Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Karnak on June 23, 2000, 04:46:00 PM
-
The Yanks got their P-47D-30...
The Luftwaffe got their Fw190A-5...
Methinks its time for the Spitfire MkXIV (bubble hood) to make its apearance. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
The Yanks got their P-47D-30...
The Luftwaffe got their Fw190A-5...
Methinks its time for the Spitfire MkXIV (bubble hood) to make its apearance. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Sisu
-Karnak
then give us 190D9. SpitXIV is a late 44 plane,P47D-30 too and Fw190A5 is 1943
So stop the song... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
1 Yank plane - P47
1 Luft plane - 190A5
1 Jap plane - Zeke
1 Soviet plane - Yak 9
Apparently no time even to provide drop tanks for either of the 2 RAF planes still waiting.
Feeling like everyone's been given a pressie but me (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
-
oh nash ok so then next row give us a Me109E and you RAF people get a Tempest ok?
Plane for plane isnt it?
DOH!
-
Time for this one methinks.
(http://www.raf303.org/308/pkg.jpg)
Photo coutesy of Funked and the 303rd
Hang
-
Plane set as it stands now on fighters:
1939 NONE
1940 NONE
1941 Spitfire MkVb, Typhoon, Bf109F, ??C.202??
1942 Spitfire MkIX, Bf109G-2, Bf109G-6
1943 Fw190A-5, A6M5b, ??La5N??, ??C.205??
1944 Fw190A-8, N1K2, P-51D, P-47D-30, Yak-9U, Bf109G-10, P-38L
1945 NONE
1946 NONE
Note that the VVS, USAAF, IJA and Luftwaffe all have at least one plane in the 1944 planeset and the Regia Aeronautica have (maybe) one in the 1943 planeset. I think its time for the RAF to get a 1943/1944 fighter: the MkXIV Spitfire. The first Spitfire MkXIV was delivered to the RAF in November of 1943 and it entered full squadron service in the 2nd quarter of 1944. It is not a late '44 aircraft.
Hangtime, sure, lets get a P-51B in RAF colors, e.g Mustang MkIII. But in that case, I want a Spitfire MkXIV in USAAF colors. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) If you 'Stang boys can milk a Mustang out of the RAF, let us RAF boys milk a Spit out of the USAAF (Spit Vs and IXs did serve in the USAAF, but I don't think any XIVs did).
Sisu
-Karnak
-
A6m5 = March 44
the war ended in 45 not 46
-
Yes, I know it ended in '45. I was leaving room for the theoretical "special" planes that never saw service.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Guys-
Give Nashwan and Karnak a little slack here... I think they are right. The Brits are about due for an upgrade in the fighter department. I for one really do try to fly all planes, and can see the MkIX is getting a little long in the tooth compared to some of the monsters out there now.
Put yourself in their shoes; they want to stay with their choice of country. There is bound to be a plane that can do that and not upset the arena any more than the new A5, right? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Originally posted by Kieren:
Guys-
Give Nashwan and Karnak a little slack here... I think they are right. The Brits are about due for an upgrade in the fighter department. I for one really do try to fly all planes, and can see the MkIX is getting a little long in the tooth compared to some of the monsters out there now.
Put yourself in their shoes; they want to stay with their choice of country. There is bound to be a plane that can do that and not upset the arena any more than the new A5, right? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Well seems that now that half the arena will be in P47 noone matters the "boring" and the "repetitive" view they will made,all in the same plane...nahh of course that only happened with 190A5 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (tongue-in-cheek)
Kieren I agree with you in that RAF needs another plane. But not for the reason said here, we LW get a 1943 plane and you all think that because that you must receive a 1944 one??? as I said, then give us a Me109E and then give RAF people a tempest.
I love A5. And you all know it. But Fw190A5 is a 1943 plane, and its speed cant match that of the 1944 planes. Damnit, I have problems trying to outrun SpitIXs!!!
Give them the Tempest, if they want it. I think SpitXIV belongs to the "uber" list, but that is open for a debate. Well give them their food. And give us ours. A competitive late war Fw190. Give us a Dora9.
Right now people is realizing that fw190A5 is just a good plane. Better than A8 in some aspects...but worse in others (Deck speed is too few for my flying style).
D9 is a plane that would turn a bit better than A8, and be fast at all altitudes. And it HAD MW50 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) MANY of them had it (hint hint).
