Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: 1K3 on December 20, 2006, 03:25:28 AM
-
I noticed something weird. I wonder if you guys notice it too.
Why is it that 190F-8 with wing bomb racks turn better than a Fw 190A-8 with 4x cannons. The F-8 does not snap roll as bad as the A-8 when turning hard 300 mph.
-
I imagine it's because bomb racks are a lot lighter than four twenty millimeter cannons with ammunition.
-
It seems that those outboard 20mms hamper the handling so badly that I usually leave them out. You probably noticed that F loses its wing tips rather easily, too?
As few other matters it's just another nail in the FW coffin. Actually hard to believe that that plane represents Germany's front line fighter.
But what can you do if its flight model is reviewed and confirmed as accurate.
-C+
-
I dunno but i was doing really well in Fw 190F-8 in MA yesterday. Despite the +300 pound excess fat i find it a dream to fly compare to Fw 190A-8
-
There's no way FWs shed their wings pulling out of dives, like they do here in AH. They were diving machines, high-speed monsters. They had a solid wing spar almost all the way through the entire wing, and another through half of it. I doubt they'd EVER ripped a wing off in flight, ever (well... unless it was shot off, mind you).
EDIT: I would think that 12 panzerfausts and the rack mounts for them would create a helluva lot more drag, and weight a helluva lot more, than 2 internal MG151/20s with 150 rounds each.
-
Oh, PS I think the 190A5 and the 190A8 ENYs are mixed. Think about it. The A8 and F8 should be about the same. The A5 should have a higher number (older model, less capable, much less firepower), but it matches the F8, and the A8 has the higher number, so I think HTC just plugged the wrong number into the wrong plane.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
EDIT: I would think that 12 panzerfausts and the rack mounts for them would create a helluva lot more drag, and weight a helluva lot more, than 2 internal MG151/20s with 150 rounds each.
The rack and the mounting would surely have more drag since it is out in the airstream.
140 rds of 151/20 weighs 64kg
MG151/20 weighs 42.3kg
The missles were the panzerblitz, not the panzerfaust. The p'faust was a an infantry weapon. It is a R4M adapted to a2g use. A R4M(Pb2) weighs 5.37kg.
2(64+42.3) = 212.6kg
12(5.37) = 64.5kg
-
The specs for the AH F-8 seem to be some what strange; fuel load is listed as 170 gallons and AFAIK there was no additional tank in the F-8.
gripen
-
I might be wrong since it has been a few years I actively studied Wulfs but...
I think A-8 has 115 liter tank behind the cocpit for MW50. I'm quite sure F-8 did not use MW50 but instead injected fuel to supercharger inlet to prevent detonation on high boosts. That means that the tank behind cocpit can be used to store fuel.
Hi there charge! :)
-
Hello Jochen, welcome back!!! :)
-C+
-
The aux tank in the A-8 was used for fuel.
-
So, was there a additional tank (115l) in the F-8 or not?
gripen
-
Originally posted by gripen
So, was there a additional tank (115l) in the F-8 or not?
gripen
The NASM F-8 has an aux tank.
-
Originally posted by 1K3
I noticed something weird. I wonder if you guys notice it too.
Why is it that 190F-8 with wing bomb racks turn better than a Fw 190A-8 with 4x cannons. The F-8 does not snap roll as bad as the A-8 when turning hard 300 mph.
The A8 is supposed to have reinforced front armor for bomber hunting. Does the A8 and F8 have similar proportions ? whats the difference in engine and fuel ?
IMO the A8 should be introduced in mid war, it would be an usefull and fun ride. I don't know when it came in service but it wouldn't be the first to be out of time range.
-
Originally posted by 1K3
I noticed something weird. I wonder if you guys notice it too.
Why is it that 190F-8 with wing bomb racks turn better than a Fw 190A-8 with 4x cannons. The F-8 does not snap roll as bad as the A-8 when turning hard 300 mph.
When I was flying the A-8 99% of the time, I'd roll an F-8 for "jabo". After dumping ord, I was able to turn pretty good in that thing. As long as I stayed over 130 is wasn't as sloppy. It is a VERY capable and underused 190.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
When I was flying the A-8 99% of the time, I'd roll an F-8 for "jabo". After dumping ord, I was able to turn pretty good in that thing. As long as I stayed over 130 is wasn't as sloppy. It is a VERY capable and underused 190.
