" at those "lwhiners".
-
Ya whiner. :D
-
You "experts" were the ones that decided it was a DB605 DCM engine in AH, based on its speed, the a/c skin, the fuel marking, I remember the thread.
"The g10 has been discussed before in AH"
You can remember that, but things dim quickly when I ask about the discrepancy. You are just dodging the Q.
"So you are just running your mouth and taking a "shot" at those "lwhiners"."
Yes, I am. Especially the ones that see everything in black and white.
"You are jumping Hazed's arse for questioning 5 mph"
Thats a sport you seem to enjoy very much on the AH BB, whats wrong, is it a closed event?
-
DB , DM and like this belong more to K series like to G 10 and real WW2 experts say that 100 % to know what is what u need to know serial number
-
Squire,
Based on the data that I have seen (and I'm an RAF fan, not a Luftwaffe fan) I think the Bf109G-10 is entirely valid as it is.
I wouldn't mind terribly if it were remodeled to top out at 425mph, provide that a genuine Bf109K-4 were added at the same time.
-
Originally posted by hazed-
why dont you explain why the D9 cannot keep up with a fully loaded P51D in a full speed dive? or the acceleration of 190s
Aces High (http://www.netaces.org/ahplanes/comparisons/acceldive.htm)
.........................From 10K.......................... ...From 20K
................... 200-300 300-400 400-500 200-300 300-400 400-500
Fw 190D-9 7.4/7.7-- 6.1/6.5-- 7.3/7.8-- 7.6/7.6-- 6.1/6.5-- 6.9/7.2
P-51D.........7.4/7.5-- 6.4/6.5-- 7.5/7.7-- 7.6/7.7-- 6.3/6.4-- 7.0/7.0
Pretty close in the game, right?
From Lockheed/Air Force tests of the P-38
P-38 Dive Testing (http://p-38online.com/test.html)
Finally, another test P-38 was fitted with the dive flaps and testing was resumed. The Air Corps wanted Lockheed to test the aircraft with 2,000 lbs. of more weight and to start dives at 35,000 ft. The extra weight would cause additional acceleration of the aircraft during its dive, and would approach the critical Mach number sooner.
From some brainiac at an RV airplane sight that wrote a pretty good explanation:
What is faster... A heavy or light R/C aircraft? (http://www.rcuniverse.com/rcarchive/19/2003/04/3/151071)
banktoturn Blue Skyy,
If the the planes were in a dead vertical dive, the heavier plane would be faster, which is essentially the same as saying that it would have a higher terminal velocity. For level flight, the lighter plane would be faster. The important difference is whether the plane needs to generate lift. It seems to me that the most reasonable case to consider for max. speed is level flight, with no gravity assist. For this case, lighter is better, because there is a component of drag which increases as the amount of lift being generated increases. Since the amount of lift generated for straight, level flight is equal to the airframe's weight, the lighter plane will have less drag, and will be faster. For some angle of dive, the amount of lift generated will be such that the two planes would have the same max. speed. I don't think we have enough data to say what this angle is. If you buy my argument that speed for level flight ( or in hard turns ) is more important than falling speed, then lighter is faster. If you are measuring speed after some kind of dive, then you need to do a more complicated tradeoff analysis, with more data than you included in your question.
banktoturn
Ben Lanterman To followup on the banktoturn explaination.
An airplane with no motor and of a given configuration at zero angle of attack has a drag coefficient CD. The drag of the airplane in pounds is
Drag = 1/2*rho*V*V*S*CD
S = wing area
V = velocity
rho = density constant
The force from gravity is
F = m * a mass in slugs times acceleration in ft/secsec
F = M * 32.2
The bigger the mass the bigger the force. The force will accelerate the airplane until F = Drag.
If the airplane is light then drag stops the airplane acceleration fairly soon.
If the airplane weighs a ton then the velocity has to go much higher before stopping.
Now the velocity the airplane has when it stops accelerating straight down is
Weight = 1/2*rho*V*V * S * CD
V = Square root of ( 2 * Weight / rho * S * CD )
Again it shows the larger the weight and the smaller the airplane drag coefficient the faster the airplane will go.
Any height above that which generates the terminal velocity is pretty well wasted. The thrust of the motor just adds to the Weight term since both are in pounds.
So you have a heavy airplane at terminal velocity going through a pullout which bleeds some velocity and entering a speed trap of a one way speed course. Depending on the length of the speed trap it will usefully retain some of the high velocity. The velocity decreases the longer the time that the airplane spends between the ends of the speed course.
The light airplane won't reach the terminal velocity of the heavier airplane. In level flight after the terminal velocity has worn off it will keep the velocity it has better.
The angle of the dive just removes some of the weight term. Weight effective would be equal to Weight * cos DA where DA is the dive angle and 90 degrees is straight down.
There are a lot of variables. The height started at (visibility limited), the weight of the airplane, the length of the course over which the timing is measured, whether or not a turn is required as part of the speed run.
For all out speed runs do the following - a heavy airplane with a big dive from altitude followed by an easy pullout to level flight as close to the entry gate as you can get, straight and level through the timing units with minimal control inputs, followed by a zoom to altitude and doing the dive etc. the other way.
In some events there are wing area or wing loading llimitations that will determine so of the factors. It is a complex and fascinating area. Also I do think that a gut feel approach to the problem based on flying experience will give you a good handle on the answer too. A few passes with a stop watch will let you home in on the best solution.
Any mistakes are not my fault, it is almost midnight and I finally am getting sleepy.
banktoturn Blue Skyy,
There are only two variables to consider, as far as top speed is concerned. They are thrust and drag ( or coefficient of drag ). Weight becomes a component of thrust when the plane is in a dive. After the plane is done accelerating, drag is exactly equal to thrust. Since you are comparing two planes which are exactly the same except for weight, the coefficient of drag is the same for both planes. This means that in a dead vertical dive, the heavier plane has more thrust ( because its greater weight is part of the thrust ), so it will reach a higher speed before the drag becomes equal to the thrust. It's important to realize that drag increases with speed, while the coefficient of drag is essentially constant, as long as all the control surfaces are in the same positions. This view of the drag being equal to the thrust is the important thing here. The top speed of a plane is defined as the speed at which the drag becomes equal to the maximum thrust. Your point about assuming that the prop has sufficient pitch is a good one. That is a necessary assumption.
In the opposite situation, flying straight and level, weight does not contribute to thrust, but it increases the amount of lift that the wing must generate, which increases induced drag ( and probably profile drag also ), so the heavier plane is slower.
In a non-vertical dive, the situation is somewhere between the two extremes.
banktoturn
Lastly, the P-47 was the largest and heaviest single-engine fighter built at that time. Heaviest. And what are the dive acceleration characteristics of the Jug?
Just something to reflect upon.
-
Toad i understand what you are saying and im aware of it already. Anyone with a rudementary understanding of physics would understand that a heavier object would accelerate faster.
But by 'fully loaded' Im talking about a P51D with 2x 1000lb bombs and 6x2.5inch rockets!!.
Now if its weight alone im sure the added weight would help in a dive for acceleration but this is ignoring the drag and air disturbance caused by the bombs and the totally unaerodynamic rockets. If you can explain why this wouldnt make a difference or show something that maybe explains why in AH I cannot match the dive speed in a 190D-9 (around 60% fuel load)or indeed keep following the dive due to compression and severe buffeting. Anyhow it was actually directed at HT and was retorical in respect of the fact i dont expect an answer. :)
thnx for trying and like i said if you can still explain i'd still appreciate it but like i said its the lack of response from HTC as a company that is the issue rather than response from community members. If its a community member who is able to point someone to a thread where HTC has answered thats fine but when these people give explanations that are pretty much based on conjecture or opinion the person who's asked the question is generally none the wiser. HTC has the power to answer any question with a short or long answer, short being 'our data shows that the dora would not be able to match even a fully loaded P51D' and that would be the end of it(or at least make us look for where HTC found it out) or the long version which might go some way to explain the reasons behind the doras lack of ability to keep up.
anyhow just thought id re-clarify the question. (fully loaded is full ordinance).
