Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Urchin on December 01, 2001, 08:49:00 PM
-
Ok.. I've heard that the 190F8 was an "armored" ground attack version of the 190. That armor was either extremely flimsy IRL, or it is not modelled in AH. Or it is modeled but it still does diddly-all for protection.
Was shot down by a PANZER today trying to strafe him. Came in from his 6 OC to shoot at the rear armor, blew up as I flew over him. I did that is, not him. That must be one super powerful 7.92mm MG, either that or the "armor" isn't very good.
I got shot down by either an LVT or an M3, both of which have .50 caliber MGs mounted. I don't think it is to terribly likely that a vehicle that was unarmored would survive a strafing by 20mm cannons long enough to shoot the plane down with a single .50 caliber machinegun. In this case as well, the "armor" on the F8 did jackshit, I heard 3 pings and I was toast.
Also... how much power does a 50kg bomb have? Would it have to land right on top of a vehicle to kill it? I dropped probably 50-60 of them in pairs today on tanks, LVTs, M3s, M8s, M16s, and Ostys. I got several kills, but several took no damage in spite of the fact the bombs landed right on top of them.
-
I'm not sure if the AH F-8 has the armor. I've got a few books that say the armor was abandoned after the first few planes off the line.
The AH F-8 is modeled as the one in the Smithsonian. This plane had the pilot armor only. Here's what they say about the armor: http://www.nasm.edu/nasm/aero/aircraft/focke_190f.htm (http://www.nasm.edu/nasm/aero/aircraft/focke_190f.htm)
As for the GV cupola MG and damage model, I can only say one word: "gameplay".
[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
Gameplay, damed if we do damed damed if we dont.
-
We can also do a weight analysis.
Fw 190F-8 is basically an Fw 190A-8 minus outboard cannons and plus four extra bomb racks.
AH A-8 weighs 9682 lbs.
AH F-8 weighs 9849 lbs.
Full armor kit (see the Smithsonian page) is 794 lb.
Outboard cannons and ammo are 2 x 42.5 kg + 280 x 0.22 kg = 146.6 kg = 323 lb.
So take our A-8 (9682), add the armor (794), and subtract the guns and ammo (323). This gives 10153 lbs, which is 304 lb more than our F-8. And we aren't even including the weight of the SC 50 bomb rack installation, which seems like it would at least 150 lb or so. So the AH Fw 190F-8 is much too light to have the full ground attack armor kit.
[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
smithsonian says their 190 f8 weights 7000 lb as is.
7000
+200 (pilot)
+170*6.8 = 1156(gas)
+ ~50 lbs oil
+ 800 lb (guns and ammo)
= 9206.
wheres the extra weight?
-
THere was a version of the FW190 that caused B17s some trouble. In one after-action report, B17 gunners complained that their 50 cal rounds actually bounced off the cowling of certain 190s. Perhaps this is the armored 190 your talking about.
-
that's probably the 190A8, had heavier guns and armor to fight the buffs that were pounding germany every day. But here's the thing, if the f8's worse performance is due to the armor that's supposed to be there and is not then it should be fixed by A. giving the plane better armor, or B. giving the plane better performance.
-
Wotan has 84 kills and has been killed 24 times in the Fw 190F-8.
Theres nothing wrong with the 190f8 in aces high.
Theres a "gameplay" feature adjusted so that gvs will survive more then 2 seconds in the main.
I dont see the need for such a gameplay feature. but I could careless really.
The f8 without bombs can scissor better then any other plane I've flown in AH.
You just have to understand its capabilities and use in a fashion in which you never give up the advantage.
I typically carry 1 250 kg and 4 50kgs to kill gvs.
Unless I'm hitting a vh or fh the I take the 500kg.
I kill gvs with 2 x 50 quite often but you need a direct hit.
To get kills with the 50s you need a good line up over your target. Getting close usually doesnt kill um. The 250/500kg are more forgiving.
After this I then grab if nme cons are ib. At any time you are co-e with any nme con thats not in you gunsite you have lost advantage leave/extend to reposition.
After the bombs are gone its just another 190.
-
Did you ever consider that, perhaps, the Panzer or LVT hit you with the BIG gun?
-
FOCKE-WULF 190F-8
This model was produced in greatest numbers of the all of the F series planes. It was produced based on the A-8 plane airframe. Production started in March 1944 in the Arado factory in Warnemunde and in the April 1944 in the NDW-Wismar factory.
