Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: dhyran on April 04, 2012, 08:31:29 AM
-
Gentlemen,
look at these Docs!
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a8.html
Level Speed: MPH / km/h
359 mph at Sea Level 578 at 0 meters
405 mph at 18,045' 652 at 5.5
Climb rate of the "normal Version was 3200 ft/min
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a8-climb.jpg)
Focke-Wulf's Technical description No. 284 Fw 190 A-8 Fighter from 30 November 1944 notes the following:
Increased emergency power: Starting from July 1944 all Fw 190 A-8 aircraft will be equipped with "increased emergency". By overridding the supercharger boost regulator, boost pressures are increased at take-off and emergency power in low supercharger setting from 1,42 ata to 1,58 ata and at the high supercharger setting from 1,42 to 1,65 ata. Thus an increase of speed up to 13.6 mph (22 km/h) is obtained with low supercharger operation and up to 15.5 mph (25 km/h) with high supercharger operation. The maximum operating time for increased emergency is limited to 10 minutes due to thermal reasons.
(Ab Juli 1944 werden sämtliche Flugzeuge der Baureihe Fw 190 A-8 mit "erhöhter Notleistung" ausgerüstet. Durch Eingriff in den Ladedruckregler wird der Ladedruck der Start- und Notleistung im Bodenladerbetrieb von 1,42 ata auf 1,58 ata, im Höhenladerbetrieb von 1,42 ata auf 1,65 ata heraufgesetzt. Hierdurch wird ein Geschwindigkeitsgewinn bis 22 km/h bei Bodenladerbetrieb und bis zu 25 km/h im Höhenladerbetrieb erzielt.; (sich Flugleistungen Bl. 15). Die höchstzulässige Betriebsdauer für erhöhte Notleistung ist aus thermischen Gründen 10 Minuten begrenzt.)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-level-speed-13nov43.jpg)
So please make a review and change back from our current Sturmbock numbers up to the normal 190A8 numbers!
Salute
dhyran
-
The numbers are right, I never noticed it before, but those are the technical specs for a mid 44 Fw190.
-
Our speed and climb rate charts are nearly a perfect match to the charts shown.
So what is the specific issue?
-
Level Speed: MPH / km/h
359 mph at Sea Level 578 at 0 meters
405 mph at 18,045' 652 at 5.5
Climb rate of the "normal Version was 3200 ft/mi
Only thing I can gather is our Fw-190a8 does 327mph (no-WEP) speed at sea-level and 349mph (WEP).
So our Fw190 is 10mph slower, otherwise the numbers are almost a match
-
Oh Skuzzy...
How dare you throw a hanging curve like that!?!
Do you have any idea how hard it is to not swing at it? :)
-
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/newscores/genchart.php?p1=9&p2=-1&pw=2>ype=0)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/newscores/genchart.php?p1=9&p2=-1&pw=2>ype=2)
The A-8 in AH pulls 1.58ata with WEP-setting.
-
Our speed and climb rate charts are nearly a perfect match to the charts shown.
So what is the specific issue?
Hi skuzzy,
thanks for your attention
i get at AH Fw-190a8 322mph (no-WEP) speed at sea-level and 345mph (WEP)
but like these Charts show it should be
359 mph at Sea Level at sealevel
405 mph at 18,045' 652 at 5.5
climb rate of the "normal Version" was 3200 ft/mi
Only 10 mph, like butcher says, but 10 mph means more acceleration, more E state etc.
As another part we should review the E drain it got, the 190 had a small surface compared to a 109 spit etc, if you see them lined up one besides another it should retain the E better. But i didn't found numbers but mailed the TWTH Aachen, i know a couple of years ago this University made some calculations about the airsurface of the 190A series
-
You do realize our charts are generated based on a weight of 9682 pounds (4391 kilograms)? Slightly heavier than the #1 listed in the performance chart you show and even further apart from the weight of the plane in the climb rate chart.
I am not an expert here, but that weight difference should make some difference.
-
Uh oh... Skuzzy may have just stuck a pointy stick into a hornets nest. :uhoh
-
You do realize our charts are generated based on a weight of 9682 pounds (4391 kilograms)? Slightly heavier than the #1 listed in the performance chart you show and even further apart from the weight of the plane in the climb rate chart.
I am not an expert here, but that weight difference should make some difference.
rgr!
but this one shows the different additional Rüstsätze, so choose curve 1 is based on 4300 as the current standard 2*20MG 151 2*20 MG 151 + 2*MG 131
So chososing the AH light setup should bring additional speed, because one 151 gun was 42kg. That means to the current 4391kg you choose, it should bewith the AH light gun package should be 4216kg! That's a huge difference than
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-level-speed-13nov43.jpg)
-
Uh oh... Skuzzy may have just stuck a pointy stick into a hornets nest. :uhoh
Really not trying to. I am more curious than anything else. I have no control over these types of things (or most anything actually). Some of the things I have learned by working here are that there is usually not one set of data which can tell the entire story of any given airframe. There are usually several sources involved.
I also know everyone here does the best they can to insure the accuracy of the flight models in the game. It is fascinating to watch how any given flight model is brought to life.
Dhyran, my German is not what it should be (second generation removed) so I have no idea what you just made a reference to.
-
...
Dhyran, my German is not what it should be (second generation removed) so I have no idea what you just made a reference to.
ok, i try to help
So chososing the AH light setup should bring additional speed, because one 151 gun was about 42kg. That means to the current 4391kg you choose, it should be with the AH light gun package 4216kg!
(http://www.loose-deuce.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/fw190-a8-level-speed-13nov43.jpg)
-
I understand the columns. I did not understand "Rüstsätze".
The weight we use is based on a number of things (fuel, ammo loads...). I cannot specifically state how any given weight is determined but I am pretty certain you cannot just subtract a gun package to determine a base weight or add a gun package to determine another weight.
Again, I am not sure what makes up the weight and I am also not sure how much weight will impact the charts themselves.
-
"Rüstsätze"/Weapon package kits. For those who want to know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%BCstsatz
-
Interesting,to say the least.
This is a good lesson in how to properly bring a possible issue up. Do it like some jerk, and HT will eat you four breakfast.
-
Interesting,to say the least.
This is a good lesson in how to properly bring a possible issue up. Do it like some jerk, and HT will eat you four breakfast.
The thing is, I'm pretty sure I've seen this doc posted here before, and wwiiaircraftperformance.com is not exactly an obscure website. There has to be a reason these numbers are different.
On the one hand, it would be nice to see a 'once and for all, this is why...' type post from HTC. On the other hand, it would become a maelstrom of 'well why are you using this number instead of that one?' etc etc and they'd wind up justifying their stuff until the end of time.
In another thread, I saw someone mention 200kg being the amount they're off. The documented number I've seen thrown about appears to be more along the lines of 90kg or roughly 200lbs. That's just one example of why these things get so muddy so quick.
Maybe they should just hire a full time flight model justifier to sit on the boards and deal with this sort of thing.
Wiley.
-
My interest is piqued. Does changing the weapons loadouts on the airplane change the weigh for the FM? Ammo I believe does. Is the heavier feel of the four cannon or tater loadouts felt as a result of system or ammo or both?
-
AH's A-8's speed and climb performance matches this set of data: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-25oct44.jpg (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-25oct44.jpg)
The all up weight in AH in same configuration as mentioned on that chart is 200lbs heavier.
-
I think HT has modeled the 190a8 in the past without the 'exta' claimed weight, and im pretty sure it turned into an instant uber-unstoppable-killing-machine-with-wings; obviously this was probably back in the WB days, but its been a constant curiosity of the community since then...
I think the claim was around 900lbs or sorts?
I'd say its probably for the best that its just a crappy turning fighter, they are scary enough as they are.
-
The all up weight in AH in same configuration as mentioned on that chart is 200lbs heavier.
That's approximately the weight of 100 20mm rounds.
I'm not a 190 guy myself, but is there a noticeable performance increase after losing 100 20mm rounds?
20mm = ~0.531lbs
-
\ Do it like some jerk, and HT will eat you four breakfast.
un yeah.... HT eats 'Gaston flakes' for breakfast....
quick someone change their name to 'scheisse' and then complain about a flight model.
-
That's approximately the weight of 100 20mm rounds.
I'm not a 190 guy myself, but is there a noticeable performance increase after losing 100 20mm rounds?
20mm = ~0.531lbs
Just in the interest of accuracy, that's backwards. If one 20mm is 0.531lbs, that's the approximate weight of about 400 rounds.
Wiley.
-
Just in the interest of accuracy, that's backwards. If one 20mm is 0.531lbs, that's the approximate weight of about 400 rounds.
Wiley.
Yikes, it's been a long day. Thanks for pointing that out.
So, any noticeable performance gains after losing 400 20mm rounds?
-
Our speed and climb rate charts are nearly a perfect match to the charts shown.
So what is the specific issue?
In a nutshell:
Heaviest production model (one "performance" extreme, not seen until mid '44) paired with an engine that at the time of initial production (in late '43) was months short of seeing it's own performance extreme but that, unlike in our game, ultimatley it did recieve.
That which is so complicated nobody has yet, or will ever dare to answer for us:
Why HTCs paired a late-'44/early-'45 A8 with an early/mid-'44 engine... OR, perhaps better, why HTCs feels the extreme of an individual aircraft's airframe IS NOT deserving of being paired with it's own, documented and ultimatley equiped (for over a half a year of the war) powerplant's extreme performance?
Now, to compound the issue with AH's A8, we have PLENTY of represented earl-model radial-powered 190s, and aparently since it's acuratley modeled, NOTHING to represent the extreme of the series performance envelope, as WAS PRESENT throughout nearly the ENTIRE LAST YEAR of the war with Germany.
It adds salt to the wound that the SAME engine equiped on A8s throughout most of '44 was the SAME engine that at the end of '44 and THROUGHOUT '45 was aprooved for the signifigant performance boost. Define: same?
So Skuzzy, I know you were sincerely here to try and help us and not throw keroseene on the "your pre Oct-1944 A8 is acuratley modeled to pre Oct-1944 performances" or else you would be only blatantley trolling us like so many other antagonisers on this issue in the forum.... or, just what exactly is in that coffee in the office this week?
I try to stay outa these topics now, for personal and (I feel) practical reasons. I love the 190s, and this boils down into a very ugly personal stew over personal preferences and ponderings about "why does HiTech err on giving us the wimpy and heavy A-8 varient mashup over ANY OTHER (and there were MANY) in HIS game?". And earlier A8 varient (and lighter) matched with an earlier A8 engine would of been better, or a later airframe with a later powerplant.
It's not like those in support of it can do anything that already hasn't been done, and it's not like those who don't humbley care love eating our trivial frustrations up.
*gives up before it starts, again*
-
Interesting,to say the least.
This is a good lesson in how to properly bring a possible issue up. Do it like some jerk, and HT will eat you four breakfast.
O'Realy?.... please, do tell us where the lesson from the last years worth of threads on this 190 issue went wrong?
-
That's approximately the weight of 100 20mm rounds.
I'm not a 190 guy myself, but is there a noticeable performance increase after losing 100 20mm rounds?
20mm = ~0.531lbs
Is 200lbs noticable? Yes. How noticable in the A8? only HT or someone with the ability to remove that weight from (in addition to gun packages removed) the flight model can tell until after it's been done. It's barely noticable at the wing root cannons compared to the outer wing cannons - located out from the center roughly 2/3 of the span.
-
How would you change the sea level speed without changing the higher alt speeds and climb rate which, if I understand correctly, are accurate?
-
In a nutshell:
Heaviest production model (one "performance" extreme, not seen until mid '44) paired with an engine that at the time of initial production (in late '43) was months short of seeing it's own performance extreme but that, unlike in our game, ultimatley it did recieve.
Here's the weight break down that gives the same all up weight as in the game with standard armament (the last page of the document): http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/td284.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/td284.pdf)
I don't really see anything out of the ordinary on that weight break down. There really isn't anything there that could make the plane much lighter considering what normally came with it.
That which is so complicated nobody has yet, or will ever dare to answer for us:
Why HTCs paired a late-'44/early-'45 A8 with an early/mid-'44 engine... OR, perhaps better, why HTCs feels the extreme of an individual aircraft's airframe IS NOT deserving of being paired with it's own, documented and ultimatley equiped (for over a half a year of the war) powerplant's extreme performance?
The plane already is modelled with higher WEP setting than it had initially. Or are you talking something else than 801D2 with 1.58/1.65ata WEP-setting which was cleared in mid '44, T-variants perhaps?
-
O'Realy?.... please, do tell us where the lesson from the last years worth of threads on this 190 issue went wrong?
was really a comment made about the numerous FM/ vehicle dynamics posts that are more whine than well reasoned and researched and respectful dialog with HTC.
-
Which of the primary fighters in AH perform at their extreme engine performance?
-
How would you change the sea level speed without changing the higher alt speeds and climb rate which, if I understand correctly, are accurate?
By adjusting the FM to hit any given data set by tweaking the the affecting parameters like prop eff for example. HTC does it all the time when developing new planes.
-
Yikes, it's been a long day. Thanks for pointing that out.
So, any noticeable performance gains after losing 400 20mm rounds?
shoot all the rounds it carries and it would make some awesome performance
semp
-
with the lowered weight by using the lite gun package 2*20mm151only, but more performance it should be have nearly the same feeling like a 190A5
http://www.schifferbooks.com/newschiffer/book_template.php?isbn=076431940X
-
didnt we already establish that the AH A8 is either; 35lb too light, or 20lb too heavy, depending on whether the winter equipment was fitted?
I thought all this omgz the fw190A8 is 1000lb too heavy! nonsense had already been put to bed ...
-
didnt we already establish that the AH A8 is either; 35lb too light, or 20lb too heavy, depending on whether the winter equipment was fitted?
I thought all this omgz the fw190A8 is 1000lb too heavy! nonsense had already been put to bed ...
By the looks of it HTC has looked at it around 2 years ago?
Thor let me try clue you in.
Baumer made a post about a weight problem. He posted the data sheet he worked from (note it was an original document NOT 2nd hand information).
2 he did real analysis of AH's weight as compared to his document.