-
Originally posted by Toad
Aces High (http://www.netaces.org/ahplanes/comparisons/acceldive.htm)
Pretty close in the game, right?
Test Procedures Used:
-Tests were conducted off-line.
-Auto-speed was set to 400.
-Planes were accelerated from speeds below 200 TAS.
-At 200 TAS, auto-speed was engaged and allowed to take the plane into a dive.
-At 300 TAS, auto-angle was engaged to maintain the dive beyond 400 TAS.
-Times were measured at 300, 400, and 500 TAS.
-All planes were tested with a similar fuel state. Fuel load was set as close to 25 minutes duration as possible. For example, the N1K2-J, with 44 minutes duration, was tested with 50% fuel (22 minutes duration) while the La-7, with 28 minutes duration, was tested with a full tank. Click Here for the fuel load tested in in all planes.
-Fuel usage was set to 0.001. In essence, no fuel was burned so fuel weight remained constant throughout the test.
-Internal armament was set to the largest caliber weapons and highest ammo load except for Bf 109-G's where the 20mm cannon was selected instead of the 30mm.
-No external stores were carried unless noted as an additional test.
What part of "fully loaded" as in rockets and bombs did you not understand? External ordnance would create a lot of parasitic drag, and when the D9 and P51 are so close in clean configuration the D9 should achieve a higher maximum speed in a dive when the P51 hauls ord.
-
Originally posted by hazed-
Toad i understand what you are saying and im aware of it already. Anyone with a rudementary understanding of physics would understand that a heavier object would accelerate faster.
Actually a heavier object will only overcome drag better. In a vacuum all objects accelerate equally regardless of weight or density. So only at high speeds are weight an issue in diving.
-
Originally posted by hazed-
...Anyone with a rudementary understanding of physics would understand that a heavier object would accelerate faster...
Heavier objects do not accellerate faster, unless some force other than gravity comes into play.
Damn, GScholz got here first.
-
Funked, send in the Colonel.
-
Yeah, that Aces High test shows the D9 and the 51 almost identical when clean.
Now add 2K+ to the 51. Sorta like the AAF wanting to add 2k to the P-38 in the dive tests because "The extra weight would cause additional acceleration of the aircraft during its dive" and as the RC guy said "Weight becomes a component of thrust when the plane is in a dive."
Now, drag from bombs and rockets is clearly there and it will increase with speed.
Will it increase enough to offset the "additional accleration"? I have no idea. I don't know what the drag is or what the accleration would be.
I have no idea how long Hazed followed him down, what alt they started at or any of the details.
But the Jug acclerated like a Banshee in a dive, in fact that's one of it's hall marks. It was the heaviest fighter of it's time and it certainly wasn't the "cleanest" one out the wrt to drag.
so, I don't think you can simply discount this.
-
BTW, the area below 60K is far from a vacuum, so toss out that red herring. It's already smelly.
Airplanes DO NOT operate in a vacuum.
... oh, and thrust is "that other force" that's acting.
-
Incidentally, how fast could WW2-era planes go in a dive with heavy ordnance strapped? Did they have a structural limit on that - like, if you go to fast with bombs, it would break off, or damage the plane..?
-
Oh, and to commend all of you ppl engaged in the G-10 debate, here's a nice pic! Enjoy, take a rest, and go for round 2! ;)
(http://www.il2skins.com/skins/screenshots/3786.jpg)
Damn, same skin, and yet looks so beautifully different! Now I can't wait to see what AH2 did with our G-10! :D
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, that Aces High test shows the D9 and the 51 almost identical when clean.
Now add 2K+ to the 51. Sorta like the AAF wanting to add 2k to the P-38 in the dive tests because "The extra weight would cause additional acceleration of the aircraft during its dive" and as the RC guy said "Weight becomes a component of thrust when the plane is in a dive."
Now, drag from bombs and rockets is clearly there and it will increase with speed.
Will it increase enough to offset the "additional accleration"? I have no idea. I don't know what the drag is or what the accleration would be.
Well first get the argument right. We're not arguing the accelleration, we're arguing the top speed.
Originally posted by Toad
I have no idea how long Hazed followed him down, what alt they started at or any of the details.
They stared out co-E (max level speed), co-alt and dived from 20k to the deck, the D9 was in compression and shaking bad doing 650 mph, and the P-51 was opening the distance.
Originally posted by Toad
But the Jug acclerated like a Banshee in a dive, in fact that's one of it's hall marks. It was the heaviest fighter of it's time and it certainly wasn't the "cleanest" one out the wrt to drag.
so, I don't think you can simply discount this.
Yes the Jug was awesome in dives, but not fast, a Spit for instance would catch up eventually given enough alt.
Originally posted by Toad
BTW, the area below 60K is far from a vacuum, so toss out that red herring. It's already smelly.
Airplanes DO NOT operate in a vacuum.
... oh, and thrust is "that other force" that's acting.
It is not a red herring. Even in an dense atmosphere two different objects will accelerate equally in the beginning. If you drop a B-17 and a Zeke from 10k they will both start to pick up speed pretty much equal because the air resistance/drag isn't powerful enough to matter much. At this stage engine power tempered by mass is the major factor in dive accelleration. The Jug had a very powerful engine.
As speed and drag builds up mass becomes a factor. The Jug was very heavy for a fighter, it weighs almost as much as the 110 (!). Its mass would allow gravity to cancel out much of the drag force. At this point other lighter fighters would start to accelerate slower.
As speed reaches high sub-sonic levels drag becomes the dominant factor. The force of air exceeds the weight of the aircraft by so much that only two things become important: aerodynamics and power. The Jug had power in spades, but it also ploughed through the air like a ... big milk jug ;). At this stage more aerodynamic aircraft like the Spit, P-51, D9 and others would be able to outpace the Jug in a dive.
The P-51 and the D9 is very well matched up. The P-51 weighs 200 lbs more, but the D9 has more power, and they're both aerodynamic masterpieces. Now, if you add 2000 lbs of bombs and 6 rockets the P-51 clearly has the advantage in the "middle" speed range of the dive, but as speed builds up to silly-levels like 650 mph the extra parasitic drag of this ordnance would give the D9 a distinct advantage. At those speeds the airflow around the nose of the bombs would be supersonic due to the bluntness and width of WWII bombs. This would create massive drag that would most likely rip the pylons off, if not the wings themselves. The interference drag caused by the rockets would also be extreme and I doubt very much that the outer wings could take that much extra drag. Directional stability would be horrible, and I for one can't understand why the P-51 didn't shake itself apart. But most important of all is the fact that the P-51 doesn't have the power to overcome the extra drag.
The D9 should be the fastest of the two.
I have often wondered if ord. drag is correctly modelled in AH. I know the weight is there, but I have never really noticed the effect of added drag.
-
Yeah, nice G10 Kweassa. I can't wait for AH2 eighter. :)
-
Originally posted by Toad
BTW, the area below 60K is far from a vacuum, so toss out that red herring. It's already smelly.
Airplanes DO NOT operate in a vacuum.
... oh, and thrust is "that other force" that's acting.
