Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: ra on July 26, 2000, 09:29:00 PM
-
I've always thought the AH 190A5 climbrate was way over done, but today I took it on a jabo mission and found that with 2x20mm, full fuel, and a 1000 lb bomb its initial climb rate is 3500 fpm with WEP. Add a couple rockets and it goes down to 3200 fpm. That doesn't sound right. It seems to me the AH 190A5 climb with full jabo loadout is about what it should be with no external stores. William Green's 'Warplanes of the Third Reich' lists the 190A3 as having an initial climb rate of 2830 fpm (no stores), does anyone have published figures for the 190A5?
This isn't just about climb, it would also effect acceleration and ability to fight in the vertical plane.
ra
-
http://members.xoom.com/mikewaltz/p76.jpg (http://members.xoom.com/mikewaltz/p76.jpg)
http://members.xoom.com/mikewaltz/F-TR-1102-ND.htm (http://members.xoom.com/mikewaltz/F-TR-1102-ND.htm)
That's 4,000 fpm at 4,000 feet.
But the plane they tested has no cowl guns.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 07-26-2000).]
-
Originally posted by ra:
I've always thought the AH 190A5 climbrate was way over done, but today I took it on a jabo mission and found that with 2x20mm, full fuel, and a 1000 lb bomb its initial climb rate is 3500 fpm with WEP. Add a couple rockets and it goes down to 3200 fpm. That doesn't sound right. It seems to me the AH 190A5 climb with full jabo loadout is about what it should be with no external stores. William Green's 'Warplanes of the Third Reich' lists the 190A3 as having an initial climb rate of 2830 fpm (no stores), does anyone have published figures for the 190A5?
This isn't just about climb, it would also effect acceleration and ability to fight in the vertical plane.
ra
190A5 did climb good in real life too, it was not A-8 and it had more power than A-3...
What doesn't sound right to me is P47 E retention, Hispanos.... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Originally posted by ra:
This isn't just about climb, it would also effect acceleration and ability to fight in the vertical plane.
It is clear that very few people knows to admit a good, nimble and competitive plane in Luftwaffe. And when they find one they start yelling "its overmodelled"
Ra, this is your second (or maybe third?) thread about Fw190A5 being "too much" something or "too much" other thing. Maybe you have 190-itis?...before you were told 190A5 had accurate stats, referred to historical facs and data.
Now you are told the same. Took a look into Funked's links...again. And find out...again, that the Fw190A5 is accurately modelled in A5. And please next time when you have doubts about A5's performance, look at these posts and then look at those links.Maybe that can calm you down.
BTW I dont mind that data is of a 190A5 with no MGs...because 2xMG17s dont weight too much anyway.
/rant mode off.
-
BTW, yes I have SpitXIV-itis. But at least I admit it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
and Hispano-itis too, ok (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
But this thing about A5 is starting to be annoying.
-
I too have to admit my Spit-itis and Hispano-itis. What can I do RAM? Maybe a D-9 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Anyway, the february 1943 documents (I have the original scanned) about combat trials between the 190A-5, 109G-4, G.55, Re.2005 and Macchi C.205V and N, clearly state that the 190A-5 performed like the other fighters in climbing ability (up to 19,600ft) and was more maneuverable (as far as roll rate was concerned, IMHO) and fast in level flight.
However, IMHO, the 190A-5 performance above 20-25K is "probably overmodeled". I've met 190A-5 at 28-30K+ who performed too well and climbed like rockets. Big problem for my C.205V.
<EDIT> "probably overmodeled"
[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 07-27-2000).]
-
Originally posted by RAM:
It is clear that very few people knows to admit a good, nimble and competitive plane in Luftwaffe. And when they find one they start yelling "its overmodelled"
Ra, this is your second (or maybe third?) thread about Fw190A5 being "too much" something or "too much" other thing. Maybe you have 190-itis?...before you were told 190A5 had accurate stats, referred to historical facs and data.
Now you are told the same. Took a look into Funked's links...again. And find out...again, that the Fw190A5 is accurately modelled in A5. And please next time when you have doubts about A5's performance, look at these posts and then look at those links.Maybe that can calm you down.