3. He found a discrepancy.
4. He did real math as to what EXACTLY he thought the discrepancy was.
5. I saw his post walked over to Doug and said what you think of this.
6. We decided to look into it.
Your post.
1. You read this document that the pilot said the FW was not bad in stalls.
2. You think AH is not docile in stalls.
3. You have no real frame of reference of what stalls are like in a plane.
I read your post after all the other BS you have posted and just simply ignore it , because every post you ever make has 1 thing in common.
It wants to make the FW or 109 better then it is currently modeled. And every post shows nothing really concrete to back up you post. You try use stuff like the history channel to back up a claim. At every possible turn you try to flame HTC. You post in a criticizing manner in every effort you make.When corned you simply change topics and go onto some other item you wish to complain about, and then months later say your 1st issue was not addressed when you were proven wrong. You try to argue physics with people who do this stuff for a living and then wish to argue that there math means nothing just because you can't do the same.
You show no interest what so every to try gain a working knowledge of the what makes planes fly so you will make statements like a plane is 900lb to heavy with out realizing a discrepancy of that magnitude is almost impossible to happen because it causes conflicts with many other numbers that say something is not correct. We have seen documents of the 205 that say it can climb faster then the HP that the same document said the plane had. If you don't have just the basics of math to be able to do simple analysis you would state we are biased because we don't make the 205 fly like the document said.
Now why would I given even the slightest credibility to your thoughts about the way a plane should fly. When you give us 0 credibility for knowledge of the subject even though we do this stuff for a living.
HiTech
-
A8 is a mushroom in AH for sure. . .
-
By adjusting the FM to hit any given data set by tweaking the the affecting parameters like prop eff for example. HTC does it all the time when developing new planes.
I understand how they can make a global adjustment, I'm just wondering how they can adjust sea level speed without it affecting the other performance figures. When you have the correct climb rates and speeds for different altitudes changing something like prop efficiency will change them too. Changing sea level engine thrust will change seal level climb rate and turn performance etc.
-
I understand how they can make a global adjustment, I'm just wondering how they can adjust sea level speed without it affecting the other performance figures. When you have the correct climb rates and speeds for different altitudes changing something like prop efficiency will change them too. Changing sea level engine thrust will change seal level climb rate and turn performance etc.
Prop eff is dynamic and changes with speed/altitude. Ie. climb speed and top speeds will have different prop eff.
-
Is the Aces High sea level air density and tempurature the same as the FW 11/43 testing?
-
I understand the columns. I did not understand "Rüstsätze".
The weight we use is based on a number of things (fuel, ammo loads...). I cannot specifically state how any given weight is determined but I am pretty certain you cannot just subtract a gun package to determine a base weight or add a gun package to determine another weight.
Again, I am not sure what makes up the weight and I am also not sure how much weight will impact the charts themselves.
Skuzzy, as I understand it, the AH 190A-8 is represented weight-wise as either the Fw 190A-8/R7, or the R8, depending on how Hitech, Pyro, and whoever else is involved in modeling wanted to represent the 30mm's (as a seperate Rüstsätze kit, or as part of the R8 kit).
However, I'm also given to understand that the A-8 was modeled with the wrong level of protection being given for the weight. Depending on which model of A-8 we have, this seems to fall into line with what happens in Aces High.
-
Here's the weight break down that gives the same all up weight as in the game with standard armament (the last page of the document): http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/td284.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/td284.pdf)
I don't really see anything out of the ordinary on that weight break down. There really isn't anything there that could make the plane much lighter considering what normally came with it.
The plane already is modelled with higher WEP setting than it had initially. Or are you talking something else than 801D2 with 1.58/1.65ata WEP-setting which was cleared in mid '44, T-variants perhaps?
There is nothing mistaken, other than possibley a 1-200 pounds (barely notable) difference, with the weights of the specific model and varient in AH. It is equiped with a standard engine that was the standard when it started its run/production.
Less than half-way through this production period though, it got the clearance to use the higher settings. This was more than a year before the end of the war. In AH we have an A-8 that was predominantley the most represented 190 varient in the skies over Europe, particularly during that timeframe.
So now, purely personal preference/speculation - but what decision would you make for the radial-powered end/late-war representing 190 A-8?
For the last year, to be clear, I am carrying the banner of
"please give up the engine the airframe had for ~2/3 of its total combat time"
OR
"If it's an early/mid '44 A-8 then, it's an early/mid '44 A-8. May we please have acknowledgement of that fact so we can move on requesting a different, later, differently-distinguished radial-powered late/end-war Fw190 for fighter combat (A-8 or A-9).
Coincidently, but speratley, I think we could use antoher 190F model ontop of some adjustments/updates to the current one, particularly in regards to expanding it's ordnance options/capabilities.
Such changes (I guess, upgrades) wouldn't be off-balancing or anything, it's not gonna make a good plane super or unstopable, they would just contribute to and add to the line-up, and with such focus in the online play beign given the the end/late-war equipment, this would just be more gravey for the table, and not a turkey.
-
Which of the primary fighters in AH perform at their extreme engine performance?
Really, guppy? I wish people would think as hard as I try to give honest replys in these threads. (Not trying to single you or SKUZZY out here or anything Guppy, but seriously grindin' some gears. Try to think of in this thread for longer than just one sentence, please, because I care.)
OK, seriously, obvious missunderstanding there with my application of the word extreme.
I meant in regards to the exreme of the latest production varient posibile/available in AH.
Many plane lineups in AH do have a ball-parked model for an individual aircraft model's/varient's extreme.
IE: The K-4, P-47M, F4U-4, Tempest. All beloved and popular fighters at their extreme, with performances averaged but not at their single given extremes within the model.
-
I've thought quite a long time now that A-9 would be a great addition. Considering that all of the 3D-artwork is already made and Greebo/Cactus could do the default skin. The A-8 sees a lot of use and as such the "bang for the buck" of the A-9 would be hard to beat. Kind of like the P-47M.
-
Really, guppy? I wish people would think as hard as I try to give honest replys in these threads. (Not trying to single you or SKUZZY out here or anything Guppy, bIE: The K-4, P-47M, F4U-4, Tempest. All beloved and popular fighters at their extreme, with performances averaged but not at their single given extremes within the model.
None of those are modeled with 150 octane or the high quality German fuel for the Bf109.
As to Guppy's question, the closest I can think of is the because the Mosquito Mk VI is at the top end of Mosquito Mk VI performance with 100 octane fuel.
Of course with 150 octane it would be much better.
-
Really, guppy? I wish people would think as hard as I try to give honest replys in these threads. (Not trying to single you or SKUZZY out here or anything Guppy, but seriously grindin' some gears. Try to think of in this thread for longer than just one sentence, please, because I care.)
OK, seriously, obvious missunderstanding there with my application of the word extreme.
I meant in regards to the exreme of the latest production varient posibile/available in AH.
Many plane lineups in AH do have a ball-parked model for an individual aircraft model's/varient's extreme.
IE: The K-4, P-47M, F4U-4, Tempest. All beloved and popular fighters at their extreme, with performances averaged but not at their single given extremes within the model.
This was my point. My experience from watching these boards over the years is that the odds of HTC having modeled a LW plane correctly is about zero based on the LW fans. There is a vision in players heads of what a LW bird should do, and if it doesn't do it in the MA, then it must be modeled wrong. I don't see this as much from the fans of other plane sets nearly as much. If other birds are brought up it's more often going to be by a LW guy who believes the other bird is over modeled.
All I'm seeing so far is that HTC has modeled a general 190A8 variant that is meant to cover a lot of time frame. Sounds an awful lot like the Spit IX we have in game. Considering all the different tweaks that went into the Spit IX in the course of 1942-45, it would be impossible to do it completely right. If you look at what we have now, it's basically the 42 version in the shape of a mid 44 version. Based on all the tweaks that went into the Spit IX, if we really wanted to grumble about it we could too, but it seems silly since it's meant to cover such a large number of Spit IXs.
The Spit V guys could really wail if they wanted to as they had a 1943 Spitfire LFVc and lost it, to what seemed like the whines about it, going back to a 1941 Spitfire Vb. Lost the performance and half the ammo load.
One of the reasons I wanted the Spit Vs in the previous scenario was to fly them against 190A5s. I wanted to see how they matched up in what was not an MA setting but more of a historical setting. I remember laughing to myself when it played out exactly like the history. The 190A5s totally outclassed the Spit Vs as they did for real. The modelling seemed quite accurate under those circumstances.
Considering how often the 190 is brought up, it seems to fall back on that belief that somehow HTC hasn't done the research. I'm hard pressed to believe they haven't. But I also don't believe the LW guys will ever be satisfied with it :)
Considering they added 600 pounds to my 38G, I should be the one complaining. I decided to just keep pretending it was a real 38G and that I was a real fighter pilot too :)
-
Guppy, I'm not 100% sure on the various changes between spitfire Mk IX models, but wasn't it mostly a change of armament, and engines, without any serious increase in weight?
And if I understand the recent posts, we might have an uparmored late model 190A8 weight wise (perhaps without even the actuall protection of the armor) with the engine power of an early model.
Seeing as some 190A8 models weighed significantly more than others, and (again not 100% sure) various spitfire Mk IX models didn't, its incorrect to say definitivly that the situation of the spitfire Mk IX is comperable to that of the 190A8. It MIGHT be, but chances are also decent that its not.
-
Guppy, I'm not 100% sure on the various changes between spitfire Mk IX models, but wasn't it mostly a change of armament, and engines, without any serious increase in weight?
And if I understand the recent posts, we might have an uparmored late model 190A8 weight wise (perhaps without even the actuall protection of the armor) with the engine power of an early model.
Seeing as some 190A8 models weighed significantly more than others, and (again not 100% sure) various spitfire Mk IX models didn't, its incorrect to say definitivly that the situation of the spitfire Mk IX is comperable to that of the 190A8. It MIGHT be, but chances are also decent that its not.
I was reacting to this quote from Babalonian
I try to stay outa these topics now, for personal and (I feel) practical reasons. I love the 190s, and this boils down into a very ugly personal stew over personal preferences and ponderings about "why does HiTech err on giving us the wimpy and heavy A-8 varient mashup over ANY OTHER (and there were MANY) in HIS game?". And earlier A8 varient (and lighter) matched with an earlier A8 engine would of been better, or a later airframe with a later powerplant.
The Spit IX would be that same kind of 'mash up" to me. as would the AH Spit V. Neither are at the top end of their performance capability, but I understand that for the sake of not modeling every last tweak, that there will have to be some give and take. Can you imagine the whines of the crowd if HTC brought back the 1943 Spit LFVc we had before? In the AH world at the altitudes where most of the combat is fought, that particular Spit V variant performed better then the Spitfire IX. That's for real. If the AH airwar was fought where the AH Spit IX is modeled to perform best, it would have been no contest. Ahh but remember the whining about that Spit Vc? Now we've got the very earliest version.
I just think it becomes a situation where HTC can't win no matter what they do.
-
And if I understand the recent posts, we might have an uparmored late model 190A8 weight wise (perhaps without even the actuall protection of the armor) with the engine power of an early model.
A-8s initially had their WEP setting at 1.42ata on the deck which was later increased to 1.58ata which is also present in AH.
-
Please note that the weights given in the charts on page 1 do not seem right - off by 100kg.
The standard weight of an A-8 with 115l aux fuel tank installed and filled is given as 4391 kg and the A-8/R2 as 4454 kg in other documents.
-
I've thought quite a long time now that A-9 would be a great addition. Considering that all of the 3D-artwork is already made and Greebo/Cactus could do the default skin. The A-8 sees a lot of use and as such the "bang for the buck" of the A-9 would be hard to beat. Kind of like the P-47M.
This was my point. My experience from watching these boards over the years is that the odds of HTC having modeled a LW plane correctly is about zero based on the LW fans. There is a vision in players heads of what a LW bird should do, and if it doesn't do it in the MA, then it must be modeled wrong. I don't see this as much from the fans of other plane sets nearly as much. If other birds are brought up it's more often going to be by a LW guy who believes the other bird is over modeled.
All I'm seeing so far is that HTC has modeled a general 190A8 variant that is meant to cover a lot of time frame. Sounds an awful lot like the Spit IX we have in game. Considering all the different tweaks that went into the Spit IX in the course of 1942-45, it would be impossible to do it completely right. If you look at what we have now, it's basically the 42 version in the shape of a mid 44 version. Based on all the tweaks that went into the Spit IX, if we really wanted to grumble about it we could too, but it seems silly since it's meant to cover such a large number of Spit IXs.
The Spit V guys could really wail if they wanted to as they had a 1943 Spitfire LFVc and lost it, to what seemed like the whines about it, going back to a 1941 Spitfire Vb. Lost the performance and half the ammo load.
One of the reasons I wanted the Spit Vs in the previous scenario was to fly them against 190A5s. I wanted to see how they matched up in what was not an MA setting but more of a historical setting. I remember laughing to myself when it played out exactly like the history. The 190A5s totally outclassed the Spit Vs as they did for real. The modelling seemed quite accurate under those circumstances.
Considering how often the 190 is brought up, it seems to fall back on that belief that somehow HTC hasn't done the research. I'm hard pressed to believe they haven't. But I also don't believe the LW guys will ever be satisfied with it :)
Considering they added 600 pounds to my 38G, I should be the one complaining. I decided to just keep pretending it was a real 38G and that I was a real fighter pilot too :)
:aok
I think the expectations are just too high for the specific A-8 we have, nothing else is "wrong" or "faulty". The A-8 we have is an absolute dog in air combat unless you take full caution and care to lighten it up as much as possible. I would like to see some additions/adjsutments to the A-8 and F-8s weapons and ordnance options, help expand both aircraft's current and designed role.
The A-9 though... well, it's all dreaming. If it ever gets included, I'm not expecting it to be the best, but I'd hope it gets modeled to be a more competitve as a LWMA fighter than the A-8.
I agree it keeps being brought up as the underlying theme each time, I don't think HT or HTC half-hazardly did anything with initialy modeling the A8 (1-200 pounds?... pu-lease, we can all really find something better to bi!@# about... like the lack of a B-25J :devil )... the only thing I am left wondering each time though is why it is the latest given example within AH of a radial powered 190, when it's arguabley not.