Don't get all snooty, even the R/C guy you quoted used an "airplane with no motor" to make his point.
And that point is that two "airplanes with out a motor", one light and one heavy, that have identical drag coeficients and angles of attack will accellerate at the same rate. The terminal velocity will be higher for the heavier plane.
As soon as you put different motors into the equation, it becomes alot more tricky.
-
Originally posted by Furious
As soon as you put different motors into the equation, it becomes alot more tricky.
Which is exactly what I said. Thrust is the difference that makes the heavier one accelerate faster.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Well first get the argument right. We're not arguing the accelleration, we're arguing the top speed.
Well, first Hazed will have to frame it right for me then.
When somebody says "why the D9 cannot keep up with a fully loaded P51D in a full speed dive" then I'm thinking that in the dive portion the P-51 is opening the gap. Given an equal start, initially that would be acceleration until max diving speed was reached.
Catching up eventually is the question, isn't it?
It is a red herring.
The D9 should be the fastest of the two. But a race depends on a lot of things. What speed was the P-51 when this dive started? Was he significantly faster than Hazed's D-9 right at that point? Did he have a "headstart"?
There's probably a bunch of factors like that to consider but I'm not going to sit here and try to convince the unconvincable.
This seems to me to be like the "cheater" argument you hear in the MA every so often on Ch 1. Particularly when guys use the old "geometry cheat" to kill a new guy.
I have often wondered if ord. drag is correctly modelled in AH.
Drag is suspect in A LOT of areas of AH to me. It's also one of the toughest things to "get right" I suspect. If there's any part of the FM that makes me wonder, it's the various aspects of drag.
Ever notice how in a turn fight your E bleeds down to zip in a flash? Motor redlined, WEP engaged and bleeding E like a slit-throat hog.
Then you go back to the field to land and you've got gear and flaps hanging, engine at idle and full cross control in to slow down and it just won't slow down?
Or you get shot up, lose your engine and other parts and start to ditch and the thing just glides forever?
I don't think it's just ord. I'm hoping the addition of more lift reference points in the new FM... with corresponding attention to drag, improves this area.
-
Well if drag modelling is fishy then dives will never be right. If AH2 is better this whole problem may be solved. If there is a problem that is.
-
Well, you must have experienced some of these phenomena, right?
Do you think airplanes slow down for landing a bit "differently" here?
-
LOL ever tried to land a deadstick Dora? The thing will never stop. Perhaps the windmilling prop drag is a too great a portion of the total drag modelled. If you turn down the rpm and shut down the engine you can glide entire sectors in some planes with 10-15k alt.
-
See? We agree. And it's not any one country's aircraft.. it's all of them. (Although I hate to blow a good conspiracy theory... they're so entertaining!)
;)
-
LOL! Well if the LW planes had too little drag modelled I don't think it would be the LW guys crying bloody murder. I can see it now "WTH! the Dora outpaces my Spit IX even with the engine out!" ;)
Anyways the 109s seem ok in that this aspect (in contrast to other planes in AH that is, I have no idea how a real 109 should glide), it feels like it bites more into the wind and need that powerhouse engine to get anywhere fast. I've also noticed that the Mossie has some fantastic drag modelled. If you cut the throttles it will almost stop dead in the air, contrary to what I've read. It was supposed to be a very aerodynamic design, and its weight should carry a lot of momentum. When I tried the Mossie out a bit after leaving the JB's I felt it was too poor in vertical zooms. The 110 is surprisingly good in vertical zooms due to its weight and power, but for some reason the Mossie is not, despite being a bit heavier, having more power and being aerodynamically cleaner. I think that is a bit strange.
I'll stick with my 109 until AH2 comes along, then we'll see.
-
Originally posted by Toad
See? We agree. And it's not any one country's aircraft.. it's all of them. (Although I hate to blow a good conspiracy theory... they're so entertaining!)
;)
Its like i said not so much a conspiricy vs the planes but vs anyone who asks questions about a LW plane. I suspect you can get more response and a swifter model correction if you happen to be asking about a non-LW plane. This may be a distorted view in that MOST of the time i ask about LW planes and I dont know maybe it is just a 'general' lack of response which i think we all agree seems to be the case more and more. BUT and this is a big but, only LW fans are said to be whining when they ask without any 100% research with corresponding documents and some form of AH testing lasting several hours. When people question other planes they seem to get a civil response and often others do tests who have a greater knowledge of the dynamics involved.
Apparently if you ask about LW you had better be a physics-professor with a perfect understanding of aerodynamics or you will be accused of basically trying to cheat or whining. It gets old fast and it does annoy when the people calling you it do not even attempt to answer the question.Its even worse when its the developer doing it.
Toad the situation with the p51D was as follows:
P51D was 20K in what appeared to be a level flight(although i guess its possible he was in a very shallow dive?) I was 21k022k at his 4oc position and i was closing as far as i could tell at around 350mph but obviously lateral movement could have been closing the distance even if he was faster i guess.
As soon as i had my nose pointed at him (slightly down) he plunged forward looking as though he had panicked as he saw me (looked as though he manually broke off auto level poorly trimmed) he began to accelerate, I seemed to continue to close but quite slowly, then he began to pull away as our speeds built up. I was full wep and id guess he was too. As i approached the 'shaking' part of the doras high speed the P51 seemed to be drawing away faster and faster. I had a slight tuck under of the nose and was shaking violently and had to use trim to pull out of what was id say 75-80 degree dive by this time i must have been at a guess 6-8 k? I assumed as I find acceptable that this guy knew his plane and had used his superior dive characteristics to push the fight into the doras weak area, ie very high speed and i expected him to pull into level flight and extend. He kept going , kept leaving me behind (i was trying to use as little trim as possible to maintain a shallow angle to his dive but keep out of compression) Then i saw the smoke lines from the rockets! and then two explosions as 2 bombs hit the hanger at a base.
so basically at top dive speed in a dora on the limit of compression (600+) the P51 with full ordinance had left me behind. I will accept i may have missed some factor involved here but it appeared to be an error in the model to me. This was why i posted a question about it. Im not saying im 100% right but what i will not do anymore is spend 3 or 4 hours testing offline only to see it all ignored for over a year.Its now up to HTC to check it out on their own.To me it seemed rediculous that those 6 rockets wouldnt have slowed the p51D down even without the bombs.Maybe i should try diving the dora with a 500kg bomb in order to catch the p51d? :)
-
AH's G-10 has the DB-605DC engine according to the Werke Nummer and Claes Sundin's profile drawing of that particular G-10.
Of course it is possible that Natedog has done G-10 skin that he thought looked cool and Pyro has done the flight modelling based on something else but the performance is pretty much what I would expect too...
-
Originally posted by hazed-
heres another quandry for you. the auto level. (X). Have you tried flying your aircraft in a 90 degree bank and hitting X to level out? have you noticed how fast all planes seem to settle? sometimes it even makes a stall buzz noise. Well hae you tried it with the 109? they take much much more time to level in pitch or roll and ive always wondered why this is.Same for the ju88 and same for 190s even though they have the fastest roll.anyone know why this is?
Well I can't speak for the ju88, and the 190 seems ok to me in that respect. The 109 on the other hand is another beast entirely. At low speeds you'll notice that the combat trim (if you use that) uses almost all it right aileron trim just to counter torque. This means that if you're in a left bank the autopilot has very little aileron trim left to work with and it will take ages to level out. However in a right bank the torque helps and the 109 seems to snap beyond level as the autopilot can't trim to the right fast enough.
