Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Krusty on March 07, 2008, 04:36:06 PM
-
I was looking for a reference for the ETC 501, but I'd like to cover a couple of weight discrepencies with the 190 series in-game.
The ETC 501 rack on 190s.
I must have not been able to find a weight for that and then forgot about it. I can fix that. 500 lbs sound about right?
;)
So, if we can find a weight, Pyro will include, I believe. I've been looking many places for an online reference, and I can't find much.... BUT.... I did find a reference to an ETC 501 on a 109G. It looks to be from our friend Kurfurst. Here's the link:
http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Performance_tests/109G1-6_datasheet/109G_perftable_EN.html
Here's the reference (regarding drag and performance, but it mentions weight):
"From 1 x 250 kg bomb, fitted under the fuselage on a ETC 501 IX b bombrack (inc. loss from bomb rack):
- 40 kph loss in speed, additonal 280 kg for take off weight."
280kg total and the bomb is about 250kg. So that would be a 30kg weight for the rack itself. That's about 66lbs, which is somewhat believable I guess
The DT in AH weighs just about that much now, perhaps the DT weighs almost nothing but this weight should be on the rack itself??
Mind you that's on a 109, but it's the same designation, and it performs similar functions as the 190 centerline rack. We're not asking for drag/speed numbers, just sheer physical weight. It's not too much of a stretch to conclude that the 190 centerline rack weighs about as much as the 109's centerline rack. Also, does anybody know if this weight is currently modeled on 109 centerline racks?
Pyro, any objections to modeling the ETC 501 as 30kg? That would at least help out with the CoG on the A-8.
Other weight issues
To summarize, here're the in-game weights.
**************************************************
190A-8 2 guns 100% (169gal): 9360 lbs
190A-8 2 guns noaux% (139gal): 9178 lbs
190A-8 2 guns 0%: 8346 lbs
190A-8 2 guns (noMGAmmo) 100%: 9189 lbs
190A-8 2 guns (no20mmAmmo) 100%: 9118 lbs
190A-8 4 guns 100% (169gal): 9682 lbs
190A-8 4 guns (no20mmAmmo) 100%: 9304 lbs
190A-8 30mm guns 100% (169gal): 9891 lbs
190A-8 30mm guns (no20mmAmmo) 100%: 9506 lbs
190A-8 2 guns DT (248gal): 9900 lbs
190A-8 2 guns DT dry (169gal): 9426 lbs
190A-8 2 guns DT dropped (rack on): 9360 lbs
169 gal = 1,014 lbs
1 gal = 6 lbs
30 gal aux tank = 180 lbs
79 gal DT = 474 lbs
950 13mm rounds = 171 lbs
500 20mm rounds = 242 lbs
280 20mm rounds = 136 lbs
110 30mm rounds = 143 lbs
1x 13mm round = 0.18 lbs
1x 20mm round = .485/.486 lbs (in/out)
1x 30mm round = 1.3 lbs
2x MG151/20 plus 280 rounds = 322 lbs
each MG151/20 outboard = 93 lbs
2x 30mm plus 110 rounds = 531 lbs
each 30mm = 194 lbs
More weight than A-5 (not counting aux)= 596 lbs
Total DT weight = 540 lbs
Empty DT weight = 66 lbs
ETC rack weight = 0 lbs?
[snip]
... here's the A-8 outboard gun option weights.
2x MG151/20 plus 280 rounds = 322 lbs
each MG151/20 outboard = 93 lbs
2x 30mm plus 110 rounds = 531 lbs
each 30mm = 194 lbs
The outboard guns on 190s.
In-game they are currently:
2x MG151/20 plus 280 rounds = 322 lbs
each MG151/20 outboard = 93 lbs
2x 30mm plus 110 rounds = 531 lbs
each 30mm = 194 lbs
ammunition for 2 MG131 - 77kg/170lb for 950rds
ammunition for 2 MG151 - 110kg/243lb for 500rds
ammunition for 2 MG151 - 64kg/141lb for 280 rds
removal of 2 MG151 and ammo - 389lb
ref. 190A-8 Handbook, Tech Description #284
The 30mm MK108 weighed 58kg or 128lb.
It would seem the outboard MG151/20s weight too little, and the outboard Mk108s weigh way to much. Since he's quoting the 190a8 handbook and tells you what part, would it be possible to verify this and update these weights in-game?
Overall weight on the 190A-8.
There seems to be a problem with the 190A-8's total weight.
