Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: 1K3 on July 29, 2005, 09:22:44 PM
-
Test 1
Test settings: fuel burn = 1, 100% fuel, 4 wing gun option
max speed - 339 TAS (mph)
Test 2
Test settings: fuel burn = 1, 50% fuel, 2 wing gun option
max speed - 343 TAS (mph)
-
You didn't give it enough time to get to top speed. Either the 100% fuel wasn't given enough time to accelerate to top speed, or the 50% fuel wasn't given enough time to decelerate to top speed (depending on if you dove to that speed or accelerated level).
Top speed is the same for 4 guns and 2 guns. I believe Skuzzy or somebody has mentioned there's only a 1mph difference.
-
The thing is that the extra guns do add extra weight and they are the craptacular MG/FF 20mm cannons like the ones on the Bf109E-4, and they only have 60 rounds each. So you are adding weight for guns that have completely different ballistics from the MG151/20s and less than a quarter the ammo for each.
The extra cannons are not nearly worth it.
-
I've started flying the A-5 more often, I've noticed this:
The 2 gun option is best for dogfights. With about 50% fuel and at 6-10k I can hit nearly 400 at level autopilot.
The 4 gun with the MG-FF is best reserved for Buff Hunts when you plan to engage at about 200-300 or if you want the extra bit of cannons for some soft GV hunting.
The A2A rockets are a joke unless you practice a lot. They add drag though.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The extra cannons are not nearly worth it.
can't agree with this statement. they may have only 60 rounds and be MG-FFM "craptacular" guns, but they still are 20mm guns, add quite a punch and,being on the external wing sections, increase your firing (and so-hit) area, thus increasing your chances to hit in a snapshot.
The Fw190, even the "light" A5, is a BnZ tool. Sure enough, it can enter and survive one on one fights if it keeps the speed high (if the pilot is good enough, even an A8 can do it successfully) , but no matter what, the 190's best killing tool in AH is the snapshot (very hard to achieve a suprise attack). In a Snapshot you want as much firepower you can bring to bear on the enemy plane at any given time to destroy it at once.
The performance hit for taking the MGFFs is negligible,and the maneouvering loss you suffer is quite minor compared with the firepower you win. And in a 190 you really don't want to maneouver that much as it is a BnZ plane, not a turnfighter (no matter it excells in hispeed dogfights, this still helds true)
The MGFFs,so, are a "must" in the Fw190A5.
-
Agreed. Must-have. While they last they are great. And yes, they add weight, but not drag (they are internal). And weight is good if you're diving, and if you're zooming, both of which the 190 loves to do.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Agreed. Must-have. While they last they are great. And yes, they add weight, but not drag (they are internal). And weight is good if you're diving, and if you're zooming, both of which the 190 loves to do.
I find the argument for taking the FF cannons very weak. If weight is so good, why not fly a P-47N with full internal fuel?
Weight is never "good". Weight reduces climb and acceleration. Weight in the outter wings increases inertial resistance to rolling.
Weight increases stall speed. Adding weight for virtually useless guns (6.5 seconds of ammo and poor ballistics) is a mistake. You can argue that the added weight makes little difference, but from dueling in 190A-5s, one with and the other without the FFs, there is a measurable difference and it cost the other guy big time.
Hey, fly whatever you like, but you ARE reducing your performance by adding weight.
oh, by the way; deck speeds for 100% gas and FFs is 339 mph. Taking 50% and leaving the FFs in the hanger will produce 340 mph. However, you do gain 600 fpm in climb rate, and that is significant.
My regards,
Widewing
-
MGFF are completely pointless in AH. They are only really effective inside 240 yards and their ballistics are so poor that you would miss close to 97% of your shots any way. They add no measurable lethality above and beyond just the 2 x MG151/2cm.
It doesn't matter if they are 20mm or not.
With only 60 rounds per gun the weight of the gun itself remains even after the short duration of MGFF rounds.
The MGFF/M weighed 26kg (57lbs) per gun
2 x 57 = 114 lbs
add in the weight of the ammo, the ammo cans, mounting brackets etc... you could reasonably end up with an extra 250kg (550lbs) distributed in the outer wings.
This weight won't effect top speed but it will effect roll (especially at higher speeds) and most importantly climb. This is particularly true above FTH were allot of scenario flying is done.
