Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: gatt on February 07, 2006, 02:41:04 AM
-
Has any1 tested the acceleration of the thing at various altitudes? It looks *so* slow to get his maximum speed, even with WEP on and obviously without any ext ord. and rack :huh
-
Me thinks not only as Crumpp has said that our 190s are modeled off Allied test data, but our A-8 ,I think, is the R-8 kit that was made for bomber destruction not the general lower weight sample. That's why our A-8 accelerates like and old woman with a walker in the mohave desert at 110 degrees fahrenheit heat, while having turberculosis.
-
Originally posted by Glasses
Me thinks not only as Crumpp has said that our 190s are modeled off Allied test data, but our A-8 ,I think, is the R-8 kit that was made for bomber destruction not the general lower weight sample. That's why our A-8 accelerates like and old woman with a walker in the mohave desert at 110 degrees fahrenheit heat, while having turberculosis.
lol no
190A-8 is right, 190A-5 is modeled on allied data
-
There's some question whether the A-8 is right or not.
The A-5 we have is from allied testing of a 190G that was ballasted with weight where the 7mms normally are on A-5s. However the 190G and the 190A5 are very different beasts, and supposedly had very different climb angles.
-
There's some question whether the A-8 is right or not.
The FW-190A8 is modeled off of TD 284.
That report does not match the data reported to the RLM on 10 Nov 1944 for a clean configuration FW-190A8. The "clean configuration" graphs in TD 284 match the "with ETC" performance reported on 10 Nov 1944. Both reports reference earlier flight test data which I have a copy.
The "clean configuration" graph in TD 284 both references and matches the "with ETC 501" data in the flight test.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The FW-190A8 is modeled off of TD 284.
That report does not match the data reported to the RLM on 10 Nov 1944 for a clean configuration FW-190A8. The "clean configuration" graphs in TD 284 match the "with ETC" performance reported on 10 Nov 1944. Both reports reference earlier flight test data which I have a copy.
The "clean configuration" graph in TD 284 both references and matches the "with ETC 501" data in the flight test.
Uhhh ... so does this mean that the numbers on the AH2 190A-8 are "right" or not?
And if the numbers are correct, why is the acceleration different than the first hand accounts?
-
He is saying the AH numbers for a completely clean A-8 are actually the numbers of one tested WITH the ETC rack. If the difference is similar to the drag the ETC rack adds to the D-9 (in AH, not real life) this would add somewhere along the lines of 8-9 MPH to the speed of the A-8. Add to that the fact that our A-8 is overweight and you see why it handles like a refrigerator full of bowling balls.
-
i saw a thread here back then that all 190A-8s were required to carry those ETC racks to shift the plane's CG to front. without them the a8's CG is dangerously too far back
-
Originally posted by Grits
Add to that the fact that our A-8 is overweight and you see why it handles like a refrigerator full of bowling balls.
The normal loaded weight on the HTC plane page = 9682lbs(4393kg), TD 284 weight charts give loaded weight = 4391kg to 4400kg.
Originally posted by Crumpp
The FW-190A8 is modeled off of TD 284.
That report does not match the data reported to the RLM on 10 Nov 1944 for a clean configuration FW-190A8. The "clean configuration" graphs in TD 284 match the "with ETC" performance reported on 10 Nov 1944. Both reports reference earlier flight test data which I have a copy.
The "clean configuration" graph in TD 284 both references and matches the "with ETC 501" data in the flight test.
Ah! I was wondering how the A-8 could possibly be ~20km/h slower than the earlier models at the same power settings. The ETC issue explains most of the difference, I guess the rest is due to the larger upper cowling bulges and a tiny bit from weight increase.:)
-
Simple fix; just make the ETC visible. The AH A-8 has the extra tank so it must have the rack too and the military speed of the AH A-8 matches well with A-8 flight tested data at start/kampfleistung (1,42ata@2700rpm) with rack.
gripen
-
Simple fix; just make the ETC visible.
The tank was not always mounted. So that is a simply fix allied players would like to see but is not representative of the aircraft.
Because of the rearward shift in CG it is more common to see just the rack mounted and the 300 liter tank used than the Zusatzkraftstoffbehälter im rumpf.
-
"I guess the rest is due to the larger upper cowling bulges and a tiny bit from weight increase."