So if they want tempest, give them tempest. But dont let us with a 1943 plane and a heavyweight buff killer to match that. Give us a dora
and everyone happy (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 06-23-2000).]
-
Thanks Kieren.
The following is a repost of something I posted in the Aircraft and Vehicles forum. I want people to read it. Particularly RAF and LW guys.
_____________________________ _____________________________ __________
I say "Forget the LWs". I'm tired of hearing them b***h whenever we RAF types ask for a new fighter. I haven't noticed them doing this to anybody else.
What is so bad about the RAF?
You LW guys don't seem to raise a fuss about the USAAF/USN, VVS, IJN/IJA or Regia Aeronautica getting new kites without getting compensation. Why raise the fuss about the RAF? You guys already have 7 units to our 3 (1.04 looks to raise this to 8 to 4). You have a couple of late war aircraft already, the Bf109G-10 and Fw190A-8. The Fw might be intended for bombers, but that certainly has its place here. You just got the Fw190A-5, which is a VERY lethal mid-war fighter. Why do the LW guys need to get yet another late-war bird if we RAFs get our first late-war bird?
Plane set as it stands now on fighters:
1939 NONE
1940 NONE
1941 Spitfire MkVb, Typhoon, Bf109F, ??C.202??
1942 Spitfire MkIX, Bf109G-2, Bf109G-6
1943 Fw190A-5, F4U-1D, F4U-1C, ??La5N??, ??C.205??
1944 Fw190A-8, N1K2, P-51D, A6M5b, P-47D-30, Yak-9U, Bf109G-10, P-38L
1945 NONE
I don't want the Tempest V as the first late-war RAF fighter because it would just be another BnZ cannon bird. We've already got one. It is also not something that hasn't been modeled. While WB might not model it, both AOE and EAW did. Their flight models may not be up to snuff, but they do count as priors.
I want the Spitfire MkXIV "bubble hood" because it would be used in a different way than the existing aircraft. I also believe that it would be more competitive with the existing fighter set. Yes, it too has been modeled in other sims, but I think it would be the best choice for the RAF's first late-war fighter.
I would like to see the Tempest V and Fw190D-9 modeled, I just don't see it as high a priority as the Spitfire MkXIV. I don't think that the LWs need to be compensated if the RAF gets the Spitfire MkXIV. We certainly haven't been compensated for each fighter that they've gotten in each release and I would certainly not expect it. I don't think that HTC should foster the idea that a particular group must be coddled and compensated in each release because another group got something in that release. The Bf109G-10 and Fw190A-5 would provide adequate competition for the Spitfire MkXIV for a few weeks/months until the Fw190D-9 could/would be added.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Originally posted by RAM:
D9 is a plane that would turn a bit better than A8, and be fast at all altitudes. And it HAD MW50 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) MANY of them had it (hint hint).
Eh, RAM, that Dora-9 is no turner. It's not even a radial engine, it's an inline. I will produce one of my sources as to why it's no turner "The new airplane[Fw 190 D9] lacked the high turn rate and incredible rate of roll of its close-coupled radial-engined predecessor. It was a bit faster, however, with a maximum speed of 426 mph at 21,650ft. It's 1750HP, which methanol/water injection boosted to 2240, gave it excellent acceleration in combat situations. It also climbed and dove more rapidly than the Fw 190A, so proved well suited to dive-and-boom(he said it, not me) ambush tactics favored by Schlageter pilots." -JG26 Top Guns of the Luftwaffe p.298 second paragraph. This is by no means a book on just airplanes, it's a book about JG26 obviously. Most of us, I'm sure, have a copy of this book. I've read it 4 or 5 times now. I love the Luftwaffe(note: NOTE what it fought for or what Hitler intended the swastika to stand for... it was actually an indian symbol he took from a tribe that he killed on one of his EARLY invasions). I love german aircraft. I don't like 190s so much(they're more suited to taking down forts 'n liberators IMO with those big guns.. 109s more suited for combat again IMO). I just want all planes to perform the way they should. I support the A5, I think it performs within it's RL counterparts flight data. I just don't like how some games(AOE namely) had the Fw 190D9 on turning roids. The WB 190D9 turned slowly and stalled much easier than the other 190s. I mean, the D9 is just a Fw 190A8 with an extended tail, larger horizontal stabilizer and a bigger engine up front. It's heavier than the A8 by 2,000lbs. Has the same wing area. At sea level it's only 2MPH faster. At 21,650ft it is 426MPH. The A8 at 18,045ft is 402MPH. Those are max speeds for both craft at their optimal altitudes. If you want the source for this data, ask in a reply.