In AH the only MGFF option for the A-5 is for 60 round drum per gun. Later a 90 round drum was made to fit into the same space as the 60.
So for all that weight penalty you get very little in return in terms of added lethality. Hit probability does not improve either.
In scenarios in which I was a CO or SL or Designer we would pass on to our players the results of our testing.
As an example in the first Big Week event AH had I only carried 2 x MG151/2cm, dumped the 13 mm and was able to finish the event with 8 B-17 kills, 1 P-38 and 1 - P-47 over 4 frames.
The guys in my flight were also able to engage and kill a few P-51bs and P-38Ls that didn't expect too much from the A-8 at those altitudes.
I never lacked lethality and I was able to fly and fight in access of 25k feet. If you have ever flown the FW above 25k (especially the A-8) you know how heavy and sluggish it is. Any weight savings will helps at those altitudes.
-
But wotan, you neglect the following:
- 190s have one of the fastest roll rates in the game. If they lose a little, they STILL have one of the fastest roll rates in the game. Even up to 200-250mph I've not noticed any degredation.
- 190s have one of the fastest acceleration rates in the game. even with heavier internal weight, you can still just nose down and pick up 50mph instantly. Or hit WEP and not have to wait at all.
- 190s are not used as turn fighters very much. Even when they mix it up in close quarters, they are usually E fighting, looping and whatnot, using the vertical or their speed for attacking and defending. Affecting the stall weight of a 190 isn't really going to change its operational envelope much, because of the way most fly the plane.
- LW guns in this game are pretty weak. To quote Nelson on a Simpsons Huck Finn episode, "Man those guns are weak. Pow'rful weak!" 2 cannon are good. Yes. 4 cannon are better. MUCH better. Snapshots where all 4 cannon hit are evident as the plane explodes or a whole wing falls off instantly. Hitting with just the 2 inboard guns can often lead to an oil leak, a missing flap, aileron, or some minor part, but taking 4 guns really makes a difference when you start seeing planes fall from the sky instantly.
So:
Added weight issues: Not a problem. 190 already accelerates great. It's not a speed demon anyways.
Reduced roll rate issues: Not an issue. The 190 still rolls better than almost any other plane in the game.
Weight increasing stall speed/other issues: Not really a problem because of the way the 190 is flown (and is most effective) in online situations. Rarely will it be flown at the stall's edge, and usually by the time you do fly at the stall's edge you've burned off a chunk of your gas, and thus reduced your weight.
Weak guns issues: 2 more guns. While they last they REALLY make snapshots hurt, and hurt bad. You can get at least a few kills before you run out of outboard ammo, and when you do you're that much lighter for it. Sure I'd love to have outboard MG151/20s but we don't have that. In their place, the MG/FF do make a stronger, more solid punch.
So I say there are pros and cons. The issues with adding the outboard guns are negligable and the benefit in the short term is worth it. The drawbacks in the long term (after you use outboard ammo) are minor, in my opinion.
Again, it's all subjective, but this is my (and some others') thinking on the matter.
-
In regards to scenarios and whatnot, I agree. Flying at 20+k sucks in the 190A. Wallows like a pig. For THAT you definitely want to save weight. Lower down, the weight isn't as imperative.
As a side note, my philosophy is to never dump the MGs. Especially not from the A8 (13mm cowling guns). Those guns are very effective, and you have all that ammo. I don't head home the instant my 20mm is gone, because those MGs still can get you kills (in the right situations).
I guess you did that because of the 25k alt you were flying at, but out of curiousity, can you tell me if you noticed much of a difference in the flight characteristics?
-
Krusty,
Due to the radically different balistics you will not hit with all four 20mm guns. The MG151/20 and Hispano Mk II have much closer ballistic properties to eachother than do the MG/FF and MG151/20.
As to roll rate, the F4U is as good, and at higher speeds the P-51 and P-38L surpass the Fw190s. Add to that the the greater the margin of your roll superiority the more useful it is.
-
But wotan, you neglect the following:
- 190s have one of the fastest roll rates in the game. If they lose a little, they STILL have one of the fastest roll rates in the game. Even up to 200-250mph I've not noticed any degredation.
- 190s have one of the fastest acceleration rates in the game. even with heavier internal weight, you can still just nose down and pick up 50mph instantly. Or hit WEP and not have to wait at all.