Hi,
the 190A8 seems to be a bit to heavy, no??
Almost 4400kg, while the default 190A8 get listed with 4300kg.
4300kg are already with the aux tank, while the AH 190A8 seems to weight 4300kg without aux tank, while the Aux tank only did keep 55kg. :rolleyes:
The 190A8R2 (2 x MK108) almost have 4490kg in AH, while its listed with 4350kg, also inclusive the aux tank. Sounds more like a 190A8R8 in AH with a lot of additional plating.
The german datas base on a fuel weight of 0,7375kg/Liter (6,15lb/gal)
So the 4300kg include already 12kg more weight.
It would appear that the 190D-9 in-game matches listed weights. However, the A-8 should weigh the same.
Here are two charts that list the 190a8 weight with 4x20mm and one also compares the 190d-9.
http://www.vermin.net/fw190/translated-fwchart.jpg
http://www.vermin.net/fw190/190-1.jpg
I'm not itemizing it down, because I don't have the info, but basically the 190d9 was a bit heavier, but had less guns, didn't have the heavy aux tank, so it all balanced out. The A-8 was lighter, but had the aux, the outboard guns and all their ammo.
Only, in-game, we have a 190a8 that's 237lbs heavier, with a full aux tank. These should be almost the same.
This weight, coupled with the 50% over-weight of the 30mm (the most common weapon choice) could mean the 190a8 is overweight.
Pyro, any comments on the total weight of the A-8 in relation to the charts linked here?
-
did you give up on the torque idea and decide to move onto something else?
:noid
-
No. There is more than 1 pressing issue being discussed about this game at any given time.
EDIT: P.S. I know you have some USN stuff, but do you have any references on the ETC 501 weight?
-
I could probably have one weighed if I felt so inclined.
-
Wow, you can get access to one?
I was debating contacting the Smithsonian to see if they ever weighed theirs, but I doubt I'd get a response back in 10 years unless I donated a new wing to their museum....
-
I know some guys that are doing a restoration and they have the racks. It all depends whether it is restored or not, in storage, or in process; ie. in pieces. The next issue is, that it really is not that important in the overall scheme of things that I bother than with such a trivial request. I do not like it when people do it to me, so I am loathe to actually ask them to do it.
As for the Smithsonian, they simply will not honor that type of request as it is for the benefit of a commercial venture. They might do it for a fee... roughly $200 / hr. the last time they did anything for us.
-
If you could weigh it and send the info to HTC, I imagine it'd be an invalulable piece of information, Bodhi.
-
If you could weigh it and send the info to HTC, I imagine it'd be an invalulable piece of information, Bodhi.
I agree, the problem would not be me weighing it. It is asking someone to do it for me and what it is for... a game.
-
The ETC 501 rack on 190s.
So that would be a 30kg weight for the rack itself. That's about 66lbs, which is somewhat believable I guess
The ETC 501 weighs 60.7kg(133.8lb).
-
Milo, thank you for chiming in, but I'm wondering why you haven't come forward sooner?!? :lol
Can you back this up via document or something that Pyro would accepts as a good source? (please say yes!!)
-
The 152 had a special rack made for it, by Tank. So unless anyone has info on that one.. It'll get the same 0lbs "default" weight as 190s have now...
-
My main beef with the A-8 is that it moves the CoG forward, but in-game weighs nothing, so we don't gain any benefits from it.
On the 152, there's so many strange FM issues I don't know if moving the CoG forward was an issue or not.
P.S. I think the 152 used the same ETC as the 190D series. Would be a simple matter of checking 190D weight references then applying to the 152.
That's another issue entirely, though :D
-
Milo, thank you for chiming in, but I'm wondering why you haven't come forward sooner?!? :lol
Can you back this up via document or something that Pyro would accepts as a good source? (please say yes!!)
Because I have had that flu that is going the rounds.
For a reference, use Tech Description No. 284.
-
I'm pretty sure I read the regular ETC rack gave the 152s too many aero problems, so Tank drew a new one.
-
Looking through Hermann's book for info in the Ta152 drop tank, on p. 72 it states, "A 300-liter drop tank which was attached to an aerodynamically faired external mount, the so-called 'Ta 152 Tank Carriage' by grommets. Fuel transfer by supercharger air." On p. 91 and 92 there are pictures of a 152 equipped with a drop tank. The fairing is so low profile that it is impossible to make out behind the undercarriage doors. It almost appears as if the tank is attached directly to the fuselage. Certainly this is not the same rack as the 190A or 190D used and would be much lighter and cause much less drag.