The Fw 190F-8 was powered by a BMW 801 D-2 engine variant adapted for C3 (96 octane) fuel. An additional injector in the left supercharger inlet for emergency short term (10-15 min) engine power increase during flight under 1000 m altitude was standard equipment. Most of the equipment was the same as in the Fw 190A-8. From April 1944, the FuG 16 ZS radio set, adapted for direct communication with units on the battlefield was introduced in place of the FuG 16 ZY . Only a few planes (compared with previous versions) had a desert equipment including an anti-dust filter. In the second half of 1944, a widened rear cockpit canopy was added with the A-8 plane. The purpose of this modification was to improve the pilot's side-forward visibility, important during fighterbomber missions. Armament consisted of two 13 mm MG 131 machine guns mounted in the fuselage and two 20 mm MG 151/20 E cannons in the wings.
Most of the early production series F-8 planes had the additional armor used since the F-3 airframes. For weight reduction and improvement in flight characteristics it was not used in later F-8s. These planes had only the standard Fw 180 A-8 armor. Because the under-fuselage ETC 501 bomb rack was a standard item in A-8 planes all F-8 planes got it as well but without the stabilizers for the droppable fuel tank.
In the beginning of 1944, due to the difficult situation on the Eastern Front, the Luftwaffe was in desperate need of an attack plane with armament capable of destroying armored vehicles including heavily armored tanks (heavy tanks). In this situation, it became vital to arm Fw 190F planes with offensive armaments other than bombs. This was not an easy task, because the Luftwaffe had not developed weapon systems adaptable for mounting in light fighter planes. The only way to solve this problem was by trial and error until the proper armament could be find. First tested on the Fw 190F was the 280 mm mortar W.Gr. 28/32 with high explosive warhead. This missile was judged as unusable because of it's unstable and highly curved flight path that made it impossible to aim them into the targets. Next tested was the Panzerschreck 1 missile launcher combined into two three barreled units mounted under wings on ETC 50 or ETC 70 bomb racks. Each missile had a hollow-charge warhead. They were soon replaced by the more modern Panzerschreck 2 (PD 8.8) launchers combined in units consisting of two launchers with 88 mm missiles with hollow-charge warheads that could be fired individually or in salvos. Equipped in this manner, a Fw 190F-8 (W.Nr. 580383) was tested by Major Eggers at Udetfeld Air Base. The results obtained were satisfactory but there were also some disadvantages like the missile's short (137 m) range and limited accuracy. Despite this, in October 1944 a small number of Panzerschreck 2 equipped planes were delivered to service units on the Eastern Front.
FW-190F8 Joe Baugher (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190.html#RTFToC13)
The Fw 190F-8 was powered by a BMW 801 D-2 engine variant adapted for C3 (96 octane) fuel. An additional injector in the left supercharger inlet for emergency short term (10-15 min) engine power increase during flight under 1000 m altitude was standard equipment.
[/b]
Does the WEP on the 190f8 represent this?
-
Ummm...pilot kill maybe? You did say that you exploded....that usually means pilot kill.
-
OK Wotan and I being squadies and are very close in F8 kills I am 81 and 25, to be honest this is most kills ever in this POS plane. The plane feels like a weighted A8 with triplets about to pop out. Yes you can get kills but GV's is the extent of it and this is IMO only. Something needs to be looked at be it make it more durable, or whatever but it needs to be looked into. I find it easier to die in this crate then the dora or A5. A8 seems to just ingest all spit hispanos for some coding reason? lol J/K. I like the A8, and I have a few quirks with the D9 and A5 but nothing so much as the F8. All the others are competitve in the MA except this craft. Not asking much just look into it.
-
AG the jagdbomber fw190f8 is really good at killin gvs?
hmmmmmmmm I wonder if kurt tank designed it that way.... :rolleyes:
Point is there is no extra armor. The gv mgs are a "gameplay" concession.
The Fw190f8 is not well suited for the main but if it can be flown to a point where you maintain a 3 to 1 k/d whatcha beetchin about?
From now on you get 202s fer jabo only. You can use its largest bomb loadout but thats as far as you can go :)
Does anyone have 190f8 performance figures that we can compare with ahs fw190f8.
or any info on BMW 801 D-2?
You wanna a2a in a jabo goto wwiiol they gots the soupped up stukas fer ya. :)
-
Bahh Wotan. All my kills aer from killin Gv's mainly, and if it were not for the 1k i wouldn't have as many kills in it. As far as anything else well it is useless IMO.
