Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: 1K3 on February 02, 2005, 02:14:52 PM
-
How would the "ideal" 190s compare to current HTC's 190s? (based on charts, perfs 'n quotes)
-
The ideal 190 would:
Turn like a Bf109G2.
Climb like a Bf109G10 or Spit 14.
Be faster on the deck than LA7 or Tempest.
Be armed with at least 3 centrally mounted 20mm cannon.
;)
-
It will win the fight for you without you having to do any of the work :)
Dan/Slack
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/245_1107380623_img22.jpg)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/245_1107380623_img22.jpg)
thats just blasphemous and wrong
-
:lol
-
Sorry JB73 it's a pretty accurate picture ... provided I4m in the cockpit :)
@GRUN : make that "3 centrally mounted 20mm cannon" 4 hispano in the nose and it will be perfect :D
-
Gscholz
ROFLMAO :rofl
-
Originally posted by straffo
Sorry JB73 it's a pretty accurate picture ... provided I4m in the cockpit :)
@GRUN : make that "3 centrally mounted 20mm cannon" 4 hispano in the nose and it will be perfect :D
THe La9 had 4 23mm in the nose and was better than out La7 in every way. :)
That thing would have been a monster.
-
btw if you are fan of the Egg plane
look at this :
http://modelbox.free.fr/dossiers/Eggs_P/index.html
-
Originally posted by straffo
@GRUN : make that "3 centrally mounted 20mm cannon" 4 hispano in the nose and it will be perfect :D
A fine opportunity for a nit-pick; the Hispano fired from an open bolt and couldn't be synchronised :p
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion
forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
ok, let make a jet so :)
-
Tony, would it be posible to synchonize german electrically primed guns through a counterrotating prop?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
THe La9 had 4 23mm in the nose and was better than out La7 in every way. :)
That thing would have been a monster.
The main difference between the 9 and the 7 is the wing profile and weight distribution (9 being "statically" more nose heavy)
They both have identical engines as does the La11 which was in production prior to the 9. (dont ask)
The La11 also had wing profiles like the 9 and (like the 9) an all metal frame and skin. La11 & La 9 curves however seem to be very similar to those of the La7 only showing real improvement at medium altitude.
What is obvious is that the combined fire power of 4 x 23mm cannon clustered around the nose is awsome.
As we know an La9 flies today and an article by Hanna (probably today the most experienced classic warbirds pilots in terms of hours and types flown) compares it to both the Fury and the Bearcat where by he states it to be superior in terms of air to air combat capability. Hanna has flown all three types.
Given this it would seem that the la7 would aquit its self very well against these types too.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Tony, would it be posible to synchonize german electrically primed guns through a counterrotating prop?
I doubt it VERY much. The time gaps would be tiny, and when you take into consideration the need for a safety margin because the cartridge propellants don't always burn at precisely the same rate... :(
TW
-
The time gaps are exactly the same. The prop-blades just "close-in" from both sides instead of only one. If the two props are geared together (no variation in rpm) there should be no problem using syncronised guns.
-
FW-190 should have superior manuverability over the Spit V as the real one did.
-
Define "manuverability" 1st
-
Originally posted by Jester
FW-190 should have superior manuverability over the Spit V as the real one did.
i would agree with that statement regarding the 190a2 and a3 for sure, i have not read enough about the latter models in direct comparison
-
The Fw190 never had superior manuverability to the Spitfire in terms of horizontal turning. It should be superior to the Mk V in the verticle, speed, roll and acceleration. It should be superior to the LF.Mk IX in roll and dive only.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The time gaps are exactly the same. The prop-blades just "close-in" from both sides instead of only one. If the two props are geared together (no variation in rpm) there should be no problem using syncronised guns.
Yes, provided you align the gearbox so the opposing blades pass each other as they also pass through the bullet trajectory. Depending on how many guns need to be synched and their location it might be hard to get everything properly lined up.
-
A few more questioms for the experten.
Is it possible to put a hub cannon through all the mechanicals required for a counterroating prop?
Also, Is it possible to synchronize a revolver cannon like the MG213 series in 20mm?
-
The Fw190 never had superior manuverability to the Spitfire in terms of horizontal turning. It should be superior to the Mk V in the verticle, speed, roll and acceleration. It should be superior to the LF.Mk IX in roll and dive only.
The FW-190 and the Merlin powered Spitfire were about as evenly matched as too planes can get throughout their lifecyle.
The FW-190 held advantages in Agility, zoom climb, dive accelleration, and depending on altitude level accelleration.
The Merlin powered Spitfires held the cards in top diving speed above 10,000 feet and sustained turn. Some models had a better sustained climb. None of the Spitfires could directly follow an FW-190 in a shallow sustained climb at high speed.
The FW-190's stick forces at high speed are a little over 1/4 of those experienced in the Spitfire.
This has been done to death on the calculator and very well documented.