It is truely and underused and underestimated plane. Those rockets are the only that I have found that will kill a tiger outright. One shot the side....boom...tiger driver in the tower thinking "WTF" ;)
Though true to form they don't do too well vs. buildings. I think town buildings take 4 rockets to go down.
-
Originally posted by zorstorer
It is truely and underused and underestimated plane. Those rockets are the only that I have found that will kill a tiger outright. One shot the side....boom...tiger driver in the tower thinking "WTF" ;)
oooh I need to try that :D
-
Originally posted by Noir
oooh I need to try that :D
Just come in with a low angle....almost skimming the trees....and fire them in pairs (they will come off one wing, then the next two will be off the other wing).
Aim for the front quater panel with very little deflection angle....try to get it at a 90 deg angle.
For some reason I don't have much luck against the osti using rockets. I'll usually use my bomb vs any osti's first then use the rockets against tanks and the armored cars. Plus T34's seem very resistant to these rockets, which makes me think that armor slope is modeled in game.
Also the blast on the rockets is quite large and deadly vs. m16's, m8's and m3's.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
When I was flying the A-8 99% of the time, I'd roll an F-8 for "jabo". After dumping ord, I was able to turn pretty good in that thing. As long as I stayed over 130 is wasn't as sloppy. It is a VERY capable and underused 190.
yeah, 190F-8 turns to a great fighter when you used up all the ords. I guess its the wing pylons that help 190F-8's CG shift to the front.
-
Originally posted by Noir
The A8 is supposed to have reinforced front armor for bomber hunting.
No, that's rare, special field mods. If they had that on all 190A-8 the Russians on the East Front would have no problem shooting down 190s.
Does the A8 and F8 have similar proportions ? whats the difference in engine and fuel ?
F-8 and A-8 are the same but in AH charts it says 190F-8 is 300lbs heavier.
IMO the A8 should be introduced in mid war, it would be an usefull and fun ride. I don't know when it came in service but it wouldn't be the first to be out of time range.
Nah, 190A-8s/F-8s are late war just like teh P-51s, late jugs, etc. A good 190 for the mid war would be the 190A-6. This is a 190A-5 with 4x Mg 151 cannons instead of 2x Mg 151 + 2 MgFF. I think HTC should introduce Fw 190A-3 for early war and re-introduce 190A-5 as the 190A-6 for mid war.
-
Originally posted by 1K3
No, that's rare, special field mods. If they had that on all 190A-8 the Russians on the East Front would have no problem shooting down 190s.
The A-8 with the 801D2 engine had 6.5mm thick oil cooler ring armour. When the 801TU enine is installed the armour went to 10mm.
The 190A8/R8 had extra armour around the cockpit.
The F-8 had extra armour added to the lower nose and belly.
-
very interresting ;) I'm off to bed so I'll read the rest tomorrow
-
You'll notice when flying the F-8 around you rarely lose oil. That's the extra armor. It's modeled in the game.
However, I wonder why it turns better. It's heavier, with the same airframe. I wonder if anybody's compared the 2-cannon A8 to the F8? Maybe it's just the weight of the outboard guns that makes the difference?
I almost always fly with 30mm or 20mm outboard on the A8 because I love the firepower. However I try not to get into stall fights all the time. I'm not the best judge of whether or not it flies way better with just 2 guns in the wings.
-
I think its time that HTC fixed it so the flaps on the F8 (love that plane too) goes down. Its a visual effect i know but its still abit annoying. :)
I also second the introduction of the A6 although i guess the chiefs at HTC maybe think we have enough FWs.
oh and gimme the ME 410 and the JU52 :)
-
About the MW 50 tank in 190As
Since late war 190As did not use MW50s, did ground service crews just ditch that extra tank to remove excess weight?
-
No. It's not so easy to remove. So when there was no MW50 (it wasn't used til A9s I think?) it was just used for fuel.