But wasn't it stated elsewhere that eg. the wing mounted cannons (outer) did not affect the performance of FW (A4)? so it was no use to leave them out?
Two MGFFs and their ammo weight probably quite much more than single ETC rack?
-C+
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The tank was not always mounted. So that is a simply fix allied players would like to see but is not representative of the aircraft.
Hm... there is plenty of pictures of operational A-8s with racks but only few without. Apparently the extra fuel was very often needed.
gripen
-
Originally posted by Charge
"I guess the rest is due to the larger upper cowling bulges and a tiny bit from weight increase."
But wasn't it stated elsewhere that eg. the wing mounted cannons (outer) did not affect the performance of FW (A4)? so it was no use to leave them out?
Two MGFFs and their ammo weight probably quite much more than single ETC rack?
Allow me to clarify my statement.
Fw 190A-8 is listed as 20km/h slower than A-5 at same power. Crumpp pointed out that the commonly seen charts from TD 284(the english translated one on the web) are with the ETC rack equipped. The ETC rack reduces top speed by 16 km/h(weighs 61kg btw).
I suggested that the other 4 km/h was due to a combo of: the larger upper cowling bulges covering the MG 131's and(a tiny bit) from the weight increase over the A-5, which is in the region of 200-300kg(2x MGFF + ammo = 135kg btw).
-
Guys,
I am puzzled by the (apparently) ridicuolus acceleration of our 190A-8. Try a clean A-8 with 75% fuel, climb to 20K (at default climb speed), then hit autolevel and WEP, and measure the time it takes to get to 375mph. Rack or not, it seems weird.
-
Apparently the extra fuel was very often needed.
No the rack was needed for the 300 liter drop tank.
The Zusatzkraftstoffbehälter im rumpf moved the CG the beyond it's normal rearward limits. This is why the oil cooler armour was increased in the FW-190A9 to ballast the nose and restore the CG limits.
(http://img147.potato.com/loc277/th_7cd17_weight_title.jpg) (http://img147.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc277&image=7cd17_weight_title.jpg)
(http://img21.potato.com/loc85/th_0ef44_CG_shift.jpg) (http://img21.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc85&image=0ef44_CG_shift.jpg)
(http://img18.potato.com/loc2/th_3ae66_ETCrackremoved.jpg) (http://img18.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc2&image=3ae66_ETCrackremoved.jpg)
(http://img30.potato.com/loc118/th_24f10_ETCrackdown.jpg) (http://img30.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc118&image=24f10_ETCrackdown.jpg)
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Krusty
The A-5 we have is from allied testing of a 190G that was ballasted with weight
Originally posted by Crumpp
The FW-190A8 is modeled off of TD 284.
Originally posted by Grits
Add to that the fact that our A-8 is overweight
Several unsubstantiated claims. AFAIK, HTC have not revealed exactly what data it has used for modeling any of its planes (And I doubt it will).
To claim something is overweight you must know:
a) How much it does weight in the model (help file weight may or may not be right).
b) How much it should weight.
So Grits, show some numbers.
Fw190A-8 in AH2 is modeled as "clean", effect of the rack is 6mph at SL (352/346mph). I know, I tested, so perhaps this is the only fact of AH 190A8 performance in this thread so far.;)
-
TimRas it's been mentioned in several 190 threads over the past -- oh, say, years (not been keeping track, myself) -- that the 190A5 we have is modeled from a 190G that was ballasted to represent an A-5. You see, G's don't have cowling guns, so they put the weight of the guns back into the cowling (ballasted), but didn't know any better, because the 190G and the 190A-5 fly fairly different, due to several factors.
So basically our "A-5" doesn't fly much like a real A-5, from what I understand.
Hell, I personally think the 190s need a LOT of work, but I don't expect it any time soon. They redid the entire 3D modelling and still can't fix the flight model problems, so I suspect it'll be another 5 years before any more changes are made. That doesn't stop me from hoping, though.
-
#1 & #2 are fact.
A-5 performance is a match for USN G-3 trial in climb & speed.
Community members provided A-8 docs to HTC(gatt & vermillion were involved, iirc) some of which are available here (http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.htm).
-
I am puzzled by the (apparently) ridicuolus acceleration of our 190A-8. Try a clean A-8 with 75% fuel, climb to 20K (at default climb speed), then hit autolevel and WEP, and measure the time it takes to get to 375mph. Rack or not, it seems weird.