BTW I dont mind that data is of a 190A5 with no MGs...because 2xMG17s dont weight too much anyway.
/rant mode off.
Hmmm...there is a hidden agenda here. A Fw driver content with his ride? ... hmmm ...
btw G6 snap rolls are undermodeled.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
- Jig
-------
If it looks like a Fw190, sounds like a Fw190, and manuver likes a Fw190... it's probably a B-17. -- USAAF Ad for new depth perception, hearing, and reflex testing.
-
Originally posted by gatt:
However, IMHO, the 190A-5 performance above 20K is really overmodeled. I've met 190A-5 at 28-30K+ who performed too well and climbed like rockets.
Dunno...I NEVER go over 20K in Fw190A...
So I dont know about it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Originally posted by Jigster:
Hmmm...there is a hidden agenda here. A Fw driver content with his ride? ... hmmm ...
Humm? who said I am content with Fw190A5? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) it is a 1943 aircraft with its limitations in speed...
Bring Fw190D9 with MW50 and THEN I'll be a content 190 driver (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 07-27-2000).]
-
Fishu, same engine in A-3 and A-5.
-
Fishu, same engine in A-3 and A-5.
Hmmm. I always thought the A3 had the BMW 801D engine and the A5 had the BMW 801D-2 engine (both 1,700 hp), with slightly different supercharger gear ratios.
-
Some of the A-3 were built with the 801C, maybe this is what you are thinking of.
-
There is an awful lot of -itis around here. In fact, I'm beginning to think there maybe be some itis-itis.
If we're going to jump on a guy everytime he brings up an old topic that's been mauled to death, we'll run out of electronic ink.
This will always be with us. There is always the "don't try to confuse me with facts! my mind is made up!" bunch.
There is always the "Look at this original test documentation I have that proves my point" that is countered by the "look at this original test documentation I have that disproves your point" bunch.
What we have too little of is "hey, sonny...I flew that plane in combat and here's how it was" <which isn't reliable either; those guys are near 80 now and the story gets more important than the truth (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) >
We also don't have enough "I have extensively tested this hypothesis in the game and here's what I found, including film so you can see for yourself".
Why not ease off on RA, so that you yourself may be eased off on the next time you post your own pet peeve for the 47th time.
He's just asking for information. Point him to what you have or help him out without all the extra stuff.
Have a nice day!
-
The limited stuff I have shows 190A4 able to go surface to 10K in under 3 minutes. I think maybe some of us were used to poor-climbing 190s from Air Warrior, and never got over it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
I think a reasonable person would conclude that the 190 did indeed outclimb most of the US iron (except of course the awesome P-39) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) How it should stack up against Spitfires is another question I guess.
Now, about that turning ability tho... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
-
Originally posted by Jekyll:
Hmmm. I always thought the A3 had the BMW 801D engine and the A5 had the BMW 801D-2 engine (both 1,700 hp), with slightly different supercharger gear ratios.
I thought something like that too.. (I am not talking about difference between fokkers and doras engines)
-
Funked,
Thanks for the link. Did this 190-G3 have the fuel injection which would boost power to 1,870HP, like later G3's did? That is a 10% boost, very significant. To give you an example, my glider club upgraded the engines on our SuperCub towplanes from 150 hp to 160 hp (7%), and the climb rate on tow increased about 30%. Also, 140 octane fuel, how does that compare to what the LW used?
Your link is very good, but I have never seen any other source which gives the 190A anything near a 4000 fpm inital climb rate, so I am still going to look for other sources.
BTW, I agree with you about the Jug's E retention. I posted a 'Why?' post a while back comparing the E retention of the Jug v. the Tiffie, no one had an explanation that was convincing. I love the Jug and I would continue to fly it even if the E retention was toned down. I'm all for making FM's as accurate as possible. There are no published measurements of E-retention, so this is a part of the FM that we can only guess at.
RAM,
Your conspiracy theory is not needed. I do fly LW planes, in fact if my goal was to run up the highest K/D ratio I could, the 190's would be my only ride.
I don't have any anti-LW bias, and no one else in this game does either. That bias exists only in your mind.