I think some adjustments to the A-8 and F-8 should be put in the lines, but only with expanding more ordnance options if anything. And an A-9 though, to chase around the furballs with... yeah, that would be king someday.
And if I understand the recent posts, we might have an uparmored late model 190A8 weight wise (perhaps without even the actuall protection of the armor) with the engine power of an early model.
As I have come to interpret it - we have an uparmored late model A8 with the engine power of a mid-model. As the 190-lineup currently sits, it IS the latest radial-powered production example in game ( :cry ).
-
Really, guppy? I wish people would think as hard as I try to give honest replys in these threads. (Not trying to single you or SKUZZY out here or anything Guppy, but seriously grindin' some gears. Try to think of in this thread for longer than just one sentence, please, because I care.)
OK, seriously, obvious missunderstanding there with my application of the word extreme.
I meant in regards to the exreme of the latest production varient posibile/available in AH.
Many plane lineups in AH do have a ball-parked model for an individual aircraft model's/varient's extreme.
IE: The K-4, P-47M, F4U-4, Tempest. All beloved and popular fighters at their extreme, with performances averaged but not at their single given extremes within the model.
TA 152....... and there were only a handfull available during the war and only about 10 actually saw service. This plane is available in game. Not sure why :)
-
Hi Shuffler, welcome to the radial-powered 190 discussion.
Edit: wait a minute, unless you're trying to intentionaly distract me with a good reason/arguement for the inclusions of a D-11 or 13... I see what you're doing.... :devil
-
This chart kinda illustrates why I think it would be so neat to see some more (yes, more) late-war 190s.
Highlight the current models we have, pick a couple from inbetween those gaps, and BAM!, a more complete plane-set to those who care (or maybe don't) about the 190 plane set.
(http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/1597/fw190seriesgraph.jpg)
Edit: as you can see, our current latest-production radial-engine model representative is waaay in last of the "latest" category.
-
As I have come to interpret it - we have an uparmored late model A8 with the engine power of a mid-model. As the 190-lineup currently sits, it IS the latest radial-powered production example in game ( :cry ).
So in other words, we got shafted.
And I thought the F-8 was later than the A-8 (being based on the A-8, after all).
-
So in other words, we got shafted.
And I thought the F-8 was later than the A-8 (being based on the A-8, after all).
No one got shafted.
Put the 190s up against their Spitfire counterparts.
190A5-Spitfire IX
190A8-Spitfire VIII (wish it was an LFIX but at least the VIII has the same Merlin 66)
190D9-Spitfire XVI (this being essentially the latewar Spitfire LFIXe
Ta152-Spitfire XIV
Looks to be about right doesn't it?
-
at least we have the A5. . .thank goodness fo that beauty.
-
Unless any of you want to tell Hitech here and now you think his and his companie's ability to research performance data for WW2 aricraft is suspect and lacking compaired to your own. I have found over the years HTC has been reasonably on the mark for the product he offers to the background efforts he expends. In the case that any player has been able to provide non-confusing competent data showing a deficiency in his research conclusions, he has never been adverse to investigating it.
If this Fw190-A8 argument is confusing me, you have a problem with how you are trying to persuade Hitech from the start.
It's obvious the A5 turns like a sports car versus the A8 turns like a Dodge Truck. After that what is it you are persuading Hitech is wrong with the A8?
1.} It dosent climb fast enough.
2.} It dosent dive fast enough.
3.} It dosent turn tight enough.
4.} It dosent fly level fast enough.
5.} It's not responsive enough like the A5.
These 5 attributes are the only things that matter once you are holding your joystick in the MA. As long as I can remember there has been an ongoing cry that the A8 is not something enough. So which is it of the 5?
Are you arguing Hitech has not modeled a valid version and you want a specific version that you beleive is sportier or more Uber than is presented in the game? Then specify which one and argue for that. So far all of these arguments sound exactly like a custom performance car owner telling his mechanic the car dosent feel right on the track. Then showing the mechanic design specs for a version of the engine not even in the car. The mechanic can only conclude two things. The car owner is nutz or he really wants a different car all together.
a.) Which version are you persuading Hitech will make you happy?
b.) Which engine and performance model is germain to the A-8, A-8/R2(R8)? That seems to be our gun packages escpecialy the R8 armor weight.
c.) Do any of you have the testing specifications for all of these versions in the list below?
d.) Or are you attempting to convice Hitech to combine attributes to sport up the A8 because some existed versus his choice of A-8 and R2(R8) versions?
FW 190 A-8 .....03.44 Fighter
FW 190 A-8/U1 .........Two-seat trainer and high-speed liason aircraft
FW 190 A-8/U3 .........Upper component of Mistel
FW 190 A-8/U11 .......Torpedo-bomber
FW 190 A-8/R1 .........Two underwing WB 151 containers with four MG 151 20 mm cannon
FW 190 A-8/R2 04.44 Bomber-destroyer with two outboard MK 108 30 mm cannon
FW 190 A-8/R3 .........Bomber-destroyer with two underwing MK 103 30 mm cannon
FW 190 A-8/R4 12.44 BMW 801 TS and engine boosting system
FW 190 A-8/R5 .........Engine boosting system
FW 190 A-8/R6 04.44 Two WGr 21 underwing rocket launchers
FW 190 A-8/R7 .........Sturmjäger with additional internal and external armour plating
FW 190 A-8/R8 11.44 Sturmjäger with additional internal and external armour plating and outboard MK 103 30mm cannon
FW 190 A-8/R11 ........Dirty weather fighter with BMW 801 TU/TS
FW 190 A-8/R12 ........Combination of R2 and R11 with BMW 801 D-2
FW 190 A-8D/NL .......Higher emergency power
-
How bout we make HTC a deal. You guys can have that 190A9 if I can have the Spit XII? :)
Not sure what's in it for HTC, other then no more 190 complaints, but it's worth a shot :)
-
How bout we make HTC a deal. You guys can have that 190A9 if I can have the Spit XII? :)
Not sure what's in it for HTC, other then no more 190 complaints, but it's worth a shot :)
I'd say that there's just as much in it for HTC as there was with the addition of P-47M. IE. quite heavily used fighter with rather small amount of development work needed.
Guess what I'm not quite sure about? That is, why you weren't demanding your Spit XII when that P-47M was added but do your best to remember to suggest this "deal" of yours most times when addition of a 190/190 variant comes up?
-
No one got shafted.
Put the 190s up against their Spitfire counterparts.
190A5-Spitfire IX
190A8-Spitfire VIII (wish it was an LFIX but at least the VIII has the same Merlin 66)
190D9-Spitfire XVI (this being essentially the latewar Spitfire LFIXe
Ta152-Spitfire XIV
Looks to be about right doesn't it?
If the Spitifre VIII is an up-armored late model with the engine power of a mid-model, then we have nothing to complain about.
But if we have an uparmored late model A-8 (perhaps without even the protection from that extra weight), with less engine power than the model we have represented weight wise, and the spitfire Mk VIII has the correct engine for its model, then we DO have something to complain about.
-
So in other words, we got shafted.
Moronic comments such as this certainly won't help.
801D-2 was by far the most common engine of the A-8 series and it already runs at the highest boost setting that I know for that particular engine. The later T-versions of the 801 had higher output/MAP but they weren't nearly as common.
-
Moronic comments such as this certainly won't help.
801D-2 was by far the most common engine of the A-8 series and it already runs at the highest boost setting that I know for that particular engine. The later T-versions of the 801 had higher output/MAP but they weren't nearly as common.
And so? If the 801T's were more representative of the engines mounted on uparmored versions of the A-8, or even just the version we have in particular, then OUR 190A-8 is being missrepresented in multiple ways, and is a poorer substitute for both mid and late model 190A-8's than a true late model would be for a mid model, or vice-versa.
-
And so? If the 801T's were more representative of the engines mounted on uparmored versions of the A-8, or even just the version we have in particular, then OUR 190A-8 is being missrepresented in multiple ways, and is a poorer substitute for both mid and late model 190A-8's than a true late model would be for a mid model, or vice-versa.
Nope. You've got a 190A8 that represents the 190A8 line the way the AH Spitfire IX represents the entire Spitfire IX line. Somewhere in the middle. No shafted. Just not the latest and greatest of either.
-
And so? If the 801T's were more representative of the engines mounted on uparmored versions of the A-8, or even just the version we have in particular, then OUR 190A-8 is being missrepresented in multiple ways, and is a poorer substitute for both mid and late model 190A-8's than a true late model would be for a mid model, or vice-versa.
Lot of ifs here. I've yet to see any evidence that the weight is from an "uparmored" variant. Instead of making noise based on assumptions I suggest you make some research instead.
-
well
i highly recommand to read this source!
http://www.airpages.ru/eng/lw/fw190a7.shtml
tons of great information inside!
-
Hi guys, this threads seems to have a lot of attention at the moment. So I was hoping I could ask people their view on something, and show my view.
- I can fly the 190A4 competitivly against nearly all fighters except the Spit16. I fly it with great manouverability, turn, climb and level speed.
- I can fly the 190D against any aircraft and dictate the fight. Whether a slow turn fight, or a high speed energy fight, I have a fighting chance.
However, I am totally useless, in the 190A8... even attacking a bomber, the aircraft aparently exceeds what appears to be a tiny maximum angle of attack. I try to turn or raise the nose and it starts to stall, with an appaling angle of attack and turn rate.
Is this histroically correct? Can an improved 190, be such a backward step compared to every other fighter and 190 version A4, D9)?
It confuses me and makes me question the modelling of HTC for this simulator.
To me, if it is historically accurate, then why wasnt the Focke Wulf design team shot for espianage and in-competence? They are basically suicide machines... even if you use the higher roll rate, the incredible useless low angle of attack before the stall removes any manoverability.
Is there a way to learn what the historical angle of attack the 190a8 was capable of... compare it to the 190a4 and 190d9?
That way I can see if HTC are accurate in their moddelling or have made an error... (even if the climb and speed is right, something feels off).
Is it true that the same NACA airfoil shap is used in the F6F or other US fighter (which has GREAT manouverability)?
Thanks guys.
-
FYI.
http://www.ae.illinois.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html says that the 190 has the same wing as the Corsair.
http://stephenesherman.com/discussions/best_fighter.html plenty of opinions about 'whats the best' but some info on wing loading too. I didnt know the 190a3 and mustang were the same...
Heavy discussion on turn rates
http://simhq.net/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1284449/Everything_you_wanted_to_know_.html
To put my questions in a slightly different like, I would also ask, shouldnt the 190A8 have the same max AoA as the 190A4 and 190D9.... if its a bit heavier, wont it just be a bit more nose high initially, however in a turn situation, shouldnt the extra horse power have some say at high P factor angles?
-
This chart kinda illustrates why I think it would be so neat to see some more (yes, more) late-war 190s.
Highlight the current models we have, pick a couple from inbetween those gaps, and BAM!, a more complete plane-set to those who care (or maybe don't) about the 190 plane set.
Edit: as you can see, our current latest-production radial-engine model representative is waaay in last of the "latest" category.
Babalonian,
The T-series BMW801s were rare. They were are in A-9 as the A-9s themselves were relatively rare and everything I've read says that they were rare in A-8s aswell. What AH A-8 currently has is by far the most common engine with its highest power setting. It would certainly do more harm than good to model A-8 with a totally unrepresentative engine instead of the very representative one it currently has. Most aircraft in that chart you posted are prototype/very limited production planes and most of them are powered with inline engines. Comparing our A-8 to them makes a rather poor argument. When the A-8 was introduced to AH some 12 years ago a lot of the performance data online today was yet to be uncovered. I guess it could be some 7mph faster on the deck but that's about it.
I think A-9 would be a nice and great "MA-toy" which could be introduced with minimal development effort and would prove highly popular I'm sure.
To others,
The climb/speed data set AH modeling is based on refers to it as "Normaljager" and the 4300kg test weight mentioned in that chart doesn't have to be the all up weight (4x20mm) but a test weight especially when the weight table is included in the same document and that gives the same all up weight as AH.
EDIT/Only possible viable weight change that I can see is in the reduction of weight when using only the inboard 20mms. The weight table below gives them (guns+ammo) a weight of 176,5kg. In AH the outer wing 20m loadout weights 137,3kg./EDIT
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/td284.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/td284.pdf)
-
well wmaker,
but compare thel feeling about the 190A8 and a 190A5 and a D9??? Do you think it bleeds its E correctly?
-
well wmaker,
but compare thel feeling about the 190A8 and a 190A5 and a D9??? Do you think it bleeds its E correctly?
Well, mine like anyone else's subjective opinion is irrelevant. When an "opinion" is based on hard facts and science then it becomes a conclusion and starts to matter. Unfortunately, I can't help you there as I can't offer you a conclusion because I haven't made one. I will say though that when the weights, speeds and climb rates match a data set they are meant to match, there's very little that can be wrong especially considering that something has gone wrong inadvertently.
-
Well, mine like anyone else's subjective opinion is irrelevant. When an "opinion" is based on hard facts and science then it becomes a conclusion and starts to matter. Unfortunately, I can't help you there as I can't offer you a conclusion because I haven't made one. I will say though that when the weights, speeds and climb rates match a data set they are meant to match, there's very little that can be wrong especially considering that something has gone wrong inadvertently.
Does anyone know of any Lift/AoA graphs available regarding the 109A8 wing? It would be interesting to see if the stall in game lines up with the graph. Ie, the aoa where the lift co-efficient drops off, matches up with in game.
-
So in other words, we got shafted.
And I thought the F-8 was later than the A-8 (being based on the A-8, after all).
Oh, no no no, NO! I wouldn't use such definitive terms as none have been used by HT or HTCs. I believe there was only one statement made from HT/HTCs, a number of years ago, and in regards to that it was as good as we were gonna get (unless we prooved them wrong on something) or that they were satisified with the representation of the line-up the way it is (insert personal *groans* *crys* *moans* *spits*).