-SW
AKSeaWulfe+
-
I disagree.
The Spit IX with a 50cal load out is a 1944 plane. It did not exist before that.
It is a true contempory of the G10 and the A8.
The XIV is a contemporary of the 262 and the D9.
But good luck.
-
D-9 is 2000lbs heavier than A-8? I'd like to see that source.
-
"note: NOTE what it fought for or what Hitler intended the swastika to stand for... it was actually an indian symbol he took from a tribe that he killed on one of his EARLY invasions)."
Actually the swastika was a very old norse symbol (Signature of Thor if I remember correctly). Werner Voss was the first German pilot to use it on his sky blue DR1 in WWl. The indian symbol had the wings pointing the other direction from the swastika. This was true of the Indians of the middle east and the Native Americans.
------------------
OhNooo
smile awhile
[This message has been edited by MrBill (edited 06-24-2000).]
-
Originally posted by juzz:
D-9 is 2000lbs heavier than A-8? I'd like to see that source.
mmm... teaches me to read the wrong entries. :-) I read normal loaded weight on D-9 and empty weight on the A8. Hence the 2000lb difference. Actually the A8 is 9,656lbs and the D-9 is 9,480lb. My mistake on the weights. The rest is still accurate though. Source for the data is: The complete book of fighters. by William Green and Gordon Swanborough. Published by Smithmark. GOod reference material for every fighter from 1915 until present.
-SW
-
Pongo - what is it you don't agree with? How exactly are you arriving to Spit IX getting it's armanent upgraded somewhat (4 .303s swapped for 2 .50s) and suddenly becoming a '44 fighter?
What kind of warped logic is this? The whole idea behind this upgrade was to give at least some chance to a '42 plane in the skies full of FWs. I don't like XIV myself (didn't like it in WB rather) but lets at least keep the argument factual - IX is a '42 fighter in (largely) '44 planeset.
USAF has at the moment 3 of their best fighters of the war. IJA - 2 of their good ones. Russia, Italy and Germany - (La-7 is needed!!!) in a very similar position.
RAF planeset comprises '41 and '42 birds. And no matter the amount of squeaking about Dweebfires etc all one has to do (if not in a Spit that is) is to point the nose down and disengage...
------------------
-lynx-
13 Sqn RAF
[This message has been edited by -lynx- (edited 06-24-2000).]
-
Originally posted by AKSeaWulfe:
mmm... teaches me to read the wrong entries. :-) I read normal loaded weight on D-9 and empty weight on the A8. Hence the 2000lb difference. Actually the A8 is 9,656lbs and the D-9 is 9,480lb. My mistake on the weights. The rest is still accurate though. Source for the data is: The complete book of fighters. by William Green and Gordon Swanborough. Published by Smithmark. GOod reference material for every fighter from 1915 until present.
-SW
So you are telling me that D9 has a slightly lower wingloading than A8, and that it has a much better powerloading most of the time (expecially over 15K).
AKS, to extend tail and nose doesnt make a plane to roll worse, a bigger wing would do that (Ta152H lost much of the 190's rollrate because its extended wingspan). so if D9 has same wing as A8 how come it rolls worse? it makes no sense.
Besides, the better powerloading with the same wingloading (in fact a bit lighter), should make D9 to have a BIGGER turnrate than A8, not less!!!
Low on the deck D9 is 2 mph faster than A8? well yes. But it has much better acceleration, not to talk about climbrate. And MW50 helps. believe me.
The only thing I'd miss from an A8 in D9 would be the 4x20mm loadout (already missing it in A5 as I dont load the MGFF) and the radial engine endurance to damage. Otherwise the plane is way better, at all altitudes, than A8 and A5.
YOu say it turns worse? I doubt it. But anyway who wants to turn tight in a 190?
Me not (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
Ram, out
Fw190D9? YEAH BABY, YEAH!!!
JG2 "Richthofen" (http://members.tripod.com/JG2/)
(http://nottosc.tripod.com/ram190.gif) (http://www.airtel.net/hosting/0003d/ebringas/ta152.jpg)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 06-24-2000).]
