Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Neil Stirling on January 25, 2009, 01:20:19 PM

Title: WWII Fighter Performance update.
Post by: Neil Stirling on January 25, 2009, 01:20:19 PM
Meteor, Vampire, P-80, Me 262, He 162, AR 234 and Me 163.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/


Neil.
Title: Re: WWII Fighter Performance update.
Post by: RTHolmes on January 25, 2009, 06:32:02 PM
sweet :aok
Title: Re: WWII Fighter Performance update.
Post by: SmokinLoon on January 26, 2009, 01:13:40 AM
Thanks for posting!

If one were to look at the info presented on that website, from the official typed out specs from WWII, there are enough incorrect stats in HTC's flight models to keep them busy for a loooong time.   ;)



Title: Re: WWII Fighter Performance update.
Post by: killnu on January 26, 2009, 01:18:09 AM
AH 190A8 needs some love? 
Title: Re: WWII Fighter Performance update.
Post by: Neil Stirling on January 26, 2009, 03:16:49 AM
Many thanks to Mike Williams for providing the site and for all his hard work.


Neil
Title: Re: WWII Fighter Performance update.
Post by: Angus on January 26, 2009, 03:36:01 AM
An amazing website  :aok
Title: Re: WWII Fighter Performance update.
Post by: Gianlupo on January 26, 2009, 01:22:13 PM
It's a great website and I'm grateful to Mr Williams and Mr Stirling... I'd have just one wish: what about a section about Italian planes? AFAIK, there were Allied tests, I was guessing if it's possible to add that material to an already great site.
Title: Re: WWII Fighter Performance update.
Post by: Neil Stirling on January 26, 2009, 01:56:06 PM
I'd have just one wish: what about a section about Italian planes?

Me too, unfortunately I cant find anything at the National Archive. Maybe the Finnish Archive?

Neil
Title: Re: WWII Fighter Performance update.
Post by: Gianlupo on January 27, 2009, 04:53:32 PM
The Finns could have something about G.50... there was a group of Italian AH players who have a lot of material about our aircrafts, but they don't play anymore (basically, they created their own sim, Target Tobruk) and they've been less than inclined to share (told me they had the material from collectors who didn't want it to go on the Net... go figure!): in any case, it would be all stuff in Italian. Our Ministry of Defence archives are the only other likely source, but, as far as I know, it's not easy to do any search in there (lot of chaos and unfriendly bureaucracy!) :(
Title: Re: WWII Fighter Performance update.
Post by: Puck on January 27, 2009, 04:59:44 PM
Our Ministry of Defence archives are the only other likely source, but, as far as I know, it's not easy to do any search in there (lot of chaos and unfriendly bureaucracy!) :(

I've never talked to the Finnish Ministry of Defense, but I HAVE talked to the Russians.  I suspect in comparison your bureaucrats are sweetness and light.  In any event the data I was after is still apparently considered a state secret.  Apparently some day a hot young F/A-18E driver is going to find herself up against a Yak-1 and knowing the performance envelope of her opponent will make all the difference.
Title: Re: WWII Fighter Performance update.
Post by: Gianlupo on January 27, 2009, 05:08:04 PM
I've never talked to the Finnish Ministry of Defense...

Puck... I'm Italian! ;)
Title: Re: WWII Fighter Performance update.
Post by: Noir on January 27, 2009, 07:07:09 PM
AH 190A8 needs some love? 

How come its so crappy compared to the A5 ?
Title: Re: WWII Fighter Performance update.
Post by: save on January 28, 2009, 04:48:45 AM
It was heavier, due to larger fuel tank and more armour.
That said, I suspect a AoA problem since even with less fuel than a5 ( down to same weight) a8 behave like a pig compared.
Title: Re: WWII Fighter Performance update.
Post by: Noir on January 28, 2009, 05:20:38 AM
It was heavier, due to larger fuel tank and more armour.
That said, I suspect a AoA problem since even with less fuel than a5 ( down to same weight) a8 behave like a pig compared.

Its supposed to have a bigger engine too

EDIT : I checked and I'm wrong

Quote
The next subvariant, the "FW-190A-8", turned out to be the most heavily produced of all FW-190 subvariants, with over 1,300 built. It was essentially an A-7 with the option for either GM-1 nitrous-oxide engine boost for high-altitude operation, or an additional internal fuel tank, as well as many detail improvements.
Title: Re: WWII Fighter Performance update.
Post by: MiloMorai on January 28, 2009, 06:01:18 AM
The 190A never used GM-1.

The standard A-8 didn't get more armor. The armor was slightly increased in thickness for the BMW801TU powered A-8 over the BMW801D2 powered A-8.The A-8/R7 and /R8 got extra armor.
Title: Re: WWII Fighter Performance update.
Post by: RTHolmes on January 28, 2009, 09:02:25 AM
btw this is a great site - the datas useful if you want to check something, but the combat reports are just fantastic to read :aok
Title: Re: WWII Fighter Performance update.
Post by: Noir on January 28, 2009, 09:54:25 AM
I guess we have the R8 then

Quote
The "R8" was an improved bomber destroyer, nicknamed the "Sturmbock (Battering Ram)", with armor protection for the pilot and around the front of the engine, plus an MK-108 30 millimeter cannon in each outboard wing position instead of an MG-151/20.