Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: StSanta on August 30, 2000, 08:48:00 AM
-
Seems fitting to add armor to it, since it is pretty sure that the weight for it is there (outclimbed by a B17).
Might give people an incentive to take it up instead of the dweeb A5 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
Seems fitting to add armor to it, since it is pretty sure that the weight for it is there (outclimbed by a B17).
Might give people an incentive to take it up instead of the dweeb A5 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
And have a plane that might actually survive a 1C snap shot?! How dare you suggest such a thing! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
- Jig
-
Actually no Santa, the A-8 in AH climbs just like the Focke-Wulf flight test data says it should. It's not overweight.
-
Yes, but can it take shots like real A-8 with added armor ?
-
Yes, but can it take shots like real A-8 with added armor ?
No, but it also performs like it does not have the additional armor.
If you guys think the A8 is a pig now, start adding even more weight in and see what you think.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
The benefits of the A-8 over the A-5 (in AH and real life) are the extra guns and ammo, extra range (due to aux. fuel tank behind the pilot) and additional speed on the deck due to boost augmentation.
The climb difference between A-5 and A-8 should not be as big as it is, because HTC appear to have modeled the A-5 on a G-3 with no cowl guns or MG FF.
-
PS Santa you ever do the math on the power to weight ratio of a Fw 190 vs. a B-17 at 25,000 feet or so?
-
PS funked, if you didn't know, Fw190A-5 were very good climber with guns too.
(or is there any spit drivers to disagree? guess not.. they're dead)
-
Oh.
So 1.45k/s is without the extra armour?
And they used this as an interceptor for 23k buffs?
Man, the Germans were dumber than I thought.
Yeh, I know about the power/weight bit, but outclimbed by a B17 at 12k?
Add more armour. If the climbrate drops by 50%, we lose an incredible 0.7k/s. Wow. I'd still take the A8 up, because when I do, I watch tv for the first 15 minutes of the flight or so.
And fix the A5. If it's wrong, it should be fixed.
It's the worst pig in the game, and hasn't got any real advantages to say an F4U or even the Tiffie.
And fix the A5. I already said that, but will say it again. Less A5 dweebs = more fun (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
Man, the Germans were dumber than I thought.
Yeh, I know about the power/weight bit, but outclimbed by a B17 at 12k?
Add more armour. If the climbrate drops by 50%, we lose an incredible 0.7k/s. Wow. I'd still take the A8 up, because when I do, I watch tv for the first 15 minutes of the flight or so.
I think I'll arm my Ju-88 A-4 with few 20mm guns and so on, because it seems to be *alot* better fighter than Fw190 A-8 fighter itself...
At least it would climb then climb faster, better service ceiling, faster, more fuel...
I don't know where some of these guys have been, but for *amn sure they've been taken out from the propaganda can or such similar place.
-
Hey Fishu, Mr. Aeronautics Expert. If you want to squeak about the plane, find some evidence that it performed better than in AH. All I've found is the flight test data by the men who built it. And that agrees with AH. Otherwise shut your pie hole.
-
Santa I haven't done any checks of the B-17 flight model. I have no idea if it is correct or not.
However if you figure the power/weight ratio for a B-17G at 25,000 feet that is running on fumes and has no bombs, it's about 6 lb/hp. Fw 190A-8 has about 9 lb/hp at the same altitude if it is fully loaded. The reason for this is that the 190 has an inferior single-stage blower, while the B-17 has turbosuperchargers.
The real problem is that the bombers in AH are flying at fuel loads that would be reserve fuel in WW2. And B-17G holds a lot of fuel, so each percent of fuel is something like 150 pounds. At worst a real 190 would be seeing B-17G's with 50% fuel, and they would be throttled way back to maintain formation. In AH you see BUFFs running on fumes and wide open throttle because they don't have to worry about formation and they only have to fly 25 miles to get home. And naturally they are much harder to catch.
And yes I do think the Nazis were dumb. The people who decided what got produced and what didn't were idiots. Fw 190A was inferior to Allied fighters on both fronts by the end of 1943, but they just kept producing them without significant improvements. 190's with inline engines and two-stage superchargers should have been built in 1942, not 1944, but they would not let Tank have the engines.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 08-30-2000).]
-
I think the A8 DOES have the armor. Remember the armor was mostly there to stop light arms fire and protect the pilot. In the A8 I have rarely seen pilot wounds and I know from the bomber side that an A8 will easily fly right up your bellybutton blazing away before the .50's punch it's motor hard enough to kill it dead! Armor was mostly a boon to the ground attack 190's though- A8 was very popular over A5 as it was faster and had less chance of small arms fire killing the pilot. Though usefull against larger calibers it's by no means a cannon resistant or .50 cal defense.