Elevator trim is another matter completely, it is very effective in the 109, and technically the 109 was the only WWII plane I know with a tailplane that would be controllable at supersonic speeds (if the airframe would survive that is ;)). The elevators were of conventional design, but trimming moved the entire tailplane ... the 109 had a "flying tail" of sorts, and even if the elevators would lock up in compression at silly-speeds the elevator trim would be effective. As far as I know the 109 is the only WWII fighter with this trimming system.
In AH all planes can trim out of compression (true compression not just locked up controls) and I think this is not correct, because normal trim tabs just move the control surface, but when a plane is truly compressed control surfaces are rendered ineffective by local supersonic airflow that disrupt the normal laminar airflow over the control surfaces. When I started flying in AH I wondered why those Spit pilots that died in the high-speed tests done late in the war and immediately afterwards didn't just trim out of trouble, it's so easy here. As far as I can tell compression was a far greater danger in R/L and only by lowering speed somehow (diveflaps/combatflaps on the P38 and P47 for instance) could a pilot regain control of his aircraft. Was it the P38 that would suddenly nose over into a death-dive if going too fast before getting diveflaps?
As far as I can tell only the 109 should be able to trim out of compression because of its "flying tail" elevator trimming system, and only in the pitch axis, the rudder and ailerons would be just as ineffective as on any other plane.
I think AH doesn't even model true compression, just heavier control forces ... that trimming disregard.
-
Also possible that your opponent in the Pony had a poorer connection than you did and was sending the server updates on his position slower than yours did.
I've seen all manner of planes that my Jug "should" catch in a dive seem to suddenly open the gap (not talking major warpage, just all the sudden the numbers start clicking upward, like he engaged afterburners). Most times, I just pull off, pullout and wait and see what happens; several times, after the con pulled out and when for alt, as I closed in I noticed his movements kinda "herky-jerky", like he was having connection issues.
Just another thing to consider.
-
Wmaker:D
-
Its like i said not so much a conspiricy vs the planes but vs anyone who asks questions about a LW plane. I suspect you can get more response and a swifter model correction if you happen to be asking about a non-LW plane.
Sounds like a conspiricy to me.
HiTech
-
Yes HiTech, he said it straight out: "...not so much a conspiricy vs the planes but vs anyone who asks questions about a LW plane."
-
On the drag subject, you guys might want to find out what the glide ratio was on these planes and run some test.
One thing i've found in AH as compaired to real flying. Time seems to go much faster when flying for real, simple things like a climb out in AH seem to take forever and a 2k per min climb seem realy slow in ah. In A real plane it feels like you are a rocket.
Same thing with landing, set up a standard pattern aproch at 1k above the ground, fly a down wind at what would be normal pattern speeds. Then see if you still don't think the planes will slow down.
And use the standard numbers of turning final at 500ft, it will look like you are hardly desending with 500 to 700 fpm decent.
HiTech
-
Yeah, HT, one thing I've wondered about in this respect is the "picture" of the field you get through the cockpit. For example, I often get the feeling that I'm a long way from the runway and then "whoops! time to land!" suddenly becomes obvious.
Could be a "perspective" thing that is somehow mixed up in scaling, FOV or "pixel based 19" view screen". Anyway, it does in fact seem different from RL.
I know! Put windsocks at the base turn points so we can turn over them at 800 AGL and fly a known pattern. A three mile outer marker would be nice too...
Ever think of calling this new version Aces Flight Simulator High 2003? ;)
Glide ratio on a P-51 is in the neighborhood of 3 miles per 1K ~ 175mph, isn't it?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
As far as I know the 109 is the only WWII fighter with this trimming system.
Fiat G.50 and Bristol Bulldog for example had the same kind of elevator trim.
P.S. You too DiieWankee! ;)
-
Originally posted by Wmaker
Fiat G.50 and Bristol Bulldog for example had the same kind of elevator trim.
P.S. You too DiieWankee! ;)
And then there was three ... :)
-
Originally posted by hitech
Sounds like a conspiricy to me.
HiTech
No, it may sound like a lack of interest instead of a conspiracy.
I suppose every plane needs hours of research, modeling and development to be implemented and "fine tuned" in the game. More than probably, HTC personel invested more resources in the P51 modeling than in the C202. Does that mean a lack of interest in C202? Well, compared to P51, yep. Of course, this is just a fictional example.
-
And you are dead wrong about it madoble. Just as hazed is.
It comes down to "well HTCisn't doing what I want them to, therefore they are biased or don't care about my particular plane." And that consept is so far from how we operate, that it exasperates me when some people like you and hazed keep restating it in different forms.
2nd unlike f4udoa who now seems to understand the problem in doing plane research, but didn't orignaly ,there is lots of data out there, and most of it confilicts with eachother, some even with it's self.
Therefore just pulling one source dosn't invalidate our version of an aircraft.
You and hazed follow the clasic example of totaly biased when it comes to evaluating plane performance. You start with a conclusion and then just look everywhere for the 1 sample that proves your point, and ignor all other items that contridict it.
And Hazed we do hit our performance charts on all planes.We have stated that before. There are lots of people how have tested them, and we always hit the numbers when they run an accurate test and not looking to prove there point. Did you even try out F4UDOA's suggestion to get the speed with a film?
HiTech
Toad: And what is the glide ratio in AH.
-
No hitech, you are not understanding my point. What Hazed said may be interpreted as:
1 - A lack of interest, as I decided to interpret.
2 - A LW conspiracy, as you decided to interpret.
BTW, as I said before, the charts we have are climb rate at a constant speed and max speed at a constant altitude. None of these represent factors like acceleration, zoom, dive, roll. For me, climb rate alone at a constant speed has a relative interest, but not a mayor interest. Same with top speed. And none of them give a clear image about a fighter performance during fight. For example, I have no real problems with 190A8 not matching exact top speed numbers, or exact substained climb numbers. I use both of them just to ferry from one point to another, and rarely in combat.
-
Mandoble I understood you perfectly, you stated that we have more interstest in the p51 than we do the 202. As a hypothetical.
I'm just telling you, that you are dead wrong.
With the exception of roll.
acceleration, zoom, dive are a function of weight put together with speed and climb curves. But of course you knew that with your great math/physics back ground.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
acceleration, zoom, dive are a function of weight put together with speed and climb curves. But of course you knew that with your great math/physics back ground.
Well, disagree with that. You are stating that knowing the weight, max level speed at some altitudes, and substained climb rate at a constant speed, I'm going to find out how that object accelerates, zooms or dives. I think I will miss some critical factors there, engine related and shape related ones.
Lets suppose I have an 9000 lb "object" with max speed of 450 mph at 10k and climbing at 3000 fpm at 160 mph at 10k also. With only that data (the data we have except the weight (we dont have it)) how can I calculate the time needed to reach 400 mph starting at 160 mph at 10k?
-
Originally posted by hitech
Toad: And what is the glide ratio in AH.
Fudge if I know! Nor do I really care. If it's off by 321.623 feet per 1000 of altitude, it makes no difference to me.
I'm not the type to stare deep into my bellybutton and wonder at the internal cosmic mysteries of the AH FM and why a certain plane seems to be off 2 mph in top speed from what my "Famous Planes of WW2" playing card says.
I just play the game, mostly. It does seem like I have troubling slowing down when I want to, like landing, but I never have trouble slowing down when I don't want to, like turn fighting. ;)
More I think about it though, the more I think the "game" visual cues for distance to the field does not compute against my RL visual cues for distance to the field very well. But that's probably just a flat screen pov/fov thing.
