Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: STEELE on November 25, 2011, 07:33:53 PM
-
(http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk63/megan1996_inlove/Ihasabucket.jpg)
-
LMAO!
:rofl
-
That....is....creepy....
-
There was a 190 update?
-
Yeah, what 190 update are you talking about :headscratch:?
-
The bucket was so the 190 pilots had something to cry into after being owned by the pony pilots.
The update took the bucket away, not the 190 pilots have nothing to cry into. meaning theirs gonna be alot of soggy 190 cocpit seats
:bolt:
-
Two planes I kill most in my 190.
Spit 16s and P51s.
-
Two planes I kill most in my 190.
Spit 16s and P51s.
Three planes I kill mainly in a C205 - 190s, p51s and Spit16s.
-
Two planes I kill most in my 190.
Spit 16s and P51s.
^ this
-
What changes took place, longitudinal stability?
Boo
-
The bucket was so the 190 pilots had something to cry into after being owned by the pony pilots.
You own them by fleeing? :headscratch:
-
You own them by fleeing? :headscratch:
Ive seen more run90s and run-oh-nines than I have these "runstangs" people talk about.
Most 190s dive in, go for the HO, then immediately drop to the deck and run when they miss. the run90s ive fought against, atleast.
-
Ive seen more run90s and run-oh-nines than I have these "runstangs" people talk about.
Most 190s dive in, go for the HO, then immediately drop to the deck and run when they miss. the run90s ive fought against, atleast.
Really? How come you couldn't catch them with your mighty Pony making them cry in their bucket? Were you running the other way or something? ;)
-
Gotta say, I've never encountered the "running" phenomenon people so often complain about. Yeah, people will dive and run if they're at a sever disadvantage, but that doesn't count since its tactialy sound regardless of what you're flying.
Yeah, a few people just trying to pick, and then high-tailing it if they fail. But I saw just as many spitfires and F4U's doing it as I saw P51's and 190's.
I think people focus more on the faster planes because, flying a spitfire or other similarly average plane, they're usually unable to re-engage and thats "not fighting" because they wanted the kill, and clearly anything they can't counter is unfair. But when a slower plane does it, thats fine because they can re-engage if they think the lost of E is worth it.
-
Gotta say, I've never encountered the "running" phenomenon people so often complain about. Yeah, people will dive and run if they're at a sever disadvantage, but that doesn't count since its tactialy sound regardless of what you're flying.
Yeah, a few people just trying to pick, and then high-tailing it if they fail. But I saw just as many spitfires and F4U's doing it as I saw P51's and 190's.
I think people focus more on the faster planes because, flying a spitfire or other similarly average plane, they're usually unable to re-engage and thats "not fighting" because they wanted the kill, and clearly anything they can't counter is unfair. But when a slower plane does it, thats fine because they can re-engage if they think the lost of E is worth it.
Ehh just having some fun with him Tank. There's good sticks flying both planes. If he believes what he's saying he's never run into Stampf, RMRider, Vomessa, Hopper, and quite a few more 190 guys I know from JG-11. Not to mention the guys In Kommando Nowatny that fly the 190. Same should be said for not taking P-51 drivers seriously. Run up against guys like Steve, Fencer, or any of the Braunco Mustang guys and you'll wish it was somebody that was going to run away.
-
Really? How come you couldn't catch them with your mighty Pony making them cry in their bucket? Were you running the other way or something? ;)
Because they always come with friends to help them escape :P
-
Runners and porkers fly all manner of aircraft. 190s get used a lot to kill radar and ordnance, because the radial engine and cannon combo provides some ack resistance and the firepower to take down those targets in one gun run. P-51s and P-47s get used for the same purpose, but they rely more on bombs and rockets. The routine of Radar Heroes is well known. Climb up to 10k to 15k. Dive in, hit the target. Run out beyond field ack range on the deck, zoom climb, reverse and repeat if needed.
A related story from last night...
Last evening, the Bish took down the ordnance and VH at a Rook field (A119), an isolated field on an island shared with three Bish bases. All of the porker/runners were in 190s and Mustangs. Just a few minutes earlier, I had killed Midway's T34/85 with a P-39. Suspecting a GV raid being next, I moved to the nearest friendly base with ordnance up. I took a P-40N with three 500 lb bombs and enough gas to get me there plus 10 minutes. I climbed to 12k on the way over. Nearing the field, a solitary Rook CV was nearby. There was a darbar indicating one or two Bish aircraft in the area, so I'm scanning around as I fly east of the CV. Finally, I spot a single dot above me to the west. That resolved into a Bish P-47 up above 15k. I could see that he was preparing to dive-bomb the CV, so I positioned myself to intercept the Jug after he pulled off his dive. I elected to keep my bombs, as I might need them later. Down goes the Jug. I dive down at a more shallow angle so as to slide in behind when the P-47 levels out. Even though the Jug has a lot more speed than I do, the geometry of my route is excellent, and I bank in behind the P-47N 600 yards astern at around 3,000 feet above the water. In the two seconds it takes to get a good sight picture, the range extends to 800 yards. I fire and see numerous hit sprites. A fuel leak starts. I doubt that the P-47 pilot knew I was there until he started taking hits. He panics and does a big, sloppy barrel roll, while I do nothing but watch. That really cuts into his E and the range remains at 800 yards. I squeeze off another short burst and see a few more hit sprites. Still panicked, the pilot breaks hard left and reverses to the right, attempting a scissors to force an overshoot. I simply pulled nose high and did a tight barrel roll to the left, coming level just as the Jug crossed in front of me. I fire and rake his right wing and elevator as he goes by. His right side flap flies off. The pilot reverses left and I counter with a high yo-yo to drop in behind. As he turns, I see the left flap coming down... The asymmetrical lift induces a snap roll and the shot-up P-47N crashes into the sea.