- 190s are not used as turn fighters very much. Even when they mix it up in close quarters, they are usually E fighting, looping and whatnot, using the vertical or their speed for attacking and defending. Affecting the stall weight of a 190 isn't really going to change its operational envelope much, because of the way most fly the plane.
- LW guns in this game are pretty weak. To quote Nelson on a Simpsons Huck Finn episode, "Man those guns are weak. Pow'rful weak!" 2 cannon are good. Yes. 4 cannon are better. MUCH better. Snapshots where all 4 cannon hit are evident as the plane explodes or a whole wing falls off instantly. Hitting with just the 2 inboard guns can often lead to an oil leak, a missing flap, aileron, or some minor part, but taking 4 guns really makes a difference when you start seeing planes fall from the sky instantly.
The 190's roll rate is at its greatest advantage at low end to mid of the speed curve, the faster you go the less of roll advantage you have.. In fact many planes surpass it.
What makes a good aircraft is acceleration and climb... Both are affected by weight. If you don't think 200-250 kg affect planes performance then fly around with 250kg strapped on...
Mister Fork has a spread sheet he did of Aircraft Acceleration test. Those tests were done at 25%. Even at that light weight the 190s were down in the (like 18 or 19). Its most likely even lower down on that list now as new planes like the P-38s, Ki-84 and P-47N (among others) have been added. Many planes out accelerate it and out climb. Many are so close that any added advantage you can gain to shed weight will make all the difference. If you don't understand what the advantages are to acceleration and climb then maybe Widewing will explain it to you.
Roll rate is over rated in these games except when the fight is slow and in close. There are no adverse effects on the pilots slapping their sticks and rudders around to stay with a bad guy.
I have more time in the 190s in AH then you probably have in AH all together. In fact I can't find any stats for 'Krusty' in AH, what's you in game nic? I don't need a 'lesson'.
Anyone can get 'kills' in any plane if they fly like a wuss. Those players who can get everything they can out of an aircraft in the close in fights are the ones who are the true experts...
Maybe thats you problem, you fly it around like a stuffed pig and concluded 'there is only one way to fly a 190... bore -n- zzzz.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
- 190s have one of the fastest acceleration rates in the game. even with heavier internal weight, you can still just nose down and pick up 50mph instantly. Or hit WEP and not have to wait at all.
:rolleyes:
-
LOL What Mando said :D
Karnak, agree with balistics and hit EXCEPT for the snapshots. If you fire straight forward when they pass infront of you they should fly into the bullet stream.
However if any kind of lead shot or similair is taken the balistics will be very different.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
As a side note, my philosophy is to never dump the MGs. Especially not from the A8 (13mm cowling guns). Those guns are very effective, and you have all that ammo. I don't head home the instant my 20mm is gone, because those MGs still can get you kills (in the right situations).
Well, the 13mm guns have some use, just not much.
Here's some alternate methods of ammo loading for the 190s.
190A-5: You have 22.7 seconds of MG151 ammo, 6.5 seconds of MGFF ammo and a whopping 57.3 seconds of 7.92 mm ammo.
So, I never take the MGFFs and I shoot out about 25 seconds of 7.92 mm ammo. This means that the cannons and machine guns are empty at the same time. Additional 7.92 mm ammo is virtually useless anyway.
190A-8: I prefer the four MG151s for most sorties. You have 22.7 seconds of MG151 ammo and 33.7 seconds of 13 mm ammo. I may shoot out 11 seconds of 13 mm ammo so that all guns run out at the same time. 30 mm cannons provide for just 12.5 seconds of firing.
190D-9: Same as A-8 in terms of shooting time. You can burn off some 13 mm if you wish.
190F-8: Taking only two MG151s and burning down the 13 mm ammo will improve performance and handling. Whether it's worth the loss of firepower is up to the user. Shooting time is same as 190D-9 or A-8.
A bomb rack on the 190D-9 will cost you 8 mph on the deck (375 down to 367). On the A-8 or A-5 it will cost you 6 or 7 mph. If you plan to fly a Jabo sortie, I suggest flying the F-8 with max bombs and minimum guns/ammo.
My regards,
Widewing
-
One MGFF cannon weights 28 kg. Each round weighs 134g. 120 rounds are, then, 16,08 kg.
