Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Ardy123 on April 20, 2010, 07:02:29 PM
-
I'm taking Ack-Acks suggestion and starting a new thread where the last one left off (around page 2-3).
Ardy, I'd like to add that 1800ps figure comes from performance chart for BMW 801D Sr.Nr. 9-801:5401 dated 10.7.42 and is for the 1.42ata@2700rpm setting. The 1.58ata-setting, which was accomplished with ADI (C3-injection), developed more power.
hmm, so if the A-8 is engine performance is modeled to that document then it should be outputting 2021.92hp, now the only thing missing is the confirmation that it was modeled from that document or that the modeling is treating 1.58 ata as 2021.92 hp.
This would mean that the power to weight ratio for both the A5 and A8 is...
A8 = 9702lb / 2021.92hp ~= 4.7984lb per hp
A5 = 8802lb / 1676.71hp ~= 5.249lb per hp
I would expect the A8 to have better climb performance than the A5 and acceleration given that it has more power per lb of weight, this is not reflected in the game. What am I missing?
Hitech,
What is the engine power output of the A8 modeled in the game?
Thanks
-
Well, both A-5 and the A-8 had the same basic engine type, the BMW 801D-2 but the outputs changed during the development of the A-series due to different clearances, injection systems, etc. AH's A-5 is modelled with the 1,42ata@2700rpm setting so, according to the sources I've seen, it should produce that 1800ps figure even though it is commonly referred as "1700ps" engine.
The power figures HTC uses can off course differ from the ones I mentioned from one reason or another.
-
Well, both A-5 and the A-8 had the same basic engine type, the BMW 801D-2 but the outputs changed during the development of the A-series due to different clearances, injection systems, etc. AH's A-5 is modelled with the 1,42ata@2700rpm setting so, according to the sources I've seen, it should produce that 1800ps figure even though it is commonly referred as "1700ps" engine.
The power figures HTC uses can off course differ from the ones I mentioned from one reason or another.
I'm kinda looking for HTC's numbers, that may shed some light. At this stage we only have the numbers on sources we are able to find, and they may or may not be the same sources HTC used, so our calculations may be incorrect due to an inability to validate our input data. It could be our sources are incorrect, it could be that HTC's sources are incorrect, or it could be that none are incorrect but either way, but either way, we will have a more indepth understanding of the issue.
-
Ardy it seems you're comparing the A5 at normal power to the A8 with WEP? They have about the same engine, the same wing, and the A8 is heavier.
-
Ardy it seems you're comparing the A5 at normal power to the A8 with WEP? They have about the same engine, the same wing, and the A8 is heavier.
I may be, I may not, I don't know to be honest. Can you please point me to a source that states what the A5 and the A8 had in terms of power output?
I an unable to find any consistency in what the Fw 190 A5 or the Fw 190 A8 had. For example,
According to Wikipedia...
'BMW 801 D-2 engine, rated at 1,700 PS (1,677 hp, 1,250 kW). Some A-5s were tested with the MW 50 installation: this was a mix of 50% methyl alcohol and 50% water which could be injected into the engine to produce a short-term power boost to 2,000 PS (1,973 hp, 1,471 kW), but this system was not adopted for serial production.'
Does the AH engine reflect the 1700 ps with when we have wep on, or is AH using the 2000ps with wep despite it not being adopted for production?
'Changes introduced with the Fw 190 A-8 also included the C3-injection Erhöhte Notleistung emergency boost system to the fighter variant of the Fw 190 A (a similar system with less power had been fitted to some earlier Jabo variants of the 190 A) raising power to 1,980 PS (1,953 hp, 1,456 kW) for a short time. The Erhöhte Notleistung system operated by spraying additional fuel into the fuel/air mix, cooling it and allowing higher boost pressures to be run, but at the cost of much higher fuel consumption. From the A-8 on Fw 190s could be fitted with a new paddle-bladed wooden propeller, easily identified by its wide blades with curved tips.'