Seeing his handle in the text buffer; vN2GUNS, I realize that the rest of the vGuys are likely attacking the base in vehicles, as it's flashing and there's no darbar. I have very little fuel remaining and I'm a quarter-sector distant after chasing down the Jug. Nonetheless, I still have three 500 lb bombs and enough gas to at least do some damage. I climb out to 5k and I can see that the base ack is already firing at something on the ground near the field. I push over and descend down to 4k to see icons. What I see is not less than 25 assorted tanks and wirbles, with M3s and 251s mixed in. Behind this mob is another, smaller group. I put the warning out in the text buffer. There are so many wirbles intermixed that to simply dive in and drop would be suicidal and accomplish little. I locate the biggest concentration of vehicles and WEP/zoom up to 7,000 feet. Aligning myself directing behind the mob, I dive down to the deck. I'm doing nearly 400 mph, skimming tree tops. Breaking out into a clearing I see the mob ahead. I blew past a Panther close by, my wingtip not much higher than the Panther's turret. 400 yards aft of the trailing vehicle, I pickle off each bomb in sequence as I pitch up a bit to loft the bombs enough to set the fuzes. The bombs have to travel 1,000 feet to arm. Behind me I hear a boom, a loud blam and another boom. I get a kill message, but there's no time to read quite yet. I break hard left, nosing over to get some cover from the trees as tracers arc over the top of the P-40. After about 10 seconds, I zoom climb into a right turn. The distance to the nearest wirble is well over 1k, but they still hammer away in my direction. I can't determine what my bomb killed. However, a wirble, with its turret knocked out, continues on with the horde. Another Rook makes a gun run through the mob, but most are concentrating on me and he gets in and out without suffering serious damage.
Having briefly forgotten about my gas situation, I check fuel state and see 3 minutes, which quickly drops to two minutes. I throttle well back to buy some time. The nearest friendly base is well over a sector distant. B-26s had sunk the nearby CV while I was busy with the GV horde. Enemy GVs are already shooting up the airfield and no doubt will be waiting for me on the runway in the time it will take to land. Indeed, a wirble is almost on the base and begins spraying in my direction. I elect to belly-in the P-40 on the shore side of the base, with lots of trees screening me from hostile fire.
From the tower, I can see that 119 can't be defended from here.. Maybe it's time to move on. I looked for where I could make a difference. I found a friendly vbase in trouble with GVs and aircraft and launched out in a Seafire from a nearby carrier to defend it. I ended up defending the carrier as well.
A few minutes later, Midway writes on 200: "Hey Rooks, there's a horde of Bish GVs taking 119 and there's nothing you can do about it."
I replied, "who cares?", as it was obvious that there was nothing I could have done alone.
However, Midway's comment stuck in the craw of Shawk. He replied, "we will see about that." He organized a counter-attack. Within 15 minutes Shawk and a dozen or more others were on scene. The long ride to the town from the spawn provided just enough margin to get a force there in the nick of time. They pounded the Bish armor, clearing the town and then crushing the rest of the mob on and around the base. This was apparently aided by 119's VH coming up again.
With the threat in my area killed or having run away, I landed my oil leaking Seafire on our still undamaged carrier. I checked the map. 119 was not only still in Rook hands, but it was no longer flashing... There were lots of green dots and most were headed to take v118 from the vBoys and their Bish cohorts.
I smiled, wondering if Midway learned anything from this... "Talk is cheap", would be a good lesson. I also think he learned not to aggravate Shawk, and don't underestimate his ability to pull together folks quickly.
-
Widewing, great classic AAR! :aok
Boo
-
Nice widewing. Love when loud-mouthed landgrabbers get their noses rubbed in it.
-
:noid
-
There was a 190 update?
Yeah, I'm still wondering what the heck the OP is drinking...
:headscratch:
-
there has been a 190 flight model update, but AGES ago
-
Yeah, I'm still wondering what the heck the OP is drinking...
:headscratch:
With Shempzula there is no telling.
-
Up until the current scenario (Enemy Coast Ahead), I had never flown 190's much. In the MA, I mostly fly what I'm going to fly in the scenario, and since I'm in 190A-5's in the scenario, that's what I've been flying a lot currently. My prior thought was that it would not be that great a plane in the MA or over furball lake in the DA, but I now think that it is quite good as long as it's a multi-plane environment.
-
I guess what I'm trying to say is "I still has a bucket."
-
I guess what I'm trying to say is "I still has a bucket."
:aok
-
Give me my 1.65 Ata A8 , and my 1.82 A9 please .
http://imageshack.us/f/24/fw190seriesgraph.jpg (http://imageshack.us/f/24/fw190seriesgraph.jpg)
-
I guess what I'm trying to say is "I still has a bucket."
THIS!
Also, after the airflow code revamp way back, you COULD say HTC gave the 190 pilots an extra bucket! I has 2 buckets! Handling before that recoding update was atrocious for 190s and for 109s in some cases.
-
WHO TOLD ABOUT THE BUCKET?!?!!!?!?!?!!? :O :furious :noid
-
190 before update run run run
190 after update run run run :rolleyes:
-
What Golly-geen update are you talking about?!?!