To be more precise, if not completely mistaken from past statements, HT/HTCs believes the D-9 is an adequate representative of the last/latest radial-powered 190.... (insert more-vocal personal *groans* *crys* *moans* *spits*).
-
Babalonian,
The T-series BMW801s were rare. They were are in A-9 as the A-9s themselves were relatively rare and everything I've read says that they were rare in A-8s aswell. What AH A-8 currently has is by far the most common engine with its highest power setting. It would certainly do more harm than good to model A-8 with a totally unrepresentative engine instead of the very representative one it currently has. Most aircraft in that chart you posted are prototype/very limited production planes and most of them are powered with inline engines. Comparing our A-8 to them makes a rather poor argument. When the A-8 was introduced to AH some 12 years ago a lot of the performance data online today was yet to be uncovered. I guess it could be some 7mph faster on the deck but that's about it.
I think A-9 would be a nice and great "MA-toy" which could be introduced with minimal development effort and would prove highly popular I'm sure.
To others,
The climb/speed data set AH modeling is based on refers to it as "Normaljager" and the 4300kg test weight mentioned in that chart doesn't have to be the all up weight (4x20mm) but a test weight especially when the weight table is included in the same document and that gives the same all up weight as AH.
EDIT/Only possible viable weight change that I can see is in the reduction of weight when using only the inboard 20mms. The weight table below gives them (guns+ammo) a weight of 176,5kg. In AH the outer wing 20m loadout weights 137,3kg./EDIT
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/td284.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/td284.pdf)
I definetley agree, rare in A-8s (especialy when you take into perspective how many total A8s there were), but I believe ~900 A-9s were constructed with them... I am tight on time, but I would like to dig further into this as there is an obvious contradiction somewhere.
PS - I believe the BMW 801T* was frequentley labeled (if not near identicle/more-complete (with only an additional component I think?)) to the 801S... I know the 801S was documented as what was equiped in at least one of the A8s captured at the end of the war, and I believe multiple other 8s, but I don't want to guess (because I'm really am just too short on time today, and I look forward to looking it up hopefuly tomorrow...).
-
Aircraft..................... .............Wing Root..........Wing Tip
Focke Wulf Fw 190 Wurger.....NACA 23015.3.....NACA 23009
In the past a few members of this board could calculate what to expect from the airfoil and wing shape. I suspect Hitech can also. Since he has some kind of application(s) to pop numbers into and possibly virtual wind tunnel his creations. You need to provide numbers at that level of engineering to pop into his programs. He admits he is a numbers kinda guy. Speculation and feelings cannot be popped into a numbers entry slot.
Is the wing the same from the A5 to the D9? If the D9 kept the A7 or A8 wing, then the only difference would be the increase in fuslage length, HP from the Jumo 213 engine, prop design, and frontal cross section to the air stream. The wing continues to have all of it's previous aerodynamic weaknesses and strengths.
1.) What is the overall difference in the A5 engine from the base A8 fighter engine, R2, R8?
2.) What is the difference in weights A5, A8/R2/R8?
3.) How does the weight of the MG152\20 outboard in the wing effect stability?
4.) Do those differences constitiute enough to effect the performance of the A8 making it's handleing in the game preceptably different than the A5?
5.) Which version of the A5 do we have in the game?
6.) Are you trying to argue Hitech into a more powerful engine for the A8 to produce near D9 performance in a 4-20mm package?
7.) Why did Kurt Tank design the D9 sans outboard cannon different from the A8?
7.) As for the D9's performance. If the wing did not change then you need to provide different numbers that Hitech has not seen so far to turn it into the K4 on roids. Or possibly the D13 or Ta152.
You gents are trying to prove Hitech wrong without going through "all" of the numbers he did to settle on the decision giving us our current A8. First reconstruct his research and mathmatical path to his results. Then argue his results with him as an equal.
Aircraft..................... .............Wing Root..........Wing Tip
Focke Wulf Fw 190 Wurger.....NACA 23015.3.....NACA 23009
-
Nope. You've got a 190A8 that represents the 190A8 line the way the AH Spitfire IX represents the entire Spitfire IX line. Somewhere in the middle. No shafted. Just not the latest and greatest of either.
If the A8 is, graphicly and weight wise, an up-armored late model, but is powered by a mid-model engine, and the spitfire IX is graphicly and weight wise a mid-model, but powered by a late-model engine (or even a mid-model engine), then the A8 is at a greater disadvantage in AH than it was in real life.
Do you see why thats a bit unfair? Incase you don't, I'll explain:
The A-8 could be representing a less common up-armored version (greater weight than normal), and is powered by a mid-model engine, with less power than the engines that were used with the up-armored versions. I'm trying to find out exactly what variant we have by weight right now, but I haven't nailed anything down, so its an open question.
However, the spitfire IX (I don't think) didn't go through any significant weight increases, as did the A-8. So powering a late model with a mid-model engine wouldn't make the power to weight ratio significantly far off of historical values, unlike with the A-8.
-
here is the lift chart for the root... NACA 23015...
http://www.worldofkrauss.com/foils/1701 (http://www.worldofkrauss.com/foils/1701)
(http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/attachments/aircraft-design-aerodynamics-new-technology/4470d1253593987-naca-23015-equivalent-15-percent-reflexed-comp.jpg)
anyone have a copy of winfoil? with it you can make charts for wing foil shapes.
I have xfoil but it is cumbersome, and I am struggling to figure out how to make the lift coefficient charts.
EDIT: does the FW 190A8 in game root stall at 8deg AoA?
-
If the A8 is, graphicly and weight wise, an up-armored late model, but is powered by a mid-model engine, and the spitfire IX is graphicly and weight wise a mid-model, but powered by a late-model engine (or even a mid-model engine), then the A8 is at a greater disadvantage in AH than it was in real life.
Do you see why thats a bit unfair? Incase you don't, I'll explain:
The A-8 could be representing a less common up-armored version (greater weight than normal), and is powered by a mid-model engine, with less power than the engines that were used with the up-armored versions. I'm trying to find out exactly what variant we have by weight right now, but I haven't nailed anything down, so its an open question.
However, the spitfire IX (I don't think) didn't go through any significant weight increases, as did the A-8. So powering a late model with a mid-model engine wouldn't make the power to weight ratio significantly far off of historical values, unlike with the A-8.
What is the 'significant' weight we're talking about. I keep coming across 200 pounds in this thread. Is that what the fuss is about? In terms of the Spit IX, the weights changed upwards of 500 pounds depending on armament, fuel tankage, external hard points, etc.
What do you think the A8 should do that it doesn't? It's a heavier bird the then the A5 which is going to be the better knife fighter. It traded agility for better armament and brute force while performance wasn't much different in terms of speed. The job it had was different then the A5.
Any of the WW2 fighters went through that. Bigger engines and power to carry more fuel, armor and guns.
-
Ardy,
The angle of incidence at the tip was different then at the root. I think it had about a 3 degree washout. You have a wing that changes from NACA 23015 at the root to NACA 23009 at the tip with a 3 degree washout. If you look around I think all of the data for this wing is on documentaion somewhere. It's a very well known entity.
Generic 190 numbers from wwiiaircraftperformance.org.
----------------------------------
1943 BMW 108 D 2700@1.42 ata.
FW190-A5 basic fighter 2MG17, 2 MG151\20, 2 MGFF\20 4000kg 352 mph at Sea Level 408 mph at 20,669
------------------------------------
1943 BMW 108 D 2700@1.42 ata.
FW190-A8 basic fighter 2MG131, 2 MG151\20, 2 MG151\20 4300kg 346 mph at Sea Level 400 mph at 20,669
FW190-A8 \U2............ 2MG131, 2 MG151\20, 2 MK103\30 4350kg Graph shows about 10mph slower at all settings
1944 Oct. BMW 108 D 2700@1.42 ata.
FW190-A8 basic fighter 2MG131, 2 MG151\20, 2 MG151\20 4300kg 352 mph at Sea Level 405 mph at 18,045
-------------------------------------------
How close are our 190-A's?
------------------------------------------
1944 Oct. Jumo 213a 3000 rpm
FW190-D9 basic fighter 2MG131, 2 MG151\20 4300kg 323 to 329 mph at Sea Level 388 to 395 mph at 21,325
1944 Oct. Jumo 213a 3250 rpm
FW190-D9 basic fighter 2MG131, 2 MG151\20 4300kg 335 to 342 mph at Sea Level 401 to 407 mph at 21,653
------------------------------------------
How close is our D9 on average to this info? You will notice at 4300kg, Sea Level and Alt speeds are not much more than the 190A serise using the same wing type from the A5-A8. How much is the wing design limiting the top speed possbile for the weight and output power of any given engine you mount to that design? The Jumo 213 could do 3250 rpm opposed to the A8 BMW 801D 2700 rpm. And the speeds are not as strikingly different as with the jump to the K4 from previous 109.
-----------------------------------------
Updated FW190-D9 flight trial information from wwiiaircraftperformance.org, german testing results translated to english.
Flight performance of the Fw. 190 D-9 (production version) is given. Speed at altitude was flown with Serial Nr. 006. Various aircraft were checked at 3,000 rpm during continuous testing. Speeds reached 323 to 329 mph (520 to 530 km/h) at sea level and 388 to 395 mph (625 and 635km/h) at 21,325 ft (6.5 km) (about full throttle height, depending on engine adjustment). With 3250 rpm, speeds reached 335 to 342 (540 and 550 km/h) at sea level and 401 to 407 mph (645 and 655 km/h) at 21,653 feet (6.6 km). With 3250 rpm and a take-off weight of 9,480 lbs (4,300 kg), rate of climb was 3,329 ft/min (17.0 m/s) at sea level and 392 ft/min (2.0 m/s) at 33,465 feet (10.2 km).
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190d9test.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
So what do you guys really want? A mythical 4-20mm FW190-A8 that is as manuverable as a P51D and as fast as a K4 on WEP below 15K? Yet for the same weight, a narrower front profile and 550rpm faster engine, you only get about the same speed range maybe a littel faster with the D9. Think maybe that wing design has some limitations you will have to resign yourselves to?
-
Bustr
please read this one:
Actual combat on the Soviet-German front differed greatly from simlated combat at the Air Forces Scientific Research Institute. German pilots did not engage in maneuverable combat in either the vertical or the horizontal plane. Their fighters tried to shoot down a Soviet aircraft in a surprise attack and then went into clouds or towards friendly territory. Ground-attack aircraft also strafec our ground troops unexpectedly. They rarely were intercepted on these and other occasions. Special trials the Air Forces Scientific Research Institute conductec focused on development of procedures and tactics to counter Focke-Wul: ground-attack airplanes. Captured Fw 190A-8 No. 682011 and "lightened Fw 190A-8 No. 580967 took part in this testing. Yak-3, Yak-9u and La-7—the most modern Red Army Air Forces fighters—took off to intercept them.
The "combat" showed that new tactical procedures were needed to counter German aircraft flying at low levels. After all, the Focke-Wulfs usually ingressed at low altitudes and regressed at treetop level at maximum speed. Under such conditions, it was hard to detect an attack in time. The pursuit became more complicated, because the gray matte paint concealed the German aircraft against the background of the landscape. In addition, German pilots employed engine reheat at low altitudes. It was determined here that the Focke-Wulf could deliver 582 km/h, i. e. neither the Yak-3 (the aircraft at the Air Forces Scientific Research Institute developed 567 km/h) nor the Yak-9U (575 km/h) could overtake them. Only the La-5 reached 612 km/h in augmented mode, but the speed margin was insufficient to reduce the range between the two aircraft to a distance permitting aimed fire.
Based on test results, the institute leadership issued recommendations: it is necessary to echelon the fighters in patrols at different altitudes. In this case, the mission of the pilots on the higher tiers would be to disrupt the bombing and to attack the enemy fighter escort, while the lower patrol aircraft, having the capability to overtake in a shallow dive, probably would be able to intercept the ground-attack aircraft themselves
source: http://www.airpages.ru/eng/lw/fw190a7.shtml
and now try to run away from an Yak9 in Ah with a 190A8 :lol
look at the chart below, and read the text twice! And just to mention, its a russian source
(http://www.loose-deuce.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/genchart.png)
-
So from this article you want the 190A8 uprated along with the Yak9U down rated?
One of the testing 190 was a "lightened" model from the translated page. Nor is the page very enlightening if the 190 passed through the test area starting in a dive to achive maximum breakaway speed on boost which was a common german 190 tactic for tip and run attacks. All of the 190's from A5 to A8 will hit the 400 mark under those circumstances. The article references boost as "reheat".
From the article: German pilots employed engine reheat at low altitudes. It was determined here that the Focke-Wulf could deliver 582 km/h(360mph).
Our 190A5\8 in the game on boost in a shallow dive will hit 400 making an ord or radar porking pass. Should Hitech dial back the 190's then to match the results of this article? The article says 360mph employing reheat but no other specifics. The D9 at 3250 rpm at SL won't do 360 going level. Wonder if 360 was the pre A5 190's back in 1942? Lots of confusing contradictions here in such a tiny article.
At the top of the article it refrences the La7 but, by the end only speaks of the La5, not La5Fn. Also the Yak speeds given look like pre Yak9U/Yak3 speeds of the Yak9\9D. The La5 not 5Fn is the only aircraft given with an accurate speed for it's operational period. Possibly like in other russian documents the aircraft are miss named. Yak3=Mig3\Lagg3 and Yak3\9U = Yak9 and Yak9D which all were outclassed in breakaway speed by the 190.
The La5, Yak9, and Yak9D are 1943\44 contemporaries along with the 190A5\6\7\8. The article refrences two serial numbers for A8 aircraft. Possibly some of our Luft experts can run those serial by their sources since we are relying on the author of the web site and not any link to an outside Luftw serial number database. He only seems to use russian sources for his non russian aircraft on his web site. You will note a link at the bottom of the page to his Luftw serial numbers page but, no sources for the numbers.
190A-8 No. 580967 "Lightened"
190A-8 No. 682011
The page seems to be a collection of bits and peices from the 4 russian sources pasted together to achive an effect. Do you have access to any of the 4 russian sources given in the article to see if these two 190 are referenced for this test, and the test itself? Or which 190's only achived 360mph on reheat in a low level dive?