So the A5 according to Wikipedia produced more power than the A8, or did the paddle blade prop make up for the difference in 20ps loss between the A5 and the A8?
Also, I've remember reading somewhere about a 'power-egg' modification to A8s? That may be not be worth talking about as HTC has stated before that they don't want to deal with 'field modifications'.
Idealy, HTC could state...
we modeled the FW 190 A5 to have ...
we modeled the FW 190 A8 to have ...
That would at least set a starting point to sorting out the inconsistencies between all the 'information' out there.
-
Ardy you posted that there is a 1% difference in WEP power and the A-8 is 900 lbs heavier. Does that answer your original performance question comparing the A-5 and A-8?
-
I think FLS is corrrect. Obviously there is either the same or marginally higher power from the engine and the extra weight to contend with.
With respect to the powerplant, if it was a field mod or a one-of type of motor that generated that higher power number, its probably not used in AH2. I would imagine that HTC modeled the aircraft that came out of the factory. However, if you know the drag coefficients of both aircraft, perhaps you could compare the thrust numbers of the A5 to the A8 and see what results you get.
-
Quotes of the posts made by krusty and baumer,
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/Fw190A8page.jpg)
I'm not sure where this fit's in exactly but this is what I have for the A-8 weight's in various configurations.This is from T.2190A-8 issued (Sep/44). I'm not saying this is the end all document, it's always wise to compare sources.
In summary comparing the various gun packages in AH (from the E6B) to this I came up with the following ranges;
- 2 MG131's, 4 MG151's- in AH it's from -.2 under to +20 pounds over weight (this is the only configuration the AH weight falls within the range in the document)
- 2 MG131's, 2 MG151's- in AH it's from +67 to +77 pounds over weight
- 2 MG131's, 2 MG151's, 2 MK 108's- in AH it's from +68.8 to +78.8 pounds over weight
- 2 MG131's, 2 MG151's, ETC 501 carrier, SC 500kg- in AH it's from +40.7 to +41.1 pounds over weight
Also doing a little more math,
The ETC 501 rack in game is 23.8 pounds to light.
The GP 500kg in game is 2.5 pounds to light.
BTW I wonder how it would handle with the /R-3 package? ;)
I hope that helps with the weight discussion.
Just going to compile a little list of different tests and different airframes on different dates (including the untranslated version of the 2 images I linked earlier in this thread), all listing weights and loadouts for the test.
These are not meant to really debate what performance we have or should have, but are only used as examples of historic weights in wartime testing (battle loaded) airframes. Also note dates are day/month/year, NOT the normal month/day/year.
New links:
serial no.: 801-048
date: 13.11.1943
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-level-speed-13nov43.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm
Lists 4350kg for fully loaded 2x20/2x30
serial no. 801-051
date: 13.11.1943
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-climb-13nov43.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm
Lists 4350kg for fully loaded 2x20/2x30
serial no. 801-132
date: 25.10.1944
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-25oct44.jpg
Already previously listed, but translated chart:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-25oct44.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm
serial no. (A-8 not listed, ta152 comparison)
date: 3.1.1945
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-3jan45.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm.
serial no. (A-8 not listed, anothe rta152 comparison)
date: 12.1.1945
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-12jan45.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm
serial no. (A-8 not listed, compares multiple variants)
date: 1.10.1944
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/leistungsdaten-1-10-44.jpg
already previously listed, but translated chart:
http://www.vermin.net/fw190/translated-fwchart.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm
-
With respect to the powerplant, if it was a field mod or a one-of type of motor that generated that higher power number, its probably not used in AH2.
If you mean the 2050ps figure I posted, no it isn't. Like I already stated, AH has A-8 modelled with the 1.58ata@2700rpm setting (low blower). This setting saw common use but it initially appeared only in the Jabo variants but was also used with the A-8 variant. This setting was achieved using the fuel as an antidetonant.