-
haha I was referring to a few posts where a few old heads were talking about how the 190a5 used to be HIGHLY competitive in a turn fight - as it should be (not just in an angles fight)
Then something happened to nerf its turning abilities. :O <-my shocked face :rolleyes: This may have been a several year old thread, when was the 190 FM and graphics last changed?Give me my 1.65 Ata A8 , and my 1.82 A9 please .
http://imageshack.us/f/24/fw190seriesgraph.jpg (http://imageshack.us/f/24/fw190seriesgraph.jpg)
The funniest thing, or perhaps the :noid iest thing is, EVERY SINGLE 190 a8 in the Luftwaffe was approved 1.65 ata within a week or 2 of delivery!
Therefore, "They be stealing my bucket"!!
What Golly-geen update are you talking about?!?!
Response to your avatar: No You Are Not. (not in it online, at least :P)
-
Ah, ok. And wasn't the A5 cleared for 5.4 ata, as opposed to the 4.7 (I think) in game? And wouldn't mind seeing a 1.82 ata A9 either :noid.
-
haha I was referring to a few posts where a few old heads were talking about how the 190a5 used to be HIGHLY competitive in a turn fight - as it should be (not just in an angles fight)
Then something happened to nerf its turning abilities. :O <-my shocked face :rolleyes: This may have been a several year old thread, when was the 190 FM and graphics last changed?
I don't know what they were talking about, but the turn performance has dramatically IMPROVED with the 190s since the update. It was a bad plane to fly. You could snap-stall and invert yourself before you knew it if you so much as banked at 230mph... Anything below 230 was nearly impossible. That's just not logical nor realistic and doesn't match historical records. The problem was not so much one of TURNING per se, but that you could not CONTROL the plane anywhere near best turning conditions. HTC recomputed how they did the airflow over all wings, the entire system was redone, and now we get a much more controllable 190.
Mind you, it's not that it turns any tighter -- it's still one of the widest turn radii in the game -- it's that you can at least get to that point now. It used to be 2x worse! Compared to its former self it's night and day better. Compared to other planes, it's still a Fw :)
-
Pony > 190 :airplane:
:bolt:
-
109 > Pony
-
109 > Pony
sorry, but no! In a 1V1 the 109 may be superior, but in all other situations the P51 is the best ride.
-
sorry, but no! In a 1V1 the 109 may be superior, but in all other situations the P51 is the best ride.
i know, it fits your "style" perfectly.
It makes you able to come high, dive, then run very fast to one direction. Such a great fun :aok
-
i know, it fits your "style" perfectly.
It makes you able to come high, dive, then run very fast to one direction. Such a great fun :aok
It's even more fun catching the pompous luftweenies off guard and blowing them out of the sky before they can complain. :aok
-
Best of all is when you outfight an F4U and a Seafire in a Ju-87.
Midwar German dive-bomber > Latewar US naval fighter
-
i know, it fits your "style" perfectly.
It makes you able to come high, dive, then run very fast to one direction. Such a great fun :aok
ever tried one? I like the 109 but the gun package and high speed maneuvrability makes it a poor plane to clear other people's six. I feel the same way about the spitfire....the fw190 on the other hand lacks options when you are tangled and not named pervert.
-
Pervert is not flying a 190 , he is flying a cheating Dora :cool:
If they just get that weight off that A8 ...
-
Pervert is not flying a 190 , he is flying a cheating Dora :cool:
If they just get that weight off that A8 ...
Pervert is a HAXXOR! HOSS told me once after losing to him 1v1
-
Pervert is a HAXXOR! HOSS told me once after losing to him 1v1
In his world there are two types of players:
-noobs, baby seals, little girls etc etc. The ones he can pick.
-cheaters, haxxors, "Irish nuns" etc etc The ones who are killing him frequently.
Glad i earned the "friggen muppet" status.
-
Pervert is not flying a 190 , he is flying a cheating Dora :cool:
If they just get that weight off that A8 ...
Dream on, the fw190A8 was a pig and will always be, even with a few hudred pounds less. Switch to a 190A5 if you're doing anything but hoing bombers!
-
Sure, it is a pig. . .all 190s are.
But a diet of 450kgs will make it a LOT better then it is now. As it is now, you are right, the A5 is better for dog-fighting, but there is nothing that says the A8 could not be, especially with 4x20s and the better 12mm MGs, the snapshot killing potential is great - but as it stands now, it is simply too heavy.
The issue I believe is that it was not that heavy during the war.
-
I have dogfought many a plane in the 190a8, in heavy and in light configurations. While it is less than desirable, it is still a handy plane. I've fought Yak9s to a stand-still. I've mixed it up with superior planes and used my strengths to out-fight them (i.e. roll rate, decelleration for overshoots, snapshots, etc) and all in a late war arena environment. Sure, I've died a lot, but my point is that it's not nearly so bad as a few (a few that don't even seem to fly it much) would claim.
Yes, it could stand to be 4400kg when loaded with 4x20mm, and it currently has a number of weight issues with the guns packages and the empty weight. It would definitely help to have that corrected.
-
I've fought Yak9s to a stand-still. I've mixed it up with superior planes and used my strengths to out-fight them (i.e. roll rate, decelleration for overshoots, snapshots, etc) and all in a late war arena environment.
You were a better pilot in those instances. The A8 is one of AH's true pigs. I've been trying for years...now that I think on it, for a decade...to get that plane to fly well in a 1 v 1 against virtually any other 1944 plane (or even the earlier planes). Totally without success. It can't all be me.
- oldman (well, I suppose it can, but I don't think it is)
-
I don't think that the 190A's are good in 1-vs.-1 MA-style play; but they can be great in many-vs.-many, especially in scenario-style play at about 25k on down. (Also, they are excellent vs. bombers.)