Are you saying the german Rechlin documents from wwiiperformance.org are garbage based on this cludged article? And so then are you infering Hitech's research and math is garbage since he does it as his living with more time and resources at his disposal than us.
-
So from this article you want the 190A8 uprated along with the Yak9U down rated?
....
Are you saying the german Rechlin documents from wwiiperformance.org are garbage based on this cludged article? And so then are you infering Hitech's research and math is garbage since he does it as his living with more time and resources at his disposal than us.
those are your words, not even my suggestions, all i do is to point at different sources, because if you talked to real war Pilots flown the 190A8 and the 190A4 they told you a lot of diffrent things, which are not shown in speed charts. But if i would write down the german fighter Pilot story who told me alot about the 190 series, whats your next step then, what would you calling me then, because i believe him?
Just to make one thing clear, my beloved plane in AH2 is the F4U followed by the pony..... but when i am flying a 190A5, afterwards a A8 then next sortie a D9, you simply "feel" that there is something not correct! Don't you, if not, please fly a 190A8 for one month, then come back and discuss about the E bleed, missing acceleration etc
-
If the A8 is, graphicly and weight wise, an up-armored late model, but is powered by a mid-model engine, ....
Why do you keep insisting on speculating with this and not checking if that really is the case or not?
Here's a translated version of the weight table found from the last page of this technical description: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/td284.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/td284.pdf) ...
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/fw190weights.jpg)
As you can see, it gives the weight which is the same as in AH in 4x20mm configuration for "FW190A-8". There's no Rustsatze on it, nothing. Then it gives a higher weight for A-8/R2 even that doesn't include any "up-armoring" as it only replaces the outer 20mms with 30mms. If the table would list the weight with R8-Rustsatze (Sturmbock/Rammjager -config) it would weigh even more. Also, nothing that I've read says the A-8/R8s had T-series engines as standard. T-series engines were rare in general and I think it's good that more representative A-8 is modeled.
A-9 with BMW801TS would be a lot of fun in the MA and I hope it gets added at some point.
-
Here's a translated version of the weight table found from the last page of this technical description: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/td284.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/td284.pdf) ...
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/fw190weights.jpg)
look - real data! :banana:
-
look - real data! :banana:
The gross performance seems to be pretty close from both sides when it comes to limits like speed, climb rate, things of that nature.
The somewhat reasonable point the guys that want it looked at seem to make is, in broad terms not that much is changed from the A5 to the A8, yet for whatever reason the A8 loses E horribly and doesn't accelerate.
I don't particularly like anecdotes when it comes to these discussions because they don't mean much. There was an anecdote posted here a while ago from a P47 test pilot who said his P47-D40(25?) could outclimb a spitfire with the revised prop. I have my doubts, but who are we to say he's wrong, right?
"How it feels" is pointless to base an argument for a flight model. Computer programs aren't there to make us feel good, they're there to crunch numbers. The only way to fix it is to show where the current model is wrong, with math. Everything else is just noise.
Wiley.
-
those are your words, not even my suggestions, all i do is to point at different sources, because if you talked to real war Pilots flown the 190A8 and the 190A4 they told you a lot of diffrent things, which are not shown in speed charts. But if i would write down the german fighter Pilot story who told me alot about the 190 series, whats your next step then, what would you calling me then, because i believe him?
Just to make one thing clear, my beloved plane in AH2 is the F4U followed by the pony..... but when i am flying a 190A5, afterwards a A8 then next sortie a D9, you simply "feel" that there is something not correct! Don't you, if not, please fly a 190A8 for one month, then come back and discuss about the E bleed, missing acceleration etc
You have been around this game long enough to understand how not to insult Hitech by making direct assertions without real numbers and data against what he does for a living. But, your feelings are slipping on the bleeding edge of that fire.
I'm old enough to have ridden in Tiger Moths at Dunstable Downs southern Bedfordshire in 1960 that were used to tow my father's glider aloft at the Londen gliding club. And Taylorcraft Austors in Peshawar Pakistan 1962-64 when he first worked on his powered flight ticket. Thats 50 years ago. I only remember what the outside of both aircraft look like, how loud and windy Tiger Moth cockpits were and the funny wooden seat for the third passenger in the cargo area of the Austor that I sat on sometimes. That was a very long time ago, and yes the pilot in both cases let me take the stick.
I even got a ride in a Dragon Rapide out of Dunstable one afternoon. 50 years later looking at the inside of a restored one was not what I remembered. But, I still have my feelings from those days which favor fond positives over the realities of the past. Like the smell of sun warmed silver doped fabric on the Moth and Rapide wings. Or the dope smell in the glider repair hanger. Or how beutiful gliders looked working the escarpment along the Chiltern Hills. I even remember the Wildabeast herd at the animal park. but, I cannot remember if we flew nonstop Heathrow to Karchi or Heathrow, Paris to Karachi all these years later. I remember we rode in a Fokker F-27 from Karachi to Peshawar. I cannot remember what we rode from Heathrow. That was a long time ago and the brain filters how it uniquely wants to.
You cannot put "feelings" into Hitech's aerodynamic build program and witnesses universaly are not reliable even if they are the shooter. That's the point of after action debreifings or witness cross examination to separate you from your brain and get at the facts, not the uniquely personal filtered experience. To you the filtered experience is the truth not becasue you are trying to deceive. Memory is not reliable especialy layed down under stress or intense focus becasue of how the brain processes information during those situations. The recall becomes only exactly your truth and not the experience outside of the confines of your brain and how it chose to remember the experience.
The DoD and FBI have bodies of information on the unreliability of memory over time. As time passes only a general story is possible becasue of how the brain manages long term memories. 50 years later I cannot remember the instrament layout for the Tiger Moths or Austors I rode in. But, I fondly remember riding in them.
-
Ardy,
The angle of incidence at the tip was different then at the root. I think it had about a 3 degree washout. You have a wing that changes from NACA 23015 at the root to NACA 23009 at the tip with a 3 degree washout. If you look around I think all of the data for this wing is on documentaion somewhere. It's a very well known entity.
Bustr, The question I was trying to solve was that someone stated that the in game A8 can not handle very much AoA, without stalling. If I can get a graph that shows what AoA the wing can handle, then that could be compared to in game. Charts about its weight and climb rate are not relevant to answering the stated question, neither were the stats that you posted.
Yes, the wing was more complicated than one NACA airfoil shape, but with many programs such as winfoil one can make a 3d model of the wing and get a lift chart for the whole 3d wing shape. Hence why I asked if anyone had winfoil.
-
The DoD and FBI have bodies of information on the unreliability of memory over time. As time passes only a general story is possible becasue of how the brain manages long term memories. 50 years later I cannot remember the instrament layout for the Tiger Moths or Austors I rode in. But, I fondly remember riding in them.
Not me... I'm as sharp as a cantalope.
-
What is engine reheat on a prop engine? isn't reheat afterburner?
-
You have been around this game long enough to understand how not to insult Hitech by making direct assertions without real numbers and data against what he does for a living. But, your feelings are slipping on the bleeding edge of that fire.
I'm old enough to have ridden in Tiger Moths at Dunstable Downs southern Bedfordshire in 1960 that were used to tow my father's glider aloft at the Londen gliding club. And Taylorcraft Austors in Peshawar Pakistan 1962-64 when he first worked on his powered flight ticket. Thats 50 years ago. I only remember what the outside of both aircraft look like, how loud and windy Tiger Moth cockpits were and the funny wooden seat for the third passenger in the cargo area of the Austor that I sat on sometimes. That was a very long time ago, and yes the pilot in both cases let me take the stick.
I even got a ride in a Dragon Rapide out of Dunstable one afternoon. 50 years later looking at the inside of a restored one was not what I remembered. But, I still have my feelings from those days which favor fond positives over the realities of the past. Like the smell of sun warmed silver doped fabric on the Moth and Rapide wings. Or the dope smell in the glider repair hanger. Or how beutiful gliders looked working the escarpment along the Chiltern Hills. I even remember the Wildabeast herd at the animal park. but, I cannot remember if we flew nonstop Heathrow to Karchi or Heathrow, Paris to Karachi all these years later. I remember we rode in a Fokker F-27 from Karachi to Peshawar. I cannot remember what we rode from Heathrow. That was a long time ago and the brain filters how it uniquely wants to.
You cannot put "feelings" into Hitech's aerodynamic build program and witnesses universaly are not reliable even if they are the shooter. That's the point of after action debreifings or witness cross examination to separate you from your brain and get at the facts, not the uniquely personal filtered experience. To you the filtered experience is the truth not becasue you are trying to deceive. Memory is not reliable especialy layed down under stress or intense focus becasue of how the brain processes information during those situations. The recall becomes only exactly your truth and not the experience outside of the confines of your brain and how it chose to remember the experience.
The DoD and FBI have bodies of information on the unreliability of memory over time. As time passes only a general story is possible becasue of how the brain manages long term memories. 50 years later I cannot remember the instrament layout for the Tiger Moths or Austors I rode in. But, I fondly remember riding in them.
well, i got some real flight hours on a yak, some on my own in a trainer, sure they all act like we got it in ah! :bhead if you fly a real plane, you as a pilot got a lot of impressions not only by looking at the gauges, you listen and feel when you fly a plane. going back to a simulator you simply got some impressions on the screen and little feedback from the stick movements, but the weight and things like E bleed in turn gives also an impression back to you. At this point there is way too much difference from the 190A5 to the A8. same goes to the spit 14, but that another thread worth
-
Bustr, I think it varies form individual to individual in this thread, but I'm not looking for any mythical 190. A duck is a duck, and a chicken is either a hen or rooster but never a mallard.
I think, personal preference wise, our up-armored A8 should have the upped engined varient modeled (not making it super, but an improovement, especialy for the LWA crowd... it could be done, much like (and I hesitate to say it, as its also prob a horrible example ontop of a spontaneously combustable topic) the sole Brewster Buffalo in-game). I think the dinky weight discepancy is a mute point, and something not unique within AH, and most of all it's near accurate in every other way for what it is.
How do you feel the arguement is for that, minding it is HT/HTCs ultimate decision (and why I think the sane should just walk away from the classic AH A8 arguement (and rally for the A9 :devil ))?
And yowza at this thread over the last 24 hours.
-
Why do you keep insisting on speculating with this and not checking if that really is the case or not?
Here's a translated version of the weight table found from the last page of this technical description: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/td284.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/td284.pdf) ...
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/fw190weights.jpg)
As you can see, it gives the weight which is the same as in AH in 4x20mm configuration for "FW190A-8". There's no Rustsatze on it, nothing. Then it gives a higher weight for A-8/R2 even that doesn't include any "up-armoring" as it only replaces the outer 20mms with 30mms. If the table would list the weight with R8-Rustsatze (Sturmbock/Rammjager -config) it would weigh even more. Also, nothing that I've read says the A-8/R8s had T-series engines as standard. T-series engines were rare in general and I think it's good that more representative A-8 is modeled.
A-9 with BMW801TS would be a lot of fun in the MA and I hope it gets added at some point.
1661.3kg = BMW 301D-2, circa Feb '44 ?
-
Dhyran,
You are still walking the bleeding edge without directly insulting Hitech for disagreeing with your feelings that you have a superior knowlege and or experience in this matter over him. His program responds to number inputs not feelings or memories. Give him superior data that he can verify from sources or mathmaticly to change his mind.
By the time I was 16 I had 200 hours along with rebuilding an Aeronca Champ when I was 17 becasue of my father and his pilot freinds. My father ended up a multi engine commercial instructor out of BWI, cargo, air ambulance and charter pilot which started with those gliders at Dunstable Downs. This walk through memory lane doesen't change the requirements of the game's physical modeling engine. Nor do my experiences in the past. I stopped flying in my 20's so I leave it at that for my lack of current experience out of respect to the pilots with current tickets in this game.
If you have real and superior data I beleive Hitech will change the A8 for you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Babs,
Go for an A9. What the heck.
If the D9 is the most that could be gotten from that wing then maybe an A9 will be something in between. I could only find one reference for engine and speeds.
1944 Oct. BMW 801F (108S) 2,000 PS
FW190-A9 basic fighter 2-MG131, 2-mg151\20, 2-MG151\20 4370kg 347mph SL and 413mph at alt.
I wonder if these speeds were really with an 801S since the 801F was still under development.
1944 Oct. BMW 108D 1,700 PS
FW190-A8 basic fighter 2MG131, 2 MG151\20, 2 MG151\20 4300kg 352 mph at Sea Level 405 mph at 18,045
I wonder at what alt the A9 108S at 4370kg equalises speed or passes the A8 108D at 4300kg? I found no mention that the overall wing had been changed. Just added to in some cases.
-
What is the 'significant' weight we're talking about. I keep coming across 200 pounds in this thread. Is that what the fuss is about? In terms of the Spit IX, the weights changed upwards of 500 pounds depending on armament, fuel tankage, external hard points, etc.
What do you think the A8 should do that it doesn't? It's a heavier bird the then the A5 which is going to be the better knife fighter. It traded agility for better armament and brute force while performance wasn't much different in terms of speed. The job it had was different then the A5.
Any of the WW2 fighters went through that. Bigger engines and power to carry more fuel, armor and guns.
Depends on the model of 190A8 we have. Some had upto 30mm of extra armor in places. Yeah, the 190A5 should be a better knife fighter, but thats not what we're talking about.
If the A8 is weight wise an uparmored version featuring 30mm of canopy and windscreen armor, but is powered by a mid-model engine, then thats a problem. If it turns out that we have a non-uparmored model, powered by a mid-model engine...... well we'll have to see if the Spit IX has a higher or lower power to weight ratio for the model thats reprsented graphicly. If its higher, it should be brought down to the correct level at the very least, since the 190A8 is going to be at a lower power to weight ratio than is historical
-
So what does the A8 not do that you think it should? Where is it said that we have the armor glass, extra armor version? How much weight do you think it's off?
-
I'm not saying that it IS off, I'm saying that it MIGHT be off. I'm still trying to find the weight of various models so we can see exactly which one we have.