-
Lynx, I could be wrong, but its my understanding that Pongo is correct and that the Mk IX's didn't start getting the .50's until '44, which makes it a 1944 aircraft if you carry that load out.
Just like everyone considers the F4U-1C a "1945" aircraft, even though it is really a late 1943 aircraft with just an armament change.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"
-
A 1944 Spitfire IX would have 150 octane fuel. We don't have that, we have a 1942 plane with the wrong armament options. I'd gladly trade the E guns for the historically correct B and C armament options. Far from being a 1944 plane, it's not even as good as a standard 1942 Spit IX should be.
-
Not to help or hurt this little row y'all got going,seeing as I fly every plane available(and badly too) but it occurs ta me that if you have a little patience you will get the bird you are wishing for,Hell I want early war types myself, would they be competitive in the MA? not a chance, would I have fun trying ta blow someone away in a long-in-the-tooth P40B? Oyas mon, most definate (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Wait a while,see what's coming
And remember, I can beat your Ferrari in my VW, 'cuz I'm not afraid ta take it outta first (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"
-
The weapon race. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Spit IX is still a good weapon, but it requires much more skills for a successful flying now, when there are so many late war planes. It was not many spits in the air even before 1.03, unless as a field defenders, now they are very few.
I will fly it anyway, even if air will be full with me262 and no other spits. I flyed a5 and found it a much better b&z weapon than spit9 is at the moment, but I felt guilty when I saw my spity left in the hangar, standing alone in the falling darkness... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Fariz
-
Not to throw water on this hot topic, but remember that the next two aircraft are going to be the Lancaster and the JU-88.
Mebbe it's time to take a break from fighter production over at HTC until we get at least one bomber for each country already modeled.
After the JU-88 and Lanc are created, we still have no Japanese, Russian or Italian bomber.
I have no idea what a good choice for an Italian bomber would be(Stormo Caccia guys help me out here), but I can think of two good choices for the Japanes and the Russian:
Kawanishi H8K2 "Emily"
Tupolev TU-2
-
Originally posted by Pongo:
The XIV is a contemporary of the 262 and the D9.
But good luck.
In a purely innocent query, why is the XIV a contemporary of the 262? I would have thought the Meteor would be that?
'Nexx'
-
So it is down to a simple conclusion:
While US planes are represented by their best 1944 planes, neither RAF or Luftwaffe have their best 1944 planes modeled in AH.
RAF misses its Spit XIV and Tempest, Luftwaffe misses 262 and Dora.
-
I will let my comment stand.
You cant have it all ways. The G10 is a 190G6(1942) with a different blower. The A8 is a 190a5(1942) with better wing cannons and 1000lbs(guesstimate) of ballast.
Ask for your ride if you want but it is nothing to do with the Luftwaffe planes.
Dont even get started on 150 octane fuel. If you try to give late MkIX and Mk XVI stuff to the spit crowd they will roast ya alive.
I just respond when I see the because you have this and they have that we need this argument.
But I have to admit. The Spit IX is not the plane it once was in the MA. I feel it is still spectaculare but other planes there now are great matches for it.
Karnak. I am sorry that I seem to be fated to disagree with you on this. But I am sure that with the later evolving plane set you will get your ride soon.
I will bow out of this thread so that we dont just repeat what has allready been said.
<S>
[This message has been edited by Pongo (edited 06-24-2000).]
-
Nashwan to say that all (or even more than a tiny fraction) of 1944 Spitfires used 150 octane fuel is down right ludicrous.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"
-
I don't think the arena needs a Spit XIV, it's not a matter of what year these planes were introduced but more a matter of is the Spit IX still competitive in the MA right now. I have to say yes, it can still out turn most other aircraft baring the Zeke I imagine and even in that case the spitfire I would imagine (since I don't fly it) could out dive, outrun, and generally beat the zeke in other catagories besides turn radius. It's just my opinion of course and if you disagree that's fine by me I'm not hear to tell anyone they're wrong but at least in my eyes the Spit IX can still get the job done.
------------------
(http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~kalger/sig.gif)
"Smoke me a kipper boys, I'll be back for breakfast"
[This message has been edited by Soulyss (edited 06-24-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Pongo:
You cant have it all ways. The G10 is a 190G6(1942) with a different blower.