-
Until we have good data, having the rack weigh nothing is far worse than making an educated guess. I would make the rack weigh the same as the 109's rack and move on.
-
Until we have good data, having the rack weigh nothing is far worse than making an educated guess. I would make the rack weigh the same as the 109's rack and move on.
The whine that would produce would be astounding.
-
Has anybody tested the 109s in-game? Do they have any weight on the DT itself, or just drag?
-
How would you test if it has weight and drag or just drag in game?
-
How would you test if it has weight and drag or just drag in game?
E6b has weight. Take DT, drop it, check weight. Then re-up without DT, see if there is a wt diff.
Check speeds same way.
-
E6b has weight.
LOL, it does? I never noticed that before. :lol
-
LOL, it does? I never noticed that before. :lol
yes sir. :aok
-
OK i dont care about the weight but i do care about how 190 turns, in real worl it could out turn the mustang, but in this game well u guys should no
-
OK i dont care about the weight but i do care about how 190 turns, in real worl it could out turn the mustang, but in this game well u guys should no
And this statement is based on what from the 'the real world"? Which 190 are we talking, which 51, what alt, weight, speed etc?
-
dont get so technical, it makes me mind hurt and i talking about 190a-8
-
oh yeah p51d
-
or something
-
with all the PNG's being allowed to post, all I can say is:
WHERE's MANDOBLE
:rofl :aok
-
Maybe he got tired with something and went away?
-C+
-
To quote Porkins, "Stay on target!"
Let's try to keep this thread focused. I've sent an e-mail to Pyro with a link to it, and asked if it might be possible to get the weight added to the ETC 501 rack.
-
Before we get 134 lbs added to the already brick-like 190A-8, has anyone checked against historical documents that the current A-8 weight doesn't already include the weight of the rack?
-
I believe the sources linked would have mentioned it. They went so far as to mention fuel load (including AUX) and weapons type. Besides, many speed/climb tests are going to be "clean" because they don't want the drag to skew the performance unless it's non-removable (like P-51, like P-38, etc)
EDIT: Actually, here it says explicitly, "without ETC 501"
http://www.vermin.net/fw190/190-1.jpg
-
I believe the sources linked would have mentioned it. They went so far as to mention fuel load (including AUX) and weapons type. Besides, many speed/climb tests are going to be "clean" because they don't want the drag to skew the performance unless it's non-removable (like P-51, like P-38, etc)
The P-38, P-47, P-51, F4u, and F6F pylons are ALL removable. It is about a 45 minute procedure a side.
-
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/Fw190_01a.jpg)
-
The P-38, P-47, P-51, F4u, and F6F pylons are ALL removable. It is about a 45 minute procedure a side.
Yes, but most were left on at all times, and I believe tests were even done with them on, so my example was only to differentiate between, say, a 109 or a plane where the rack was removed when not in use.
-
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/Fw190_01a.jpg)
Thanks! It seems our MG151/20s are 67 lbs too light overall.
So, what is "flying weight"? Is that full fuel, full ammo?
EDIT: I can't get the image to show up in the quote for some reason. It's milo's image from above.
-
I take it that data sheet is translated, cause I don't think the folks in Bremen were typing in English in '44 :devil
-
"I take it that data sheet is translated, cause I don't think the folks in Bremen were typing in English in '44 "
I'm a bit troubled by that too. Why make it look like an original document if it was translated and made afterwards from original document?
Makes you think that they could make anything that would look like an "original" document.
It should at least read who did the translation and when using what source taken from where.
Should be a pretty basic procedure for all this kind of documentation.
-C+
-
Want to see it in German then get D.(Luft)T.2190 A-8.
-
Not my point Milo. Read again.
-C+
-
Yeah that document is a fake alright, but it is such a glaringly obvious fake that I can't imagine anyone trying to use it for nefarious purposes. My guess is the author simply wanted his translated document to look interesting. Lol, even the company logo is translated.
-
The source has been mentioned numerous times Charge.
If you want to know who did the translation then ask George Hopp. He posts on http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/.
-
The fact that it's translated is an issue... why?
There are many manuals used as references in these forums that are in English. Most of them don't say who translated them. Most of them follow the basic form and layout of the original.
I fail to see the importance if one can verify that it's a translation of an original document.
Numbers don't need translating. The data is still the same.
-
Why not just post a copy of the original, and accompany that with a translation? Why not just post the translation, and a link to the source document? Why try to pass a translation off as the document itself?
