Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Torquila on May 03, 2012, 09:09:33 AM
-
According to "teh internetz"; the 190a9 had a more powerful engine, but basically the same gun packages/etc.
Can we have this one instead of the a8?
:airplane:
-
No. Maybe HTC can add the Fw190A-9, but removing the Fw190A-8 would open a large gap in the Fw190 lineup, replacing the common Fw190A-8 with the later and rare Fw190A-9. That would make absolutely no sense. Further, why ever remove an existing unit?
Before you use the Bf109G-10 as an example, understand that we never had the Bf109G-10 modeled in AH. We had a Bf109K-4 that was named a Bf109G-10 so that it could have the 20mm motorkannon and gondolas. Its performance was always that of a Bf109K-4 though, significantly faster than the Bf109G-10 would have been.
The Fw190 we really need is something like the Fw190A-2 though.
-
A9 is heavier and only slightly powerful and under certain altitude even slower than A8. I'm not sure if it is "better" aircraft. Up high it would probably be a better bomber interceptor but I bet we are better off with A8.
-C+
-
A9 is heavier and only slightly powerful and under certain altitude even slower than A8. I'm not sure if it is "better" aircraft. Up high it would probably be a better bomber interceptor but I bet we are better off with A8.
I haven't yet gotten exactly clear picture of the power outputs but yeh it's slightly heavier. The top speed on the deck would be there with the F4U-1A, P-51D and 190K-4.
-
It would be nice if they could correct the weight / armor issue on the A8 first. Then there is the 6 year (or so) old tailwheel bug. I agree the A2 would be a excellent addition to the family, the A4 as well.
-
Everyone knows that the current FW-190A8 in AH is actually using the flight model of the Bolton-Paul Defiant and the engine of the Breda ba.88 Lince.
It weighs approximately 45,000 kg more than it should, and it can't even break mach in a dive.
-
replaze deh p51 with teh F-16.
it haz better engyn!
-
Everyone knows that the current FW-190A8 in AH is actually using the flight model of the Bolton-Paul Defiant and the engine of the Breda ba.88 Lince.
It weighs approximately 45,000 kg more than it should, and it can't even break mach in a dive.
And it is missing the air to air Ruhrstahl X4 missiles it was supposed to have! :mad:
-
lulz
-
According to Fw data the A-9 was always faster than non-boosted A-8. The A-8 with C3-injection (erhöhte Notleistung) was always slower than the A-9 in the lower gear, it was a tad faster in high gear between 3.75 and 5.75 km altitude.
A-8 achieved max speed at ~ 5.5km, A-9 had this speed (and more) between 6 and 7.5 km.
-
(http://i.my.afterdawn.com//standard/16598.jpg)
:)
-
According to "teh internetz"; the 190a9 had a more powerful engine, but basically the same gun packages/etc.
Can we have this one instead of the a8?
:airplane:
Well now this whole thing is just silly and this thread is nothing more than spam to multiple threads already on this subject, it unfortunatley should be shut down although I sympasize to a very slim degree.
Unless you're saying AH would do better or should, for some redunculous idea, without a Fw190A-8, one of the most produced (and sucessful) fighter aircraft varients of the second world war?... do elaborate. :D
I agree this late-war mmo arena centred game genre could greatly benefit from the adition of a Fw190A-9, but it shouldn't come at any expense or (at least I hope) to the Fw190A-8. If anything, a couple more A-8s should be added to teh game (well, one or two A-8s, maybe another F-8 or remodeled F-8... anywho).
Everyone knows that the current FW-190A8 in AH is actually using the flight model of the Bolton-Paul Defiant and the engine of the Breda ba.88 Lince.
It weighs approximately 45,000 kg more than it should, and it can't even break mach in a dive.
:rofl :lol
-
According to "teh internetz"; the 190a9 had a more powerful engine, but basically the same gun packages/etc.
Can we have this one instead of the a8?