Put it that way and the Spit IX is just the V with a different blower. There is a huge performance difference between the G6 and G10, so I think that qualifies them as different planes.
Originally posted by Pongo:
Ask for your ride if you want but it is nothing to do with the Luftwaffe planes.
Agreed. It is strange that whenever somebody asks for a new RAF plane it is met with a chorus of "not till we get our Dora/Ta152/Go229 etc." The RAF has the oldest planeset in the game. That needs fixing. The Luftwaffe planeset is not as modern as the US set. That also needs fixing.
Originally posted by Pongo:
But I have to admit. The Spit IX is not the plane it once was in the MA. I feel it is still spectaculare but other planes there now are great matches for it.
Of the 3 RAF planes, 1 is the worst handling in the game (the Typhoon), 1 is the slowest(I think)(the Spit V), and 1 is a an all round aircraft that doesn't top the lists in any area.
Originally posted by Pongo:
Karnak. I am sorry that I seem to be fated to disagree with you on this. But I am sure that with the later evolving plane set you will get your ride soon.
It looks like any RAF aircraft from 1944 on will be a perk plane. Fans of German, American, Japanese and Russian planes will fly their 1944 aircraft to earn the right to fly a 1945 perk. Fans of the RAF will fly 1942 aircraft to earn the right to fly a 1944 perk. Not my idea of fun.
-
Originally posted by RAM:
AKS, to extend tail and nose doesnt make a plane to roll worse, a bigger wing would do that (Ta152H lost much of the 190's rollrate because its extended wingspan). so if D9 has same wing as A8 how come it rolls worse? it makes no sense.
I never said extending the tail makes it roll worse. FIrst of alll, the D-9 *IS* the A8 airframe. Same wing area, wingloading, airfoil, everything. It just has 5ft extension placed between the fuselage and the tail section. THe thing that makes it roll worse is it's inline engine. In a radial engine you have much more centrigual force going a certain direction, thus giving you a faster rate of roll in one direction. The D9 is an inline engine, that does NOT necassarily have MW50.
Besides, the better powerloading with the same wingloading (in fact a bit lighter), should make D9 to have a BIGGER turnrate than A8, not less!!!
[/b]
This is just assumption here. Fact of the matter is, it's not just whatever you think powerloading is,(if you mean engine power, as in horse power.. well the 190D9 had the Jumo213A01 rated only 1,776HP(2,240HP w/emergency boost) while the A8 was 1,700HP(2,100hp emergency boost)Not much of a difference in power-- doesn't really support bigger engine=better turning, and the fact of the matter is that the 190D-9 is a mere 330lbs lighter than the A-8 doesn't mean it's going to all of a sudden be a better turner. The distance between the wings and the tail alone should indicate to you it's not much a turner, but you insist that more power(not much) and more wing area(eh? it has the SAME sized wings as the A-8, no difference there) and less weight(330lbs) immediately make it a candidate for turning better. In real life, just sticking a bigger engine on a smaller airframe doesn't make it a candidate for turning wickedly fast. It all comes down to wing AREA, or surface area. If the wings aren't large enough to grip onto the air in those turns, then the airfoil is going to lose it's air feed and thus stall out. Haven't you noticed when you stall in AH you're plane's wings aren't gripping the air as well? You're tugging on that stick, but your wings aren't doing much so you are moving 45degrees down from where your nose is pointed.
I'd like to see some figures/anecdotes that you are pulling your ideas from. I've produced mine, now lets see yours. I'll guarantee you that 190 D-9 is not going to be on par with this 190A-5 as far as turning goes. You've got one high speed pass and a small turn before you leave that planes flight envelope, and it's not medium-low alt fighter. That thing was built for way up in the sky, why else would they give it a paddle blade prop?
-SW
AKSeaWulfe+
-
Originally posted by Pongo:
I disagree.
The Spit IX with a 50cal load out is a 1944 plane. It did not exist before that.
It is a true contempory of the G10 and the A8.
The XIV is a contemporary of the 262 and the D9.
But good luck.
HAHAHAHA,
I just keep on getting more and more surprised with you Pongo. You are indeed a "character" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
To all others, recently I already proved Pongo that SpitXIV is far from uber. Look for a long threat in Aircraft forum for it.
SpitXIV is nothign more then a beefed up SpitIX. It runs faster and can turn as well as SpitIX. On a negative side it has a huge torque and I doubt it's low speed handling will be nowhere near as then one in SpitIX.