-
Perhaps because 99% of the folks here can't read German? Perhaps because it's very common to have these already-translated scans saved to a hard-drive?
Perhaps it's just easier to use the translated version you have on-hand, than it is to go and scrounge up the original, and post 2 where 1 would suffice?
Nobody complains when people post japanese data in English. Nobody complains when people post Italian data in English. I'm just not sure why this is an issue here, now, all of a sudden.
He's quoted the source, even. It's not like he's being shady or shifty. I personally don't have access to check the original, but he's not trying to hide anything, and he *IS* the first person to come forward with a legit source on the ETC 501 weight.
P.S. Here *IS* an untranslated version [of a different chart with the same weight], super-imposed with english text.
http://www.vermin.net/fw190/translated-fwchart.jpg
I included it in the first post on this thread.
-
I personally don't have access to check the original, but he's not trying to hide anything
Ignoring this rather telling remark, the point is that there isn't any reason to make a translation look like an original, unless you're trying to fool someone with it.
-
I guess we disagree there Hubs.
I've seen many translations online, most of them widely accepted as legit. They use the same formatting, and the same style, the same forms.
It's very common.
-
I guess we disagree there Hubs.
I've seen many translations online, most of them widely accepted as legit. They use the same formatting, and the same style, the same forms.
It's very common.
What makes you positive that those translations aren't changed as well?
Translating a document to English is fine.
Translating a document and trying to pass it off as an original is something else entirely.
As far as I am concerned, that document is suspect.
-
As far as "widely accepted" goes, if HTC doesn't accept fabricated documents, whether or not others choose to accept them as accurate means nothing. Waffle noted that the document is knock-off, which leads me to think they are looking for the real article, not just some pretty artwork that is purported to contain the correct data. It may well contain accurate data, but the fact that it is not a genuine document, although intended to look like one, leaves me suspicious as well.
-
So you're saying HTC has learned fluent war-time German, Italian, Russian, and will only accept original primary documentation in the native tongue?
As for Waffle's comment, the :devil leads me to believe he's pointing out something he finds amusing. If he finds it suspect, I'd presume he'd come out and say it. I won't put words in his mouth, however.
-
I don't presume that simply because HT can't type, that he can't read or speak a foreign language. You don't even need to be fluent to translate the occasional word or phrase, and there are many folks in good standing in the community who do speak those languages, so I see nothing that could prevent HTC from getting accurate translations of documents.
However, I do think it's ridiculous to assume that simply because someone put some effort into producing a fake document, that it is completely accurate. Why not simply post the original, and a translation, so that any inconsistencies can be pointed out and discussed by those who speak the languages in which they were originally written?
-
Why has the translation become such an issue. Some people are simply more visually oriented and e.g. want to do the whole document just for the sake of style. If one wanted to fake a document, it could be done with the original language just as well as with translated language. People can keep on assuming and suspecting or believing whatever they want to with any linked or posted pic :)
btw. My thoughts must be fake, since they have been translated to english while typing :devil
-
So you're saying HTC has learned fluent war-time German, Italian, Russian, and will only accept original primary documentation in the native tongue?
As for Waffle's comment, the :devil leads me to believe he's pointing out something he finds amusing. If he finds it suspect, I'd presume he'd come out and say it. I won't put words in his mouth, however.
How hard is it to pick up a German to English dictionary, then start translating the actual words. The numbers in Italian and German are universal. No argument there. Technical translations are a lot easier than say a poem or book.
I'll give you an example of what we did when we worked on the FW190F8 in the past. We simply used either German / English dictionaries and we also paid for some things to be translated by a translation service. Fairly simple.
-
Just out of curiousity. What do you think the addtional weight will do to the 190A8?
It appears that folks get a mindset that a certain plane isn't flying the way they believe it should so they go looking for someway to explain away what they believe.
They added 600 pounds to my 38G. I really can't tell the difference, and I seem to still be having fun in it. What am I doing wrong? I should be screaming bloody murder or murdr as the case may be :)
-
Yeah no kidding... They added only a fraction of that to the 262 and it went from ok stall fighter to having as much inertia as a wrecking ball.
The A8 is already as bad as a P47 with lift and control surfaces removed, but 150 lbs or so won't make too big a difference. 200lbs of ammo removed from the 152 is helpful but only if you know how to use it.. It won't be all that bad for the A8, considering it's a center-line ballast and also placed relatively forward.