-
Originally posted by funked:
The real problem is that the bombers in AH are flying at fuel loads that would be reserve fuel in WW2. And B-17G holds a lot of fuel, so each percent of fuel is something like 150 pounds. At worst a real 190 would be seeing B-17G's with 50% fuel, and they would be throttled way back to maintain formation.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 08-30-2000).]
1 gallon of US aviation grade gasoline is 6 pounds.
Refigure. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/eek.gif)
F4U-1D carries around 425 gallons if I remember right, thats 2550 pounds. Figure the 17 having at least 4 times that much gas. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/eek.gif) Thats is ALOT of fuel.
Also, the 50 gallons of oil per engine is going to make it alot lighter as it's burned off during the mission.
I did figure wing loading for the B-17 at altitude, it's lower then alot of fighters with no eggs and 25% gas. I believe 34 pounds per square foot at 25k.
- Jig
-
funked, I know better than to argue with you about numbers (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I just find it a little amusing, almost laughable, that a standard loaded B17 can outclimb an anti buff fighter from 12k and above, assuming dt on the a8. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
"Incoming A8!"
"Ok, climbing"
"A8 is disegaging, wallowing away like a sick cow".
"Let's engage him" <B17 dives>
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Originally posted by Sorrow[S=A]:
A8 was very popular over A5 as it was faster and had less chance of small arms fire killing the pilot.
I must disagree with the speed, because in all sources that I've read, A-5 is listed to be faster than A-8.
10 to 25mph.. depending alot on source, but matter here is not speed, but that which one is faster.
you forgot to mention that A-8 was more popular for its 4 MG151/20 also which A-5 does not have.
Funked, well, is all US planes made by your charts then?
I doubt not... (lets talk about that E retention side and we find a problem)
190 is fighter, not a bomber.
-
..and more problem with B-17s is caused by unlimited use of 100% throttle, when in real life you would find your engines on fire after few minutes at that rate.
Unbelievable that even games from since year 1991 has had overheating caused by full throttle, but not Aces High at time of the high end computers at year 2000.
[This message has been edited by Fishu (edited 08-30-2000).]
-
What are these "sources you've read" Fishu? Can you state one reason why the A-5 would be faster than the A-8?
-
Jig: Normal fuel load for a B-17G was 2520 lbs. 2520 * 6 / 100 = 151.2 lb/percent.
-
Santa yes I agree it is a silly situation. It would probably be worthwhile to force all aircraft to carry maximum internal fuel loads, as was almost always done in the war.
But bombers in this game are about playability, not about absolute realism. Think of their defensive gun abilities (Phalanx CIWS) and their bomb aiming capability (B-2 with JDAM). These two areas make the FM look pretty good by comparison.
-
Originally posted by funked:
What are these "sources you've read" Fishu? Can you state one reason why the A-5 would be faster than the A-8?
They seem to have same sources in HTC as well... if I am not completely mistaken that A-5 somehow rides faster than A-8 in AH.
Well, maybe your kind of genie can point out *why* A-8 should be faster? (greater number in version eh?)
-
Funked, its a lost cause. No matter how much factual & historic data you provide, they won't believe you.
How many times have I posted de-classified wartime Focke-Wulf factory test data on the 190D12/D13 that shows its performance is inferior to the D9 in the conditions it would be used in the arena, but they still scream over and over for the D12?
How many times have you posted the RLM documents that show the A8 performance is correct?
How many times have we posted that the 109K4 is statistically identical to the performance we get out of our 109G10, but we still keep seeing "I want a K4" post.
*sigh* its a lost cause (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
StSanta, you wrote:
I just find it a little amusing, almost laughable, that a standard loaded B17 can outclimb an anti buff fighter from 12k and above, assuming dt on the a8
I need to go back and look at my 190 history (so I could admittedly be wrong), but was the 190 designed as a "anti buff fighter"??
My impression was more that it was a air superiority fighter, principally designed to take on other fighters, and it came about during the earlier period of the war, before the fight went into the stratosphere (ie before the large scale use of the B17). Hell, the Lancaster (obviously the best of the British bombers) had a service ceiling below 25,000ft.
Now the 190A series did do very well when pressed into service against the daylight bombing campaigns, I won't argue that. But even the Germans realized that it had very poor power above 20k. It was the whole reason for the D9.
Enough from me though, its not worth contributing to my carpal tunnel to go thru this one more time.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Originally posted by Vermillion:
Now the 190A series did do very well when pressed into service against the daylight bombing campaigns, I won't argue that. But even the Germans realized that it had very poor power above 20k. It was the whole reason for the D9.
So, this means that germans must have D9 in order to keep balance with the allies..
-
I have always supported the introduction of the 190D9 at the first opportunity Fishu, no arguements there.