They have way too much drag I suspect. Since HTC is modeling them off skewed data the numbers do not match.
Using flight tested data we can get a CD(tot) of .21 for the FW-190A5 and .22 for the FW-190A8 in clean configuration.
Which should be pretty close as the germans were the only ones in WWII AFAIK to windtunnel test motor installations.
I am sure someone will come join the thread and point that out as an error. But according to the Royal Air Force Ministry of Aircraft productions fact finding mission
(http://img43.potato.com/loc197/th_89a4c_flight_geng5.JPG) (http://img43.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc197&image=89a4c_flight_geng5.JPG)
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by TimRas
b) How much it should weight.
So Grits, show some numbers.
I dont have them anymore, but Crumpp sent me some documents that showed the A-3, A-5, and A-8's weights in empty/standard combat/max weights. The weight listed on HTC's sight for the A-8 (if that is what its modeled at) was significantly higher than that document showed. Sorry I dont remember the exact numbers, but if you must know them, Crumpp can show them if he wishes. Bottom line is I was satisfied the A-8 is very overweight if its modeled at the HTC listed weight.
Fw190A-8 in AH2 is modeled as "clean", effect of the rack is 6mph at SL (352/346mph). I know, I tested, so perhaps this is the only fact of AH 190A8 performance in this thread so far.;) [/B]
The A-8 is double penalised because it is not modeled clean, its modeled on a plane that had the ETC rack but listed as "clean". So, add the DT/ETC rack and you have a plane modeled in its "clean" form with the ETC and added another ETC racks worth of drag.
-
The A-8 was slower than a A-5 by 12km/h at same power settings. This according to a fw190 report. Reasons:
- Mg131 Bulges larger
- no polished finishing but smooth painting (not as good)
It´s still listed with 555km/h or so.
niklas
-
THX Crumpp fo rthe first attempt to reply about the possibility of very low acceleration of AH2's 190A-8.
-
which is in the region of 200-300kg
It's 166Kg's difference between an FW-190A8 fighter variant and an FW-190A5 fighter variant with a 22.7% power increase in the A8's favour.
As a ballpark figure for top speed, according too Francis H. Dean, each 1000lbs gives about 2 mph speed reduction.
If you calculate the FW-190A8's CD(tot) using TD284 data it comes out to .0259.
That is a 15% increase in drag. Hitech was calling a 25% increase in drag of the FW-190A5 over the new type prototype FW190V5g as being "Fishy".
- Mg131 Bulges larger
Larger intakes on the FW-190A8 when fitted with an Erhöhte Notleistung für Jäger system.
- no polished finishing but smooth painting (not as good)
That is a mistranslation. It happens when dealing with German and I have seen native speakers argue over the meanings of the some of the idiomatic or specific jargon.
In the original German, it is a normal finish for a Luftwaffe aircraft.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
THX Crumpp fo rthe first attempt to reply about the possibility of very low acceleration of AH2's 190A-8.
Np,
It is just about impossible to have a discussion on these boards anymore about the history or development of a particular aircraft without somebody turning it into a totally silly plane comparision thread.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
It's 166Kg's difference between an FW-190A8 fighter variant and an FW-190A5 fighter variant with a 22.7% power increase in the A8's favour.
So, on HTC's page for the A-5 they list it at 8586lbs (3893kg's). If the FIGHTER variant of the A-8 is only 366lbs (166 kg) heavier than the A-5 it should weigh 8949lbs (4059kg) but it doesnt, it is listed as 9682lbs (4391kg). Thats 733lbs (332kg) more than the difference between the fighter versions of the A-5 and A-8 should be. The actual difference in the A-5 and A-8 in AH (if the HTC pages are actually the modeled weights) is not 366lbs (166kg) like its supposed to be its actually 1096lbs (497kg)!! Where did the extra 733 pounds come from?
Originally posted by justin_g
The normal loaded weight on the HTC plane page = 9682lbs(4393kg), TD 284 weight charts give loaded weight = 4391kg to 4400kg.
What is "normal" weight? That chart for TD 284 is already known to list the speeds of the plane as "clean" when it in fact had the ETC rack on it, is it not logical to assume that they also have the weight wrong? What is the weight of an ETC rack? I doubt that rack can account for the 733lbs extra weight, so something else is wrong.
