Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Kweassa on October 20, 2004, 06:46:41 AM
-
These two planes use the same engines(although they may use different boost pressures). The weight difference is not by much, and IIRC the Fw190A-8 uses a slightly different shaped wing, but the basic design remains largely the same.
Then, what is it that makes the Fw190A-5 so responsive and wonderful, while the A-8 feels so heavy?
Or rather, I should ask this first; is it only me that feels the Fw190A-8 handles much more heavily than the Fw190A-5?
The Fw190A-5 feels wonderful in many aspects, and among the planes ca. 1943 in AH2 I can really say that it is one of the best. The turn rate is not inspiring, but still it is quite stable and gentle in all situations. However, the Fw190A-8 feels just incredibly heavier than the A-5.
I've seen some simular comments on this, but I'm really curious as to if we can say that we have a general consensus that the A-8 feels much heavier than the A-5.
If we do, then what's making the handling characteristics of the A-8 so much more heavier and clumsier than the A-5? If the aux tank goes dry shouldn't it feel simular to the A-5??
Also, shouldn't the Fw190D-9 be the best turning/maneuvering 190 of them all? I don't know how to express it, but the D-9 feels "light" - probably due to the all the more power it has than the A-8. But while the general "feel" of handling seems much lighter than the A-8, when it starts turning, it becomes a rock. Or rather, (again having difficulties trying to explain the feel..), it still seems "lighter" than the A-8, but somehow just refuses to respond better in turning maneuvers.
Does the Fw190A-8 outturn the Fw190D-9? Or is it just placebo??
ps)
Another question.
I'm still confused about the aux tanks of the Fw190A-8. Okay, so far I know that it's not for MW50. Then is the fuel loaded in the aux tank being used in C3 injection? In that case, does our Fw190A-8 use 87 octane fuel and C3 injection for WEP?? This is all very confusing..
-
i think the A8 has more armour and alot more guns/bullets?
all i know is if im buff hunting an A5 will die faster than an A8
-
The A series a/c with the BMW801 engine required C3 fuel, not B4 fuel.
The A-6 had a new wing, but was the same as the A-5 except it was strenghtened.
Both the A-8 and D-9 had simular power outputs from their engines.
-
The weight difference between the A-5 and A-8 is considerable if you consider combat weight rather then take off weight.
Take the A-5 up fly to the combat area and you have burned close to 25% fuel. The A-8 has the extra tank so over the sdame flight path you will have more fule weight when you reach combat.
You can reduce much of that weight by taking just 2 x20mm, dumping most if not all of the mg131 and taking 75% fuel instead of 100. The plane will be just as lethal as the A-5 but faster.
When you do this you will notice the A-8 is much less of a 'pig'.
For example in the Big Week event my gruppe of A-8s reduced their weight. We burnt off fuel, some of us took just 2 x 20mm (I did and killed 10 b17s in 4 frames, just stated to demonstate lethality). At 27k we engaged p51bs and killed several and chased the rest away. In the last frame OTD we fought p38s and p47s and scored several victories over each.
This was in AH1 of course but from what I could tell the A-8 is actually better in AH2.
Most people just load up the A-8 without thinking of the weight penalty.
The Aft tank in the A-8 as modelled in AH just holds fuel. C-3 injection is bled directly from the fuel line not from a specific tank. It gets injected into the super charger eye as vapor and then evaporates cooling the charge.
I can't comment on the D-9 since I didn't fly it but a few times in Ah2 but from what I recall it was still a monster and very similiar to Ah1. Just remember the fatser plane will have a wider turning circle. So if 1 A-8s enter a turn 1 at 200mph and 1 at 300 mph the 200mph plane can turn 'tighter'. My point here is the D9 is faster so you maybe turning at a higher speed then you would in the A-8.
You might try some off line comparisons between a lightened A-8 and A-5.
-
I do feel the same Kweassa. Forgot how nimble the A5 can feel but took one up a few days ago and got two P-51D's during a wild dogfight on the deck. Ran outta fuel though and it doesn't glide that well...
The A8 has always felt like a PIG to me, can't turn, can't loop, can't climb, sucks at altitude. Maybe flying it lighter works as Wotian says.