The thing that makes them good in that environment is the combination of roll rate, speed, handling at speed, acceleration with WEP, firepower, sturdiness, and ammo load. But of course it can depend on opponents and type of fighting, too.
In Enemy Coast Ahead, the scenario that just finished up, the 190A-5's did fine. Now, if it is against P-51's at 34k, it is problematic; but Enemy Coast Ahead was a 1943-style Channel Front battle, from 24k on down against Spitfires and Typhoons. There, the 190A-5 was quite good in the time period it actually flew and against some of its historical adversaries.
-
Would have to agree completly with brooke. The 190 is a world-beater many vs many, but just is a little wanting for 1v1's with a better turning opponent.
-
As Brooke points out against its enemy it was designed to fight its excellent, in the MA its not so good. Personally the radial 190s in game I dislike, poor top end and acceleration, handling is twitchy at best especially the nose for aiming at lower speeds. Any sort of maneuvering the A5 pays a heavy price in energy and isn't able to regain it quickly enough.
A typical fight in a Dora the effective vertical spirals and high speed overshoots don't work in an A5, you find yourself slightly short and unable to put the enemy under any serious pressure unless hes a complete idiot. As you drop down you then have to start turning and popping flaps for angles, you lose your E and are in a plane that cannot do a runner or extend to reset against your typical MA ride. The more you turn the more you seal your own fate.
-
dude, the Dora handles worse in all respects if I remember. Only advantage you get is the increased engine power and associated benefits.
-
dude, the Dora handles worse in all respects if I remember. Only advantage you get is the increased engine power and associated benefits.
There was no need to go into so much detail with your post, a simple the A5 is better would have done.
-
Lol, its not better though, thats just it. Personally, I never really liked the Dora because that long-arse nose made it difficult to aim if my target is going to present a crossing shot comming up from below. But its improved speed and acceleration are a god-send when fighting some of the uber LW monsters.
-
Personally, I never really liked the Dora because that long-arse nose made it difficult to aim if my target is going to present a crossing shot comming up from below.
I find in most planes the cockpit tends to hinder my view with that type of shot, I could roll over and look but I cannot be bothered. Anyone know how to make the cockpit transparent like a glass cockpit :headscratch:
But its improved speed and acceleration are a god-send when fighting some of the uber LW monsters.
You don't say :old:
-
I've heard theres actually a way to make the cocpit invisible (the background stuff, not the guages you actually use I mean), and I saw a screenshot of what looked like the mythical 'glass cocpit' but I couldn't tell if it was actually an invisible cocpit or just the graphics freaking out for a second.
And anyway, planes like the P-38, 110, and mossie (if you adjust the head possition) don't have that problem, and its not as bad with planes like the P-47 and P-51, which is all I was saying.
-
The A8 handles just fine. Get the speed up to about 350...can get about 2-3 turning maneuvers out of it before you are meat for anybody that is half way decent. Get your shot in those 2-3 maneuvers and you will do just fine. that is the good thing about the plane, it only takes a quick snapshot with the gun package on it.
-
I've heard theres actually a way to make the cocpit invisible (the background stuff, not the guages you actually use I mean), and I saw a screenshot of what looked like the mythical 'glass cocpit' but I couldn't tell if it was actually an invisible cocpit or just the graphics freaking out for a second.
And anyway, planes like the P-38, 110, and mossie (if you adjust the head possition) don't have that problem, and its not as bad with planes like the P-47 and P-51, which is all I was saying.
I'm quite sure that a "glass cockpit" would be cheating.
-
I'm quite sure that a "glass cockpit" would be cheating.
Except when Wonder Woman's plane is added to the game. I hear that's the next plane to be added. ;)
-
Wow. I am so glad I came to this thread and found how much of a pig the 190 is. What if someone actually started a 190 squad....how messed up would that be? :bolt:
-
190A-5's did fine in the recent "Enemy Coast Ahead" scenario. Most of the RAF fighters were Spit 9's, with a smaller number of Typhoons and one squadron of Spit 5's. They were very good planes in that environment.
-
A 190 squadron comprised of pilots that really knew the plane would do well. Probably they would tear it up in the MA's if there were even 4-5 of them together in the midst of a horde. 190 is a worldbeater many on many.
1) great acceleration and climb, it can quickly rebuild lost E in either the form of speed or altitude
2) best roll rate in the game, it can quickly change targets, and realign itself during high AoA attacks.
3) high speed compared to contemporaries (or at least average, in the case of the A8), good acceleration in a dive, and good high-speed handling allow it to disengage at will.
-
I haven't used the Fw190s in a long time, but I spent a tour using the Fw190A-5 and a tour using the Fw190D-9 as my primary ride. I liked the Fw190A-5 quite a lot and found it to be quite a handy fighter, even without using group tactics. The Fw190D-9 I like less. It is very fast but that is about all it has going for it compared to the Fw190A-5.
-
A 190 squadron comprised of pilots that really knew the plane would do well. Probably they would tear it up in the MA's if there were even 4-5 of them together in the midst of a horde. 190 is a worldbeater many on many.
1) great acceleration and climb, it can quickly rebuild lost E in either the form of speed or altitude
2) best roll rate in the game, it can quickly change targets, and realign itself during high AoA attacks.
3) high speed compared to contemporaries (or at least average, in the case of the A8), good acceleration in a dive, and good high-speed handling allow it to disengage at will.
:aok
-
dude, the Dora handles worse in all respects if I remember. Only advantage you get is the increased engine power and associated benefits.