That's why the A-8 is more unstable than the A-5. That's why you need to take the DT and drop it on the runway if you don't want it, because the ETC rack counter-balances the weight of the Aux tank and fittings.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
No. It's not so easy to remove. So when there was no MW50 (it wasn't used til A9s I think?) it was just used for fuel.
That's why the A-8 is more unstable than the A-5. That's why you need to take the DT and drop it on the runway if you don't want it, because the ETC rack counter-balances the weight of the Aux tank and fittings.
It is not hard either. A bit involved but can be done in no more than 30 minutes. In fact, Crumpp once posted that it was removed and installed all the time.
:huh The Cg had to be within spec tolerance whether it is an A-5 or an A-8. Just because the P-51 had a stability problem with 85 gal in its fuselage tank does not mean the A-8 had one with its 25 gal tank.
-
Well, from the Fw 109 A-7 bis A-9 manual (Teil 0, page 11):
"Bei eingebautem Zuzatskraftstoffbehälter im Rumpf (115 Ltr. nur zulässig mit vorgelegtem ETC am Rumpf) erhöht sich das Fluggewicht um 120 kg."
So apparently the both (AH Fw 190A-8 and F-8) have that additional tank but the A-8 has no rack, which it should have if the 115 l tank is there.
gripen
-
Racks aren't included in AH unless you need the ord on the rack. So you need to roll with a DT, then drop the DT on the runway if you don't want it, then you have the rack.
Funky way of doing it, but it works (*shrug*)
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Racks aren't included in AH unless you need the ord on the rack. So you need to roll with a DT, then drop the DT on the runway if you don't want it, then you have the rack.
Funky way of doing it, but it works (*shrug*)
That's what I always do when I up 190s:p
-
Oh btw, has anyone noticed that if you clear all the AUX tanks in 190A-8/F-8 the plane starts to shine like the 190A-5?
-
Originally posted by 1K3
Oh btw, has anyone noticed that if you clear all the AUX tanks in 190A-8/F-8 the plane starts to shine like the 190A-5?
First thing I do is shift + F before I even start the engine ;)
Plus the F8 will pancake if you do some ground attacks with the aft tank full.
-
I remember this topic from last year. Did 190F-8 jabos used some boost that allowed them to reach ~360mph @ deck? I also remember that this boost is allowed only to operate below 1km (1,000 meters) alt
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
oh and gimme the ME 410
Now, assuming the 410 is the one I am thinking it is, we will never have it for one simple reason: Those weird turrets in the side. Those (from what I have heard SOMEWHERE) would be very difficult to model into the game and such.
-
Originally posted by Reynolds
Now, assuming the 410 is the one I am thinking it is, we will never have it for one simple reason: Those weird turrets in the side. Those (from what I have heard SOMEWHERE) would be very difficult to model into the game and such.
that is correct but one can always dream. My p47N dream came thru :)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
that is correct but one can always dream. My p47N dream came thru :)
Wow. Did you ACTUALLY just make that comparison??? :huh
lol. The N doesnt have wierd turret thingies with no visible sights... (Yeah, I said thingy. Its 2:00 am. Bite me.)
-
Originally posted by Reynolds
Wow. Did you ACTUALLY just make that comparison??? :huh
lol. The N doesnt have wierd turret thingies with no visible sights... (Yeah, I said thingy. Its 2:00 am. Bite me.)
lol... comparison? think you need to read that again :)
-
Originally posted by 1K3
I remember this topic from last year. Did 190F-8 jabos used some boost that allowed them to reach ~360mph @ deck? I also remember that this boost is allowed only to operate below 1km (1,000 meters) alt
I have read that also, but I am not sure if the F8 in the game has it.
I think it was a slightly larger first stage on the turbo. (I think) :D
-
Originally posted by 1K3
I remember this topic from last year. Did 190F-8 jabos used some boost that allowed them to reach ~360mph @ deck? I also remember that this boost is allowed only to operate below 1km (1,000 meters) alt
Hi,
at mid 1944 the 190F8 got a C3 injection, what allowed a overboost for 10-15min, below 1000m altitude, resulting in around 2100PS.
The 190A8´s got also in july 44 a boost, called Sondernotleistung or "erhöhete Notleistung", it was somewhat similar like the F8 system, but usable up to rated alt. In the "Bodenladerbetrieb" it got 1,58ata, providing around 2050PS and in the "Höhenladerbetrieb" it got 1,65ata, poweroutput 1695PS in 5800m.