I know this.. the glide ratio is never good enough when somebody is chasing me. :)
-
Just a final question about plane modeling. Is there any free or comercial wind tunel software were you can test 3D models with the corresponding weights and simulated engine?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
LOL! Well if the LW planes had too little drag modelled I don't think it would be the LW guys crying bloody murder. I can see it now "WTH! the Dora outpaces my Spit IX even with the engine out!" ;)
If you want to see a bad case of mismodelled drag, fire up SWOTL (Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe, for those of you who don't remember it) and take up a Do-335. I remember flying one mission over England where I was worried about running out of fuel on the return trip, so I throttled back to idle and waited to see what kind of glide ratio I could get. Ten minutes later I was over my home field, still over 400 IAS, having lost only 2000 feet of altitude. Definitely a screwed-up drag model somewhere; I can't believe that the Ameisenbär was that clean — it just defies imagination.
-
MANDOBLE,
Your equation isn't that hard to figure really, and I am a novice.
Except you contradict yourself a bit. First you said that the airplane or object weighted 9K then you said you didn't know the weight.
I will assume it is 9,000lbs and you want to know how fast it will get to 400MPH from 160MPH.
I will answer you as soon as I can do the math. Be patient, it takes me a while. BTW I going to use the Dora's aspect ratio and HP for the calculations although even if I went generic it would still be close.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Except you contradict yourself a bit. First you said that the airplane or object weighted 9K then you said you didn't know the weight
In my example I put 9000lb, what we dont know is the weight of our modeled planes in AH. The fact is that we only have a pair of graphs per plane.
BTW, with only that data, you probably are going to have a hard time calculating how drag and thrust will vary along the acceleration process.
-
As to wind tunnels programs, i've just heard of a new one called accel.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
...what we dont know is the weight of our modeled planes in AH. The fact is that we only have a pair of graphs per plane.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/models.html
-
Are "normal loaded weights" those used for the charts? For example, 8583lbs including 139 gallons of internal fuel (100%) and 4 guns for 190A5 charts?
-
Wmaker don't confuse mandoble with the facts. He knows we don't publish weight data.
HiTech
-
hitech, reading those pages I really dont know what "normal loaded weight" is. Is 100% fuel normal? Is 4x20 + 2x30 guns normal for 110G2? Is 2x20 + 2x20 normal for 190A5 or only 2x20?
-
You wouldn't know what to do with the numbers if you did know mandoble, so what difference does it make?
HiTech
-
About my last question.. I'm still looking for an answer..
just an incidental, curiosity type of question :)
What would be the limits in dive speed if planes had heavy ordnance loaded on them? Are there such limits at all? If so, if a plane exceeded that speed with ordnance loaded, what would happen?? :confused:
-
Originally posted by hitech
You wouldn't know what to do with the numbers if you did know mandoble, so what difference does it make?
HiTech
Agree with that, because weight alone will not be enough (with the actual speed/climb charts) to find out the correct acceleration/dive/zoom curves.
-
Originally posted by hitech
And you are dead wrong about it madoble. Just as hazed is.
It comes down to "well HTCisn't doing what I want them to, therefore they are biased or don't care about my particular plane." And that consept is so far from how we operate, that it exasperates me when some people like you and hazed keep restating it in different forms.
2nd unlike f4udoa who now seems to understand the problem in doing plane research, but didn't orignaly ,there is lots of data out there, and most of it confilicts with eachother, some even with it's self.
Therefore just pulling one source dosn't invalidate our version of an aircraft.
You and hazed follow the clasic example of totaly biased when it comes to evaluating plane performance. You start with a conclusion and then just look everywhere for the 1 sample that proves your point, and ignor all other items that contridict it.
And Hazed we do hit our performance charts on all planes.We have stated that before. There are lots of people how have tested them, and we always hit the numbers when they run an accurate test and not looking to prove there point. Did you even try out F4UDOA's suggestion to get the speed with a film?
HiTech
Toad: And what is the glide ratio in AH.
do you know something HT. This is the longest reply ive ever seen you write and the first time you have gone some way to explain how you think and feel. I happen to think your conclusions on my bias is wrong but there may be some truth to it that i cant see.What id like you to understand is this, I have never ignored any information about any of the aircraft.
Just as an example I bought a book about the P40 and read about its flying characteristics. There wasnt much in favour of this plane apart from its adaptability for carrying ordinance and its rugged structure made it a fairly good ground attack plane. In one book i read that the P40 had good dive characteristics and then later in another source I read it wasnt so great. Now as i had conflicting material i asked a question about the P40 and asked if AH has it correct with its dive. Im not party to the same information you are Hitech and this is why im asking, it isnt because i want the model changed, its because id like to know which of MY sources is correct. The one that claims it had a good dive or the one that says it didnt.
When i ask about allied planes I get no name calling or anything like that but if I happen to mention a 190 or 109 the whole atmosphere of the thread changes.
You say i make conclusions and ignore all the facts and stick to my opinion? well id like to tell you you are wrong. If you read my 190a8 question about speed you would see that me and others in the thread discuss it clearly and each give info from various sources. In the end none of us had the answer but you did as you wrote the game. You never did answer. Like you said have i checked the speed on the film veiwer? no i hadnt because at that time i dont think we had it, If i had it and did the test and found the speed to be 355mph with wep i would have dropped it and probably appologised for making a mistake. I would have probably asked why our graphical dials read wrong but thats about it.
You are assuming im making conclusions when in fact im asking questions, nothing more. I dont consider myself knowledgeable enough in computer modeling to make conclusions.
If you take a look for instance at my 190D-9 dive question with concerns to a P51D outdiving me with a full compliment of rockets and bombs I ask if this is right, I do say 'surely this cant be right' but sheesh shoot me if it doesnt seem wrong and i was annoyed at the time of posting it too. From what i have seen most ordinance had limits in the speeds it could be dropped, Ju88s cant drop higher than 100ft or 200mph with their torpedoes, Japanese torpedoes have the same restriction?. Us torpedoes could be dropped at a higher speed and alt I was told on this BB and i took that as truth. Ive read accounts of the German rockets they used and these also had severe restrictions on the speed they could be fired and if you ever add them id expect them to have those restrictions. Now what im asking is did the P51D have limits? If it did then i think you should impose them in AH, if they didnt a quick pointer to where i could read about it would convince me and id accept it. I think you have the wrong idea about me and most likely mandoble too. You seem too ready to pigeon hole us all as the 'RAM' type when we are nothing like them , or at least i dont think i am.
If you had time to search through the posts id made id think you might understand this but you havent got the time or inclination it seems to listen. In all the time ive been here ive asked about the climb of the 190a8 above 20k which doesnt match my source OR charts posted by vermillion and others for me . Ive asked for the reasons behind the times for cooling being so different for various planes, RAF 15mins, USAAF 10 mins, and 109 10mins, 190 20mins, and although you replied not one person in the thread understood and again you accused me of seeking an advantage?? I didnt even ask for change just a reason behind the times you chose. In the end you said you chose them because you 'felt they were right'. and now most recently I asked about the dora's dive speed compared to a P51D fully loaded with ord.
These 3 questions are the only questions Ive really asked. The rest are usually discussions of OTHER PEOPLES questions and i dont make conclusions unless i find something in a book to help the discussion and throw it in. I just went back through 14 pages if my previous posts and in none of them have i come to a conclusion apart from the one about control rods which bohdi convinced me i got the wrong idea about.I accepted the answers, I didnt conclude and ignore anything. They are all questions as far as i can see, none are me stating im right and AH is wrong and be damned the evidence.
