Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: 1K3 on December 06, 2005, 03:21:54 AM
-
will 190s ever be fixed? :)
The issues (based on what i see/heard)
* the A-5 is 300lbs underweight. 190A-5 is the heaviest of all 190s in power/weight ratio.
* the A-5 is too fast at med-hi alt. faster than A-8?!
* the A-5 is too slow on low alt
* the A-5 climbs steeply, 190s climb is shallow and fast.
* they generally turn worse, the aileron is the culprit
* 190s accelerate slow. 190s accelerate well in slow/medium speeds. Its a sprinter
PS: I would also love to see the 190A-4, 190A-6, and a late 1944 190A-8:)
(runs and hides)
imo this is borderline whining ; )
-
I'll check in after the 300th post. :D
-
A8 carries the weight of the auxilliary tank even after the fuel is consumed. the A8 should also outperform the A5 by a wide margin.
-
Originally posted by storch
A8 carries the weight of the auxilliary tank even after the fuel is consumed
REALLY ?!? :huh
-
Originally posted by gatt
REALLY ?!? :huh
yes, really. so when u fly the A8 it is better (IMO) to burn the rear tank, forward tank, then use aux to rtb because you will pay the weight penalty for it even if it is all consumed.
-
Originally posted by storch
A8 carries the weight of the auxilliary tank even after the fuel is consumed.
How can you prove this is so in AH?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
How can you prove this is so in AH?
if you feel like digging through back posts Pyro confirmed it a while back. IIRC the problem could not be easily remedied without re-doing the 190 FM or something like that.
-
Storch, out of curiosity, how big is the aux compared to the other internal tanks?
I had decided to make a TOD with the 190A-8 but , hey ..... I'm ready to come back to the K-4 ;)
-
Originally posted by gatt
Storch, out of curiosity, how big is the aux compared to the other internal tanks?
I had decided to make a TOD with the 190A-8 but , hey ..... I'm ready to come back to the K-4 ;)
Crumpp could probably tell you, I'm not sure. but it is smaller than the wing tanks maybe around 115L.
-
I think I did a test and it's about 30 gallons.
However, if you take 75% and/or a DT you get 100% front, 75% aft tanks full (almost the same fuel in a A5) and if you don't mind losing 5-8mph for the ETC rack the DT is the way to go.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I think I did a test and it's about 30 gallons.
However, if you take 75% and/or a DT you get 100% front, 75% aft tanks full (almost the same fuel in a A5) and if you don't mind losing 5-8mph for the ETC rack the DT is the way to go.
But in that setup you still have the weight of the AUX tank added to your aircraft.
-
Neg, because it was never filled... or am I missing something...
I thought that the aux tank was filled if you took 100%, and simply "didn't drain". If it's never filled, it never has to drain, is what I thought, if that's wrong please clarify, I hadn't heard of this bug until recently.
-
If fixing it requires something so fundamental as a rebuild of the Fw190A-8's flight model I would guess that the weight is simply included in the Fw190A-8 no matter what you do. From a programming standpoint that is what makes sense to me.
-
Well that sucks even more than I thought it did!
-
Krusty,
yes, if you take 75% you have only the aft and fwd internal tanks available (I checked with the "shift-f" thing). If you take 100% you have also the aux tank filled and active. At least offline. Weird thing btw.
-
Originally posted by 1K3
will 190s ever be fixed? :)
* 190s accelerate slow. 190s accelerate well in slow/medium speeds. Its a sprinter
We have absolutely no idea how the FM is designed in AH, how HP and Engine Torque curves are implemented and ~ cannot comment on what Pyro/HiTech have done. (http://forums.maxima.org/images/smilies/nono.gif)
I do know that FW190's were fast accelerators in real life compared their opposing allied aircraft but in AH, they're a bit pokey getting up to speed. Other sims have somehow captured this aspect but then again, see my first comment.
(http://forums.maxima.org/images/smilies/scratchhead.gif)
-
A8 carries the weight of the auxilliary tank even after the fuel is consumed. the A8 should also outperform the A5 by a wide margin.
Storch: Some where the is a missunderstanding.
Some A8's had AUX some didn't. We have no way of modling this as an option so all A8's in AH have an AUX tank. The weight that is always there is the weight of the tank, not the weight of the fuel. It is consumed , and the plane weighs less with it's consumption.
And I sorta curious where this rumor started?
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
Some A8's had AUX some didn't. We have no way of modling this as an option so all A8's in AH have an AUX tank.
In the hanger offer it as an internal load out choice like a non jetisonable drop tank.
It would increase the internal load out choice by the number of cannon/gun packages you want to offer it with.
100% fuel is then a function of non optional tanks and the aux and drop tank are a function of 125% fuel availability.
You model the extra tank shell weight when its chosen much as you may model the extra drag from bomb pylons.
EDIT......
changing the "centre point" list to "centre point/aux" you can add the additional three options with aux tank to have 7 options down that side. I note you have 7 down that side on one of the P47's
-
That doesn't work too well, unless you have its own ord point just for that tank.