This WEP was usable for 10min max, also while climbing!
I think the AH FW190A8 is a early one without this boost, while the F8 have it, what will explain the smaler energybleed and better sustained turn. Though thats only a guess!!
That also would explain the weight different between the F8 and A8, cause the early clean A8 dont had the extra plating, thought i doubt it was 300kg!!(extrafuel + plating could be as much)
The late Fw190A8 should outperform the A5!
MW50 dont got intoduced to the FW190A´s at any stage, only for tests. The C3 injection and "erhöhter Ladedruck" brought similar results for less weight and technic, thought C3 fuel was needed, but without the BMW´s couldnt give enough power anyway.
Imho Ah would need a 190A7 without the Boost and an 190A8 with the boost, to give a historical range of performence. The 190A6/7 and early 8´s had to fight the big bombergroups early in 44, while the much better performing late A8´s and A9´s, same like the 109G10/14 and K4 simply came to late.
Greetings,
Knegel
-
Originally posted by Knegel
The late Fw190A8 should outperform the A5!
But the A5 we have in AH is not what you think it is...:noid
-
What is it then??
-
Going from old threads, the performance of our A5 closely resembles that of a flight-test using a G2 (g5??) that was ballasted to "fill in" the missing cowl guns.
Not really the same thing, though.
-
I think most of us have seen these...
Yep, AH 190A-5 closely resembles that of
"EB-104" (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/eb-104.html) (Fw 190G-3)
climb
(http://hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/190a5clmb.gif)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/eb104-fig3.jpg)
speed
(http://hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/190a5spd.gif)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/eb104-fig2.jpg)
REAL Fw 190A-5
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/190a5-level-20-10-43.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/190a5-datasheet.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/190a5-performancetable.jpg)
-
Hi,
the tested 190G is extreme similar to the 190A5 without the outer wing cannons!
FW190G
3850kg
547km/h sea level
663km/h in 6700m altitude
climb sea level at 2400rpm 16,4m/s
climb at 5000m 13,2m/s
FW190A5
4000kg
567km/h sea level
656km/h in 6300m altitude
3850kg (values in claps)
climb sea level at 2400rpm 16,7m/s
climb at 500m 12,4m/s
It looks like the G model had the bomb rack, what would cause the speed loss at sea level, while the G seems to have more power at height.
Otherwise both tests are still inside the range of normal performence variation.
But anyway, the 190A8 with the higher boost should outperform the A5, specialy regarding its B&Z abilitys and this A8 should leave the La7 in a flat dive in the dust.
Greetings,
Knegel
-
Originally posted by Knegel
But anyway, the 190A8 with the higher boost should outperform the A5, specialy regarding its B&Z abilitys and this A8 should leave the La7 in a flat dive in the dust.
Greetings,
Knegel
err how much power is AH 190A-8 making anyway. It seems that our 190A-8 has the same power as 190A-5 but running at higher boost:noid
-
Now this is a threat I like :aok
-
Originally posted by 1K3
err how much power is AH 190A-8 making anyway. It seems that our 190A-8 has the same power as 190A-5 but running at higher boost:noid
I dont know what power it make, but its incredible E-bleed at highspeed, in relation to the A5 show that something is wrong regading the E-bleed calculation. The much more heavy A8 at least should outperform the A5 in downward acceleration and it should keep more energy at highspeed, if it have more power, it should be better in almost all aspects but the turnradius and maybe sustained turn.
With the extra boost, the A8 did climb with(actually it did climb a bit faster)
the A5 up tp 5500m and was also faster up to this altitude.
But in AH even the D9 have some problems with the A5, if it comes to energy bleed, althought its performence should be much better. Why the D9 have problems to outperform low power/inertia planes, like the La7 and Spit16 at highspeed, regarding the E-bleed, is a miracle for me. Even the 190A8 should have some good advantages, once its at hight/speed.
We simply miss a late44/55 190A in AH(A8 with boost or A9).