:airplane:
Don't remove just add it
-
Has it now become a monthly ritual to have a 'we want any 190A but the one we have" thread?
-
Personally I like the 190A5 best of all the 190s in the game and some guys are deadly in it.
-
Le Karnak ez right...< MOAR 190s!!!!
MOOOARRR!!!
-
Has it now become a monthly ritual to have a 'we want any 190A but the one we have" thread?
I wish they'd just cut out the middleman and ask for what they really want. Hitech, can they please have a 190 with 4x20mm that handles like the A5? Kthxbye.
Wiley.
-
I wish they'd just cut out the middleman and ask for what they really want. Hitech, can they please have a 190 with 4x20mm that handles like the A5? Kthxbye.
:rolleyes:
Last time I looked 190A-5 had four 20mms.
-
:rolleyes:
Last time I looked 190A-5 had four 20mms.
Right. My apologies, I forgot about the gondolas.
Hitech, can they please have a 190 with 4x20mm internal like the A8 that handles like a slick A5? Kthxbye.
Wiley.
-
Right. My apologies, I forgot about the gondolas.
What gondolas?
Try checking your facts before your next "witty" (or trying to be) remark.
-
The entire discussion has devolved into farce. It's about all it's good for.
Wiley.
-
Wmaker,
In fairness, the 20mm cannons on the Fw190A-5 are badly matched being two good MG151/20s and two mediocre 20mm MG/FF cannons.
-
Has it now become a monthly ritual to have a 'we want any 190A but the one we have" thread?
Aparently..... flak jacket - check, koolaide - check...... :airplane:
-
Personally I like the 190A5 best of all the 190s in the game and some guys are deadly in it.
It is very stable and a pleasure to fly and fight with when you don't have to worry (or suddenly need to) about getting jumped by another or multiple enemy A/C... something that depending on the map, time, atmospheric conditions, etc. - is hit or miss. In which case the A-8 can dive away faster (and better WEP), allowing a better chance for escape and to reset with an advantage (it however can not maneuver its way out of trouble as easily as an A-5 or even a D-9 imho). And of cource, the D-9 is one of the faster planes in the MA, able to disengage from most fights and opponents at will.
-
20mm MG/FF cannons
MG FF/M, small but important difference.
-
MG FF/M, small but important difference.
Granted, but the relevant bit, their muzzle velocity, is still the same.
-
MGFF have proven themselves to be quite effective in both 109Es and 110Cs in early scenarios. People like to dis them saying they are worthless -- but they are 20mm and they still land hits. The 20mm on the A5 are still quite helpful. So, complain if you must, but the 4x20mm loadout on the A5 is still 4x20mm on the A5.
-
MGFF have proven themselves to be quite effective in both 109Es and 110Cs in early scenarios. People like to dis them saying they are worthless -- but they are 20mm and they still land hits. The 20mm on the A5 are still quite helpful. So, complain if you must, but the 4x20mm loadout on the A5 is still 4x20mm on the A5.
They are not worthless, but they are ill matched when paired with MG151/20s. They are also mediocre for 20mm cannons.
-
So there I was, flat on my back, reading a book I've had since I was a kid, trying to regain some enthusiasm for AH.
And there it was! Right from "Airwar Against Hitler's Germany". Written for kids to understand :)
"The Luftwaffe interceptors were actually hampered by their heavy firepower. Loaded down, with ammunition, bombs and rockets to use against the bombers, the Me109s and FW190s were sluggish and hard to fly in combat with the American escort fighters."
Upon reading this great revelation, my head went right to the latest 190A8 thread in AH :)
Hmmm. 190A5. Air to air fighter, dealing with RAF fighters and medium bombers over France.....
190A8 Bomber interceptor up gunned and up armored to deal with 4 engined bombers over Germany.....Not as nimble, but more firepower to shoot lumbering bombers....Not so good against fighters.....