The Dora does handle a little less better than an A-model, but not significantly or radically (at least in theory, and one that is a bit on the tricky side to test in AH since our A-8 is a production R8-block, and even taking the light gun package she's still modeled on the beefy and hefty side with the 30mm windscreen and 5mm steel plate cockpit armor reinforcements). In essence the D-9 is simply a V-12 liquid-cooled version of the A-9/A-8 (the lighter fighter-intercept variants - not the heavier bomber-intercept or fighter-jabo varients - which all of our 190s except for the A-5 and D-9 and 152 are...)
(Actually an A-5 by definition is a series of jabo-minded modifications made to the A-4 frame. It offset it's engine placement forward allowing for a greater ordnance laden capacity, this made is less maneuverable in air to air but at the same time also allowed for a little better cooling in A-5s under the cowl than an A-4. One day I hope, maybe HTC will add a lightened up fighter-inteceptor of the A-8/A-9 and some heavier jabo and bomber variants of the others to complete the set and give people a better appreciation the for the vast variety and limitless capabilities of the entire series. There is almost no limit to how many variants can be potentially added, but more variety than is represented now I think is more desireable by other players than just myself.)
And its not like we've ever been deprived of anything with the great and heavily armed and protected bomber-interceptor that is the 190-A8-R8, but it simpley is what it is and isn't what it isn't (and damn good or bad at it). The A-8s especially tended to come from the factory with a bunch of kits and packages already installed (and that many pilots and and outfits found unnecessary) - if they weren't needed for a particular units individual operations, then they were often and hastily removed and discarded in the field without much standardising or meticulous documentation.
Edit - spellchecker is my friend.
-
A 190 squadron comprised of pilots that really knew the plane would do well. Probably they would tear it up in the MA's if there were even 4-5 of them together in the midst of a horde. 190 is a worldbeater many on many.
1) great acceleration and climb, it can quickly rebuild lost E in either the form of speed or altitude
2) best roll rate in the game, it can quickly change targets, and realign itself during high AoA attacks.
3) high speed compared to contemporaries (or at least average, in the case of the A8), good acceleration in a dive, and good high-speed handling allow it to disengage at will.
Without too much weight strapped on the agile airframes (and with enough airflow under the cowling), even the early BMW radials were adequatley beefy enough to make their pilots quite happy against most opponents. Think of the Brewster buffalo, the heavier version that the US Navy knew will likely never see the light of day in this game, however it's more agile and lighter foreign counterpart is capable of flying circles around spitfires all day. And this is the only bitterness I have in regards to the current 190-A8 lineup - how come the Fins got to let their ground crews at their Buffalos with the torches and wrenches before letting HTCs see them (and now they have their super fun dogfighting scrapper) but the Krauts couldn't beforehand with the (imo more-) infamous (and sole represented late-A model) 190-A8?
-
I think you've misunderstood my intentions with these posts. I'm not in any way criticizing the 190's we have in game, or talking about real life. I'm simply making comparisons between in-game models we have right now.
And I would also like to see a lightened up 190A8. I would also enjoy seeing the more agile A4 eventually, giving us a 190 tailored more towards the air superiority role, rather than the interceptor or JABO role.
-
Understood, I dropped the banner of criticizing for them too a while ago (once I chewed through the fat in my head and saw that the A-8 we have isn't too heavy, HTCs just modeled the heaviest high-alt-intercept bomber-destroyer A-varient ever produced into the game). Since then, I've been "simpley" asking (see: cheerleading) and seeking an expansion and (IMO much needed) added definition to the 190 representation in-game since. In part because the differences and gaps currently in the lineup that you're comparing are so drastic (and imo unfairly balanced if you're looking for a competitive fighter vs fighter bmw-radial-powered late-ware 190).
For a while now I've been trying to understand the entire series better as a whole, so that I can hopefuly soon present more robust lineup than what we have without an equaly robust workload required to impliment (ya know, if we could only add two, or add two and adjust an existing type of proposal). I mean, I suppose we could go all out, but it might be arguabley selfish to ask for more 190 variants than seem reasonable (and the reality is most this game is played in the LWA - so while an A-3/4 would be the 190-pilot's equivalent to the Finish Brewster (and damn fun), it wouldn't be a lightened A-8/9 equivalent.
Also under the "needed" list (and not want) is more F-models, the jabo specializing 190s. A D-11 or 13 would be under highley desireable in the "want" category, but considering though that late-war IS the name of the game here (and K4s are the most frequent 109), I think it would be a "fun money maker", but that might just be me, lol.
-
I would have to agree with you. And as to the F variants, from what I can tell, we only need to change the loadout and weights to let us get a number of different aircraft. Strafers armed with Mk 103 30mm's for killing tanks, different bomber variants.
Hell, if we could take the tail section of the Ta-152 and put it on the 190F8 frame (I think so anyway, at least as I understand it), we would have a variant able to carry torpedos as well.
-
I would have to agree with you. And as to the F variants, from what I can tell, we only need to change the loadout and weights to let us get a number of different aircraft. Strafers armed with Mk 103 30mm's for killing tanks, different bomber variants.
Hell, if we could take the tail section of the Ta-152 and put it on the 190F8 frame (I think so anyway, at least as I understand it), we would have a variant able to carry torpedos as well.
Can you please supply references on the Mk103 equipped 190's? Yes I know they did tests but I always thought they were found unsatisfactory and never fielded.
I know they used twin 20 mm waffen packs but never heard of Mk103's being used.
:salute
-
I've been having to struggle through some German, but from what I understood, it was field tested and used in limited service, but then later found to be unsatisfactory and withdrawn from service/had testing terminated.
You may be right though, my German is anything but perfect, and it does sound like the story I've heard from other sources.