So if we DO have an armor glass, up-armored version being powered by a mid-model engine, then we can go about asking for it to be corrected.
And the issue isn't that we (might) have an up-armored A-8, the issue is that we might have an up-armored A-8 being powered by a mid-model engine, in an attempt to have the A-8 cover a wider time span. The up-armoring (could be) making it heavier, and more wallowing than a true mid-model A-8 would be, while the weaker engine of a mid-model gives it poorer preformance than a true late-model.
If thats the case, then its preforming poorer than it did historicaly in both situations, albeit in different ways, and hence splitting it into two different models would be a better way to do things, as we might already have part of both in game right now.
-
I'm not saying that it IS off, I'm saying that it MIGHT be off. I'm still trying to find the weight of various models so we can see exactly which one we have.
So if we DO have an armor glass, up-armored version being powered by a mid-model engine, then we can go about asking for it to be corrected.
And the issue isn't that we (might) have an up-armored A-8, the issue is that we might have an up-armored A-8 being powered by a mid-model engine, in an attempt to have the A-8 cover a wider time span. The up-armoring (could be) making it heavier, and more wallowing than a true mid-model A-8 would be, while the weaker engine of a mid-model gives it poorer preformance than a true late-model.
If thats the case, then its preforming poorer than it did historicaly in both situations, albeit in different ways, and hence splitting it into two different models would be a better way to do things, as we might already have part of both in game right now.
So in essence we're back to it doesn't seem right?
don't mean to be pushy about it, and in the end it's not my call, but this discussion has happened many times over the years when the latest 190 fan decides one of them doesn't perform up to standards they have for it. The Russian tests have been brought up in the past, as have most all the docs posted in this thread. If you search 190 threads they'll generally all be there.
I was watching KillnU the other night in a 190A8, which he was flying to see what the fuss was about, and he seemed to be doing just fine in it, flying it to it's strengths. A while back for giggles we took up F8s, just because they were supposed to be such dogs. I was quite impressed with how effective it was as a fighter. I killed things faster in that then I ever do in a 38 :)
I believe folks get caught up in what they think it should do in the MA environment, and don't fly it to it's strengths and then assume somehow HTC got the numbers wrong.
-
Its not that it doesn't 'seem' right. I personally wasn't aware of the fact that it had a mid-model's engine untill this thread; I thought that HTC had simply decided to model an up-armored version (with late-model engine included).
-
Dhyran,
You are still walking the bleeding edge without directly insulting Hitech for disagreeing with your feelings that you have a superior knowlege and or experience in this matter over him. His program responds to number inputs not feelings or memories. Give him superior data that he can verify from sources or mathmaticly to change his mind.
....
Well, you try to put words in my mouth, that a real insult! I never said they don't have the knowledge or something else, i just pointed onto a situation about the FM inside a Series of planes, example the 190A8, the same strange FM Feeling i got with the Spit 14, which should be a superb Spit8. I never would insult someone as a person, i make a clear diffference between Persons and things, concentrate and focus on results is on my mind, and not insulting Programmers, designers or even HTC! Please try to make a difference between a disscussion about a FM and Persons! We are discussion only a FM thing here, it has nothing to do with the Company HFC or even a Person doing his Job. How you will make things better when you try to disband a product discussion?
back to Topic: There are different Variant of 190A8, maybe you can agree with this one?
-
our up-armored A8 should have the upped engined varient modeled...
Why do you keep saying that our A-8 is "up-armored" while there's absolutely no proof of this? AH A-8 is fitted with the highest output version of the engine which was by far the most common in it. I've yet to see any proof that the added armor (R8 Rustsazt) and T-series engine go hand in hand either.
From The History of German Aviation: Kurt Tank: Focke-Wulf's Designer and Test Pilot:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/TUTS.jpg)
(not making it super, but an improovement, especialy for the LWA crowd... it could be done, much like (and I hesitate to say it, as its also prob a horrible example ontop of a spontaneously combustable topic) the sole Brewster Buffalo in-game).
Brewster's issues were completely different. No one said it should have more power or less weight. The problems were with its handling characteristics and flying qualities which initially didn't correspond with the flight test reports available. On of those issues was too high propeller mass which caused a strong gyroscopic moment which in turn with too small fuselage lift characteristics caused very strong yawing tendency/poor directional stability. The issue was backed up with flight test data and partly diagnosed simply by testing the model in AH (too high prop mass). I don't recall anyone proving a discrepancy in the A-8s handling characteristics yet through testing/data.
-
Regarding Soviet published data for the A-8 (probabaly with 1.42ata setting?):
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Sovietdata_A-8.jpg)
Gladly data like this is largely irrelevant when it comes to AH as where available, HTC tends to use manufacturers/nations data for the flight models which is for the most part the best way considering the amount and the quality of the data.
-
Bustr, The question I was trying to solve was that someone stated that the in game A8 can not handle very much AoA, without stalling. If I can get a graph that shows what AoA the wing can handle, then that could be compared to in game. Charts about its weight and climb rate are not relevant to answering the stated question, neither were the stats that you posted.
Yes, the wing was more complicated than one NACA airfoil shape, but with many programs such as winfoil one can make a 3d model of the wing and get a lift chart for the whole 3d wing shape. Hence why I asked if anyone had winfoil.
I've done some quick n' dirty math with the A-8. At 1000ft, 4x20mm, 100% internal fuel the aircraft stalls in clean condition at ~118mph in level flight power off. This yields Clmax of 1.42 in standard athmosphere. In D. Lednicer's CFD evaluation of three WWII fighters he gives the FW190 a Clmax of ~1.5.
-
I've done some quick n' dirty math with the A-8. At 1000ft, 4x20mm, 100% internal fuel the aircraft stalls in clean condition at ~118mph in level flight power off. This yields Clmax of 1.42 in standard athmosphere. In D. Lednicer's CFD evaluation of three WWII fighters he gives the FW190 a Clmax of ~1.5.
So its about ~.08-.1 off.
Also, what about the fuselage, doesn't it generate lift too?
I would expect due to the fuselage that the CLmax for the whole aircraft would be slightly higher than wing alone...
How do I calculate the Cd value, such that I can multiply it by the Cl/Cd value from the airfoil charts, to compare?
-
So its about ~.08-.1 off.
Even though some people like to take their "feelings" as facts :) I'm quite cautious about my calcs in general and considering the small difference, I'm not ready to say that anything's "off".
Also, what about the fuselage, doesn't it generate lift too?
I would expect due to the fuselage that the CLmax for the whole aircraft would be slightly higher than wing alone...
The 1.5 was for the whole aircraft.
-
There was no BMW 801T engine in the Fw 190 A-8 - you may have confused the "Triebwerksanlage" (quick-change power-egg) designation with an engine designation.
Typically A-8 were equipped with the 801D-2 engine, from mid-1944 with a boost system delivering about 1950PS on take-off (may include the ~70PS required to drive the engine fan). The uparmored A-8/R7 and R8 had to have the 801TU engine package (CoG reasons) containing the 801 Q-2 engine, which is a 801 D-2 with larger oil tank and stronger oil tank/oil cooler armor.
Installing the 801 TS engine package (containing the 801S engine) onto an Fw 190 A-8 would make it an A-9. The 801S delivered 2000PS but this value includes the 70PS to drive the engine fan. A boost upgrade for 2200PS was planned.
-
I read this interesting thread - and marvelled at the technical knowledge of some of the contributors...
Here's my $0.02:
I'm merely an aircraft and military history enthusiast. I'd like to fly the 190A-8 in the game, but it is not competitive as a fighter. So, I'd like HiTech to look at making the 190 more competitive - provided adjustments are made that would be supported by historical data. If HiTech Creations could reasonably choose between modelling a heavy aircraft used as a destroyer, or a lighter aircraft optimized for fighter vs. fighter, then I would like them to choose the latter and make most folks paying their $15/month happy. Thanks.
-
I read this interesting thread - and marvelled at the technical knowledge of some of the contributors...
Here's my $0.02:
I'm merely an aircraft and military history enthusiast. I'd like to fly the 190A-8 in the game, but it is not competitive as a fighter. So, I'd like HiTech to look at making the 190 more competitive - provided adjustments are made that would be supported by historical data. If HiTech Creations could reasonably choose between modelling a heavy aircraft used as a destroyer, or a lighter aircraft optimized for fighter vs. fighter, then I would like them to choose the latter and make most folks paying their $15/month happy. Thanks.
You are doing it wrong :devil
-
I read this interesting thread - and marvelled at the technical knowledge of some of the contributors...
Here's my $0.02:
I'm merely an aircraft and military history enthusiast. I'd like to fly the 190A-8 in the game, but it is not competitive as a fighter. So, I'd like HiTech to look at making the 190 more competitive - provided adjustments are made that would be supported by historical data. If HiTech Creations could reasonably choose between modelling a heavy aircraft used as a destroyer, or a lighter aircraft optimized for fighter vs. fighter, then I would like them to choose the latter and make most folks paying their $15/month happy. Thanks.
I understand where you are coming from, but sometimes choices are made because something is more representative or because data is more readily available.
Consider in the Spitfire lineup we have a Merlin 61 powered Spitfire F.Mk IX. Only a bit over 300 of these were made and they were the least capable of the Spitfire IXs. Thousands of Merlin 66 powered Spitfire LF.Mk IXs were built, but they performed very much like the Spitfire Mk VIII or Spitfire Mk XVI in AH and in fact those two versions should be used as stand ins for later Spitfire Mk IXs in scenarios. In actual practice the CMs almost always use the mid-1942 Merlin 61 Spitfire F.Mk IX in settings where the Spitfire Mk XVI should be used. The weakest Mk IX is useful for filling the 1942/early 1943 spot in the Spitfire series and thus should not be upgraded. The Bf109G-6 is the same for most of 1943 in terms of Bf109s. The Fw190A-8 may very well be the same.
-
So what does the A8 not do that you think it should? Where is it said that we have the armor glass, extra armor version? How much weight do you think it's off?
Well... guppy, if it's not the up-armored buff-intercept version... don't you think any one of us that could open the in-game E6B would promptly come here to tihs board and start crying bloody murder a lot sooner? :devil
I can dive into your first question 6-ways from sunday, much like you could about spitfires. First, it does what it does pretty well... some debatable issues keep popping up - a hundred pounds here, questionable armor performance there (definetley with the weight penalty though). If you like/love 190s, especially A8s, the crux issue is we have only one given example/variety for an extremely WIDE and very complex varieties of aircraft to the A8 series. If I had to put my finger specificly on something though, just one - it's not the best choice as an AH-LWMA fighter (and there were A8 varients that we can speculate would be better to compete in such a setting). I would love the day, and think it can be validated/justified for the work/effort involved, to expand the 190A-8 series with another varient or two. The F8 is already an in-game expansion, however it doesn't differentiate too much from the current A8 moddeled.
Lets speculate on the scary side here and say I actually had control over such things at HTCs for one day, this is what I would do:
First, the two easy decisions -
Add the A-9 - make it "the K4" of the radial-powered 190s: fighter mode only, lower ENY than the rest, no wing cannons, DT optional. Hopefuly find it resting in a sweet spot between a circa early or mid '44 A8 and D9.
Give the F-8 the toys it should of always had when it got added to AH. Wing cannon options, more wing ordnance/bomb options, more centerline ordnance options (I believe, could be mistaken so will need to check, it could carry multiple smaller bombs rather than one really big egg on its centerline... that would be most awesome for GV supression duty in AH). Definetley would have to lower its ENY though, both because it's going to be, properly, more menacing to GVs add destroyable objects, and because you don't want to see it at +20k hunting buffs that often (although a player still could if they wanted to).
Then, there's the A8... realisticly, I'd probabley waste the rest of the day thinking about what to do with the A-8, and ultimatley running out of time so then nothing gets changed... Easy-mode - just make multiple A8s modeled in AH... but I'm inclined to try and keep it still within one (this would be the best/only/sane solution for those not unaturally attracted to the 190s). Let's speculate the decision for the A9 has been made, so we have a competitive radial-powered late-war 190 fighter interceptor. Going off that, I don't know if AH has the ability to change armor/toughness values for components with the inclusions or exclusion of an ordnance option, but if it could then no wing cannons on the A-8 would make it a drasticly lighter and more easily-abused bird. If not, then I'd just go for making sure it's completely modelled as the A8/R-13 (IE: no no-wing-cannon option, doublecheck the wings toughness through its armor value, and keep its ENY as is... comical to me honestly after all this time on it and many A8 threads, of all 190 things I hypotheticly could change, it would be the least changed).
Oh, and on my way out, ask to look into disabling the bombs/attack option on the D-9. I've, still, never come across documented use of it, although they could fit them to the drop tank rack...
I read this interesting thread - and marvelled at the technical knowledge of some of the contributors...
Here's my $0.02:
I'm merely an aircraft and military history enthusiast. I'd like to fly the 190A-8 in the game, but it is not competitive as a fighter. So, I'd like HiTech to look at making the 190 more competitive - provided adjustments are made that would be supported by historical data. If HiTech Creations could reasonably choose between modelling a heavy aircraft used as a destroyer, or a lighter aircraft optimized for fighter vs. fighter, then I would like them to choose the latter and make most folks paying their $15/month happy. Thanks.
You sir, if successful, are my FPH of the month! :aok
-
So my using the same argument with HTC for a full span wing Spitfire LF IX with Universal wing and a Merlin 66 so it's more competitive in Latewar is ok too then? Or the old LF Vc we used to have as well? :)
-
There was no BMW 801T engine in the Fw 190 A-8 - you may have confused the "Triebwerksanlage" (quick-change power-egg) designation with an engine designation.
Typically A-8 were equipped with the 801D-2 engine, from mid-1944 with a boost system delivering about 1950PS on take-off (may include the ~70PS required to drive the engine fan). The uparmored A-8/R7 and R8 had to have the 801TU engine package (CoG reasons) containing the 801 Q-2 engine, which is a 801 D-2 with larger oil tank and stronger oil tank/oil cooler armor.