Who'da thunk it? :)
-
So there I was, flat on my back, reading a book I've had since I was a kid, trying to regain some enthusiasm for AH.
And there it was! Right from "Airwar Against Hitler's Germany". Written for kids to understand :)
"The Luftwaffe interceptors were actually hampered by their heavy firepower. Loaded down, with ammunition, bombs and rockets to use against the bombers, the Me109s and FW190s were sluggish and hard to fly in combat with the American escort fighters."
Upon reading this great revelation, my head went right to the latest 190A8 thread in AH :)
Hmmm. 190A5. Air to air fighter, dealing with RAF fighters and medium bombers over France.....
190A8 Bomber interceptor up gunned and up armored to deal with 4 engined bombers over Germany.....Not as nimble, but more firepower to shoot lumbering bombers....Not so good against fighters.....
Who'da thunk it? :)
:aok
I mean I love the A8 but it is what it is! all about the guns!
:salute
-
I would be more interested in the fw190a6 with an option to remove the cowl mgs.
-
Granted, but the relevant bit, their muzzle velocity, is still the same.
No, the standard ammo of the FF/M actually had slightly lower muzzle velocity than the HE ammo of the FF (585 m/s to 600 m/s) but the mine ammo countered this with 700 m/s. RPM with mine ammo was a tad higher with 540 rpm vs 520rpm with other types and the FF.
-
Entertaining to read a debate over a aircraft few of the posters bother to fly at all. :bhead Sure I'd like a set of gondolas for the Anton, but during testing the Mk103 proved to be too much for the airframe. ;)
-
Fw 190A had a gondola gun option, at least from the A-6 on: a gun package of 2x2 MG 151/20, adding up to six MG 151/20 in total (outer wing MG FF/M had to be removed).
-
The A6 was the model that saw the strengthened wing introduced thus it had the outer MG FFs replaced with the MG151/20 (same as wingroot). It was also the type to introduce the rustsatzen with the R1 mod being the dual 20 mm pods mentioned. The MG131s were introduced with the A7 a model built in between the larger production batches of A6 and A8.
-
"The A6 was the model that saw the strengthened wing introduced thus it had the outer MG FFs replaced with the MG151/20 (same as wingroot)."
AFAIK it was just structurally altered to better accommodate different armaments and lightened to make the plane lighter as the weight was to be increased by adding weapons, armour and boost systems. So it was not necessarily "strengthened".
-C+
-
Now that's a matter of semantics. Feeling picky today?
-
I have variously seen the revised wing of the A-6 version described as "strengthened" or "lightened". I guess it's even possible that both adjectives might be accurately applied, but that would be some pretty impressive engineering, even for good old Dr. Engr. Tank. I don't suppose anyone out there has the actual builder's drawings for the A-5 and the A-6 versions, so we could compare...?
Just for the record, I enjoy flying the A-5 and wish we also had the A-2. :aok
-
So there I was, flat on my back, reading a book I've had since I was a kid, trying to regain some enthusiasm for AH.
And there it was! Right from "Airwar Against Hitler's Germany". Written for kids to understand :)
"The Luftwaffe interceptors were actually hampered by their heavy firepower. Loaded down, with ammunition, bombs and rockets to use against the bombers, the Me109s and FW190s were sluggish and hard to fly in combat with the American escort fighters."
Upon reading this great revelation, my head went right to the latest 190A8 thread in AH :)
Hmmm. 190A5. Air to air fighter, dealing with RAF fighters and medium bombers over France.....
190A8 Bomber interceptor up gunned and up armored to deal with 4 engined bombers over Germany.....Not as nimble, but more firepower to shoot lumbering bombers....Not so good against fighters.....
Who'da thunk it? :)
So best to come here and just kick us in the balls after pointing and hackleing at us like a 10-yo?.... Because, as standard as these 190A threads are becoming every week, so are the replys from the usual peanut gallery denisens in this forum?.... for shame Guppy.