801D-2 showing the 1800ps figure on the deck with the 1.42ata@2700rpm -setting:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/bmw801d_performance_curve.jpg)
The table from Mr. Hermann's article:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/table.jpg)
-
1.42 ata figure (1730PS?!?!) seems to fit the HTC's speed chart with 410mph tops for A5, so if A8 is modeled with 1.58ata the power loading figures are very near but still on A8's favor. The better power loading obviously does not compensate for the higher wingloading at altitude so the A8 is still slightly slower at alt. Although the figure of 410mph at 20k for A5 includes deck speed of 348mph on deck, where as HTC A5 is slower for some reason, even if it should be nearly as fast as A8 on the deck?
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5.html
-C+
-
HTC's "A-5" most closely matches the testing of a repaired/captured G-3, hence some of the complaints about A-5 performance in this game. It's definitely one of the worst performing captured tests out there.
I'm not too sure about the horsepowers without looking some things up, but I wanted to caution about using power levels for the MW-50 powered A-8s or anything. That aux tank in the back of our AH A8 was the MW storage tank, but most never used it. Instead they used it for extra fuel instead of MW50. Maybe the higher horsepower listings are using that instead?
-
I'm not too sure about the horsepowers without looking some things up, but I wanted to caution about using power levels for the MW-50 powered A-8s or anything. That aux tank in the back of our AH A8 was the MW storage tank, but most never used it. Instead they used it for extra fuel instead of MW50. Maybe the higher horsepower listings are using that instead?
Nobody in this thread has mentioned "MW-50 powered A-8s".
-
If notleistubg is emergeny power, what is sondernot? My translating abilities are not very good, and my wife (who speaks German) isn't home this week.
-
If notleistubg is emergeny power, what is sondernot?
It means "Special Emergency Power". Usually associated with the use of some sort of power adding injection in German planes. Either ADI-type injection like the C3/MW-50 or nitrous oxide (GM-1) injection.
-
Thank you Wmaker, I was wondering if it specifically meant that there was a power adder involved (water/alcohol/nitrous).
-
You guys might want to be careful or the Spit guys are going to start the higher octane fuel/ +25 boost stuff again :)
-
Ardy you posted that there is a 1% difference in WEP power and the A-8 is 900 lbs heavier. Does that answer your original performance question comparing the A-5 and A-8?
not quite because the ATA numbers don't match if they are the exact same engine, why would the A8 support a higher manifold pressure in AH? This seams to imply that in AH, the A8 is in fact outputting more power, which doesn't fall in line with the Wikipedia article, unless the A5 is modeled to the non-wep setting mentioned in Wikipedia or Wikipedia is incorrect.
1.42 ata figure (1730PS?!?!) seems to fit the HTC's speed chart with 410mph tops for A5, so if A8 is modeled with 1.58ata the power loading figures are very near but still on A8's favor. The better power loading obviously does not compensate for the higher wingloading at altitude so the A8 is still slightly slower at alt. Although the figure of 410mph at 20k for A5 includes deck speed of 348mph on deck, where as HTC A5 is slower for some reason, even if it should be nearly as fast as A8 on the deck?
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5.html
-C+
Based on the posts above I've revised the power/to weight ratios
If the A8 is outputing 1.58ata and its in accordence to the chart....
FW 190-A5
1.42ata 1730PS = 1706.30hp
8802lb / 1706.30hp = 5.159 lb/hp
FW 190-A8
1.58ata = 2050ps = 2021.92hp
9702lb / 2021.92hp = 4.79040 lb/hp
Despite the added weight the power to weight ratio between the A5 and A8 IMPROVED! This is what seems odd because in the game A5 seems to have the edge on acceleration, climb and top speed.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/table.jpg)
OR is it that although the ata numbers appear to support the 2050ps, the actual output as someone else stated is 1800ps 'low blower' setting despite having 1.58ata as the manifold pressure?