That's all I say about SpitXIV for now, and you, all the LW boys, give me a prove that SpitXIV is uber, because the only one I heard so far from Pongo was somehting like "it's just uber"
mx22
[This message has been edited by mx22 (edited 06-24-2000).]
-
(http://www.mindspring.com/~nathownsj00/ww2/spitXIVvs109190.gif)
-UBER-
[This message has been edited by Nath-BDP (edited 06-24-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Nath-BDP (edited 06-27-2000).]
-
Mx22----->DANNNNNNG !!! DANNNNNG!!! you hear the bell? take a look to he up study (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
AKS...Lets see...
Fw190A8's rollrate (well and A5's too) has nothing to do with radial engine or inline engine. It has to do with electrically controled surfaces joint with a reduced wingspan and wing surface. You say it should roll better to one side? well that happens in ALL planes...try to roll at 150mph to the right in a Corsair and then try to do it to the left. Any difference? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
In Fw190 I can roll both sides with no problem at nearly any speed. Nothing to do with engine but with airframe and electric controls.
About BMW801 rated at 2100hp...ahem...not. At least not without MW50, and A8 has no MW50 fitted in AH (and its doubtful it had in RL). But okay I give you the 2100hp figure...at deck level.
What about 15K?
What about 20K?
what about 25K?
Jumo inline engine in D9 retains its power up to 30K while BMW engine gasps for air over 15K. What means that on the deck D9 has a slight better powerloading than A8 (it is a only bit faster because the added drag of the supercharger scoop), and that powerloading is much better on D9 the higher we go. So, as I said, D9 has better powerloading most of the time, especially over 15K.
So low in the deck we have a plane (D9)slightly lighter than A8, with a slight power advantage. That with the 2100hp figure, that is not quite accurate from what I know. What does this means?----------->better powerloading.
And the higher we go, the better powerloading D9 gets related to A8 and A5.
And we have a plane with same wing as A8 except for the outboard cannon. Same wing area in a lighter plane-------------->lower wingloading. Not by much, but that makes D9 a tad better turner than A8...and with the better powerloading of the D9 we have a plane that should have a better turnrate than A8, joint with a better acceleration. That makes D9 a deadly aircraft by any standards.Much deadlier than A8 ,for sure.
As a side note I'll tell you that many D9's came out from factory without MW50, but they got it on the field. So there were MUCH more D9s with MW50 than without it. So IMHO 190D9 should be modelled with Methanol-Water injection.
TO end, AKS I'll tell you that I never said that D9 should turn as A5 does (Where did you read that???), but that it should tunr a TAD better than A8...wich is more than enough for me. My references, as you see, are all taken from Fw190A8, not A5. And D9 SHOULD be better turner than A8...not by much? agree. but still noticeable, and still enought to be the Mustang's nightmare (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
I think you understood me bad somewhere.
------------------
Ram, out
Fw190D9? Ta152H1? The truth is out there
JG2 "Richthofen" (http://members.tripod.com/JG2/)
(http://nottosc.tripod.com/ram190.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 06-24-2000).]
-
Nash, MX. I have said I wont drag this out in Karnaks thread again and I wont.
We can all trust Pyro in this.
Good luck guys
-
Well said Pongo. Lets let HTC do these things in their own time. When they judge the planeset ready, they'll do it. Until then lets focus on having fun with what we've got.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
What do you mean? The Brits have a late-war plane modeled:
British Late War Plane (http://www.aksquad.com/airshow/MVC-001F.JPG)
-
Originally posted by RAM:
About BMW801 rated at 2100hp...ahem...not. At least not without MW50, and A8 has no MW50 fitted in AH (and its doubtful it had in RL). But okay I give you the 2100hp figure...at deck level.
***DID NOT READ ALERT***
"while the A8 was 1,700HP(2,100hp emergency boost)" The A8 has 1700HP, 2100 WITH emergency boost. I'm at work, so I can't read my books(which I gave you as sources.. I want to see the BOOKS you are getting this data from on your end). However, the Fw-190A8 had some form of boost, and I'm almost positive it's MW50. "doubtful"? Do you have more than ONE book on planes? Do you have ANY books with hard data other than say books about a squadron?