Greetings,
-
Nevermind, 190a-8 has the same power as a-5 (1700 or 1800 i think). I always thought the 190A-8 had 2050 hp engine but i guess i was wrong. I guess 2000+ hp 190s were given to Dora series instead.
-
The A-8 did have more power than the A-5 because it ran at a higher boost (thus giving more horsepower). It was supposed to turn better than the A-5 if I recall. The D-9 was supposed to turn even better than the A-8. We kind of see the opposite results in AH.
As for the G-3 and A-5 charts, somebody brought up long ago that the G-3 would have different performance than the A-5 due to the different climb angles, climb speeds, and weight distribution. There was a call to model the A-5 off of actual A-5 numbers instead of G-3 numbers a long while back, but nothing came of it.
-
Isn't G3 actually a JABO A6?
My impression is that our A8 can't reach its rated speed at deck. It depends on the thrust/drag ratio how much effect that has on handling.
I have wondered the high speed E-bleed too. I don't think that is should be vastly better than it is now, but something feels wrong. Of course it would help if I had flown one IRL...:p
If veterans said the A8 was the best fighter of all versions I really wonder why they said that.
-C+
-
Originally posted by Charge
Isn't G3 actually a JABO A6?
If veterans said the A8 was the best fighter of all versions I really wonder why they said that.
-C+
then the A-8s they flew were the later A-8s... right?
-
Originally posted by Krusty
As for the G-3 and A-5 charts, somebody brought up long ago that the G-3 would have different performance than the A-5 due to the different climb angles, climb speeds, and weight distribution. There was a call to model the A-5 off of actual A-5 numbers instead of G-3 numbers a long while back, but nothing came of it.
What ever happened to the guy who claimed he had all information on 190 developments. He has not posted for the rest of 2006:noid
-
PNG. He thinks of himself as a God in TargetWare forums. Folks, for the most part, believe everything he says there, as well.
Mind you I shouldn't speak ill of him, it's not fair, but TW has a lot of problems, but somehow he likes it over there more.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
The A-8 did have more power than the A-5 because it ran at a higher boost (thus giving more horsepower). It was supposed to turn better than the A-5 if I recall. The D-9 was supposed to turn even better than the A-8. We kind of see the opposite results in AH.
As for the G-3 and A-5 charts, somebody brought up long ago that the G-3 would have different performance than the A-5 due to the different climb angles, climb speeds, and weight distribution. There was a call to model the A-5 off of actual A-5 numbers instead of G-3 numbers a long while back, but nothing came of it.
The A8 started to run on a higher boost from mid 1944, before this it had same power like the A5. Thats why i think it would be good to have the 190A7 and the 190A8, or the early 190A8 and the 190A9.
The 190A8 for sure wasnt supposed to turn better than the 190A8, at least 250kg more weight for sure did hinder the 190A8 to turn better.
Inertia, diveacceleratio and firepower made the 190A8 to the better plane.
The 190 wasnt made to turnfight the oponents, its was a typical B/Z plane.
On the Spitfire Performence testing page once was a FW190A(3 or 4) comparison to varius Spitfires. Only the Spit14 could upzoom with the 190A, while the tested 190A was a pretty early one. In AH the 190A8 only can run and even a Zero outzoom it.
Missing inertia in the E-bleed calculation might be the problem.
Static datas, like Vmax, climb ratio etc are not much worth as long as the E-bleed formula is not correct!!
Maybe someone remember European Airwar, in the default game the 109E4 was 80km/h faster and could climb much better than the Spit1a, but while gaming only experienced pilots could win in the 109E, simply cause the Spit, once fast, didnt bleed energy at all.
Most e-bleed calculations seems to neglect the advantage of inertia into flight direction, while the inertia(mass / rotational force) get included to explain the need of a higher AoA and the resulting a higher drag and a less good climb.
But even at max AoA around 70% of the inertia point toward the flight direction and at very smal AoA´s, needed for a smooth upzoom, almost all inertia point forward!
Specialy at highspeed, where the induced drag get pretty smal in relation to the zero drag, the inertia can be a real bringer!
I dont know exact where and why, but at least at highseed the AH e-bleed formula dont fit always. It dont seems to base on one and the same rule for all planes and i dont think this have to do with a biased point of view!!
Greetings,