Facts are the Merlin powered Spitfires gained more weight than the FW-190 and an equal amount of horsepower.
The FW-190 has less parasitic drag and it's wing efficency is very slightly below the Spitfires. The difference is about .01.
All in All, the FW-190A was a very rough customer for the Spitfire. The Spitfire was equally as rough for the FW-190. If both pilots fly to their aircrafts strengths then very brief snapshots at one another is the most common result.
The FW-190A3 weighed less than the FW-190A8. It also developed 450hp less and it's prop was not nearly as efficient. Add in the fact that Faber's FW-190A3 developed quite a bit less power than a Luftwaffe serviced FW-190A3 (150hp less) and it becomes evident those tactical trials are not representative of actual combat.
I have posted all the documents showing this before but will dig them out tommorrow and post again.
Crumpp
-
crump... the trick, or question at hand is the "realistic" model VS the HTC model.
the fact is the 190A5 is NO match for the sptiV in an equal engagement in the MA DA TA or CT.
*IF they were to model an A3 or an A4 how significantly better would it be than a spit V? if it was, the A5 would cease to exist for all practical matters.
in an equal engagment the best i have done ( and i am by NO means a greta pilot nor confess to be) is a D9, taking a spitV into a spiral climb, getting the spit to fall over first, but the stall of the D9 making me not be able to make the shot.
thats a D9, a far superior climber and "speedester" than the A5.
the few A5 engangment i have had have been over before i can honestly say it started. thats against a mediocre pilot i have heard of very few times in the MA as being "good".
like i said im no great pilot, but i'd like to see the best spitV pilot VS the best A5 pilot.
i'd guess leviathan is the spitV guy, not sure because it is a toss up about the 190A5 pilot, either way in an equal engagement coE and all, the 190 does not have a chance to even land a ping.
so is there something wrong, or is that realistic is the true question. i happen to personally believe that something is not correct with the 190. i by no means say te spit is "porked", heck it my be i have not research on the data. i have no real knowledge on the specifics of it, all i know is the 190A "should" be a match for it.
time will tell what the game developers do, and what is changed or not changed in the game. all i can ask politely is that HiTech and Pyro look deeper into the factors, and find the proper conclusion AND hopefully post some revelant data to show what they based their decisions on.
-
when the Fw190A came out it could out maneuver the spitV on the deck dont know model it was though, And the 109E4 could out turn the spitV but not alot of pilots pushed thier A/C far enough for it to.
-
No 190 could ever outturn a Spit V. However the 190 was faster in level flight, climb and dive.
-
Originally posted by Regurge
Yes, provided you align the gearbox so the opposing blades pass each other as they also pass through the bullet trajectory. Depending on how many guns need to be synched and their location it might be hard to get everything properly lined up.
Quite so. If you have two three-blade contrarotating props then the guns would have to be spaced at exactly 120 degrees from each other - so you could have up to three guns synchronised, but you couldn't necessarily put them where you'd want them.
Also, not all contraprops featured the same number of blades on each prop, which would really mess things up.
Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
-
Actually that would be quite easy on a low wing monoplane. One gun in each wing root ... just slide the guns out along the wing until they hit 120 degrees on the prop-axis. The third gun is mounted directly above the engine in the cowl. Just swap the two MG131 for a single 151 on a 190D and the inner wing guns are pretty much aligned up already. Add an engine gun like on the 109's and you have four nose-mounted cannon on a single engined monoplane with a three (six) bladed counter-rotating prop. :)
-
That's gonna be dicey and NOSE-UGLY :D
-
Hi Tony,
>I doubt it VERY much. The time gaps would be tiny, and when you take into consideration the need for a safety margin because the cartridge propellants don't always burn at precisely the same rate... :(
Somewhere, I have an article confirming exactly that, but I can't find it right now.
The question of synchronization was what killed the first He 219 project, which had a centrally-mounted twin-engine, single-propeller layout like the He 119. When the project went from reconnaissance to night fighter, a more conventional layout was required, leading to the He 219 as we know it.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
JB73,
My take on it is that there are certain things that are overmodeled on the SpitV in AH. Another thing is the +16lbs boost which may not be an overmodel, but it is odd that HTC did that. It rendered the Spitfire F.Mk IX moot.
The greater SA, brought on largely by the glaring icons, also gives an advantage to aircraft, such as the Spitfire Mk V, that can break turn effectively. That makes getting shots much harder than I think it really was and makes muzzle velocity a more important factor of a gun that it really was.
-
Kurt Tank,as all threads about the 190 should end just,simply Kurt a Tank .
-
That's interesting Karnak.
Care to share with us what you specificaly think the SpitV is overmodelled in? Just curious.
-
Originally posted by JB73
crump... the trick, or question at hand is the "realistic" model VS the HTC model.
the fact is the 190A5 is NO match for the sptiV in an equal engagement in the MA DA TA or CT.