The whole excepcional, impressive, and massive ammount of extra weight you load in a Fw190A5 by selecting the 4x20mm loadout is, so, 88,16 kg. In a plane which takeoff weight is something around 4400kg, we're taking a whooping extra 2% weight. WOOSAH!!!!.
There was no strenghtening needed of the wing. It already had the hardpoints to load the cannons from factory.
The ammo cans come within the weight of the weapon itself (but if you want to, go and add a couple of Kg to that enormous weight...sheesh, 90kg!!! enormous weight indeed!!!!!)
So wotan: when you load a 250kg in AH2 you load the bomb rack too (wich also weights on itself and affects handling). And carrying 250kg of external load is never equal to carrying that extra weight internally, as there are almost no aerodinamic penalties in an internal carrying configuration.
Not to mention... comparing the extra weight imposed by the extra MGFFs loadout with a 250kg bomb is a bit off-mark. (but just a bit ;)).
Anyway. He who flies Fw190A for it's acceleration and climbrate is wasting his time. Fw190A is a B'n'Z marvel but doesn't accelerate or climb any good (the D is another story against certain enemies).
Ho who flies Fw190s for anything other than snapshots is wasting his time too unless he's a real hot-stick and really knows his stuff.
To lose a rediculous ammount of acceleration and climbrate to win a 30% of firepower is a good trade. 190 lives for the snapshot most of the time. The more firepower you bring to bear in that half-a-second, the better. MGFFs may be crappy 20mm cannons, but THEY ARE 20mm cannons none the less.
To have 2 exterior cannons improves your % hit chance at all distances other than that of convergence. It's as simple as knowing that the cone of fire is bigger.
The low ammount of ammo is irrelevant. After the ammo is gone you've fired quite some of your other ammo too: your external guns still weigh but the MGFFs are pretty light anyway. You aren't much worse than a 2x20mm Fw190A5 after that.
In short: losing an insignificant ammount of climbrate and acceleration to win a 30% firepower even for 6.5 seconds "only" (which gives you at least 13 0.5sec. snapshots) is always a good deal.
P.D. and wotan, if you're going to boast your great killing skills in real-life-like environments, I may remind people that I destroyed 12 enemy planes (2 corsairs, 6 F6Fs, 1 Lancaster and 3 Avengers, IIRC) in TWO FRAMES of Hostile Shores (or whatever it was called that great scenario of defending Tirpitz in Norway a couple years ago)...with a 4x20mm Fw190A5.
So, the only thing I see from your numbers is that you're a damned great stick flying the Fw190A (something I already know), not that the 2x20mm loadout is better than the 4x20mm one. I'm pretty sure you'd have had exactly the same kill tally or better with the 4x20mm configuration
-
Originally posted by Krusty
190s have one of the fastest acceleration rates in the game. even with heavier internal weight, you can still just nose down and pick up 50mph instantly. Or hit WEP and not have to wait at all.
Acceleration rates for the A series 190s is nothing to write home about. Whereas the Dora can go from 200 mph to 300 mph in about 32 seconds (on the deck) the A-5 requires 43.38 with MGFFs and 41.53 seconds without the MGFFs. That is very unimpressive. The heavier A-8 will not be better.
With fuel generating the same range as the 190A-5, the following aircraft can accomplish this in much less time.
P-38J: 37.07
Typhoon: 35.87
109G-2: 37.62
P-51D: 36.68
P-47N: 34.49
La-5FN: 31.27
Yak-9U: 37.40
Ki-84: 35.96
So, if you're on the deck and depending upon acceleration to get clear of pursuing enemies... Good luck. Just don't get so slow that acceleration becomes a short-term factor.
My regards,
Widewing
-
those numbers arnt with wep on the a5 are they? (edit) apparently they are. your right =(
-
To lose a rediculous ammount of acceleration and climbrate to win a 30% of firepower is a good trade. 190 lives for the snapshot most of the time. The more firepower you bring to bear in that half-a-second, the better. MGFFs may be crappy 20mm cannons, but THEY ARE 20mm cannons none the less.
You don't gain 30% firepower in AH. MGFF in AH begin losing lethality the further your move beyond 240yards. By the time you get to around 325 yards lethality is way down. With just 120 rounds even if your hit % is around 15% (which is a good average) only 18 rounds of that 120 will impact the target.