Installing the 801 TS engine package (containing the 801S engine) onto an Fw 190 A-8 would make it an A-9. The 801S delivered 2000PS but this value includes the 70PS to drive the engine fan. A boost upgrade for 2200PS was planned.
Thanks, it is easy to confuse (TU/TS).
Now, to add to the confusions - the captured A8s by the allies equiped with 801Ss and the ~900 produced A9s equiped with them...
I read an article not too long ago, citing some FW or LW documentation citing that the LW recieved from BMW a large number of 801Ss, that's something I'd like to see for myself.
-
So my using the same argument with HTC for a full span wing Spitfire LF IX with Universal wing and a Merlin 66 so it's more competitive in Latewar is ok too then? Or the old LF Vc we used to have as well? :)
Well... uh... hey now, at least I'm willing to keep the A-8 the dog that it's been modeled after with alternative expansion of the series! :devil
-
Going off that, I don't know if AH has the ability to change armor/toughness values for components with the inclusions or exclusion of an ordnance option,
This came up in reference to the Mosquito FB.Mk XVIII and Pyro said that armor/toughness could not be changed via loadouts.
-
Well... uh... hey now, at least I'm willing to keep the A-8 the dog that it's been modeled after with alternative expansion of the series! :devil
Ok then i'm back to trading the A9 for a Spit XII :)
-
Ok then i'm back to trading the A9 for a Spit XII :)
vhy vould jou vant tü make der fw-190 falsely spit-like über? So girly man vho fly das spit kann also fly der 190 and feel akkomplished in all their video game greatness? bah, vat a disrespekt to die pilots vho fly der cartoon von-90, let the spits be for die girly-manen.
:D
In all seriousness, if there is something wrong with the 190 it should be fixed but it should not be altered because it does not meet some 'easy-mode' requirement.
-
Hmm me410 or a plane nobody in this thread has flown recently... or within the past YEAR....
/yep ok, moving along
-
1661.3kg = BMW 301D-2, circa Feb '44 ?
I don't see how the weight of the powerplant on that particular weight table is relevant when it is clear that AH's A-8 has 801D-2 with its highest boost setting that as far as I know stayed that way until the end of the war for 801D-2. Again, the few that had T-series engines, as per the earlier quote I posted, were rare.
If you like/love 190s, especially A8s, the crux issue is we have only one given example/variety for an extremely WIDE and very complex varieties of aircraft to the A8 series. If I had to put my finger specificly on something though, just one - it's not the best choice as an AH-LWMA fighter (and there were A8 varients that we can speculate would be better to compete in such a setting). I would love the day, and think it can be validated/justified for the work/effort involved, to expand the 190A-8 series with another varient or two.
Again, I don't see anything particularly complex about the A-8 variant alone. What powerplant and max. power setting is a no brainer is already modeled with the right combo.
Add the A-9 - make it "the K4" of the radial-powered 190s: fighter mode only, lower ENY than the rest, no wing cannons, DT optional.
A-9 had the same standard armament (2x13mm, 4x20mm) as A-7 and A-8:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/A-9armament.jpg)
Give the F-8 the toys it should of always had when it got added to AH. Wing cannon options...
What wing cannon options? It already has 20mm on the inner mounts as it should and it never had the outer wing 20mms. If you are talking about the possible wing mounted MK103s, those were experimental only.
-
Hmm me410 or a plane nobody in this thread has flown recently... or within the past YEAR....
/yep ok, moving along
Actually the Fw190A-8 gets surprisingly heavy usage. That said, I don't advocate making it better unless there is a good reason. I am more concerned with gaps being filled and I think if people want a super Fw190 they should just grab the Fw190D-9.
-
So this is a discussion on planes we wont see ingame? :uhoh
-
MK 103 experimental installation was in an underwing mount with the outer wing guns removed.
Many Fw pilots not fighting the US heavy bombers preferred to have the outer wing guns removed to save weight and increase performance.
-
So our A8 is the basic fighter from March 44 with the puny 1700hp on boost. Remember the /R2 with MK108 is about 10mph slower from SL to Max Alt for the whole spectrum. Or how dog slow would the /R8 with 2-MK103 be where each gun was more than twice the weight of the MK108.
THE BMW 801 D, G AND Q.
Similar in general construction to the 801 A but operating on 96 Octane fuel. The 801 D was a bare engine, the 801 G was a power-plant for multi-engine installations, and the 801 Q was fitted with a bi-fuel system and provision for nitrous-oxide injection.
Compression Ratio: 7.22 : 1.
Supercharger Drive Ratios: 5.31 : 1 and 8.31 : 1.
Performance (801 D and G):
Take-off and emergency 1,700 h.p. at 2,700 r.p.m. at 1.42 ata. at sea level, 1,440 h.p. at 2,700 r.p.m. at 1.42 ata. at 18,700 ft,
Climbing 1,500 h.p. at 2,400 r.p.m. 1.32 ata. at sea level, 1,360 h.p. at 2.400 r.p.m. at 1.32 ata. at 17,000 ft.
Maximum cruising 1,300 h.p. at 2,300 r.p.m. at 1.2 ata. at sea level, 1,215 h.p. at 2,300 r.p.m. at 1.2 ata. at 18,000 ft.
Fuel consumption .54 lb./h.p./hr. maximum cruising, sea level.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So regardless of the package designation like Power Egg or TU, TS and such. Utimatly this is what everyone wants which eventulay found it's way into A8's and was standard in the A9. BMW801 S. 2000hp on boost. Effectively it delivers OFF boost at SL what the 801D on boost does. And to get more confusing, the Focke-Wulf manual states "With the TS/TH engine installed, the Fw 190 A-8 is redesignated Fw 190 A-9." Power Egg module but, the engine in that power egg is now the 801 S.
Initially the Fw 190 A-8 was equipped with the BMW 801 D-2 engine with the 12 bladed cooling fan. In July 1944, the 801 D-2 was beginning to be replaced by the BMW 801 TU with a 14 bladed cooling fan, as an interim engine until the more powerful BMW 801 TS or TH engine could be built in quantity. All three engines had the 14 bladed cooling fan. With the TS or TH engine the Fw 190 A-8 airframe became an A-9. The standard A-8 was equipped with a 6.5 mm armored cowl ring. With the new BMW 801 TU, TS and TH engine, a new 10 mm cowl ring was required along with the 14 bladed cooling fan.
Fw 190 A-8 (3.44) Fw 190 A-8 (7.44) Fw 190 A9 (9.44)
Engine BMW 801 D-2 BMW 801 TU BMW 801 TS
Cooling fan 12 bladed 14 bladed 14 bladed
Armored cowl ring 6.5 mm 10 mm 10 mm
This kind of looks like spit9, spit8, spit16, spit12, spit14 and your choices of 3.44\A8, 7.44\A8, 9.44\A9 or 8.44\D9. And we don't even have the A2, A3 or A4 let alone A6 or A7.......whew numbers. I can see an argument to introduce the most powerful of the 801 radial engined versions since we do have the P47M\N and multiple P40, P38, spitfires and Mitsubishi.
Would this be the source of OP's Luft pilots memories of his time flying the A8 and it's performance? 7.44\A8?
THE BMW 801 E, F AND S.
Similar in general construction to the 801 D but fitted with different supercharger gear ratios.
Modifications to the 801 S consisted of an improved and simplified master-control, chrome cylinder liners, modified rocker housing cover, modified piston rings and altered magneto timing.
Supercharger Drive Ratios: 6 : 1 and 8.3 : 1.
Performance:
Take-off and emergency 2,000 h.p. at 2,700 r.p.m. at 1.56 ata. at sea level, 1,700 h.p. at 2,700 r.p.m. at 1.65 ata. at 18,700 ft.
Climbing 1,650 h.p. at 2,500 r.p.m. at 1.45 ata. at sea level, 1,500 h.p. at 2,500 r.p.m. at 1.45 ata. at 18,000 ft.
Maximum cruising 1,440 h.p. at 2,400 r.p.m. at 1.3 ata. at sea level, 1,340 h.p. at 2,400 r.p.m. at 1.3 ata. at 19,000 ft.
Fuel consumption .545 lb./h.p./hr. maximum cruising, sea level.
-
So our A8 is the basic fighter from March 44 with the puny 1700hp on boost. Remember the /R2 with MK108 is about 10mph slower from SL to Max Alt for the whole spectrum. Or how dog slow would the /R8 with 2-MK103 be where each gun was more than twice the weight of the MK108.
I have no idea where you get your info from but as previously mentioned all the use of MK103 in FW190s was experimental only. There was no way for a MK103 to fit into the wing itself. There was a an experimental installation in which the cannons were housed in gondolas under the wing. If successful they would have been used for ground attack.
What BMW801D-2 delivers on different power setting seems to vary from source to source. The data set AHs A-8 is based on has a power curve which shows 1800ps at sea level with 1.42ata setting. In AH A-8 has higher 1.58/1.65ata setting.
-
~1800PS is pure engine power without accounting for the loss in power to drive the fan.
The BMW power graph from July(?) 1942 clearly states N(Luftschraube) + N(Lüfter) (this detail is missing in at least two versions which have been translated into english).
Depending on source and date of original docs the fan is accounted for 70-100PS.
The 1800PS is also a static value, without loss from rammed air (overpressure) at low alt.
-
Shows you that the OP should have left it to a Wish for the FW190 A9 with the BMW 801s and not allowed this can of worms to be opened that you can find on at least 3 other WW2 blogs almost verbatum where they don't really get this resolved before everyone pulls out their pistolas by around page 6 and piu, piu, piu's each others mommas until page 94. And yes by July 44 uprated 801 D2 were being installed in A8 along with feild kits that just about equaled the 801 S until the power egg came out and the A8 became the A9.
The OP should have gone for a technical wish instead of an emotional one.
OP: "Hitech I wish for a FW190 A9 with BMW 801S 2000hp boost."
Hitech: "Get in line...."
OP: "Thank you sir...."
OP: "How many cases of scotch did you say sir??"
He didn't even begin the argument with the recollections from his retired FW pilot that he is freinds with. It would have been nice if the gentelman or the OP remembered time lines.
But then we don't get to be all snotty with each other and piu, piu, piu each others scholarship while stomping on each others virtual nads. Now do we?? Reminds me of first grade in Luton England where the teachers smacked me with a stick for wrong answers becasue I was an american.
English School Teacher: "Who won the Colonial insurrection of 1783?"
American School Boy: "We did!"
English School Teacher: Swings meter long pointer stick connecting with young head. "No! The crown chose to arbitrate it's losses against an inferior proposition and waste of resources."
American School Boy: "You lost the war."
English School Teacher: WHACK!!!!!!
Yup 50 years later and I'm so surprised I've found my old elementery school from Luton online........
-
~1800PS is pure engine power without accounting for the loss in power to drive the fan.
The BMW power graph from July(?) 1942 clearly states N(Luftschraube) + N(Lüfter) (this detail is missing in at least two versions which have been translated into english).
I was talking about the engine output itself as that's what is usually given in the literature.
The 1800PS is also a static value, without loss from rammed air (overpressure) at low alt.
Yes, it's for static HP. It gives roughly 1770ps for top speed's worth of rammed air. I can understand the rise of 1st supercharger gear's critical altitude due to rammed air but don't really understand how it lowers the hp below it. :headscratch:
-
Then that would mean we have the 12.44 A8 Normaljager 2700 1.58 ata and the OP can only really wish for an A9 if he wants any higher performance with a radial engine in his 190.
I get images of Fantasia with the Ballerina Hippo.
-
The fan was an integral part of the engine so you have to subtract the power required to operate it. This was even done in Fw 190 aircraft manuals.
-
The fan was an integral part of the engine so you have to subtract the power required to operate it.
Of course. My point is that that's the value which mentioned at large in literature in general. Sometimes converted to actual hp, sometimes not.
-
But then we don't get to be all snotty with each other and piu, piu, piu each others scholarship while stomping on each others virtual nads. Now do we?? Reminds me of first grade in Luton England where the teachers smacked me with a stick for wrong answers becasue I was an american.
English School Teacher: "Who won the Colonial insurrection of 1783?"
American School Boy: "We did!"
English School Teacher: Swings meter long pointer stick connecting with young head. "No! The crown chose to arbitrate it's losses against an inferior proposition and waste of resources."
American School Boy: "You lost the war."
English School Teacher: WHACK!!!!!!
Yup 50 years later and I'm so surprised I've found my old elementery school from Luton online........
Jolly Good Show! I owe that Tutor a pint of best. :old:
:D
-
I don't see how the weight of the powerplant on that particular weight table is relevant when it is clear that AH's A-8 has 801D-2 with its highest boost setting that as far as I know stayed that way until the end of the war for 801D-2. Again, the few that had T-series engines, as per the earlier quote I posted, were rare.
(Agreed - actually my comment was made in support of your comment just now that amongst all 801D-2 engines, the T-series was indeed rare because, I *think* your presented report there, made in early/mid September of 1944 (if I'm correct), by FW/LW none-less, strongly reinforces that statement. Again, to clarify - the weight I feel is relevant to highlighting what was the particular engine avilable to the series at the time of that report... which also lends itself to noting there is no 190 in AH modeled with an engine after the 801D-2 (and what seems to now be developing into the reasoning for requesting an A-9 from HTCs for AH).
Again, I don't see anything particularly complex about the A-8 variant alone. What powerplant and max. power setting is a no brainer is already modeled with the right combo.
Yup, again just agreeing. She's a dog, and only one example of many A-8 varients produced, but an accurate one (and in regards to the 1-200 pounds, still to well within tollerable limits by AH sandards). I like our A-8, especialy when in the right situation at the right time, but I just wish she was likeable-er in the MAs (AH's primary arena).
A-9 had the same standard armament (2x13mm, 4x20mm) as A-7 and A-8:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/A-9armament.jpg)
What wing cannon options? It already has 20mm on the inner mounts as it should and it never had the outer wing 20mms. If you are talking about the possible wing mounted MK103s, those were experimental only.
The A-9 did have the same standard armament as the A8, so it could have the 20 and 30mm outer wing cannons, however it did not recieve the A-8s armor imrpovements/reinforcements. It had a larger radiator than the A-8, however it inherited the additional cowling armor to the front.