-
You guys might want to be careful or the Spit guys are going to start the higher octane fuel/ +25 boost stuff again :)
...or you could leave the irrelevancies out of this thread?
-
Despite the added weight the power to weight ratio between the A5 and A8 IMPROVED! This is what seems odd because in the game A5 seems to have the edge on acceleration, climb and top speed.
There are many factors at play here. One is definately the differences between individual tested aircraft and the fact that some of the data which is in question here is probably calculated.
This is the performance data that matches with AH's A-8's performance:
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-25oct44.jpg)
As you can see, the powersettings match and one engine that the data sheet refers to even happens to be the engine I posted the power curves on (Sr.Nr. 9-801:5401 dated 10.7.42). The other engine they refer to is 9-801:10292 dated 15.3.44 (if I read it right). Since two different engines are mentioned, it looks like the values could be calculated based on previous engine testing. Off course I could be wrong aswell.
A slightly better performing A-8 can be found from here:
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-12jan44.jpg)
As you can see, only 7mph difference to the speed on the deck and about 0,5m/s difference in the initial climb rate. This kind of differences are to be expected between individual aircraft.
-
hmmm... thats interesting so despite the improvement in the power-to-weight ratio, there was not much of an improvement to the performance. I just noticed that both of the sheets you posted state a 1.42 ata not the 1.58 that we see in ah.
-
Ardy many times adding power does not increase best climb rates unless a prop change also occurred.
The extra power still shows up in speeds and other aspects of flight at speeds higher then best climb speed. I have not looked at these two planes specifically, but many times they can not get enough prop for improving climb.
HiTech
-
...or you could leave the irrelevancies out of this thread?
You clearly missed the point and the smile. No worries though :aok
-
Ardy many times adding power does not increase best climb rates unless a prop change also occurred.
The extra power still shows up in speeds and other aspects of flight at speeds higher then best climb speed. I have not looked at these two planes specifically, but many times they can not get enough prop for improving climb.
HiTech
HiTech,
Thank you for your input. I believe the prop did change, at least according to the Wikipedia article, it states...
'From the A-8 on Fw 190s could be fitted with a new paddle-bladed wooden propeller, easily identified by its wide blades with curved tips.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190)
-
hmmm... thats interesting so despite the improvement in the power-to-weight ratio, there was not much of an improvement to the performance. I just noticed that both of the sheets you posted state a 1.42 ata not the 1.58 that we see in ah.
The darkened limits of the curve are achieved with the WEP-setting (1.58ata low blower, 1.65ata with the high blower). As HT says, the prop's efficiency curve plays a big part here.
-
The darkened limits of the curve are achieved with the WEP-setting (1.58ata low blower, 1.65ata with the high blower). As HT says, the prop's efficiency curve plays a big part here.
lol, Honestly, I can't read the darkened area, or most of the sheet where the graph paper lines are...
-
lol, Honestly, I can't read the darkened area, or most of the sheet where the graph paper lines are...
Ok. :)
Here's a bit more readable version:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/p16_.jpg)
-
interesting... so only in specific ranges did it make a difference. As pointed out, the A8 could be fitted with a wider prop. I wonder how common that was and if it created a noticable impact. :headscratch:
-
interesting... so only in specific ranges did it make a difference. As pointed out, the A8 could be fitted with a wider prop. I wonder how common that was and if it created a noticable impact. :headscratch:
Yep the additional power could be maintained until the air got too thin for the first supercharger gear to maintain it (critical alt). After that, the power drops linearily until the next gear is engaged and so on.
About the prop...
I've understood that the vast majority of the A-8s had the 3,3m VDM 9-12176A prop which is the same prop as in the A-5. There are some documents that talk about the 9-12153B and 9-12157H3. The 9-12157H3 was wooden 3,5m diameter prop which was intended for the A-9 but even most of the A-9s were supposedly equipped with the regular A-8's 3,3m VDM 9-12176A prop. So all in all, it's the same prop as in the A-5 as far as I know. There might have been some trials with the larger props in the A-8 but I'm almost positive that none were so produced, and if they were, the numbers must be minimal.