With the different ballistics impact probability is low even close in snapshots. There is very little chance of increased in hit probability. Also since hit sprites in AH are generic for all rounds, you don't know what rounds are hitting or missing when you fire all your guns at once. MG 17, MGFF, MG151 all make the same sprite...
Even if you are an outstanding marksmen there is no way you land 100% of your hits find there mark...
Now In IL2/FB/AEP/PF I take the MGFF 75% of the time. These rounds are much more effective in that game. However I only fire those in close and hardly ever fire both primary and secondary guns together.
One MGFF cannon weights 28 kg.
From Tony Williams:
the Ikaria-made MG-FFM weighed 26 KG.
Each round weighs 134g. 120 rounds are, then, 16,08 kg.
IIRC a single 100 round drum of MGFF weighed in at 33 kg. i think you missed miss the weight of the of drum itself which is doubled.
There was no strenghtening needed of the wing. It already had the hardpoints to load the cannons from factory.
The ammo cans come within the weight of the weapon itself
The hard points were there in the wing but the hardware to mount and adjust the guns weren't. Some of the cans were armored as well.
Even 150kg is good amount of added weight for very little gain.
P.D. and wotan, if you're going to boast your great killing skills in real-life-like environments, I may remind people that I destroyed 12 enemy planes (2 corsairs, 6 F6Fs, 1 Lancaster and 3 Avengers, IIRC) in TWO FRAMES of Hostile Shores (or whatever it was called that great scenario of defending Tirpitz in Norway a couple years ago)...with a 4x20mm Fw190A5.
So, the only thing I see from your numbers is that you're a damned great stick flying the Fw190A (something I already know), not that the 2x20mm loadout is better than the 4x20mm one. I'm pretty sure you'd have had exactly the same kill tally or better with the 4x20mm configuration
My example wasn't to brag, it was to point out that lethality did not suffer. There isn't 'skill' needed to shoot down bombers. They flew level and and my 2 x 20mm was more then enough to bring them down.
I was in Hostile Shores as well, flying a FW 190F-8 and IIRC I ended up with 6 or 7 kills myself. This was in addition of spending 2 frames flying about looking for ships to bomb and running out of fuel. My 2 x 20mm in the F-8 was effective in bringing down aircraft with just 2 X MG151.
I died in the last frame of that event after being switched to A-8s. I was killed by F4U-s after rearming. I had just upped and the base was hit. I had time to get up and turn hard into the attack but took hits from multiple attackers and was killed.
However, none of what I am saying has anything to do with 'skills' it is only provided as an example of lethality not adversely suffering as some claim.
I get killed all the time by nachwuchs and veteran a like. My lifetime k/d in the A series 190s is only like 4 to 1 but I never was a b-n-z'r in the main and only flew as high is it took for me to get to the target area on auto climb. There are plenty of great 190 pilots in AH. I recall you being a damn good as well.
-
Mister Fork's last Acceleration Results posted in this thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=134923) on 11-03-2004.
New planes have been added since then so keep that in mind as well:
New Acceleration Results for AHII
My results from AHII have been completed. There are a few surprises, and I'm able to draw a few conclusions.
Several points:
1. Notably, most aircraft have slowed down in their acceleration by an average of 3.8s or .28m/s^2.
2. All fighter aircraft accelerate an average 12% slower than AHI .
3. Both the Spitfire V and Seafire II boosted their ranking by 8, and 11 places from AHI.
4. The Yak-9U boosted its ranking by 11 places.
5. The F4U-C moved up 15 slots in acceleration.
6. F4U-4 moved down 19 places in ranking.
You can view the entire list here: Acceleration Excel Sheet
Testing Criteria
a) All aircraft were loaded with 100% fuel, minimum weapons loadouts.
b) Altitude for all tests were 1000ASL
c) Aircraft speeds were recorded from 150-250 using the E6B.
d) Aircraft speeds were brought below 140mph. Aircraft were applied 100% full throttle and WEP engaged (if available). At 150mph TAS stopwatch was engaged.
e) Timer was stopped at 250mph TAS.
f) Test was repeated four additional times.
g) Average of time was calculated. Scores are +/- .1s.