-
The weight move the center of gravity forward, according to several different books I've read over many years. Somebody even commented (I don't recall whom) that he'd never seen photos of a 190a8 without the rack, even if the rack was empty. The rack was carried even when nothing was on it most times.
I'd even love to have it modeled on all the time (like the P-51 pylons) as long as it shifts the CoG forward to a more stable position.
I can feel it in the 38G, and I don't fly it as much as other planes. The G is noticably heavier and sluggish compared to what it used to be.
However, if HTC uses the common weight of the 190A8, it would shave 230-some pounds off the flying weight, not counting the ETC weight.
Two separate issues, I know. I'd be happy with just the ETC weight. If they adjust the overall weight that's icing on the cake.
-
The weight move the center of gravity forward, according to several different books I've read over many years. Somebody even commented (I don't recall whom) that he'd never seen photos of a 190a8 without the rack, even if the rack was empty. The rack was carried even when nothing was on it most times.
I'd even love to have it modeled on all the time (like the P-51 pylons) as long as it shifts the CoG forward to a more stable position.
I can feel it in the 38G, and I don't fly it as much as other planes. The G is noticably heavier and sluggish compared to what it used to be.
However, if HTC uses the common weight of the 190A8, it would shave 230-some pounds off the flying weight, not counting the ETC weight.
Two separate issues, I know. I'd be happy with just the ETC weight. If they adjust the overall weight that's icing on the cake.
The thing is the 190A-8 doesn't really seem unstable at all. It just feels heavy and like the other 190s we have has a nasty tendency to stall violently at low speeds with the slightest control inputs.
What would be really nice is the option to remove the aft (aka aux) tank from the 190A-8 and F-8 when you don't need the extra fuel, and the aft mounted GM-1 tank from the Ta-152H (which was done in service to alleviate CoG issues) when you don't plan on flying over 37000ft.
-
Tuxc, while it's there in the other 190s, I think it's more pronounced in the A8. It's harder to ride the edge, harder to dogfight in a 190a8 as compared to a 190a5. I've fought La7s in 'em, yak9us in 'em, many various planes, and I'd find myself dropping a wing well before the a5 would. Even with just the inboard guns package, I mean.
-
More fabrications. :rolleyes:
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/fw190pg2-1.jpg)
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/Ausfuhrungen_Fw190A_01-1.jpg)
-
Tuxc, while it's there in the other 190s, I think it's more pronounced in the A8. It's harder to ride the edge, harder to dogfight in a 190a8 as compared to a 190a5. I've fought La7s in 'em, yak9us in 'em, many various planes, and I'd find myself dropping a wing well before the a5 would. Even with just the inboard guns package, I mean.
I do agree with you that the A-8 is harder to dogfight with than the A-5, but I feel like the "dropping a wing" is more due to the heavier weight of the A-8 than any center of gravity issues. The A-8 with just inboard guns gains weight over the A-5 AFAIK to 3 reasons: heavier cowl guns, more armor, and the aft fuel tank. The Ta-152 will outmaneuver the other 190s when light, but is inherently less stable, so I think stability and maneuverability are not completely related in this case.
-
"More fabrications."
Really? They look like originals, and in German? Oh my, they can do anything with them comps nowadays! :)
The point is that when quoting or translating a technical document it is usual to r e f e r to the original document for the sake of merit to the original and to ensure that the data can be checked from the original if need be. After all all terms do not necessarily translate 1:1 between two languages and some translations are only translators subjective interpretation of the original meaning. You may have noticed that in the last pages of books there are references of where the data has been acquired and it would be a good custom even if the data is meant to be used in a ...game. And it is also a good custom to tell the readers of who did the translation. Maybe this is new to some but it is actually a requirement in technical documentation and academic work.
I'm not telling that the previous doc was false with its data but I wonder how long it takes when a first data sheet emerges which is slightly fabricated and it may look just like the scans of the originals Milo posted and then the only way to make sure is to have a copy of the original or contact a source that has it.
-C+
-
If you all are that paranoid about photoshopping, why stop at translations? No image, anywhere, even in English, can be trusted. The chart can be fabricated entirely! Heck, if it's in English it's even easier to fake!!! We can have charts showing P-51s with hurricaneI speeds, 109 climbs, whatever.
I think you are all going way overboard on the matter, personally. He listed the original document it's from, several times.
-
Well why the hell are you going over board on this?!
It can't be so hard to list the original source in one corner, can it? It ADDS to the value of the document. Get it? :rolleyes:
-C+