-
So, on HTC's page for the A-5 they list it at 8586lbs (3893kg's)
They get that from EB-104's test. The USAAF tested at their combat weight which IIRC is 60 percent fuel. It's a common practice as no aircraft actually fights at it's take off weight.
The United States Forces will commonly use empty service weight to compare realitive weight creep. Using that yardstick, the FW-190A8 gains 54Kg over the FW-190A5. The rest of the "weight gain" is consumables.
If you compare Rechlin flight-tested at 3850kg combat weight you will find that EB-104 is 2.5% pessimistic at low altitude and less than 1 % pessimistic at 2nd gear supercharger FTH. It gives good agreement within 3%, it is just about as close to the 3% edge as you can get below FTH.
It's the 10mph at lower levels that hurts.
As the aircraft gets heavier of course it gets even faster at lower altitudes but losses on the FTH.
What is "normal" weight?
Here is the weights and CG limits for some of the FW190 series.
FW-190A2 and FW-190A3 Weights:
Leergewicht - 2900Kg
Rüstgewicht - 3141Kg
Fluggewicht - 3855 kg ohne MGFF
- 3978kg mit MGFF (Fabers FW-190A3 set up)
Schwerpunktslagen x is .55m bis .75m hinter Vorderkante wurzelprofil.
FW-190A4
Leergewich - 2900Kg
Rüstgewicht - 3148Kg
Fluggewicht - 3862Kg ohne MGFF
- 3985Kg mit MGFF
Schwerpunktslagen x is .55m bis .75m hinter Vorderkante wurzelprofil.
FW-190A5
Leergewich - 2960
Rüstgewicht - 3312Kg
Fluggewicht - 4088Kg Focke Wulf flight testing determines there is no difference in aircraft performance with or without wing armament. All fighters now produced with full wing armament.
Schwerpunktslagen x is .50m bis .73m hinter vorderkante wurzelprofile.
FW-190A6
Leergewicht - 3000Kg
R�stgewicht - 3365Kg
Fluggewicht - 4189Kg
Schwerpunktslagen x is .52m bis .73m hinter vorderkante wurzelprofile.
FW-190A8
Leergewicht - 3050Kg
R�stgewicht - 3438kg
R�stgewicht - 4272Kg
mit Zusatzkraftstoffbeh�lter im rumpf - 4392Kg
Schwerpunktslagen x is .48m bis .69m hinter vorderkante wurzelprofile.
Mit Zusatzkraftstoffbehälter im rumpf schwerpunktslagen ist .74m hinter vorderkante wurzelprofile.
leitwolf says:
"Leergewicht" => empty weight
"Rüstgewicht" => fully armed and equipped plane without ammo/fuel/pilot (unsure on what constitutes a "Rüst"weight tho)
Fluggewicht => T/O weight
"Schwerpunktslage .55m bis .75m hinter Vorderkante Wurzelprofil." => center of gravity 0.55m-0.75 behind the leading edge of the wing measured at wingroot
"mit Zusatzkraftstoffbeh�lter im rumpf" => when using internal aux fuel tank (probably referring to the [optional] internal fuel tank on A-8's [for C3 injection or increased range])
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
the FW-190A8 gains 54Kg over the FW-190A5. The rest of the "weight gain" is consumables.
So where do you think they get the extra 1096lbs? Thats a heck of a lot, but I suppose it could all be fuel?
-
The 190a8 was supposedly the best of the pre-Dora 190s. It was the most agile, the best performing, and the most fearsome when fighting allied planes. However in AH it is a flop. Funny how AH is alone in its modeling of the A8, vs all the other games that have ever existed.
I think weight is a part of it, yes. However I think the instability is a larger part of it.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
It's 166Kg's difference between an FW-190A8 fighter variant and an FW-190A5 fighter variant with a 22.7% power increase in the A8's favour.
I'm gonna have to call you on that one...
From your own numbers:
FW-190A5
Fluggewicht - 4088Kg
FW-190A8
Fluggewicht - 4272Kg
with 115lt tank - 4392Kg
Dunno where you got 166kg from
4272kg - 4088kg = 184kg
4392kg - 4088kg = 304kg
Hmm, 184-304kg difference - sounds alot like what I said in the first place...