Acceleration Forumula
(Vf - Vo) / t m/s^2
(250mph - 150mph) / time
(111.8m/s - 67.1m/s) / t = 44.7m/s / s
Where:
Vf = 250mph = 111.8 m/s IAS
Vo= 150mph = 67.1 m/s IAS
Vf - final velocity
Vo - initial velocity
Here is the list in rank from fastest to slowest:
Aircraft | Seconds
Me-163 15.1
Tempest 19.0
Bf 109G-10 19.2
SpitFire Mk XIV 19.7
La-7 20.0
La-5 FN 20.8
Fw 190D-9 22.2
Bf 109G-2 22.8
F4U-4 23.8
Bf 109G-6 24.0
Yak-9U 24.3
NIK-2 24.4
Bf 109F-4 24.5
Fw 109A-5 24.5
C205 24.6
P-38L 24.9
Fw 109A-8 25.3
Typhoon 25.4
SpitFire Mk IX 25.9
Ta-152 26.0
Ki-84-Ia 26.1
SpitFire Mk V 26.4
P-51D 27.0
SeaFire Mk IIC 27.1
Fw 190F-8 27.8
C202 28.0
F6F-5 28.2
P-47D40 28.3
F4U-D 28.4
F4U-C 29.1
Me-262-a 29.4
P-47D25 30.3
P-47D11 30.5
P-51B 30.7
Mosquito IV 30.8
Yak-9T 31.6
Bf 110G-4 32.2
A6M5b 33.0
F4U-1 33.1
FM2 34.0
Ki-61-I-Tei 34.1
P-40E 34.6
SpitFire Mk I 35.5
Bf 109E4 37.0
Hurricane Mk IIC 38.4
Bf 110C-4 40.7
F4F-4 46.1
Hurricane Mk IID 47.2
A6M2 47.7
Hurricane Mk I 53.2
P-40B 61.0
-
Just to clarify a few things:
I will offer some quotes from this thread (http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=777&hl=) on Butch's AAW2 forum (requires registration to view).
The weight of both MgFF and ammo was only 135kg or about 3% of the 190's total weight? How much effect could removing the outer guns have on performance?
Were our guns frequently removed on later 190A versions (A8/A9)?
Thanks,
Faustnik
Butch replied (referring to the earlier (A-2 - A-5s):
I think they were removed because they were quite ineficient. Indeed the ballistics between the inner guns and outer guns were very different and with 60/90 ammo, they did not delive the bang for the buck. Better to get a few more km/h or a few ° in roll rate than firing shells in thin air.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Mister Fork's last Acceleration Results posted in this thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=134923) on 11-03-2004.
New planes have been added since then so keep that in mind as well:
Markedly flawed test method... Acceleration can only be accurately measured from a stable constant. He was backing off power, slowing well below 150 mph and then applying max power. He then attempts to begin timing as speeds go up in large bites. Better to begin at a constant speed, start the watch while applying max power.
In addition, to get a more accurate measurement of acceleration over the entire speed envelope, you need to begin somewhere well above stall speed with the nominal speed being closer to the middle of the speed envelope. I also prefer 200 mph as the baseline as this is far more representative of combat speeds.
Likewise, not many fighters will be flown at 150 mph, or 140 mph where he begins acceleration. When was the last time you were flying an A-5 at 140 mph in a fight?
Here's an example of my point. A Nissan Pathfinder can accelerate from 5 to 30 mph as fast a Chrysler 300 Hemi. However, the 300 beats it to 60 mph by 3 seconds. If you did not test beyond 30 mph you may falsely conclude that the Pathfinder accelerates as fast as the Hemi Chrysler.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I didn't offer Fork's conclusions as evidence of anything other then to rebut the claim made by Krusty.
IMHO Fork's tests are completely pointless in trying to establish the real advantages of acceleration between aircraft because like you said the speed range of his tests are unrealalistically slow. Second due to the the fuel load out. Finally he limited his tests to just 1000ft. We all know that climb/acceleration vary with altitude.
I don't know any one who flies Ami with 100% fuel...
However, these are 'tests' and as a reference to what Krusty claims in regards to the 190s acceleration even at the low speed range used in Fork's test they don't jive with his claim.
Testing acceleration between speed ranges of 250 - 350 mph is much more 'realilistic'. As shown in your own tests even at its best of around 42 seconds the A-5 isn't that remarkable. However, that 42 seconds without the MGFF is still better then 44 with them.