Jumo inline engine in D9 retains its power up to 30K while BMW engine gasps for air over 15K. What means that on the deck D9 has a slight better powerloading than A8 (it is a only bit faster because the added drag of the supercharger scoop), and that powerloading is much better on D9 the higher we go. So, as I said, D9 has better powerloading most of the time, especially over 15K.
Well there is isn't that much more drag on this "supercharger scoop" you are talking about. The scoop is more of a small force feed air intake about the size of a cup. The drag from this is negligable at best. The 2MPH difference is from the fact the 190 D9 was built with one purpose: to fly at very high altitudes to intercept bomber formations. It was meant for high-speed slashing attacks on bombers, not for turning.
So low in the deck we have a plane (D9)slightly lighter than A8, with a slight power advantage. That with the 2100hp figure, that is not quite accurate from what I know. What does this means?----------->better powerloading.
Like I said, 1700HP in my original post. 2100HP with emergency boost aka WEP. At low altitudes it has none to little power advantage because the D9's jumo engine is working very hard to turn that paddle bladed prop in very thick atmosphere.
And the higher we go, the better powerloading D9 gets related to A8 and A5.
[/b]
No, the higher you get, the atmosphere is a lot thinner. The engine doesn't strain as hard to turn that HUGE prop in that thin air. Therefore, prop turns faster, plane goes faster.
And we have a plane with same wing as A8 except for the outboard cannon. Same wing area in a lighter plane-------------->lower wingloading. Not by much, but that makes D9 a tad better turner than A8...and with the better powerloading of the D9 we have a plane that should have a better turnrate than A8, joint with a better acceleration. That makes D9 a deadly aircraft by any standards.Much deadlier than A8 ,for sure.
[/b]
Yes, well the problem we run into again is it's not just weight, power and wing loading(it's wing area, again as I said before) that determine turning. It's also the plane's aerodynamic properties. If you extend the tail of the Spitfire MkV and then lighten it up a little. The stock spitfire MkV will STILL turn tighter circles than the modified MkV. Reason for this is that there's more air loss and it's a longer body turning through the same amount of air that the stock Mk V is. Aviation is more than "well it's more powerful and is lighter and has same wing area as that one.. must turn better", that's just an assumption.
As a side note I'll tell you that many D9's came out from factory without MW50, but they got it on the field. So there were MUCH more D9s with MW50 than without it. So IMHO 190D9 should be modelled with Methanol-Water injection.
[/b]
I know this. However field modified D9s don't have as much fuel for the MW50 as the D9s built at the factory with MW50.
TO end, AKS I'll tell you that I never said that D9 should turn as A5 does (Where did you read that???), but that it should tunr a TAD better than A8...wich is more than enough for me. My references, as you see, are all taken from Fw190A8, not A5. And D9 SHOULD be better turner than A8...not by much? agree. but still noticeable, and still enought to be the Mustang's nightmare.
[/b]
The references you are taking should be coming from books... and I haven't seen you produce ANY book names and the authors that wrote these books that you are pulling this information from? I made a mistake, but I know you are talking about the A8 the whole time. I meant to say A8 but it was a simple typo. Nevertheless, the A8 may not be as light as the D9 or as powerful, but it will still turn inside it.
-SW
-
I agree with Hangtime - give us the Mustang III (p51b with bubble hood), even though it will only give Hang another weapon to trounce me with. It would be nice to have a 'stang with a bit of camo.
The Spitfire mkIX was the most numerous model right to the end of the war. I find the IX modeled in AH to be quite formidible. Checking stats shows that it is the aircraft with the best k/d ratio against me. Anyone
chased a 190A5 with a spit 9? In RL the spit
was faster by a little. Will be interesting to see how it shakes out in AH.
Fluf
-
Sources: jane's fighting aircraft of WWII,Aircraft ot WWII (by David Donald),Focke wulf FW190, Aces of the western front (John weal).
And all the links provided by Funked in this BBS.
Fw190A8 had no MW50 booster, at least no references demostrate that. In AH Fw190A8 has no MW50 but a manual override that makes engine output better for a long time. But for sure not 2100hp! (I wish it was 2100hp my god)
Agree on the low level problems of the D9 due to its engine tuned for higher altitudes. I dont agree with the propeller issue. Spit XIV had 5 more or less broad proppellers and had no problem low in the deck. So the "jumo engine is working very hard to turn that paddle bladed prop in very thick atmosphere" is not that serious matter isnt it?.