What are the differences between the A-3 (for which William Green's book provides the <3000 fpm initial climb) and the A-5 which would account for a 33% climb difference. It is very possible that Green's data was derived from half-baked tests, but I would like to see other sources to corroborate Funked's data.
In a scenario a while back the 190A5s were able to climb with us (109G6/R6) right up to 25 or 30K, holding formation the whole way. That also surprised me. Everything about the 190A5's climb rate surprises me.
ra
-
I like the Fw190A-5, but I like the Bf109G-10 much better. They don't feel wrong to me, so even though I am seen as an Allied type here, I'm not complaining about the German aircraft.
Tour 6 I've been flying the Bf109G-10 most of the time and I must say that it has help my performance a lot.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Just an FYI for RAM and other non-WB folk.
Ra used to fly WB ( assuming its the same ra ) and u would usually find him in LW planes. I tried to get him to join many times ( especially after he kicked my bellybutton over and over (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) ) but he's always been a lonewulf.
He is a very good and experianced pilot. Probably one of the best in WB's 109.
As for AH 190A5 - with 2 less guns and 50 gas i outturned (lufbery circle ) a 205 which had E on me other day. Enough said.
------------------
Bartlomiej Rajewski
aka. Wing Commander fd-ski
Northolt Wing
1st Polish Fighter Wing
303 (Polish) Squadron "Kosciuszko" RAF
308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF
315 (Polish) Squadron "City of Deblin" RAF
Turning 109s and 190s into scrap metal since 1998
Northolt Wing Headquarters (http://www.raf303.org/northolt/)
-
Karnak:
There's no such a thing like Bf-109 G-10 or is there ?
Allways thought that the earlier vers. were Bf and later Me ?
[This message has been edited by Staga (edited 07-27-2000).]
-
I've read that 190A was a match for Spitfrie V's..
Mostly for its speed, climb and roll rate.
-
you can make all the planes in AH as uber as ya want as long as the p-38 turns and zooms better than any of them (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Staga, the 109s were Bf prefixed from start to finish. The Allies didn't know that and always refer to them as Me109s (these are the same Allies who called all Japanese fighters a Zero).
Fishu, as far as I've read the Fw190A was considered much better than the Spitfire MkV and its unexpected appearance on the scene is what prompted the Spitfire MkIX to be hodge-podged together (the MkIIIV was suposed to be the definitive Merline engined Spitfire).
The Fw190A could out run, out dive, out roll, out zoom and maybe even out climb the Spitfire MkV, the Spitfire MkV could out turn the Fw190A
Sisu
-Karnak
-
FD-ski: thanks for the promo (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) but it's unwarranted. In WB I would only fly the 109 in the HA to help balance the 4:1 allied advantage; the Jug was my preferred ride. A couple of times we fought when I was very low on fuel, so you ended up with the mistaken idea that I could fly a 109 well. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Citabria: the P-38 only turns well and zooms well when you are flying it. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Fishu: you'll be glad to hear that the AH 190A5 outclimbs the SpitV by about 200 fpm at low altitude...while carrying a 500kg bomb!
ra
-
RA: The data I posted is part of a whole manual for the plane and there is no mention of the supplemental petrol injection system. There is a section on engine power in the manual and it shows about 1700 hp, apparently verified in the Wright Field powerplant lab.
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
The Fw190A could out run, out dive, out roll, out zoom and maybe even out climb the Spitfire MkV, the Spitfire MkV could out turn the Fw190A
Sisu
-Karnak
That climbing ability is that issue that has stuck in my mind better than any other compare between those two.. and boy, did 190A climb better. (blah, i dont remember numbers)
-
Originally posted by ra:
Fishu: you'll be glad to hear that the AH 190A5 outclimbs the SpitV by about 200 fpm at low altitude...while carrying a 500kg bomb!
When I we're testing Spitfrie V against tank in H2H mode, I didn't like it's climbing speed at all, felt like it lost E alot quicker than 9 (and still having same sort of airframe..)
Also climb felt like climbing in a stuka.
Its almost like 109F, it feels to be climbing verrrry slow too. (lol, it cant even escape P-51 with +10k advantage with dive (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif))
-
Originally posted by Jekyll:
Hmmm. I always thought the A3 had the BMW 801D engine and the A5 had the BMW 801D-2 engine (both 1,700 hp), with slightly different supercharger gear ratios.