I actually feel quite agrieved by your veiw of me and i am confused as to when you made your mind up about me. I have hardly been a regular contributer to the aircraft and vehicles technical discussions but i do now and again post any intersting stuff i read, do you want this to stop?
Heres one i found once i started to look for info concerning the P51's and how they act or behave with ordinance, I struggled to find much but here is an interesting snippet strangley enough from the 190 in combat book by alfred price taken from trial reports of mock dogfights done by the allies with a captured 190A (ive only included the one with drop tanks because this may help with the debate over the diving P51D with bombs and rockets)
'Performance of the P51B carrying long range fuel tanks:
Speed:
There is a serious loss of speed of 40-50m.p.h. (65-80kmh) at all engine settings and heights.It is however, still fatser than the Fw190(BMW 801D) above 25,000 ft (7,620m)
Climb:
The rate of climb is greatly reduced. It is out-climbed by the Fw190.The mustang is still good in the zoom climb(attack), but is still outstripped(defence) if being followed all the way up by the fw190.
Dive:
So long as the tanks are fairly full, the mustang still beats the Fw190(BMW 801D)
Turning circle:
The tanks do not make quite so much difference as one might expect.The mustang can at least turn as tightly as the fw190(BMW801D) without stalling out.
Rate of Roll:
Generally handling and rate of roll are very little affected.
Conclusions:
The performance of the mustang is greatly reduced when carrying drop-tanks, Half hearted attacks could still be evaded by a steep turn, but determined attacks would be difficult to avod without losing height.It is still a good attacking aircraft, especially if it has the advantage of height.'
Interesting i thought and something i didnt expect to be honest but im still open to info, I havent 'drawn conclusions' other than i think it sounds a bit strange that those rockets and bombs didnt cause the drag to increase to the point it slows the dive speeds.and of course this isnt vs. the 190D9 so it wuld be good to see the same test if there was one vs. the dora.
So ill ask you where do you get the idea im making my mind up and THEN asking questions? I always give my sources which after reading make me ask about them in order to see if they are correct. The real problem i have always found is that its rarely answered and i become frustrated by the long long waits and or people ideas of my reasons for asking or insults.I read others asking about 190s or 109s etc and I see their threads arent answered either. I really do think you have the wrong idea about me but you continue to assume im here wearing a german uniform and imagining the 190 was the best plane of the war :).I quite simply dont. It IS my favourite but is this a crime?? Please rethink your veiw.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
What would be the limits in dive speed if planes had heavy ordnance loaded on them? Are there such limits at all? If so, if a plane exceeded that speed with ordnance loaded, what would happen?? :confused:
Didn't find that for you but I did find this (note that it is power off):
(http://www.icon.co.za/~pauljnr/51ss.gif)
-
Hazed, two things.
One, what you just posted said basically as long as the tanks are heavy, it will outdive the FW. Seems to say the weight is more important than the tank drag, doesn't it?
Second, in your example you said you came in from 4 o'clock. Think of closing with him as a "rejoin" maneuver. When you're rejoining, you have to stay "on the line". Get ahead of the line and you end up going in front on the rejoin unless you cut power or add drag to slow down the rejoin. I'm guessing you didn't do this, since you obviously didn't feel the need to chop power.
Now, if you get "behind the line", you're going to come in behind him unless you have more power to add to correct or unless you correct to "ahead of the line" and then re-correct to stay "on the line" when you get back into the right position.
All this is saying is that there's a possibility you blew the initial rejoin from the 4 o'clock and got too far behind the line to catch up.
That's just ONE of the possible explanations I can envision. There's just one heck of a lot of variables.
-
Toad
The biggest difference I noticed in the 1.04FM was the lack of drag on landing and especially when deadstick compared to 1.03FM. The first few landings I made in 1.04 I just couldnt slow down enough to land. Another interseting thing was deadsick behavior. The 1.03FM was the first time I realized why it was so deadly to have your engine cut out - but since the 1.04FM revision I really dont care - most all the planes, except the zero, just glide seemingly forever with no power. From a gameplay perspective this is cool, except for the fact that most times I still overshoot deadstick landings despite sideslipping, flaps, gear, s-turns and evewrything else I know to kill speed.
IRRC the whole change from 1.03 to 1.04 was prompted when some players discovered AH modeled too much drag.
Now I just got used to it and I dont care, the game is fine, but now Toad that you say it seems odd compared to the real world - perhaps something might be a bit off?
What you think HT, how does AH landing condition drag, decelleration, and no power glide compare to your flying experiences? Will AH2 add new FM capabilities in this areas?
-
Grun,
Here's something for those with time on their hands and a real concern to try.
I don't have the P-51 Flight Manual, but from some other sources I believe that the P-51 glide ratio is in the neighborhood of 3 miles per 1K ~ 175mph with prop drag minimized and clean configuration.
So somebody can climb to about 8300 feet over an ocean with say 50% fuel, then cut the engine, reduce prop rpm and set the autopilot to hold 175. Should glide about a sector, right?
That's IF I have the right numbers for P-51 best glide ratio and speed.
More and more I'm thinking that it's just the visual display that's fooling me on approach. I think, because I really just want to get back to the fight, that I leave the power up and the speed to high until suddenly I realize I'm right on top of the field. Then it's "elbows and a holes" to get down. Which is exactly the way you feel in RL when you make the same mistake. ;)
I'm going to try to fly a "standard" overhead pattern a few times, up intial to the break, downwind, final turn and landing and see how that works out when I'm "on speed" at the break. Probably something like 200mph for most fighters and about 800-1000' AGL.....
-
HTC sees the light and drops the hammer once about every 9 months. This HiTech bomb was way over due and quite entertaining.
A new screenshot can only drive brown nosing “It’s so impossibly insanely incredible that I saw a wing graphic, my life cannot continue and I cannot wait for AH2! LOl, WOW, Terrific, Jeepers! Err, hold on, I got an AOL instant message, Ill be right back!”
With 10 hoopty smiley emotion icons to follow eclpising even Flossy's latest post on something that requires nothing but text like funeral arrangments I might add.
Or it’s on the negative side, “ The mipmapped vectors don’t co-inside with the alpha texture 3D of that new sun, check out IL-2 FB, and btw X-Plane models prop grease and tip paint drag.”
But Finally, it was said.
"You wouldn't know what to do with the numbers if you did know mandoble, so what difference does it make?"
HiTech
Well a little feedback of that sort shall certainly alleviate some of tthe whines in the future now doncha think, lol.
And Laz lost his bbs parrot too on missuns and toolsheds as Toad wonders and posts instead about about glide angles and other intense dogfighting CV standoff dogfighting ACM issues.
My week is complete.
-
Yes, with your monotonous drivel on top, the ice cream sundae is finished!
Well done! Thanks for your enlightening and electrifying contribution of Op-Ed perspective from Planet Creamo.
Now, excuse us, and we'll just file it in the usual place.
-
Toad should I bring out the Colonel and put the coup de grace on this rancid turd of a thread?
-
The mercy shot?
Sure, Funked! Pull the trigger!
-
If you have two identical planes except one is fitted with a wing that has good low-speed lift/drag ratio while the other had a good high-speed lift/drag ratio. Average drag throughout the speed curve is identical. The first plane would obviously have a better climb rate while the second would have a better top speed. How can you find out how these planes differed in acceleration, zoom climbs, and dives from looking at the speed and climb curves? I don't know?
-
The weight GScholz, the weight .... ROFLOL.
-
"Average drag" is not a useful number.
To solve that kind of problem, you need to create a detailed simulation.
Which is what Hitech has been doing for 8 years or so.