Your head is still stuck/thinking like Germany had as effective a re-equiping/re-supplying effort as the allies did. Reality is, especialy compared to the allies, that they wouldn't disgard old and completley re-equip anew. About the time our 190A-8 was being produced with the uparmor and everything, nearly as many operational A-6/7s were getting conversions kits and "power-eggs" to update their existing a/c. The allies had better supply and material management though, older production models would recieve some upgrades, but would regularly at points be completely roated out and newer production series rotated in.
It's just ugly, but I'm glad to see it hasn't dampened the growing 190 fanbase/community's spirits. It's the peanut gallery here, it just never misses their cue to share an opinion or to make themselves look indivudaly more important than an online game ( :rofl ). Truth is, nothing is modeled more/less on/off than anything else on the single A8 varient we have in AH and every other plane in the game. But the truth is there were lots of - in AH terms - "Finnish 190s" in service with the German Luft during WWII, and also more stock 190s with far more capabilities and performances than what is represented in AH's current 190 lineup.
Your books quote has truth to it Guppy, but in comparison, about as much truth to the many books and quotes out there that P-38s were horrible/useless/outclassed/paper-weights/pilot-ice-boxes in the entire ETO, so they were by default then sent to where they could do something rather than nothing in the PTO.... go ahead, tell me that "the unsuccesful ETO P-38" hasn't been propegated by historians and authors to death in the past.
I have variously seen the revised wing of the A-6 version described as "strengthened" or "lightened". I guess it's even possible that both adjectives might be accurately applied, but that would be some pretty impressive engineering, even for good old Dr. Engr. Tank. I don't suppose anyone out there has the actual builder's drawings for the A-5 and the A-6 versions, so we could compare...?
Just for the record, I enjoy flying the A-5 and wish we also had the A-2. :aok
Personaly I'd like to see an A-3, but in general, something earlier than an A-5 would be interesting for knife fighting I think.
-
I say we add this in addition to the current models,WTG a-9..............somebody on here says"the a-9 was rare"....not true...over 900 produced....and that means built and accepted by the luftwaffe...........and used in comabt...with kills.............a-9 faster than a-8 at low alt with better climb rate at low alt and better armour and can take more punishment....and slightly different canopy for better vision...........9000 produced ....if this is rare,then maybe we should get rid of the p-47m,f4u-c,ta-152,me-162,ar234,brewster,seafire2......i think those all lower production numbers than the a-9
-
Personaly I'd like to see an A-3, but in general, something earlier than an A-5 would be interesting for knife fighting I think.
Anything earlier than the A-4 would mean a new 3D model because of the shorter nose. Engine overheating issues were not solved until the A-4 which introduced a slightly longer nose.
Bino, to strengthen a wing can be synonymous with lightening it. Making sure that the stressed parts of the wing are strong enough to take the required loads while lightening the structure wherever possible.
"A designer knows that he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
- Antoine de St-Exupery
-
About the time our 190A-8 was being produced with the uparmor and everything,
You keep mentioning this "uparmoring" over and over again while you aren't able to produce any proof that there is any on AH's 190A-8. There certainly is more proof available that the armor what the 190A-8 had in standard fighter config.
But the truth is there were lots of - in AH terms - "Finnish 190s" in service with the German Luft during WWII,
Could you explain what this particular "AH term" means?
-
"Your books quote has truth to it Guppy"
To me Guppy's book sounded like typical History Channel type pseudotechincal BS.
The FW190 was as much a "bomber interceptor" as P-38 was a "bomber". However, 190 was much better for the job than 109 and under overwhelming pressure from escort fighters it combined the best characteristics of weapon effect, speed and survivability to intercept bombers at that situation. Even the A8 got its fair share of fighter kills and from armament point of view carrying the extra outboard cannons, which were handy against bombers, did not hamper it in dogfight too much.