-
Your comparing take off weight to take off weight.
Remember the parameters are:
The United States Forces will commonly use empty service weight to compare realitive weight creep. Using that yardstick, the FW-190A8 gains 54Kg over the FW-190A5. The rest of the "weight gain" is consumables.
Rüstgewicht
Is equal to empty service weight.
FW-190A5
Fluggewicht - 4088Kg
FW-190A8
Fluggewicht - 4272Kg
with 115lt tank - 4392Kg
Dunno where you got 166kg from
4272kg - 4088kg = 184kg
4392kg - 4088kg = 304kg
I think I switched the FW-190A5 with FW-190A5 with ETC 501 weights. It is a 126 KG difference however.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
One question. What was the power of the engine on A8?
-
Comparing empty equipped weights isn't going to be very reliable when you try to relate that to the performance of the aircraft at flying weights... which was the issue in question I believe.
Saying there should only be 126kg difference between A-5 and A-8 could be confusing when people are looking at the HTC figures which are for an underweight G-3(A-5) and a fully loaded A-8. FOR EXAMPLE:
So, on HTC's page for the A-5 they list it at 8586lbs (3893kg's). If the FIGHTER variant of the A-8 is only 366lbs (166 kg) heavier than the A-5 it should weigh 8949lbs (4059kg) but it doesnt, it is listed as 9682lbs (4391kg). Thats 733lbs (332kg) more than the difference between the fighter versions of the A-5 and A-8 should be. The actual difference in the A-5 and A-8 in AH (if the HTC pages are actually the modeled weights) is not 366lbs (166kg) like its supposed to be its actually 1096lbs (497kg)!! Where did the extra 733 pounds come from?
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
That is a mistranslation. It happens when dealing with German and I have seen native speakers argue over the meanings of the some of the idiomatic or specific jargon.
In the original German, it is a normal finish for a Luftwaffe aircraft.
Crumpp
Na gut dann auf Deutsch:
Zitat:
A5:
Oberfläche: Gespachtelt u. poliert
A6:
"Oberfläche: Gespachtelt + Glattanstrich (nicht poliert!) "
"Ab A6 soll aus Fertigungsgründen auf polierte Oberfläche verzichtet werden"
A8:
"Oberfläche: Gespachtelt + Glattanstrich (nicht poliert!) "
Obviously they thought the A8 could be polished by the mechanics :). This means if it was well prepared it could be at least as fast as a A5 with same power.
Gruss
niklas
-
Comparing empty equipped weights isn't going to be very reliable when you try to relate that to the performance of the aircraft at flying weights... which was the issue in question I believe.
Sure, I was not trying to initiate a weight comparision thread. I was only pointing out that different countries have differenct standards for comparison. Many of the US designs are compared at empty weight and many of their performance graphs are adjusted to combat weight.
Focke Wulf generally used take off weight and adjusted all performance curves to reflect this weight. It's a conservative method and ensures you will not recieve as many performance complaints from the end users.
One question. What was the power of the engine on A8?
2100PS or 2050hp at 1st gear supercharger FTH using 1.58ata@2700U/min. The FW-190A8 also had a more efficient propellers in service.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Many of the US designs are compared at empty weight and many of their performance graphs are adjusted to combat weight.
Where have you seen this?
Actually the British test are backwards, they take off at gross weight and then list the perofrmance at 95% of the gross. So whatever the performance says it was actually 5% heavier during the test.
Also the FW190's are not the only A/C modeled with drop tank racks and bomb pylons attached. There are a few allied ones that have them in all flight conditions regardless of loadout.
-
Where have you seen this?
In several reports F4UDOA. Grumman especially.
You can start another thread if you would to discuss it. Please leave this one on subject.
gross weight and then list the perofrmance at 95% of the gross.
Sounds like they are trying to match performance right at take off then.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Hi F4UDOA,
>Actually the British test are backwards, they take off at gross weight and then list the perofrmance at 95% of the gross. So whatever the performance says it was actually 5% heavier during the test.
Hm, the truth is that the weight at take-off might have been 100%, but it decreased during the test flight due to the fuel being burnt. Accordingly, most of the tests were made at a lighter weight than 95% of the take-off weight.