-
Tank: The Mk103 wasn't used operationally. It was tested and found wholly unsuited for combat use due to weight and massive non-symmetrical recoil pushing the plane about (or some such).
Babalon you're wrong on a few points here. The A4s and earlier models caried the exact same ETC rack and had the same under belly weapons options. The move was NOT to change the role of the aircraft nor to allow more jabo loadouts. This was to allieviate major heating problems with the rear cylinders in the engine. It did not change manuverability either. The A-5 was NOT a jabo-minded variant of the airframe. No more than the 109E-4 was.
Further, the A-8 we have *IS* overweight, because it is modeled with the massive armored weight of the r8 Sturmbock model, but NOT with the actual armor! It has a glass chin, it takes a round anywhere near the center and you get a pilot wound, it can't make any attack on bombers without losing oil on the first ping. The problem is they modeled the wrong WEIGHT for the model we have in-game. It wouldn't be so bad if they gave us the heavily armored version, but that's not what we have. Ideally it would be nice to have both, but generally speaking the non-loaded-down was more representative and more "normal" a variant to model.
-
I don't see what the OP is all about. I fly the 190s and Ta152 all the time and have found no difference. Perhaps it's because I rarely put myself in a situation to have to rely on the weak aspects of the aircraft in a fight, because it will get you killed with almost no exception. Most times I die it's because of my own stupidity, when in hindsight looking back at chain of events and decisions made. This can hardly be attributed to the aircraft handling poorly. One has to take that into account when deciding what to do. So I would argue, look at your own shortcomings instead of the aircraft.
Essentially when you choose a ride you have selected performance attributes which are absolute once selected. You have better stay on the strong side of these performance figures or you'll be relying solely on the poor performance and/or mercy of others.
Sometimes you need to step back some to get your perspective right. But oh well, we all know how some in the community like to rub others noses in the dirt for a laugh.
-
Can you please supply references on the Mk103 equipped 190's? Yes I know they did tests but I always thought they were found unsatisfactory and never fielded.
I know they used twin 20 mm waffen packs but never heard of Mk103's being used.
:salute
Refine "supply references"? You yourself just refered to them and complied with your own request: no 190 was fielded with a Mk103 motorkanon. Ta-152s on the other hand... but those aren't Mk103 equiped 190s, they're Mk108 equiped 152s. Sorry if my reaction sounds a bit abrasive, I highley suspect you, like many other who try to be cool in these threads, are simpley trying to add more piss to the cherios. This information, in particular (and uniquely for Fock Wulfs), is available and already out there on the internet and in these boards. The casual idea you have that these references even readily and easily exist for our free access and upon demand is also up for suspect and a questionable source of addtiional frustration in regards to this subject.
Alrighty...
In regards specificaly to the Mk103 motorkanon, I have come across a few references that state it was tested and trialed (coincidentley, other references point out that this was during the time period that the Mk103/108 was still being refined (pre full-production) itself). As I understand, during the development/trial phase, it wasn't refined and was having all sorts of problems, some with the gun and some with the ammo. (At this time I speculate, 190 test pilots had extensive experience (and a highley favorable opinion) with the two-to-four 20mm-armed A (and early D) models produced up to that time, so the not-up-to-snuff Mk103 was looked down upon.) The option was always there for the 20mm motorkanon, and in other testing being performed around the same time, great success was happening in the 190 hangar by throwing on 20mms, external or internal, single or pairs at a time.
On paper and in 1943 Germany, the 30mm looks more attractive than the 20mm, and that follows through in the decisions/priorities that the higher-ups made in regards to trying out the 30mm on future varients, but ultimatley using the ol' reliable 20mm as a fallback (the D-12 was the unsucessful 30mm motorkanon varient, the D-13 was the "successful" 20mm backup which ended up getting the go-ahead for production while the D-12 backburnered).
The 30mm didn't start finding a place in the 190 hangar until the Mk108 came along and most the bugs got worked out, but by then and only in the form of outer-wing-mounted additions, the same as the dual-20mm waffen packs (which makes very convincing sense - if you look back into the days when they were first tossing 20mms into the outer wing positions of A-models, starting with the 20mm MG FF when the newer MG151/20 came around and fittingly for its superior ballistics and accuracy was given priority placement in the wingroots). It was the very nature of that gun position on the 190 - accuracey and reliability be damned so long as it had added enough punch to do the job in one pass. In this role, and with most the kinks ironed out, the Mk108 did much better and found some acceptance amongst 190 pilots.
It was different with the motorkanon - from what I understand, the gun being that close to the center of mass (and engine) and the aiming shooter, they expected/demanded some mild degree of balistic accuracy and reliability (like that of the MG151) but at the very least something with enough reliability to not cripple its own aircraft (at this same time Mk103s were destroying their own engines in trials, and D-9s were ALREADY earning their frontline reputation for having glass radiators).
-
Tank: The Mk103 wasn't used operationally. It was tested and found wholly unsuited for combat use due to weight and massive non-symmetrical recoil pushing the plane about (or some such).
Babalon you're wrong on a few points here. The A4s and earlier models caried the exact same ETC rack and had the same under belly weapons options. The move was NOT to change the role of the aircraft nor to allow more jabo loadouts. This was to allieviate major heating problems with the rear cylinders in the engine. It did not change manuverability either. The A-5 was NOT a jabo-minded variant of the airframe. No more than the 109E-4 was.