I don't know what altitude you did your tests at but the results are even worse for the A series at or around 3000m when the supercharger changes gears. Above that the A-5 compares some what better to planes like the La-5FN and Spit V. However, there are many planes in the hangar that will easily beat it.
The question really is which do you prefer? A marginal increase in acceleration, roll and better climb or at best a marginal increase in lethality.
In my opinion the MGFF are useless in AH unless you ae inside 240 tards. I haven't checked the stats to see what the 'average' hit percentage is at in AH2 (in AH1 it was around 15%) but cearly all 120 rounds will not land on target. Even if your hit percentage is a decent 15% it takes aout 10 rounds to cause any considerable damage beyond 240 yards (absent the magic bullet). Add to that the different ballistics and I fail to see how the MGFF makes the A-5 more 'lethal'or increases hit probability.
From my own past experiences 2 x MG151 at 500 rounds are plenty lethal...
-
The easiest way to test the relative acceleration of any plane at any speed, select the desired speed, engange auto speed A/P and once the speed is constant take note of the climb rate.
Best way to do that is to choose an alt, accelerate close to the desired speed and then proceed with the auto-speed test.
-
I don't need rebutting. Nor have I proclaimed the world flat, to be disproven. I have given my opinion on the matter. A lot of planes don't have a noticable "kick" when going to full throttle. The 190A does have a "kick". And whatever speed you're at you can very easily gain a lot more with a shallow dive (similar to a P47).
One need not get hostile when other opinions don't match theirs. Many people notice a marked difference with outboard guns, no matter how many claim the ballistics are different and that they won't hit -- they do and people that go back and forth between 4x20mm and 2x20mm know what I mean.
I do the same with 30mm on the A8. THEIR trajectory is WORSE than the MG/FF, and yet I know for a FACT I can get at least 3-4 kills off of the A8s 30mm before they run out (How do I know? Instant boom, single ping and a wing disintegrates, single ping and the tail is floating to the ground).
It's an opinion. But it's a widely held one, and one that can be backed up by those that know what I'm talking about.
Don't go overboard trying to devise a 30-page thesis paper on why Krusty is wrong. There's no need.
-
One need not get hostile when other opinions don't match theirs.
First off no one is hostile.
190s have one of the fastest acceleration rates in the game. even with heavier internal weight, you can still just nose down and pick up 50mph instantly. Or hit WEP and not have to wait at all.
That's a statement not an 'opinion' which can easily be proven or disproven. In this case both Widewing and Fork's test show it to be inconsistent with their results. Its completely inconsistent with my own experience as well.
An opinion would be 'root beer is good"...
many people notice a marked difference with outboard guns, no matter how many claim the ballistics are different and that they won't hit -- they do and people that go back and forth between 4x20mm and 2x20mm know what I mean.
Who?
If you fire all your guns at once how do you know you hit with the MGFF? or how many hit?
Back when I was involved in scenarios we tested lethality many times. The Type 99 MK 1 on the A6M2 were the worst of the 2cm. The MGFF were only marginally 'better'.
I do the same with 30mm on the A8. THEIR trajectory is WORSE than the MG/FF, and yet I know for a FACT I can get at least 3-4 kills off of the A8s 30mm before they run out (How do I know? Instant boom, single ping and a wing disintegrates, single ping and the tail is floating to the ground).
Comparing the Mk 108 3cm to MGFF/2cm is pointless and completely irrelevant.
When we speak of worse ballistics were are not just referring to trajectory. Many test by various players have been done. All are consistent in showing that the MGFF are the very weak.
It's an opinion. But it's a widely held one, and one that can be backed up by those that know what I'm talking about.
The claims that you have made in this thread aren't consistent with some one 'who knows what he's talking about'.
Ram is different story. His experience in the A series in AH is well known going back to to pre- 1.04. I am not sure how much experience he has in AH2 but that doesn't really matter for this discussion.
If you claim things like 'an instant gain of 50mph' or that there is a 'marked increase in lethality' by taking the MGFF then those things, if true, ought to be 'provable'.
Mandoble (Mando) has more time in the 190 series then all of us put together in this thread. How about you ask him about that 'instant 50 mph increase in speed'? Or if lethality of the A-5 shows a ' marked difference with outboard guns'.
I am not rebutting your opinion, but your claims. There is a difference. As Widewing said:
Hey, fly whatever you like, but you ARE reducing your performance by adding weight.
YMMV