In my "fantasia" I'm specificaly requesting they not be added, otherwise I suspect it will promptly designate the A-8 as a hangar queen in the game as a result. But what are your thoughts on that? Maybe, instead, it will bring to shine the up-armored qualities of the current A-8?
The F-8's loadouts... what's your source on it never having any outer wing mounted cannon WMaker? I agree, I don't believe it saw the Mk103 past the drawing board, but a number of options did (they just might never of been installed at the factory). I think what governs though why most/many F-8s didn't see wing cannons is that they could carry heavier ordnance/bomb options than what we have modeled in the game (and they did).
To add, WMaker, you of all people are an intersting person to study preaching about modleing proper/published factory standards of performance in one hand and then also argueing with absolutley no doubt that it IS the "modeled with the right combo". Remember, the combination in question, in regards to the speculative role our A-8 plays, is the one that saw action during the last 6-months of the war (heavy combat) and the last of the radial-powered variants. I'm trying to get there in digging around and some documention supports it with the amount of engines delivered during that time form BMW to the LW, but in the last few months of the war, a BMW801S seems to of been more common and available than BMW801D-2, yet let us ignore the more likely combination actually used during that time for the proper and documented factory standards.
<sniped out rant about the Finnish brewster>, I <3 it!, but is it more closely modeled after what was de-crated on a Finnish dock or what was left remaining after the conclusion of the war? (you may now tar and feather me for using your Brew as a crutch in the A8 arguement)
-
however it did not recieve the A-8s armor imrpovements/reinforcements.
If you are talking about the Rammjager/Sturmbock extra armor it is true that at least the standard A-9 didn't have them but like I've said before, our A-8 doesn't have any "additional armor" either. Not based on the weight table or per anyone's argumentation. (I'm not sure if they were any A-9 with additional armor or not. It hard to say considering the records of the Third Reich at that point of the war.)
It had a larger radiator than the A-8, however it inherited the additional cowling armor to the front.
Yep, A-9 did have beefed up armor of the oil cooler which I assumed that you meant. So in that regard it had slightly more armor than a standard A-8 and had a slightly higher take off weight as well.
In my "fantasia" I'm specificaly requesting they not be added, otherwise I suspect it will promptly designate the A-8 as a hangar queen in the game as a result. But what are your thoughts on that? Maybe, instead, it will bring to shine the up-armored qualities of the current A-8?
As I've said many times on this thread, there's nothing that I can see which backs up the claim that there's any additional armor (rammjager/sturmbock) in AH's A-8. Nothing supports that fact. Yes, I'm sure that A-9 would do to A-9 what P-47M did to P-47D-40 in the late war arena. I don't see anything wrong with that as there are already previous examples of it and it is a "all vs. all fantasy arena" after all.
The F-8's loadouts... what's your source on it never having any outer wing mounted cannon WMaker?
Well, practically every source that says something about the F-8 and I've never seen a single photo of one with four cannons. The wing hard points needed something solid to attach to.
To add, WMaker, you of all people are an intersting person to study preaching about modleing proper/published factory standards of performance in one hand and then also argueing with absolutley no doubt that it IS the "modeled with the right combo". Remember, the combination in question, in regards to the speculative role our A-8 plays, is the one that saw action during the last 6-months of the war (heavy combat) and the last of the radial-powered variants. I'm trying to get there in digging around and some documention supports it with the amount of engines delivered during that time form BMW to the LW, but in the last few months of the war, a BMW801S seems to of been more common and available than BMW801D-2, yet let us ignore the more likely combination actually used during that time for the proper and documented factory standards.
I don't quite get what you are on about here but the AH's A-8 currently hits Focke Wulf's own set of data. Considering how many were built powered with 801D-2 and how sketchy the info is about the 801TS installations and the like (I've seen no data for the A-8 with anything but 801D-2) so yes, I think A-8 with 801D-2 with its highest power setting available is the right "combo" to model.
<sniped out rant about the Finnish brewster>, I <3 it!, but is it more closely modeled after what was de-crated on a Finnish dock or what was left remaining after the conclusion of the war?
I managed to read what you said about the Brewster but couldn't quite make out what you were saying anyway. :headscratch: But I'll say that I know two different data sets for Brewster's speed for example. One is Brewster's own specification document and one is Finnish flight test and they show almost identical performance with each other and with the game. We are talking about variation of 2-3mph here and there. So if you wish to clarify what you meant I'll be happy to answer further.
-
Which 801 D2 boost system and supercharger ration is our A8 using?
Supercharger: 5.31:1 and 8.31:1
Petrol Injection into Air Intake - 1730hp to 1870hp depending on "which" boost and petrol injection system used.
Or
MW50 and Increased Boost - 2000hp+ for 10 minutes. (Did this take an change to the supercharger ratio or piston shape?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a.) What constitutes the difference between D1 and D2?
b.) I thought we are supposed to see something like: (BMW 801 D 600). What is the 3 digit number after th D designation?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The A9 was fitted with the 801 S. and different supercharger ratio's (6:1 to 8.3:1) than the D2.
Was that rated 2000hp before boost or after?
What was the "Power Egg" designation for that 801 package?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since we are seeing D, D2, F, S, TH, TS, TU bandied about.
1.) How many different "Power Eggs" were involved with the 190A8 series. (Isn't the A8's the MG Power Egg?)
2.) How many different 801's constituted the bare engine in those "Power Eggs"?
3.) How many different Boost systems and supercharger rations are we talking about?
4.) What was the highest HP rated system used by more than 100 A8 day fighters in the last months of the war?
5.) Which one is our A8?
-
The edit time limit had ran out...
Correction:
I don't quite get what you are on about here but the AH's A-8 currently hits Focke Wulf's own set of data. Considering how many were built powered with 801D-2 and how sketchy the info is about the 801TS installations and the like (I've seen no performance data for the A-8 with anything but 801D-2) so yes, I think A-8 with 801D-2 with its highest power setting available is the right "combo" to model.
-
Ya wanna give my list of questions a shot? Thats kinda vauge to answer with your own corrected quote.
For every american, german, russian, spanish and south american ww2 forum I've been to the answers vary and are even argued by common members of several of those forums across forums. Many of them appere to own original documents, libraries of books and some work for restoration companies. For every expert it is only thier answer and everyone else is wrong. There apperes to be about as many personal modern truths about FW190's and BMW 801's as were rolled off the assembly lines in ww2.
The 2700rpm 1.56/1.65 looks like it would be for a petrol injection to air intake. But which supercharger gearing to achive 1800hp+-? Or are we using late war MW50 at 2000hp with the S gearing? Then would come into play which version of the "Power Egg" for these production aircraft? But then, Starting from July 1944 all Fw 190 A-8 aircraft will be equipped with "increased emergency". By overridding the supercharger boost regulator, boost pressures are increased at take-off and emergency power in low supercharger setting from 1,42 ata to 1,58 ata and at the high supercharger setting from 1,42 to 1,65 ata.
Reads like petral injection to the air intake.
D2 - 5.31:1 to 8.31:1
S - 6:1 to 8.3:1
But, you also read some places MW50 very late was allowed for the A8 boosting to 2000hp or so.
TS and TH did not stand for turbocharger but instead the Triebswerksanlage version of the Kraftei or "power egg". MG was the "power egg" designation for the A8.
I have been confused at times over engine designations as so many trying to speak about the FW's.
Engines were typically delivered from BMW complete in their cowling, ready to be bolted to the front of the aircraft, since 1942 as Motoranlage (M) and 1944/1945 as Triebwerksanlage (T). The Motoranlage was the interchangeable Kraftei, or "power-egg", unitized powerplant installation format used in many German wartime aircraft, most often the twin and multi-engined designs, with some need for external add-ons, and the Triebwerksanlage was the Motoranlage plus some external mountings, such as exhaust pipes, as a completely interchangeable unit, as the Kraftei concept itself was.
The M and T versions confuse the naming considerably, as they referred to these complete kits and their "bare" engine counterparts almost interchangeably. The A, B and L models were known (logically) as the MA, MB and ML in this form, but the common D-2 was instead known as the MG. The E model was delivered as the TG or TH, seemingly suggesting a relation to the G and H engines, but in fact those were delivered as the TL and TP. It is rather common to see the turbocharged versions referred to only with the T, notably the (most notoriously of all) TJ, and the TQ models, further confusing the issue.
It's not too hard to figure the A5 2700rpm/2400rpm 1.42/1.32. So I think it's in Janes from 45-46 a BMW power curve graph showing about 1800hp on petrol intake boost and 2000hp+ on MW50 for the 801D. But then the 801S is rated 2000hp emergency and take off. Is the MW50 boost version what Babs is talking about?
-
M/T: Triebwerksanlage is the complete power-egg - bolt onto the aircraft, connect the lines and ready for operation. Motorenanlagen did not carry all the stuff and AFAIR consisted of engine + fan + cowlings.
The 801S bare engine delivers 2000 PS at 1.65 ata boost but you have to subtract 70 PS for the fan so the engine delivers 1930PS to the prop. Some sources claim a further increase to 2200PS was possible and I assume this was a MW-boost. 1800PS on the 801D-2 is bare engine power, not what the engine was able do deliver at the prop (minimum 70 PS reduction for fan).
The Fw 190 A-8 also used the 801TU power-egg.
-
Ya wanna give my list of questions a shot? Thats kinda vauge to answer with your own corrected quote.
I wasn't answering to your post. I was correcting my own. If I answer to your post I will quote it.
I didn't answer because some were answered earlier on this thread and things like supercharger gear ratios are utterly irrelevant when it comes to in-game performance. Bloating the conversation to more and more topics and to handle more things just loses its focus. That's why I ignored your post.
-
It's directly relavent to which engine is in the A8 or even the same one as the A9. Just as the ata settings can tell this. After that which boost system is being used. From there one can conclude the take off/emergency HP on boost available in the A8 modeled in the game.
Since our A8 has the ata settings for 7.44 I'm assuming our 801D2 is 1800hp+- with Petrol in Intake boost. MW50 boosted the same engine to about 2000hp.
The OP did complain that the A8 in AH did not perform to the recollections of an FW pilot he knows in germany. Granted the OP never specified at what time in 44-45 his FW pilot flew the A8. Just that by inference ours wasn't sporty enough.
It's very comforting to know that the world can stop turning because like all the other ww2 forums in other countries I've visited to read their FW190A discussions a resident "WMaker" has spoken the last word on the history of the FW190A and we can stop dead in our tracks and be enlightened and muted forever on the topic.
I guess we unenlightened here in the USA should write your name in for our November presidential election in the hopes you can then become the real hope and change of the free world and possibly be awarded a Noble for recognising our obvious unworthyness of your comments. Since you are not from Kenya we can probably sneek you past the citizenship requirments. Yeah we'll just tell the ellection board you are from Michigan.
Wow that just gives me a tingle up my leg anticipating your munificence in recognising our lost direction while being willing to point out our deficiency. Like our current national leader you obviously care so much about us and the outcome of our conversation with you.
Ok gents the secret vote is now open to get WMaker on the ballot with the Nobel committe in Stokholm. Since he is not an american and recognises how backwards americans are, it won't take much to get him in the running.
+1 for recognising how backwards americans are.
I'll contact the DNC and let them know we have a sure bet for the White House this November from "Michigan". So does this mean we have to learn Finnish to sing "Hail to the Leader" in January? I should put up some bets at Intrade. Now that would be ignorant, wouldn't it?
-
Its funny I was reading up a lot all over the place about the Sopwith Camel and the other week read that the modern day pilots who were flying present day 100 % accurate reproductions found that the original and commonly held historical views on the Camel's stereotypical instability and manoeuvrability were not true! Something to think about when reading pilots opinions on a plane in the past.
-
It's directly relavent to which engine is in the A8 or even the same one as the A9. Just as the ata settings can tell this. After that which boost system is being used. From there one can conclude the take off/emergency HP on boost available in the A8 modeled in the game.
Since our A8 has the ata settings for 7.44 I'm assuming our 801D2 is 1800hp+- with Petrol in Intake boost. MW50 boosted the same engine to about 2000hp.
The data set AH A-8 matches with is known. The power settings are known as well. At that point, how that particular manifold pressure/power output is achieved I consider to be irrelevant and I think I have a right to not answer your post if I wish to do so with out you throwing a hissy fit at me?
As to what exactly the power output is I haven't seen any concrete data (primary source data) for the WEP-setting (1.58/1.65ata). I've seen different outputs on different sources but only primary source data is that power curve table. The data set has power curves only for the lower settings. Based on those curves and the height where the climb/speed starts to decrease one can however make estimates which have reasonable accuracy.
I've understood that Pyro got the document from Gatt a long time ago and performance in AH indeed matches that data.
Here it is again, already posted a link on it earlier in this thread:
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-25oct44.jpg)
It's very comforting to know that the world can stop turning because like all the other ww2 forums in other countries I've visited to read their FW190A discussions a resident "WMaker" has spoken the last word on the history of the FW190A and we can stop dead in our tracks and be enlightened and muted forever on the topic.
I guess we unenlightened here in the USA should write your name in for our November presidential election in the hopes you can then become the real hope and change of the free world and possibly be awarded a Noble for recognising our obvious unworthyness of your comments. Since you are not from Kenya we can probably sneek you past the citizenship requirments. Yeah we'll just tell the ellection board you are from Michigan.
Wow that just gives me a tingle up my leg anticipating your munificence in recognising our lost direction while being willing to point out our deficiency. Like our current national leader you obviously care so much about us and the outcome of our conversation with you.
Ok gents the secret vote is now open to get WMaker on the ballot with the Nobel committe in Stokholm. Since he is not an american and recognises how backwards americans are, it won't take much to get him in the running.
+1 for recognising how backwards americans are.
I'll contact the DNC and let them know we have a sure bet for the White House this November from "Michigan". So does this mean we have to learn Finnish to sing "Hail to the Leader" in January? I should put up some bets at Intrade. Now that would be ignorant, wouldn't it?
Heh. :)
Like I said, if you just keep randomly posting stuff without any sources I will keep ignoring you, your hissy fits like the one above won't change that. :)