-
Ok, here's my take on the engine configuration of the Fw190A-8 in Aces High;
First, looking at "Part 7 Engine operating and fuel supply system" of the manual has this for the emergency power system.
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/Fw190A8/Fw190pwr2.jpg)
Given that the Fw 190A-8 has 10 minutes of WEP in Aces High it seems likely that we have this system installed in game.
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/Fw190A8/Fw190pwr3.jpg)
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/Fw190A8/Fw190pwr4.jpg)
Given that we can get power settings that match this description, it adds to the likely hood that the emergency power system is modeled.
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/Fw190A8/Fw190pwr5.jpg)
Now here is some more pertinent information that's contained in a technical description of the Fw190A-8.
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/Fw190A8/Fw190auxtank.jpg)
Looking at the aux fuel paragraph it's clear that almost all A-8s were planned to be produced with the auxiliary fuel tank.
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/Fw190A8/Fw190engine.jpg)
This makes it clear that the emergency power system was to installed on all Fw190A-8's.
Testing in Aces High produces the RPM and ATA settings that are outlined in this document so I'm very confident that it is modeled, and modeled correctly (in my opinion).
-
Very interesting so as pointed out before the only thing that is different is the ata 1.65 with the super charger in high gear or 'high blower' as mentioned before. Cool find, very interesting, thank you.
-
I did a chart overlay of the AH speed chart onto the page posted by Wmaker. I did a linear transformation to align the 300 & 400 mph line as well as the 0 & 40,000 feet altitude. The small boxes in the original chart work out to be 2.5mph
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/Fw190A8/fwCHARTcomparison.jpg)
All in all I'd say the speed is very close to the 1.58/1.65ata mark. It looks like the largest difference is about 5mph.
One other point I started thinking about last night. Given that it the A-8 has the emergency power system modeled and gives 10 minutes of WEP, looking at the first page of the general section I saw this.
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/Fw190A8/Fw190pwr1.jpg)
So does that mean the 190A-5 should only have 3 minutes of WEP instead of 10 minutes? I'm sure I'll be tared and feathered now, but I don't have an A-5 manual to compare this to (and it may be a non-issue).
-
what about the weight differences that was mentioned in the other thread?
-
"So does that mean the 190A-5 should only have 3 minutes of WEP instead of 10 minutes? I'm sure I'll be tared and feathered now, but I don't have an A-5 manual to compare this to (and it may be a non-issue)."
Tared and feathered? For what, asking a valid question? I don't think there's that kind of fanboys in this thread. ;)
"By August 1943 the Reichsluftfahrtsministeriem (RLM) was satisfied with the reliability and performance gains of C-3 injection and ordered that an instruction be written for the Fw 190 A-4 Aircraft Handbook. The C3 injection could be used continuously for approximately 10-15 minutes."
From the link I posted earlier.
-C+
-
Quick question fellas...is the data (test documents and production data) on http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/) considered valid in discussions like this one?
If anyone wants a scanned copy of a 190-A5/A6 pilots handbook here you go (caution it is in German): FW190-A5/A6 Pilot Manual PDF (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/405468/AH%20Stuff/3086740-Fw190-Pilot-manual.pdf)
-
Nice find Gyrene on the A-5 and A-6 - I'll trade ya the Luftwaffe September 1944 FW 190 A-8 Manual at this location: :)
http://www.simcentrum.com/pafiledb.php?action=file&id=51
I may be mistaken but I seem to remember several people giving references (on the forum) to 190 engine data as it is modeled here in AH - is this from personal tests? or is it readily available ? Where is this available and what are it's documented sources??
....cheers eh! :D