Wasn't the preformence progression of the Fw190A3 through the A5 done by allowing the engine governer to allow more RPMs?
This was the case with the A3's over the A4's, sacraficing engine life for more preformence, was the same done with the A5?
- Jig
-------
A propeller just a cooling system for a pilot. Turn it off and watch him begin to sweat.
-
109F outperforms Spit V in climb, speed, everything except turn rate. Spit V climb is about equal to A-8 but decidedly inferior to A-5. (Talking about AH here but the historical data is the same)
Bikekill and I did some duels with A-5 vs. Spit V and it sure was like the AFDU comparison. A-5 will lose a flat-turning fight, but in a level merge with both planes at top speed, the A-5 can dominate by forcing a vertical fight. It's a really entertaining matchup.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 07-27-2000).]
-
A-5 has "Spit killer" written all over it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
Stoickov
JG54 "Grünherz"
-
yeah but you galland types have no respect for the p-38
-
Originally posted by Citabria:
yeah but you galland types have no respect for the p-38
54 streak in WB with P-38J (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by Staga:
Karnak:
There's no such a thing like Bf-109 G-10 or is there ?
Allways thought that the earlier vers. were Bf and later Me ?
[This message has been edited by Staga (edited 07-27-2000).]
Thats true of the aircraft types..
Ie early war Bf108, Bf109, Bf110
later ME209, Me163, Me262
But the planes that started with Bf stayed with it.
-
I'd have somekind of "black hole" in my memory... Too much booze I guess (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
What was the reason to dump that Bf and start to use Me instead ?
Staga
-
Staga take a look into this link... http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum1/HTML/002811.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum1/HTML/002811.html)
One of latest posts explains the reason for ME instead BF (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Thx Ram (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
juzz
posted 06-22-2000 12:56 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hangtime: Look here(pg75/76). The Fw 190A-5 in AH performs virtually the same in speed and climb.
Only problem is that it matches those figures with four cannon, but the tested plane only had two.
Vermillion
posted 06-22-2000 01:21 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juzz, I definitely think you should post that to the bugs forum to make sure it gets seen, and acted on appropriately.
If you don't it might get missed just due to the sheer volume of posts in this thread
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"
oops? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
One thing I always notice about these threads. You will get some players, historians or hobbyist that are so vastly polarized toward one aircraft or aircraft type that you are forced to immediately through out any information they may present.
Typically even if it is massivly accurate. I wonder if HTC does the same..... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Mino
The Wrecking Crew
"OUCH!!! It hurts to bite your tongue."
Popeye
-
According to this report from '43 (so i am assuming it is an A4 or A5)
http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/pro_190_survey_c_3.jpg (http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/pro_190_survey_c_3.jpg)
The pilot says the RoC was worse than the spit IX merlin 66 but "probably slightly better" than the merlin 61 spits - we have a merlin 61 spit in AH.
-
Check out the manifold pressures used on the planes in that test though. Spit IX was running less boost than we run in AH, while the 190 was running max boost.
-
Max boost, but the engine was still derated to give it more life.
If you wanted to simulate a derated 1941 Channel front Fw 190A then that AFDU test might be useful. Its fairly useless for comparison with the Fw 190A-5 in AH.
-
Juzz read it again, they were running full boost and RPM on the 190 for speed tests, and the standard climb settings for climb tests. There's nothing derated about those figures - the speed test settings are the same RPM/MP as AH WEP.
Index: http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/prodocs.htm (http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/prodocs.htm)
Page where they discuss boost settings used: http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/pro_190_survey_c_1.jpg (http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/pro_190_survey_c_1.jpg)
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 07-29-2000).]
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 07-29-2000).]
-
Well Citabria, lets bug HTC till they give us the P-38K (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) More power in those engines..YEAH!
-
Heheh key word is "the" P-38K because only one was built!
-
Originally posted by funked:
Heheh key word is "the" P-38K because only one was built!
And how hard would it be to put the Hamilton 4-blade actives on the P-38L?
Power my arse, that plane was all about getting rid of this lame Curtiss props (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
- Jig