-
What part of "one is fitted with a wing that has good low-speed lift/drag ratio while the other had a good high-speed lift/drag ratio. Average drag throughout the speed curve is identical." did you not understand?
Btw. Drag is not shown by a speed/climb chart.
-
Puzzled by your response, must assume you are speaking to someone else.
-
Ker-Nul! KER-Nul! KER-NUL! KER-NUL!
Bring him out to the adoring multitudes, Funkmeister!
-
OK Colonel time. Nobody should take this personally. If I don't let him out from time to time he gets cranky.
(http://www.raf303.org/funked/achtung-luftwhiner.jpg)
-
That would be Oberst to you!
-
Btw. what does these calculations have to do with "luftwhining"? I'm still interested in knowing how it's done.
-
Calculations have nothing to do with the Colonel. I was just trying to get Toad to leave me alone. :)
I misread your post I think, I missed the part about speed and climb curves. You can't do every calculation from speed and climb curves.
However they do give you some important data. Climb vs. altitude curves tell you the specific excess power (Ps) at climb speed and ~1g normal load factor. Top speed vs. altitude curves tell you the speed at which Ps = 0 for 1g normal load factor. So for every altitude, you get two data points on the Ps vs. speed curve.
You can then use other data about the aircraft (weights, areas, linear dimensions, incidence angles, airfoil profiles, etc.) to estimate the rest of the curve at 1g normal load factor and to determine the curve for different normal load factors.
Once you have a function which gives you Ps at every altitude and normal load factor, you have a map of the performance of the airplane, which allows you to simulate dive, climb, acceleration, etc. - everything you need to know about the performance of the airplane.
FYI, to give you some idea:
Ps = (Thrust-Drag)*(Speed/Weight)
(For small climb angles and small thrust angles.)
Also
Ps = Rate of Climb (when Speed is held constant)
Ps = (Acceleration*Velocity)/g (when Rate of Climb is zero)
-
Toad id agree it seems weight in the tanks seems to counter the drag but would you say the same for the 6 rockets on the wings?
when you consider they are on racks with exposed stablising fins and their weight isnt that great. The bombs , in the case of the P51 are in the same place as the drop tanks and most likely weigh even more(?) so i can see they shouldnt make a huge difference.So we have the case that the P51 (imo) ,after reading the DT thing, without the rockets should be able to dive pretty well but my guess would be the rockets if added would cause problems, be they structural (would the wings possibly break?)or in causing turbulance and drag with resulting reduction in speed.
Of course I could be completely wrong, perhaps the bombs would counteract the drag from the rockets?, perhaps the rockets were designed in such a way that they could be taken up to very high speeds but for me it just doesnt sound right.
As for my approach from 4oc, I was 'in-line' with the P51 already up to speed(as in my nose was pointing the same way his was). I was also close enough for the pilot to panic dive(as in i was almost within a reasonable distance for a shot) If i remember corretly some 600 yards maybe 700 max. Like i said i was closing but i was also closing the distance 'laterally'. I can accept ive missed something, that maybe i havent taken something into account but please remember i have been playing for 3 years. Its not an inconsiderable amount of experience of playing and observing behaviour. This 'felt' so wrong I actually got annoyed which is rare in the D9 as i consider it a superb plane to fly. Generally you feel pretty safe flying it. This was a typical attack really. One ive done a hundred times and one where ive had many different results. Like i stated I didnt at first think it that unusual. I thought the pilot was clever enough to realise if he pushed the speeds up high enough (400+) the P51 starts to enter a area where it has advantage in manouverablility and control. I was expecting him to level off and extend. IF he had done this I think i would have thought nothing of it, but instead this guy continued to dive at this speed (possibly still accelerating long after I had to pull out)and proceeded to drop bombs and fire rockets!!. This was when i suddenly thought hold on a minute! , Im in a CLEAN 190-D9 (generally regarded as an equal to the P51C), 60% or so of fuel so i had some weight too and im locking up and almost shaking to peices and this guy in a P51 is having no trouble outpacing me and even had time to aim and fire rockets off accurately!! Now surely you like me would question whether this is right? I know there are many variables, I know i 'could' have missed something but i really dont think i did. The simple fact of the matter is a P51D with rockets and bombs performed better than a 190-D9 in a high speed dive. This isnt the BMW 801D mentioned in that test of the P51B with DT's, its a faster engine, and isnt it a better aerodynamic shape?
I dont know what else im supposed to do when i notice something like this. Am i really expected to learn how to calculate flight models run hours of tests, research endless piles of books and prove its right or wrong? surely this is what the developers are supposed to do. After all they have far more information than we do, we are PAYING them to play and they would have much more material to work with concerning charts etc.
we are not all professors nor do we always have the time to spend hours researching and testing.Im open to explanations to show the behaviour is correct, I havent as HT says made my mind up and refuse to see otherwise, but i am however of the opinion that this doesnt sound right. In my estimation a clean 190-D9 should be able to catch a P51D in a dive if that P51 is loaded with rockets and bombs, especially in the light that i was imo approaching him at a much higher speed before he initiated that dive. Am i completely wrong for thinking this? was the 190-D9 really so poor compared to even fully loaded P51s? I just cant see it myself. Why would the 190-D9 have had such a name for itself if it was so much worse? very odd.
-
Of course you are wrong Hazed, everyone can see right through you. HT, please make it so the Dora can turn better than every other plane, accelerate better than every other plane, climb better than every other plane, and has more firepower than every other plane. After all, us Luftwhiners aren't REALLY interested in how our planes perform, we just want our planes to be the best so we can fill the infidels for our Fuhrer, right Hazed?
-
Man, you've got it bad. Really bad.
I admit I've had a few drinks, so I'm not going to dive into that wall of text.
Rocket drag? Let's see.. do they design rockets with as low a drag as possible to increase their range on not? A cylindrical 5" rocket with skinny little fins or a big iron balloon full of 1000 pounds of TNT... hmmm, maybe the rockets have more drag.
Do you have any idea what the drag is on a rocket or 6? Neither do I. I also have no idea of the drag of a 1k bomb, do you?
Do either us have anything but mere speculation about this drag that is ruining your life?
I quit reading after the rocket part, sorry.
Cripes ammighty, go get laid!
It's a farkin' GAME lad, a bloody GAME.
Now, I'm off to get laid.
Niters.
BTW, ever done an actualy rejoin? Easy to do right when you know how, just as easy to screw up with a moments inattention.. even when you know what you're doing.
-
Thanks Funkedup. When I find my old arithmetic books I'll put that to good use! :)
Originally posted by Toad
BTW, ever done an actualy rejoin? Easy to do right when you know how, just as easy to screw up with a moments inattention.. even when you know what you're doing.
Are you talking about air combat or the getting laid part? If it's the former I'm interested in hearing more ... NOT if it's the latter! ;)
-
I'm glad i fly P38 so i know i'm not the fastest or best climber or best diver roller etc.
Not to mention the more millimeter guns.
I know that every planes does have it's weakness or strength realistic or not they are there and u got to handle them to survive.
It also saves time to the forever quest searching books and data, to find the right numbers and claim for more uberness.
Not to mention to ask for about 10 variants of one type
Why is it such a wabble thing to whine about the plane??
Not to mention the thread starter who does have a kill ratio wich is not to whine about.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Yea right, everyone knows Toad c,ould'nt get laid :p
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Are you talking about air combat or the getting laid part? If it's the former I'm interested in hearing more ... NOT if it's the latter! ;)
You have to be very careful on rejoin. :)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Are you talking about air combat or the getting laid part?
Both, now that I think about it.