However, that's not a problem since by recording fuel states and engine run times for each of the test stages and then applying some math to the test results, it's possible to calculate the data that would have resulted from flying at a fixed reference weight. (Which of course, is physically impossible :-)
Choosing 100% take-off weight as reference is just as valid as choosing 95%, it's just a factor to stay aware of when comparing different tests.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Choosing 100% take-off weight as reference is just as valid as choosing 95%, it's just a factor to stay aware of when comparing different tests.
Indeed, just as we must do the same for testing planes in the game. However, we have the advantage of being able to set the fuel burn to zero.
Here's some acceleration data for the AH2 Fw 190A-8, A-5 and some contemporaries.
Measuring acceleration from 200 mph TAS to 300 mph TAS at sea level. Time recorded in seconds. Fuel loads adjusted for similar range.
190A-8 100% internal fuel, four MG 151 package....
With external fuel tank: 52.06 seconds
With rack only: 44.53 seconds
Clean airframe: 42.63 seconds
190A-5 100% internal fuel, two MG 151, 2 FF cannon
With external fuel tank: 56.78 seconds
with rack only: 47.97 seconds
Clean airframe: 44.82 seconds
P-38J 75% internal fuel
With two external tanks: 53.02 seconds
With pylons only: 41.26 seconds
Spitfire Mk.VIII, 100% internal fuel
With slipper tank: 41.38 seconds
Clean airframe: 38.15 seconds
F4U-1, 100% internal fuel
With external tank: 56.12 seconds
Clean airframe: 45.69 seconds
As you can see, the bomb/tank rack has a significant effect not only on speed, but upon acceleration as well. Since we do not have American aircraft without integral underwing pylons/shackles, we cannot determine their effect on performance.
Note that 190A-8 accelerates faster than the 190A-5 when configured in a similar fashion.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Crummp,
No need to start another thread, just responding to the generalization.
If you look at AAF and compare the graphs to manufactures data you see a difference in some and not in others. This tells me that the AAF is being honest about their testing and reporting.
At the end of the day I trust the guys in uniform because it is there butts on the line.
-
If you look at Rechlin data for the Focke Wulf, you will find Focke Wulf is generally conservative.
-
Note that 190A-8 accelerates faster than the 190A-5 when configured in a similar fashion.
I don't think that is the point Widewing. The point is the data is wrong for the type.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
As you can see, the bomb/tank rack has a significant effect not only on speed, but upon acceleration as well. Since we do not have American aircraft without integral underwing pylons/shackles, we cannot determine their effect on performance.
There seem to have been a lot discussion on various boards on the A-8 and the rack. Most of the photos show the A-8 with rack, so far I've seen (from those discussions including those pictures Crumpp posted) 6 pictures of supposed A-8 without rack (not sure in every case because A-7 is quite similar without rack and quality of the photos vary) so it appears that a A-8 without a rack was a quite rarity.
In the case of the American fighters there appear to be lot of pictures of P-51Bs without racks, specially in British use and in 9th AF. So if we assume balanced modeling, the A-8 should have rack or the american fighters should have a rackless option.
gripen
-
So if we assume balanced modeling, the A-8 should have rack or the american fighters should have a rackless option.
What a troll.
-
The AH A-8 has 170 gallons internal fuel capacity so it should have the rack or the internal capacity is wrong.
gripen
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I don't think that is the point Widewing. The point is the data is wrong for the type.
I'm simply supplying data for the 190s in the game. Whether they are modeled right or wrong is a seperate issue.
There are several aircraft that appear to fall short of their real-world counterparts in terms of performance. These include:
All P-38s lack acceleration. Of all USAAF fighters in service in the summer of 1944, the P-38 was the fastest accelerating of the lot. This is not the case in AH2.
Our P-40B is significantly down on speed (332 mph when it should be at least 352 mph) and down somewhat in climb from sea level.
Likewise, the Bf 109G-14 is about 14 mph too slow at altitude.
Handling issues with most of the 109s, specifically poor rudder authority at low speeds and a tendency to snap-roll at relatively low AoA/moderate g.
109s should have the ability to deploy flaps at higher speeds
The F6F-5 is 14 to 20 mph too slow at altitude (depending upon which test we look at).
Finally, we have the arguments that some of the 190s are modeled on suspect data, or weigh too much.
All of these things can and likely will be addressed by HTC when and if they are supplied with adequate test data to support changing them.