The D9 feels responsive and powerful but you simply cannot turn the thing. It is of course me but I can't shoot down anything that maneuvers against me.
-
Even lightened up the A8 is a pig compared to the A5. I always assumed that the A8 had hundreds of pounds of extra armor. Is this not the case?
ra
-
No its not the case. Only some specially modified heavy bomber killer 190A8 had extra armor around the cockpit. And they often made up a portion of this by removing the entire 13mm cowl MG armament and associated equipment.
-
GRUNHERZ,
Are you sure the 190A-8 in AH is not one of the up armored A-8s? I always thought that it was.
-
It's not a 190A-8/R8 it's missing the armored glass on the sides for exemple our 190A8 + 30mm is R2 (if I'm not again lost R# list).
GRUN I though only the G had cowl MG removed ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
It's not a 190A-8/R8 it's missing the armored glass on the sides for exemple our 190A8 + 30mm is R2 (if I'm not again lost R# list).
Graphically, sure, but graphics don't need to reflect the modeling.
-
Originally posted by ra
Even lightened up the A8 is a pig compared to the A5. ...
ra
I have to agree.
The D9 is even worse in that the stall onsets so soon - very hard to do vertical moves against close targets when the slightest over-use of the stick sends you spinning out of control.
I usually flip the stall limited back on if I want to fly an A8 or D9.
Funny thing is you look at pictures of the Fw and it's such a small, nifty plane - yet in the game it feels as big as a P47.
-
Originally posted by straffo
It's not a 190A-8/R8 it's missing the armored glass on the sides for exemple our 190A8 + 30mm is R2 (if I'm not again lost R# list).
GRUN I though only the G had cowl MG removed ?
You are correct Straffo, the R2 had two wing mounted Mk108.
-
I fly the A8 almost exculsively.
Climbs like a brick, turns like a lumber wagon with flat tires. It feels sluggish in a dive, and level acceleration is pitiful.
It has good (not great) views and awesome firepower. It rolls almost as fast as the Dora. It handles very well at speed, and has lots of fuel. It is tougher than a bus station steak, and will take a lot of punishment. And as a big plus, it has a ENY of 25, so it is usually available.
Flown well, that is; at speed and to optimize it's firepower, it is a trully great ride. :aok
You can take a lot of scalps home in this one, but stay fast, and always have a option to quickly egress should the situation go south.
-
in AH, 190D-9 is a SUPER La-5/7 added with a turbocharger or ram air for hi-alts.
-
I was always under the impression that the A8 was purely an FW designed to attack buffs. Thicker panels, armor tub, large cannon etc etc...
-
The A-8 as modelled in AH doesn't have all that 'armor'.
I dunno what you ll are talking about really. Stall limiter and 'pig'...?
Checking my stats in tour 53 I came back for just a few weeks and went 91 and 15 in the A-8 after not flying it for almost a couple of years. I never went above about 12-13k.
I was 21 and 4 in the A-5 in that same tour.
I had only 34 hours that tour (just enough to decide AH2 gameplay is not for me.) I am at best modiocre.
Before that the last tour I flew as 'wotan' was tour 36.
I had a brielf return as 'Batz' form tour 32 to 38 and have no A-8 sorties during that time. I flew the G-6 almost exclusively during that time.
Lightened up the A-8 and in AH2 I found the it almost the same as the A-5.
I have seen my ex squadmates run up incredible K/D in the A-8.
I guess we have different experiences with it.
I only ever flew with 2 x20mm 75 or 50 and a dt fuel. I would keep the 13 mm but in events I would always dump it.
With the 2 x 20mm it has the same load out as the D-9 and I flew the A-5 the same way. MGFF/Type 99 MK 1 in AH are worthless. The MGFF in the A-5 is not worth the weight gain. It adds no lethality.
YMMV
-
Wotan is correct in his posts above. Basicly the A8 is an A7 with C3 or GM1 boost capability however C3 was the more common method. With C3 injection on, fuel burn rate greatly increased. The A7,8 had the A6 wings. The only default armor was the same as on the A5 which was an armored cowl ring around the oil cooler and plates behind the pilot. Take 75% fuel to match 100% on the A5. Reset your armament for the mission. In AH1 I always took 100% fuel and all the guns though. Then again my combat weight was probably compensated because I often flew long ranges to get to where I wanted to go.