If we consider which fighter in US ordinance would have been best bomber interceptor in similar setting the answer is pretty clear: P-47. Radial engine, speed, armament. Although there would have been pressure to upgrade the armament to four 20mms if it faced such task.
Now would that meant that is was a "bomber interceptor" or merely a fighter that was best for the job at hand?
-C+
-
In Aces High difference between 4*20mm and 2*20mm is often the difference between be killed or not.
FW190s had more fighter kills per months than the 109s in the two ETO Jagdgeschwaders (JG2 and JG26) after its introduction-1945.
-
It wasn't called "butcher bird" for nothing.
-
"Your books quote has truth to it Guppy"
To me Guppy's book sounded like typical History Channel type pseudotechincal BS.
The FW190 was as much a "bomber interceptor" as P-38 was a "bomber". However, 190 was much better for the job than 109 and under overwhelming pressure from escort fighters it combined the best characteristics of weapon effect, speed and survivability to intercept bombers at that situation. Even the A8 got its fair share of fighter kills and from armament point of view carrying the extra outboard cannons, which were handy against bombers, did not hamper it in dogfight too much.
If we consider which fighter in US ordinance would have been best bomber interceptor in similar setting the answer is pretty clear: P-47. Radial engine, speed, armament. Although there would have been pressure to upgrade the armament to four 20mms if it faced such task.
Now would that meant that is was a "bomber interceptor" or merely a fighter that was best for the job at hand?
-C+
I would consider the 190 tied for the Jack of all trades as a Fighter - in comparison to the P-47 Jug - both which I consider the best fighters in WW2 for this reason - no other fighter was able to adapt to changing roles throughout the war as both were.
Lets look at a comparison:
P-47C was an interceptor - able to fly extremely high and fast
P-47D-25 was modified to add range, a bomb load and different drop tank options
P-47D-40 - with the P-51 taking over completely as the Escort fighter, the D40 was adapted for a heavy ground attack fighter
P-47M - a high speed sprint model
P-47N - a LONG range escort fighter
Fw-190a3 - air superiority fighter
Fw-190a5 - upgrade of the A3
Fw-190a8 - Bomber interceptor
Fw-190F - Ground attack model, since the Ju-87 became obsolete the need for a close support role
Fw-190G - Built in parallel with the 190F, centerline MG's and outboard 20mms removed
Fw-190d9 - interceptor
If you look at how each aircraft is redefined and modified, not many aircraft were done like this.
Certainly the P-51D was not adapted for ground attack, thus why it stayed a Long range escort fighter rather then modified for ground attack operations - when the P-47 and P-38 were best suited for it.
The adaption of roles is what I consider "the best fighter".
-
Fw190a8 flew, after the invasion 1944, primary in the role of air superiority fighter.
In the autumn of 1944 bombers where considered secondary targets, as the fighter-bombers imposed a bigger threat to Wehrmacht ground forces. (source jg26 war diarys volume2)
-
Anything earlier than the A-4 would mean a new 3D model because of the shorter nose. Engine overheating issues were not solved until the A-4 which introduced a slightly longer nose.
Bino, to strengthen a wing can be synonymous with lightening it. Making sure that the stressed parts of the wing are strong enough to take the required loads while lightening the structure wherever possible.
"A designer knows that he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
- Antoine de St-Exupery
That would be my point, one of the pre-A4s with the cowl extension/rework. Would have the weaker powerplant and if it had WEP at all it would probabley be the worst of any german fighter modeled in the game.
I think its maneuverability and diference in CG would be better than our A-5, but it won't be better overall than the A-5 in terms of endurance or even durability/engine-reliability.... just my speculation.
-
You keep mentioning this "uparmoring" over and over again while you aren't able to produce any proof that there is any on AH's 190A-8. There certainly is more proof available that the armor what the 190A-8 had in standard fighter config.
Could you explain what this particular "AH term" means?