HTC said the 109 flap issue will be corrected on the next update, and that they were looking at the 109G-14 speed discrepancy as well. I have forwarded test data related to the P-40B. You have posted (and probably e-mailed) 190 test data. I have additional F6F-5 data that I intend to forward.
My opinion is that Pyro and Hitech are smart, well educated guys. Give them the data to review and rely on them to adjust flight models if the data supports a modification.
That said, there will always be people who swear that their particular favorite must be modeled wrong because they are unable to get the results they expected. More than likely this is a reflection of the pilot more than the airplane, which is why HTC needs to see supporting documentation.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
There are several aircraft that appear to fall short of their real-world counterparts in terms of performance.
My opinion is that Pyro and Hitech are smart, well educated guys. Give them the data to review and rely on them to adjust flight models if the data supports a modification.
That said, there will always be people who swear that their particular favorite must be modeled wrong because they are unable to get the results they expected. More than likely this is a reflection of the pilot more than the airplane, which is why HTC needs to see supporting documentation.
Exactly. I get accused of both allied and axis bias, when all I want is to see EVERY plane done right. Widewing has stated my view on all this perfectly.
-
My opinion is that Pyro and Hitech are smart, well educated guys.
I don't see mention of either one in this thread.
The AH A-8 has 170 gallons internal fuel capacity so it should have the rack or the internal capacity is wrong.
AH allows no way to model the tank seperately or optionally. The aircraft always comes with the tank. Technically it should always have the ETC 501 rack installed as well then, as the CG is out of limits without it. The rack being moved forward it what allowed the aircraft to be flown with the tank installed.
(http://img30.potato.com/loc201/th_29cf6_ohneETC.jpg) (http://img30.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc201&image=29cf6_ohneETC.jpg)
(http://img137.potato.com/loc298/th_caf1b_ohneETC2.jpg) (http://img137.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc298&image=caf1b_ohneETC2.jpg)
All the best,
Crumpp
-
No thread hijack attempt here fellas, i agree the LW planes are artificially handicapped, particularly the A8 which was a bomber hunter but as modeled here it BARELY keeps pace with the bombers and frankly does well just to perform basic flight maneuvers ABOVE 19 or 20K Allied bombers generally came in at 25K. Surely the Germans wouldnt have flown a pig like we have into formations, well armed or otherwise
Also on my mind is the ease that even .30 cal weapons kill the engine oil, often on first ping on the A8. The A8 was heavily armored compared to earlier variants.
The A2A rockets were remodeled awhile back and I'd love to see what the changes were. Before the change I got ALMOST a kill every day with them. In all of the months since that time I have gotten exactly ONE kill with them.
SLIGHTLY off topic here, wasnt weight also added to the CHOG?
-
Allied bombers didn't fly at all-out maximum power during ww2 either - that might skew any relative performance...
-
Neither did LW fighters! LOL
-
No Name the A-8 WAS NOT a bomber Hunter it was a fighter that was modified to be a bomber hunter with different kits. That's common myth of any fighter when the 8th was sending the raids over Germany in early 44.
There were bomber kits that made the A-8 clumsy at alttitude especially due to the fact it was gasping for air at higher altitudes. But a normal 190 was not the bomber destroyer you're implying.
It's like Saying that a P-47 or a P-51 was a ground attack aircraft just because it could carry rockets or bombs.
-
Widewing, thanks for the numbers. I'm really puzzled becouse in the game the perceived difference between different a/c (for example the C.205 and the A-8) looks *much* bigger going from their best climb speed to the max speed at altitudes.
-
Being the heaviest fighter version HTC can model is going to hurt it's accelleration.
We have a an August - Sep 1944 or later variant of the FW-190A8 as the Zusatzkraftstoffbehälter im rumpf was not included in serial production FW-190A8's until that time frame. A timeperiod when the FW-190A9 was entering service and two months later the FW-190D-9 had arrived.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
tiny bit from weight increase.
According to Dean, you can anticipate a 2-3mph speed loss for each 1000lbs of weight gain. That is weight gain of the entire BMW801D2 powered FW-190A series.
Rechlin figures are 555kph at 1.42ata @ 2700U/min for the FW-190A8. The increase in drag is from the F66 MG covers, larger intake, and tightenend baffling. It also makes a large difference for the FW-190 whether the test was conducted in the summer, winter, or with the attenuating ring.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Attenuating ring?