*IF they were to model an A3 or an A4 how significantly better would it be than a spit V? if it was, the A5 would cease to exist for all practical matters.
in an equal engagment the best i have done ( and i am by NO means a greta pilot nor confess to be) is a D9, taking a spitV into a spiral climb, getting the spit to fall over first, but the stall of the D9 making me not be able to make the shot.
thats a D9, a far superior climber and "speedester" than the A5.
the few A5 engangment i have had have been over before i can honestly say it started. thats against a mediocre pilot i have heard of very few times in the MA as being "good".
like i said im no great pilot, but i'd like to see the best spitV pilot VS the best A5 pilot.
i'd guess leviathan is the spitV guy, not sure because it is a toss up about the 190A5 pilot, either way in an equal engagement coE and all, the 190 does not have a chance to even land a ping.
so is there something wrong, or is that realistic is the true question. i happen to personally believe that something is not correct with the 190. i by no means say te spit is "porked", heck it my be i have not research on the data. i have no real knowledge on the specifics of it, all i know is the 190A "should" be a match for it.
time will tell what the game developers do, and what is changed or not changed in the game. all i can ask politely is that HiTech and Pyro look deeper into the factors, and find the proper conclusion AND hopefully post some revelant data to show what they based their decisions on.
I'd say that the 190a5 is more than a match for the Spit 5, 1v1.
Co-alt does not nescesarily mean co-E.
So, even you could beat Leviathn 1v1 if you fly the a5 to its strengths instead of the Spits. Will it be fun? I don't know. You tend to be more of a bore n zoomer (well, your squad, don't know you personally), so you might find it interesting.
What advantages does the a5 have over the spit 5? Even the new "uber" super-boost spit 5? Well, it is faster. You've got a 25 mph margin on the Spit in top speed up to 8k or so. From 8 to 15k it is just about even I'd say, although the a5 is probably ~5 mph faster.
So lets say a typical "DA" style 5k merge. 5k is the ceiling, not the actual merge alt... typically at a "5k" merge both parties dive to try to get below the other guy for an advantage at the merge.
So you take your A5, get up to 350 or so. Coming up to the merge, you go into a shallow dive. You aren't really trying to get below the Spit, you are trying to get above 400 mph. The faster you can get going before you pass the Spit, the better.
At the merge, go into a very gentle pull-up. You are now converting that extra speed/energy into altitude. Your ideal situation is to end up at 0 mph directly over the Spit.. you'll have anywhere from 1,000 feet to 3,000+ on him, depending on how he merged.
Now you make your pass. If you kill him great, if not you set up for another pass. Depending on the margin of energy, you can go straight up (which is a more 'aggressive' way to fight), or just extend in a gentle climb. Once you have a comfortable margin of distance, repeat the initial merge.
Continue until the Spit is dead, out of fuel, or the pilot falls asleep and augers.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
I'd say that the 190a5 is more than a match for the Spit 5, 1v1.
I agree. I've been in scenarios where the 190A5s just ate the Spit Vs for lunch. I was on the defensive the entire time. The Spit just did not match up in any meaningful way when the planes were flown in a "realistic" way.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
I agree. I've been in scenarios where the 190A5s just ate the Spit Vs for lunch. I was on the defensive the entire time. The Spit just did not match up in any meaningful way when the planes were flown in a "realistic" way.
-- Todd/Leviathn
Thank YOU GOD! Finally someone admits this fact!
Wolfala
-
"I've been in scenarios where the 190A5s just ate the Spit Vs for lunch."
When? Before the increased manifold pressure?
-C+
-
The wrong number of flap settings and deployment speeds are the worst fault of the AHs 190 model currently.
The FW190 had only three flap positions "flight" (fully retracted), "take-off" (~13° extended) and "landing" (~58° fully deployed).
The limiting speed for "landing" position is given in the aircraft manual as 300km/h (~185mph), which is roughly the speed in AH were you can deploy the 1st notch of flaps in the 190s which equalls "take-off" position in the real plane.
-
Originally posted by Charge
When? Before the increased manifold pressure?
Before. However, the increased manifold pressure for the Spit V only comes with WEP, and WEP only lasts so long. To be honest, I think people vastly overstate the importance of this change; it puts some of its WEP performance closer to that of the Spit IX without WEP, but the Spit IX is still a relatively slow plane overall.
I contend that even as modelled now, a "realistic" scenario pitting equally-skilled 190A5s and Spit Vs results in either a clear Luftwaffe victory or at worst a Luftwaffe-Allied draw.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Besides the flaps I think the 190 looses too much E in turns. It never will turn like a Spit V for sure. It'll always have a huge turn radius compared to the "turn fighters". But E retention should be better imo. Not much better. But better.
Maybe I'm completly wrong but I think in the beginning of AH2 the 190 had better E retention in turns.
mofa