-
I have seen my ex squadmates run up incredible K/D in the A-8
Yep is sure is a killer if flown right, and BTW you seem pretty good in it yourself, as 91 and 15 is a pretty impressive k/d :)
So far this month I am about the same with 101/9 in the A8. ButI do not consider myself to be a very good stick. I just kind of hunt when I am in the arena :)
-
It really depends on how you fly it. The A5 isn't all that "nimble" really, but it is noticeably more manueverable than the D9 or A8.
The A5 has good acceleration and climb rate with WEP on (it's around 4k FPM low), the A8 doesn't. Climb rate and acceleration with the A8 are mediocre at best.
I've always found the 109 to be better for my style of fighting, and the 190 to be better for a more strict Boom N Zoom type fighting... you can have a lot of success in the D9 staying fast and BnZ'ing any number of lower cons. The only caveat is you can't let them get up to your speed/altitude like you can in the 109.. because the 109 can climb out of trouble, the D9 can't.
Actually the A8 seems to have gotten better in AH2, in my opinion. I think the D9 got worse, but I never really did like it that much anyway.
-
IMO the a5 is much batter then the A8
i usually take 75% or only 50% plus a DT and only 2 cannons.
allso i dump around 2 thirds of my MG ammo since those are simply BB guns and adds little to no affect.
i fly the A5 very agresively, and the best tactic is just to surprise the enemy with an aggresive turn, and to know when to disengage.
a fast A5 can turn with a spit for a short time.
my stats from lest tour (56) 66kills and 8 deaths
in the current tour: 18kills and 1 death
btw is there a way to check how many sorties i did in each plane type?
-
Originally posted by Wotan
I am at best modiocre.
Funniest damn thing I've read all night:p
-
"It rolls almost as fast as the Dora."
?? ??
Shouldn't the A series have a slightly better rollrate than D series?
-C+
-
There are lots of myths out there about the FW-190A.
If you do a search for the FW-190 you will see some of these myths explained.
Kweassa is correct. The FW-190A8 should be the more nimble version of jagd-einsatz's when comparing the FW-190A5.
The full combat weight differences between the FW-190A5 jagd-einsatz's and the FW-190A8 jagd-einsatz's are:
FW-190A5 - 4106kg's
FW-190A8 - 4272kg's
This assumes full fuel, full ammo, a 100kg pilot (w/o equipment) and adds in the winterization kit with full oil load for the kit.
The armour was exactly the same for the two planes.
The FW-190A8 BMW-801D2 motor develops 1900PS at FTH in a derated motor and 2100PS in a rated motor. Only jagd-einsatz's used rated motors.
The FW-190A5 BMW-801D2 develops 1700PS in a derated motor and 1800PS in a rated motor at FTH.
Shouldn't the A series have a slightly better roll rate than D series?
Yes it should. The Dora rolls very well but not quite as fast as the FW-190A series. The Dora turns better than the FW-190A series. It was lighter than the FW-190A8 and developed 2250PS at FTH with MW-50. The majority of Dora's were equipped with MW-50 by the end of the war. The Dora also had even less drag than the A series.
I will be gone for the next few weeks. Doing some traveling in order to further research my book.
Crumpp
-
why the D9 should have a worst roll rate than a 190A?
-
why the D9 should have a worst roll rate than a 190A?
That is a good question Meyer. Only thing I can think of is when the CG was adjusted it increased the stick forces in the rolling plane for the Dora.
Nevertheless, the reduction in roll rate is noted both in Allied tests and Luftwaffe accounts. Understand too that the frise ailerons produce a rather wide margin of performance and that the pilot was capable of choosing from several different ailerons with different performance curves to mount on his aircraft.
Crumpp
-
"why the D9 should have a worst roll rate than a 190A?"
Pulling it out of hat I'd suggest that maybe the blunt nose of A series makes them aerodynamically a bit more unstable which could cause this. Am I completely wrong but don't the A and D series have also a different camshaft placing when looked from side? The other has its camshaft in more optimal angle to the CoG to assist in rolling? Dunno...
-C+