Further, the A-8 we have *IS* overweight, because it is modeled with the massive armored weight of the r8 Sturmbock model, but NOT with the actual armor! It has a glass chin, it takes a round anywhere near the center and you get a pilot wound, it can't make any attack on bombers without losing oil on the first ping. The problem is they modeled the wrong WEIGHT for the model we have in-game. It wouldn't be so bad if they gave us the heavily armored version, but that's not what we have. Ideally it would be nice to have both, but generally speaking the non-loaded-down was more representative and more "normal" a variant to model.
Please reread my posts. You're wrong in your references to me being wrong (but I'm not saying I'm not infaluable or that I can't be wrong), but on what points even I dont know because you've jumbled them all together. I am thuroughly confused now. Since when did I compare multiple/variable ETC racks? I called the A-5 an exclusive jabo varient? I could have sworn ETC racks were used by jabo pilots for ordnance as often as fighter/escort pilots for lugging additional fuel, let me look back for that typo and fix it.
The A-5 was beefed up for more total ferrying capacity, period. How you've twisted it into me being wrong 5-ways from sunday Krusty, is simpley amazing. What pisant moron pissed you off today or do you think I am? They extended the original A-1 mounting brackets back on the A-2/3 ~15cm for additional cooling. Then, from what I've read, on the A-5 it was done again a second time, primarily for additional cooling AND for the bonus offset CG. We're now at a total of 2x~15cm mount extensions, for ~ a foot total. This was done a second time, as previous cooling additions/improvements were no longer adequate under the increased weights and engine upgrades. Next you'll be telling me all history that I know of is wrong, only your interpretation of it? Please, school me, I always welcome it on 190s.
As for the armor/portection factors in AH itself: We can harp until we're both blue about it, HT knows we're both (and many others are) "unhappy" about it. But you must take into account other comparisons to validate such a claim within the game. We have no more or less a reason to complain about it than P-47 or F4U pilots always getting pilot wounded from low-rear shots.
Fine, you want honest (passionate fanatical) injun, HT's A-8 model is crap. It's half-arsed, it's been for a while, lord knows how much longer he will be content with it that way, but likely a while. Can I complain about his hard work until it's better? Flippin straight. Do I have the right to defame and insult his creative hard work? Nobody does. Despite any shortcomming anyone can find, is it still the best choice out there for simulated flying an A-8 today? Duh.
-
Tank: The Mk103 wasn't used operationally. It was tested and found wholly unsuited for combat use due to weight and massive non-symmetrical recoil pushing the plane about (or some such).
Babalon you're wrong on a few points here. The A4s and earlier models caried the exact same ETC rack and had the same under belly weapons options. The move was NOT to change the role of the aircraft nor to allow more jabo loadouts. This was to allieviate major heating problems with the rear cylinders in the engine. It did not change manuverability either. The A-5 was NOT a jabo-minded variant of the airframe. No more than the 109E-4 was.
Further, the A-8 we have *IS* overweight, because it is modeled with the massive armored weight of the r8 Sturmbock model, but NOT with the actual armor! It has a glass chin, it takes a round anywhere near the center and you get a pilot wound, it can't make any attack on bombers without losing oil on the first ping. The problem is they modeled the wrong WEIGHT for the model we have in-game. It wouldn't be so bad if they gave us the heavily armored version, but that's not what we have. Ideally it would be nice to have both, but generally speaking the non-loaded-down was more representative and more "normal" a variant to model.
This may be the best argument I've ever seen for the "weight" of the 190A8.
Unlike literally every other post, this makes sense (as opposed to the endless crying for an "uber plane") <--which is really what most of you want isnt it?
So lets uh..see..that would scientifically make it a theory... given the damage taken in an attack, which although anecdotal does appear to hold up VS other 190 models in terms of dmg taken during an attack.
So I guess that would establish a Hypothesis. Next is to formulate a theory. In which case I would suggest going offline and slamming .50's into an A5 VS an A8 one by one and recording the results. Obviously using ranges in which the armor of an A8 "should/could" prevent penetration.
I do not volunteer for this :D
-
Refine "supply references"? You yourself just refered to them and complied with your own request: no 190 was fielded with a Mk103 motorkanon. Ta-152s on the other hand... but those aren't Mk103 equiped 190s, they're Mk108 equiped 152s. Sorry if my reaction sounds a bit abrasive, I highley suspect you, like many other who try to be cool in these threads, are simpley trying to add more piss to the cherios. This information, in particular (and uniquely for Fock Wulfs), is available and already out there on the internet and in these boards. The casual idea you have that these references even readily and easily exist for our free access and upon demand is also up for suspect and a questionable source of addtiional frustration in regards to this subject.
Alrighty...
Well,not sure where to start with this comment but I'll just say that I wasnt trying to be cool! I judt dont like misimformation being spread about,Mk103 armed 190's ya right.
This isnt the first time this has come up and yes there's plenty of imfo out there about it.They were tested and found unsastisfactory because of excess weight and excessive yaw because the guns were not syncronized.
My motivation for the post was simple to stop people from posting things that arent true,much like the often quoted spit 16 seeing little to no use!
Feel free to imform me where I went wrong with this post! :aok
:salute
-
thank goodness the A5 is good - but I would love to get an improved A8.
-
Surely the 190 family has been neglected since they were given the new updated models, but there are other planes who've been neglected for longer so we're not so bad off. :D The tailwheel bug has remained for 6 years now or so, it's only visual but yeah I'm making films so it does make a difference. The weight of the A-8 has likewise been neglected for at least as long, the added armor would be nice to have since we already pay for it in terms of weight. To fly without it would make the A-8 come alive somewhat, but it would certainly not be a monster ride any more than it already is.
Regarding the Mk103, the Ta152B and C were to be fitted with it in the engine mount, the B was also planned to have Mk103s in the wingroots as well but it never materialized because of the deteriorating situation for german industry.