Say you put it in internal ord... well you already have 3 gun options, now you'd have to have 6 (1 for every gun option WITH tank, 1 for every gun option WITHOUT tank).
That screws things up here and down the road.
Before everybody gets their panties in a bunch, we need to ask this:
"What is the weight of the empty tank shell?"
If its a measely 50 pounds or some such it's not worth whining about.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
That doesn't work too well, unless you have its own ord point just for that tank.
"What is the weight of the empty tank shell?"
If its a measely 50 pounds or some such it's not worth whining about.
Yes as per my edit its neater if you double up the centre loadings............
as per the 50LBs is it worth it ............I dont know .......................I was just responding to HT's dilema of not being able to offer it as an option given that folk above seemed to think other wise. (although some seemed to have been confused re tank and fuel weights)
-
Originally posted by Tilt
I was just responding to HT's dilema of not being able to offer it as an option given that folk above seemed to think other wise. (although some seemed to have been confused re tank and fuel weights)
I think that's the issue right there :)
-
Originally posted by hitech
Storch: Some where the is a missunderstanding.
Some A8's had AUX some didn't. We have no way of modling this as an option so all A8's in AH have an AUX tank. The weight that is always there is the weight of the tank, not the weight of the fuel. It is consumed , and the plane weighs less with it's consumption.
And I sorta curious where this rumor started?
HiTech
it may be a misunderstanding on my part. IIRC Pyro commented on it a while back. maybe he said what you just said and my comprehension is as bad as your spelling used to be. :D if it's a rumor then the guy that started it is I.
-
*Smacks Storch about the head and neck with a trout*
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Before everybody gets their panties in a bunch, we need to ask this:
"What is the weight of the empty tank shell?"
If its a measely 50 pounds or some such it's not worth whining about.
With the additional fuselage fuel tank, 115 ltr (25,3 gal), installed the aircraft weight is increased by about 265 lbs
From 190A-8 Handbook, Part 0, General, Effective July 1944.
Someone do the math! ;)
-
"With the additional fuselage fuel tank, 115 ltr (25,3 gal), installed the aircraft weight is increased by about 265 lbs"
Wasn't the AUX tank changed to a simpler aluminium one later on? At first it was rubber sealed etc.?
-C+
-
I have only evidence of self sealing tank on older versions and then non self sealing (with drain **** and supercharger air pressure fuel jettison).
Btw, there was no monitoring of aux tank contents; the tank was empty when the rear tank fuel level fell below 240ltr.
-
Originally posted by gatt
I Btw, there was no monitoring of aux tank contents; the tank was empty when the rear tank fuel level fell below 240ltr.
And there was no way to select it:
Fw190A8 fuel selector handle (http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/fw190cockpit/fuelselector.html)
-
Originally posted by gatt
From 190A-8 Handbook, Part 0, General, Effective July 1944.
Someone do the math! ;)
if the SG of the fuel is 0.7 then the tank weighed approx 40 kg (88lbs)
-
RLM specifications for B4 and C3 gasolines (http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/tech_rpt_145_45/rpt_145_45_sec2.htm#Composition%20and%20Specifications)
For 190A8 we may use a 780g/l density C3. 115l, 90 Kg (196lb) of fuel, the rest is the weight of the tank itself: 69lb / 32Kg.
-
Thank you mando.
Like I said, hardly worth whining about :)
That's far less than the outboard guns add!
However the 190A8 is still one of the worst planes in the game >:D
-
BTW, 196lbs of fuel is correct, but I assume the total weight post by Gatt: 265lbs. IMO, 69lbs seem quite heavy for that small tank.
-
Well, looking at the manual you can see a lot of stuff togheter, around and connected with the aux tank. This could probably justify that weight. Just guessing.
-
The problem is not the weight of the Zusatzkraftstoffbehälter im rumpf.
The problem is the handling of aircraft with the tank mounted.
The Zusatzkraftstoffbehälter im rumpf moved the CG to far rearward. This caused the aircraft to become dangerously unstable and raised the stall speed.
To help correct this the ETC 501 was moved forward on the FW-190A8. You cannot fly an FW-190A8 with the Zusatzkraftstoffbehälter im rumpf WITHOUT mounting the ETC 501 rack.
Now the preferred set up for long range fighter operations was the ETC 501 with Zusatzkraftstoffbehälter (300L Drop tank). After the Zusatzkraftstoffbehälter was released the CG would be forward lowering the stall speed. As the FW-190 was pretty unstable to begin with this was not a bad thing.
The Zusatzkraftstoffbehälter im rumpf was not popular with the fighter pilots due to the adverse handling characteristics of the aircraft and the extra weight on take off.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Well, looking at the manual you can see a lot of stuff togheter, around and connected with the aux tank. This could probably justify that weight. Just guessing.
You have the brackets to mount the tank. The tank itself weighs about 40kg's empty.
All the best,
Crumpp