Bug has it nailed.
-
The 190 used in those tests from the Report was a Captured 190 A3 that ditched in England after the pilot got disoriantated.
Personally I don't care much anymore, 190's accelreation and the TA152's accelerations are FUBAR but I've givven up on it. It is what is is and will remain like it.
-
Shiit Wilbuz, you are right.
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
From Ecke's link:
http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/VBv190.htm
Climb:The climb of the FW 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights.
The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the FW 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the FW 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000'. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the FW 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.
Dive: Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the FW 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages.
Manoeuvrability. The manoeuvrability of the FW 190 is better than that of the Spitfire VB except in turning circles, when the Spitfire can quite easily out-turn it. The FW 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be most useful during combat.
Better climb up to 25000 feet?
Steeper climb?
Better zoom climb?
Better dive particulary during initial stages?
Better acceleration under all conditions?
What 190A was that? 190A9?? 190A10??
that was a FW 190 A3 that by mistake landed into england and was tested by the RAF, it was in 1942 I think. the A-5 in AH should do much better then that but is not. BTW, did enyone test the fw-190 A's at altitude? Looks like no FW is able to get more then 250 Mph at 30k. Hm... how did they shot down so many Bombers if in AH they can't even catch a Lanc at 30k.
-
JAWS: Do you know the differance between IAS and TAS?
HiTech
-
Originally posted by JAWS2003
Bombers if in AH they can't even catch a Lanc at 30k.
The Lanc could not get to 30K.;) Only 24,500ft. at mean weight.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
The Lanc could not get to 30K.;) Only 24,500ft. at mean weight.
few days ago i was running after one at 30k for about half hour with no luck:(
-
Originally posted by hitech
JAWS: Do you know the differance between IAS and TAS?
HiTech
yep. but no matter how you take it no FW190 A can catch a b17 at 30k in AH.
-
Originally posted by JAWS2003
few days ago i was running after one at 30k for about half hour with no luck:(
Then there is something wrong with the FM.;)
-
And trust me, I have a lot of hours in fw's. I fly as "ghi"
-
Originally posted by hitech
JAWS: Do you know the differance between IAS and TAS?
The differance between TAS and IAS is explained nice here:
HiTech
http://www.flusitreff.de/geschwindigkeiten.htm
http://www.ivao.org/training/tutorials/Ipack/Files/L5-Speeds.htm
http://imansolas.freeservers.com/ATC/Speed_APP_Control.html
;)
-
Just tried the A5 offline, 380 mph at 30,400ft. Perhaps your throttle is faulty?
-
Hm then how much is the B17 doing?
-
Looks like no FW is able to get more then 250 Mph at 30k. Hm... how did they shot down so many Bombers if in AH they can't even catch a Lanc at 30k.
bs look up the big week scores a5s and a8s were running down b17s left and right.
I killed 10 b17s in 2 passes at 29k.
We had guys killing jugs p38s and p51bs at that alt.
you arent going to climb to 30k to catch umm as they fly by but they wont get away if your co-alt. As you climb up to catch a buff a smart pilot will go slightly nose down to create seperation.
You are just plane 'ole wrong on this one.
-
The only reason I got into this discution is that i want to be able to use the A model FW"s for what it was made, to intercept bombers. How many times do you see Antons going to intercept High alt bomber missions at HQ?
-
Originally posted by JAWS2003
The only reason I got into this discution is that i want to be able to use the A model FW"s for what it was made, to intercept bombers. How many times do you see Antons going to intercept High alt bomber missions at HQ?
Not that the Antons(except A-9) could not get to 30k but after ~20K they were running out of steam'.
-
You need to buy a book on the 190 it wasnt a high alt inteceptor and not every "a" was to kill bombers. You are just wrong.
above 22k the a8 has been spent. The only way to intercept bombers is set up at a point along their flight path and wait.
You are talking about climbing to intercept and if you check the a8s and a5s climb rate above 22k you will see its pathetic.
The only way you will get them is to be co-alt or higher. Also planes in ah dont need to fly at cruise settings and in formation. They fly full throttle the whole time.
If you want to intercept bombers at 30k by climbing then get a g10. If you want to get them in a 190a set up along their path so you will be near or at co-alt.
Also all bombers werent at 30k in rl. B24s flew lower then the b17s for the most part and bombers were "stacked" and the lw mostly attacked the lower groups.
-
I recall europe missions with either B-17's and B-24's were flown at about 20.000ft
-
;)
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/spit.html
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/viermot.html
-
Originally posted by Batz
You need to buy a book on the 190 it wasnt a high alt inteceptor and not every "a" was to kill bombers. You are just wrong.
above 22k the a8 has been spent. The only way to intercept bombers is set up at a point along their flight path and wait.
You are talking about climbing to intercept and if you check the a8s and a5s climb rate above 22k you will see its pathetic.
The only way you will get them is to be co-alt or higher. Also planes in ah dont need to fly at cruise settings and in formation. They fly full throttle the whole time.
If you want to intercept bombers at 30k by climbing then get a g10. If you want to get them in a 190a set up along their path so you will be near or at co-alt.
Also all bombers werent at 30k in rl. B24s flew lower then the b17s for the most part and bombers were "stacked" and the lw mostly attacked the lower groups.
I know it was not made to fight at high alt, but in shooting down bombers it did better then the 109's.
-
?
You were saying you could not intercept a 30k lanc, not that you couldnt kill bombers.
109s killed bombers fine but they were better interceptors and excort planes.
What made the 190 a better choice was more guns and better protection.
" My Staffel was in position about 1,000yd behind 'its' squadron of bombers.The Staffel leader ordered his aircraft into line abreast and, still in close formation, we advanced on the bombers. We were to advance like Frederick the Great's infantrymen, holding our fire until we could see 'the whites of the enemy's eyes'.''
The tactics of the Sturmgruppe were governed by the performance of the wing-mounted 3cm cannon. Although the hexogen high-explosive ammunition fired by this weapon was devastatingly effective, the gun's relatively low muzzle velocity meant that its accuracy fell off rapidly with range . With only 55 rounds per gun, sufficient for about five seconds' firing, the Sturmböcke could not afford to waste ammunition in wild shooting from long range. The sky was alive with a withering hail of defensive fire from the bombers. As the unwieldy fighters slowly advanced on the bombers, the Sturmbock pilots could only grit their teeth until they were right up close against the bombers. The huge bulk of the radial engine and the heavy armour plate around the cockpit allowed the Sturm force to press on with a certain impunity, as Hagenath remembers
" like the armoured knights in the Middle Ages, we were well protected . A Staffel might lose one or two aircraft during the advance, but the rest continued relentlessly on ."
Positioned now about 100yd behind the bombers the Staffel leader barked out the order to open fire
' Pauke ! Pauke ! ..'.
From such a range the Staffel could hardly miss, and the 3cm explosive rounds struck home . Just 2 rounds could take the tail off a B-17 , and a B-24's fuselage structure was not as sturdy. The enemy bombers literally fell apart in front of the Sturmgruppe.
The above was at 22k, the "unwieldy fighters" that "slowly advanced on the bombers" were a8s.
-
you mean like this?;)
(http://www.geocities.com/fightingjaws/bomber.txt)
-
7800m is just under 26000ft.
in fb theres no high alt fm past 10000m
-
How convinient for the Russian planes. ;)
-
Originally posted by Batz
?
You were saying you could not intercept a 30k lanc, not that you couldnt kill bombers.
As far as I know the service ceiling of a Lancaster was in the low 20k range when loaded. Most Lanc missions were flown at night and at about 18k.
palef