(http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/7ce20419eab9c6e0291baa5e0d8819dccaf6937183e48303dc27628cb54128521g.jpg) (http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?thumb=1&quickkey=gp3s0jpob66xb9o)
The Ta152C, there is info circulating (origins of a pilot) that one example also equipped with a gyro-stabilized EZ 42 sight made it to JG11 from Rechlin. The type could be easily confused with a 190D unless technical documentation was available to prove otherwise. The only visible difference is a 0.5 m wider wingspan, apart from the different engine installation.
(http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/3698642068d30bd01165e8849177b5ecab01cc5330f8f1adb33ec85f7e33ab0c0g.jpg) (http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?thumb=0&quickkey=s02w40yh0osi9x5)
The Ta152E and B versions, note the B armament. Also note the manufacturing date of the E, which indicate that the type may have seen service. The E being based on the C type had a 0.5 m wider wingspan than the FW190 and also the same engine as the D model (actually a 213E instead of a 213A but who would be able to tell?) which would make it easily taken for a FW190D. No doubt in aerial combat it would be identified as a 'long-nosed 190' by the allies. Even experts would have difficulty distinguishing between the two types in the field without access to technical documentation.
Noteworthy is also the fact that the A/B types finished prototype testing as early as Oct '43 and proposed as a replacement to the aging Bf110 fleet as zerstörers. Manufacturing of the A/B could have started in first quarter '44. RLM however saw no reason to start Ta152 A/B production since the Bf110s were still at the time fairly successful so this never happened. Later in '44 the 190D was devised as a emergency stop-gap measure (converted A-frames) until Ta152 production was started.
(http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/5f172611575a4193b7bdcfe78ed6a7a4de938cbd60343b394908795a25e2badb0g.jpg) (http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?thumb=0&quickkey=25378tadaii392e)
Here is the family tree of late production models.
If a gruppe was equipped with the C and/or E types, the similarities with the 190D would have made them easily misidentified and destructed without anyone ever finding out. There are (were, since most if not all by now are dead) german factory workers who testify that these were in production. No material evidence can be produced however which means simply, we don't know, all evidence has been destroyed.
Ta152C
(http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/7ce20419eab9c6e0291baa5e0d8819dccaf6937183e48303dc27628cb54128521g.jpg) (http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?thumb=1&quickkey=gp3s0jpob66xb9o)
Btw... wtf is up with mediafire :headscratch:
Direct d/l links of the images:
152C (http://www.mediafire.com/i/?gp3s0jpob66xb9o)
152C Waffen & Behälteranlage (http://www.mediafire.com/i/?ndw7weekofzz3zf)
152 E-B (http://www.mediafire.com/i/?s02w40yh0osi9x5)
FW prod types (http://www.mediafire.com/i/?25378tadaii392e)
-
This may be the best argument I've ever seen for the "weight" of the 190A8.
...
So lets uh..see..that would scientifically make it a theory... given the damage taken in an attack, which although anecdotal does appear to hold up VS other 190 models in terms of dmg taken during an attack.
So I guess that would establish a Hypothesis. Next is to formulate a theory. In which case I would suggest going offline and slamming .50's into an A5 VS an A8 one by one and recording the results. Obviously using ranges in which the armor of an A8 "should/could" prevent penetration.
Actually, no need to do that. You can find out exactly what kind of armor was put on the r8 model. You can see some similar placement on the 190F8, which was heavily armored against ground fire when used in the jabo role. There was especially an armored oil ring around the cowling. On the Fw190F8 in game, you can almost NEVER lose oil. You'll get shot to pieces, lose a wing, a tail, or even the pilot, and find yourself back in the tower before you notice certain types of damage.
On the A8 (in-game) you lose oil at the drop of a hat. Therefore you know for a fact it doesn't have the extra armor added.
-
Sincerely sorry to all for my last batch of replys, had a lack of food and sleep yesterday, most the tone was extremely uncalled for.
The A-8 armor being modeled or not in-game though is mostly up to speculation on our end, as it is not a unique problem exclusive to just the A-8. P-47s is one allied comparison i can think of off the top of my head. They were notoriously tough and durable in the engine and in providing the pilot protection - but lets start making comparisons to the way they are in AH, and you could say they lack their armor modeling to some degree too as it is an issue raised sometimes.
I do agree though with you Krusty for the most part in comparison to the F-8, the A-8 seems to have the wing armor reinforcments, no cowling armor additions, and questionable if the visualy modeled armored glass windscreen is physicaly modeled adequatley.
-
I don't even think it has the wing armor, which was mostly armor plating around the ammo boxes and guns to prevent them being knocked out. I've lost outboard guns on the A8 too many times to count. Actual structural strength seems comparable to the A-5 (which is unarmored) and I think it's a 100% sure bet the in-game model does NOT have the additional armor built in.
Yet it is still some 500lbs heavier than the standard A8 model, which it is supposed to represent. It's not the first time HTC has mix-matched models when creating planes, but IMO it's the worst possible mix-matching choice for the A8 performance vs A8 variant.
You can see where the armor is supposed to be added here (possibly more than this?)
(http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/4281/blindagefe4.jpg)
(http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/5561/fwarmor27xu.jpg)
edit: fixed links
And that's just the additional armor. As compared to the 190A5 there's no noticable improvement in survivability, when in fact an entire formation of these planes could fly up a bomber stream's dead 6 and maybe only lose 1 plane out of 8 after a successful attack run.
Try THAT in aces high!
-
Oops, just confused A-8 with F-8. Nothing to see here.