No, the higher you get, the atmosphere is a lot thinner. The engine doesn't strain as hard to turn that HUGE prop in that thin air. Therefore, prop turns faster, plane goes faster.
Sorry, but no. BMW801 GASPED for air at hi altitudes due the lack of a proper supercharger. 801 was a problematic engine when tried to be provided with a turbosupercharger, thats why the engine change was done. Jumo engine retained its power until much higher due the excellen supercharger it had. Again, no matter with the propeller.
Yes, well the problem we run into again is it's not just weight, power and wing loading(it's wing area, again as I said before) that determine turning. It's also the plane's aerodynamic properties.
Ok this one is a thing I dont know much about. I'll gave that as true as you seem to know what are you talking about (something I sure don't when related to aerodynamics (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif))
field modified D9s don't have as much fuel for the MW50 as the D9s built at the factory with MW50.
I dont think so, AKS, as D9, as you said properly, was an A8 airframe in all aspects but in the lenght and engine. The Auxiliar tank is still there, and that was the tank used for GM1 and MW50 booster's fuel.
So the fuel load should be the same. anyway I talk by assumption here so I may be wrong.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
One of you RAF weenies, pick your LW plane from the current AH plane set. I'll take Spitfire Mk.IX. We fly for say 2 ( ? ) nights and compare stats.
What good would it be for? Perhaps it might display that the Spitfire Mk.IX can rack comparable number of kills and survive with LW planes. Or maybe it would reveal something different altogether?
//fats
-
Spitfire Mk. XIV would be a great matchup for Fw 190D-9. To minimize whining on either side, HTC should introduce these two together, along with the P-47M. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
About Dora vs. A-8:
1. I don't know if Dora was lighter. Almost identical weights are shown in the books I have.
2. The sea level engine power is about the same unless the Dora is using MW 50. In that case the Dora has about 500 more hp than the A-8. AFAIK MW 50 was not used on A-8 at all, but was retrofitted to some D-9.
-
fats,
Are you trying to imply that we, RAF pilots, are not as good as you are?
mx22
-
Mx22,
I just don't think RAF weenies are satisfied with what you got while you should/could be. The Spitfire Mk.IX might be from '42 but that doesn't tell the full story. If I didn't fly LW planes only I'd be flying Spitfire Mk.IX all the time like I did before we got Fw 190A-8 in the game.
If I was implying that I was better than you ( as a whole ), I would've made the challenge with similar planes preferably such that was most comfortable for you. Idea of changing the planes would be for both to see that perhaps the grass isn't as green on the enemy's airfield?
//fats
-
historical match up si D9 vs tempest
and not yankie iron yes it hapaned
1 k of yank figter masacred lone scout :-)))))
check out the pilot lose in last 5 month of the war and u aderstund what the true is
D9 for the LW and the best piston eng plane of the time Tempest to Raf
ps Jg 2 will be hapy also with Ta 152
just a problem , everibody gona fly it .so i prefer to not hav it :-))))))))))))))
-
GAWD!!! Take an english class and come back!
-
Can you speak french as well as he speaks english? Then dont yell at him.
-
Sorry its annoying, especially when they don't say anything important. Not to mention I couldn't understand half of it.
[This message has been edited by Nath-BDP (edited 06-28-2000).]
-
Nath-BDP,
Voisitko mennä itse suomen kielen kurssille? Olen melko varma että en saa selvää alkuunkaan sinun kirjoituksesta jos se olisi suomeksi.
Nath-BDP on tosi hyvä esimerkki minkä takia Amerikkalaisista ei ainakaan itselläni ole kovin hyvää kuvaa yleisesti. Kuten kaikki tietää niin maailmahan pyörii Amerikkalaisten navan ympäri.
//fats
-
j00 ph34r my m4d 30mm 5k1| |z, d0n7 |\/|0cK m3 or 1| | h4v3 t0 bust a k4P 1n y0 azz.
sho 'nuff...
Nath be havin those skills that pay the mutha plowin billz.
------------------
BEAT DOWN POSSE www.theregulators.org/bdp (http://www.theregulators.org/bdp)
(http://www.mindspring.com/~nathownsj00/ww2/109_2_1.gif)
[This message has been edited by Nath-BDP (edited 06-29-2000).]
-
Damn it didn't work.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 06-29-2000).]