However:
this means that germans must have D9 in order to keep balance with the allies
Is not exactly true, what about the 109G10 ? It is very much on a par with a P51 in performance, and exceeds it in some category's. These two aircraft are very balanced againts one another, especially since the G10 is much easier to fly and control now.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Originally posted by Vermillion:
However:
Is not exactly true, what about the 109G10 ? It is very much on a par with a P51 in performance, and exceeds it in some category's. These two aircraft are very balanced againts one another, especially since the G10 is much easier to fly and control now.
But G10 still performs poorly at high altitudes and its armament surely lacks against buffs... limited fuel also.
and if you grab pods, it will make higher altitudes even harder.
But compared to P-51, it is the plane that I hate to see personally when I am flying P-51.
What goes for P-51 more, is diving capability, fuel and ammo count.
More likely you get 6 kills in P-51 than in 109.
With 109 you more likely run out of ammo or fuel and diving capability sucks if you like high speed BnZ.
Though, 109G10 is very nice plane as long as you have ammunition and fuel. (but I think it has lowest fuel count of any planes, not sure of La-5..)
109s tends to have very stable nose for good shots also, though, not sure whether this is just harder trying and getting closer in or for the stability of pitch. (in 109 I go very close up before I shoot)
-
"But G10 still performs poorly at high altitudes"
I see crack cocaine is a problem in countries other than the USA. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I agree with you on the fuel problem. Because of the multiplier, planes with big fuel tanks get an altitude advantage. This wasn't really the case in WW2. Climbing to 25,000 feet didn't use a significant amount of fuel.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 08-31-2000).]
-
Funny thing that folks still believe that ARMOR on one of these planes is like
"Shields up Mr. Scott we have Klingons incoming..."
The armor in baically all fighters (with a few exemptions like the HS129) was just a few armor plates to protect the vitals like Pilot nad some (just SOME) of the equipment ...
Generaly speaking those planes wer not made to be shot at AND hit .. they survived by NOT getting hit mostly.
Sure there are examples of aircraft coming back with incredible combat damage .. but how many untold examples of the golden BB are there too ?
DW6
-
Not a single piece of armor on the Fw 190A that could stop a .50 cal round at close range. Pray that it hits the engine block.
-
These two aircraft are very balanced againts one another, especially since the G10 is much easier to fly and control now.
Odd, I've found it harder to fly since "prop drag" was modelled. The slip to the left after vertical input combined with less vertical stability at low speed firing solutions has made it more challenging to me.
But we're seeing more G10's lately, so you might be right. Might be me.
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
--- Funked: ---
These two areas make the FM look pretty good by comparison
--- end ---
Kill of HTC awarded to Funked.
//fats
-
Originally posted by Fishu:
They seem to have same sources in HTC as well... if I am not completely mistaken that A-5 somehow rides faster than A-8 in AH.
Well, maybe your kind of genie can point out *why* A-8 should be faster? (greater number in version eh?)
You still haven't told me this, Funked, I'd like to remind you that I'd like to hear the answer.
-
Good point Fishu. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
A-5 and A-8 have very similar aerodynamics and engine power at high altitudes. So the maximum speed should be pretty close.
But at low altitudes (see the link I posted earlier) the A-8 can use the boost override system to generate more power, so it can go about 15 mph faster on the deck.
-
The a5 is faster at low alt too?
Dweeb plane.
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Originally posted by funked:
Good point Fishu. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
A-5 and A-8 have very similar aerodynamics and engine power at high altitudes. So the maximum speed should be pretty close.
But you forget that A-8 is bit heavier though..
More armour (I think tail was more armored for example) and some changes with the gun change from MG-FF to MG151/20, with more ammunition.
So that would need also tad more power from the engine and make plane less maneuverable.
-
ATTN: Fishu
The benefits of the A-8 over the A-5 (in AH and real life) are the extra guns and ammo, extra range (due to aux. fuel tank behind the pilot) and additional speed on the deck due to boost augmentation.
The climb difference between A-5 and A-8 should not be as big as it is, because HTC appear to have modeled the A-5 on a G-3 with no cowl guns or MG FF.
-
HEhhhhmmmm at the risk of sounding inept...
How much does 2x7.92mm MGs, 2x20mm MGFF, and their ammo weight?
300 lbs? that being generous I guess ( no idea on ammo weights sorry).
That means nothing. No, really. I think the performance (speed, acceleratio and climb) wont be very damaged by that extra weight. There should be a difference, for sure ,still I think that it wont be one to squeak and moan about Fw190A5 like the squeakes and moans we all hear daily.
The manouverability would suffer, of curse, but the maneouverability difference between 4x20mm and 2x20mm is ok isnt it?-
so...is SO serious problem? if it is true that the performance is taken as funked says, then it needs fix, of course...but it does THAT BIG difference?
I guess not.
(I am taking funked's affirmation as true, note that In no moment I say that A5 is overmodelled. True is, he knows way more than me about 190s so I give him credit).
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 09-02-2000).]
-
If we come to overmodelling, then I have my doubts of P47 for example..