-
BMW801D-2-evaluation.pdf (http://allaboutwarfare.com/files/pdf/aviation/ww2/germany/engines/BMW801D-2-evaluation.pdf)
so are mine :)
get some sleep
-
Hi Wotan,
>Does anyone have 190f8 performance figures that we can compare with ahs fw190f8.
If the Fw 190F-8 is within 100 kg of the A-8's weight, it should be 12 to perhaps 20 km/h slower at sea level than the published numbers for the Fw 190A-8 due to the drag of the bomb racks.
That should be 544 - 556 km/h at sea level at 1.58 ata manifold pressure (44.4" Hg).
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Voss:
Did you ever consider that, perhaps, the Panzer or LVT hit you with the BIG gun?
I considered it, then dismissed it. Maybe I should consider it again. I heard the 7.92 MG hitting me (it goes tap tap tap tap like a .303, much different than a .50 or a 20mm), and I pretty much ignored it. Then right as I flew over him, I exploded. However, I did see his main gun while I was making my run, it was pointed to his 12 OC, and not his 6 OC. I was coming from his 6 OC.
The only thing that I can think that would have happened would be he saw me coming (which he obviously did), and swung the cupola MG around, and hit me with it a few times. Then (and this would be supposition), he switched to the main gun, which would have been aimed at me since that is where the MG was shooting. He fired a round and got lucky, or he was lagging really bad. Yes, that is a possibility. I wouldn't consider it a strong one, but it is a possibility.
Ummm...pilot kill maybe? You did say that you exploded....that usually means pilot kill.
I would think that even if our 190F8 only had pilot armor that it would protect him from rifle caliber rounds. Wouldn't part of the cockpit armor be an armored floor and windscreen?
Speaking of which, I think it is kind of silly to model the ground attack varient of a plane, but NOT to include the armor that they had to protect them. Increase the weight of the plane, decrease the performance, but make it a lot tougher for a single .30 or .50 to kill you from the front. I feel the same way about the IL-2 (I've shot them down with the single .50 in the M3 as well), that plane should be well-neigh invulnerable from the front and bottom front. The plane was supposedly a flying "tank", which is an apt description of its flight characteristics (in AH at least), but definately not in terms of durability.
-
here is some data :
Max bomb load : 750Kg
Max Speed at altitude : 664 km/h at 6700m
Mx Speed at Alt with max bombload : 520km/h at 5800m
Initial rate of climb : 10.8m/s
Initial rate of climb with max bombload : 6.25m/s
Range : 1370km
Range with Max bombload : 775km
Service celing : 10360m
Service celing with max bombload : 7250m
Take off distance with max bombload : 860m
I hope it helps.
Butch
http://pub47.ezboard.com/fallboutwarfarefrm1.showMessage?topicID=552.topic (http://pub47.ezboard.com/fallboutwarfarefrm1.showMessage?topicID=552.topic)
[ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: Wotan ]
-
Originally posted by Urchin:
I would think that even if our 190F8 only had pilot armor that it would protect him from rifle caliber rounds. Wouldn't part of the cockpit armor be an armored floor and windscreen?
Speaking of which, I think it is kind of silly to model the ground attack varient of a plane, but NOT to include the armor that they had to protect them. Increase the weight of the plane, decrease the performance, but make it a lot tougher for a single .30 or .50 to kill you from the front. I feel the same way about the IL-2 (I've shot them down with the single .50 in the M3 as well), that plane should be well-neigh invulnerable from the front and bottom front. The plane was supposedly a flying "tank", which is an apt description of its flight characteristics (in AH at least), but definately not in terms of durability.
Armored floors were installed on the FW 190 A8 series. One of the techniques for attacking bombers was to roll their wings after their attack so that the belly was showing, this gave them an added protection to those buff 50's.
-
Fw 198F-8 weight analysis :
A/C with Armor and ETC 501 : 3786 Kg
Pilot in full gear : 100 Kg
Fuel in fuselage tanks : 410 Kg
Oil : 50 Kg
Munition MGs : 77 Kg
Munitions Cannons : 110 Kg
Total Weight : 4533 Kg
Bomb on ETC 501 : 516 Kg
Bombs on 4 ETC 50 under wing : 200 Kg
Bombs on 4 ETC 71 under wing : 280 Kg
Add Fule Tank 115l : 120 Kg
Winter Equipment : 25 Kg
Max Total Take Off Weight : 5474 Kg
-
thanx Butch.... :)