Is that external ring which can be inserted to modify the intake hole diameter in FW?
How many different kinds of rings were there? Summer and winter rings?
-C+
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
2100PS or 2050hp at 1st gear supercharger FTH using 1.58ata@2700U/min. The FW-190A8 also had a more efficient propellers in service.
All the best,
Crumpp
Thank you Crump.:)
-
How many different kinds of rings were there? Summer and winter rings?
There was only one ring. When the FW-190A5 was given the extended engine mounts to restore the CG limits it caused overcooling in the front bank of cylinders and a loss of power. This was corrected by adding the attenuating ring.
A summer and winter fuel mixture were developed to keep the engine running at optimum temperature as well.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Thank you Crump.
Your most welcome.
-
Rgr, was asking because some plastic models seem to have incorrect measures in the cowl ring. Thought it was intentional...
So if there is two 190A8 models and they have different cowls the other is wrong.
-C+
-
There are also different oil coolers too.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The FW-190A8 is modeled off of TD 284.
That report does not match the data reported to the RLM on 10 Nov 1944 for a clean configuration FW-190A8.
I'm not sure if I have seen either of these. Is the "TD 284" the same as originally posted by Vermillion ?:
Originally posted by Vermillion
I've posted this about 8,765 times ;) but here it is again.
These charts are from:
"Fw190A-8 Aircraft Handbook"
D. (Luftt) T.2190A-8
effective July 1944, Issued September 1944
This is the english translation, of the edition issued by Wittmer, Chief of Technical Services, Luftwaffe High Command, Berlin 5 September 1944.
Standard Fw190A8 (4 cannons)
Performance vs Altitude Chart (http://www.vermin.net/fw190/190-1.jpg)
Fw190A8 (4 cannons) + GM1
Performance vs Altitude Chart (http://www.vermin.net/fw190/190-2.jpg)
Fw190A8/R2 (AH 190 with x2 30mm cannons)
Performance vs Altitude Chart (http://www.vermin.net/fw190/190-3.jpg)
I tested the Fw190A-8 (WEP) speeds and climb from SL to 20K and compared with the first chart. It is as accurate match as I can measure (give or take a couple of mph in speed).
Btw. the weight posted by Crumpp, 4392 kg (with fuselage aux. tank) is the same as given by the AH help.
-
I'm not sure if I have seen either of these. Is the "TD 284" the same as originally posted by Vermillion ?:
Yes that is TD 284.
Here is the original German. The finish is not filled and polished. It is a standard service finish for Luftwaffe aircraft. Flying the aircraft with the 115 liter tank and without the ETC 501 is forbidden in the Flugzeug-Handbuch. The CG is out of limits in this configuration.
(http://img125.potato.com/loc92/th_20734_Fw190A8_GM1_Luft_flight.jpg) (http://img125.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc92&image=20734_Fw190A8_GM1_Luft_flight.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Flying the aircraft with the 115 liter tank and without the ETC 501 is forbidden in the Flugzeug-Handbuch. The CG is out of limits in this configuration.
That explains the weight difference (4300kg vs. normal weight 4392kg). 92kg=115 litres of fuel, so aux. tank was probably empty.
How much is the difference in "RLM on 10 Nov 1944" regarding speed and climb ?
-
That explains the weight difference (4300kg vs. normal weight 4392kg). 92kg=115 litres of fuel, so aux. tank was probably empty.
It cannot be mounted and flown without rack. Empty or not, Timras.
The set up also claims GM-1 installation. Where was GM-1 installed??
The 85 liter tank is the ONLY tank that was authorized for GM-1 use. This tank was specially insulated to maintain the LNOX for as long as possible. Even then, Luftwaffe regulations dictated that the aircraft must be flown within a certain time period of being serviced with LNOX.
The system weighed 104 KG's installed and gave 21.7 minutes of use.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Yes that is TD 284.
Here is the original German. The finish is not filled and polished. It is a standard service finish for Luftwaffe aircraft.
Well it mentions filling and smooth painting, so it confirms what my fw documents say: From the A6 on they used smooth painting instead of polishing.
Filling is definitly not a filling for the last litte rivet hole etc, what you would do for a world record machine. The major gaps, maybe at the cockit for example, where filled. That´s indeed nothting special.
niklas