Your first quote is quite confusing in the English language, no offence intended, but please rephrase. I'll try to attempt to respond to it accuratley:
Proof is in the E6B, the weight is right there. Otherwise and beyond that, only HiTech or employees of HTCs have access or knowledge to accurate aplications/modeling/presence of armor and toughness values of individual AH airframe components or AH aircraft as a whole. What you ask to proove is impossible of anyone short of those with this access, and neither you or me have any authority or influence over the resource/attention given it. From what I see, what is available, and what is demonstrated through actual use of the aircraft in AH - I will claim that it's there. Want proof to validate or dismiss my claim, contact HTCs.
What is your proof of a "standard 190A-8 fighter" configuration? I'll go ahead and skip ahead to why I'm so confused by this particular comment - from all I've dug through, there is none, so please show me, I am very eager.
What we do have are earlier pre 190A-8/R2s,R8s (A7s definetley, I think even some A6s but will need to verify) in standard production fighter configurations then getting the standard upgrade packages (field kits/power eggs) to bring them up-to-date or futher in-line with current standards. Then we have these new/later production standards/vareints/line of A8s were geared for creating the latest/later bomber-interceptors. These are the ones that had that reinforced armor in the wings, compared to the ones that didn't...... perhaps to best get to my point at how prevolant I think this clearly was - How many new A-8s were produced from sept/oct of '44 until the end, and how many total A-8s were there? Where is any example to be found of the 700 a7s produced from the end of '43 to the spring of '44 after that time (April '44)? So what the heck are those 190s flying in April'44-Sept'45, or weren't there any at all durign this time?...
I apologise, I threw some stinky bait out on a line with the reference to the Finn Brew... but since it hooked you, might as well reel it in - An "AH Finnish Brewster" is as it sat on a runway in Finnland during roughly the late-summer of 1945 - as opposed to one de-crated on a Finnish Dock, or any example to be found prior to a date of or after the end of all hostilities. I want an "AH Finnish A8" too. ;) Clear?
(And to be honestly clear - just because it happened with ONE ac in AH, doesn't justify expecting it to happen for other ac, including the 190. I like the AH Finn Brew, but I was trolling you, so unless there is some further point we both would rather persue over it, Ill drop it.)
And AGAIN, I'll reitterate, nothing is criticly off or wrong with our A-8 - I just wish we had one that wasn't such a dog, and they did exist, just not in any standard or production varient, and thus they're probabley just better to be left out... as cool as an A-6 with 6/4/2x20mm, no cowl guns, and the powerplant of an A-9 would be - it's also breaking at least every other rule HTCs has for including an ac in the game.
Edit: I'm no english major either.
-
My bad. Yeah the last sentence of mine doesn't make sense. More of a brain fart than language issue though. I keep doing more and more of those type of "typos/grammar errors." Getting worrisome. :uhoh
What I meant to say in the last sentence is: There certainly is more proof available that the armor what the 190A-8 has in AH is what the real thing had in standard fighter config.
In other words, the weight matches this chart when it comes to the 4x20mm config:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/fw190weights.jpg)
There is a small discrepancy in the weight for 2x20mm config. for example but nothing that would indicate the presence of any extra armor from standard.
-
Lets look at a comparison:
P-47C was an interceptor - able to fly extremely high and fast
P-47D-25 was modified to add range, a bomb load and different drop tank options
P-47D-40 - with the P-51 taking over completely as the Escort fighter, the D40 was adapted for a heavy ground attack fighter
P-47M - a high speed sprint model
P-47N - a LONG range escort fighter
Fw-190a3 - air superiority fighter
Fw-190a5 - upgrade of the A3
Fw-190a8 - Bomber interceptor
Fw-190F - Ground attack model, since the Ju-87 became obsolete the need for a close support role
Fw-190G - Built in parallel with the 190F, centerline MG's and outboard 20mms removed
Fw-190d9 - interceptor
This is a seriously flawed and wholly inaccurate description of all the types listed.
-
This is a seriously flawed and wholly inaccurate description of all the types listed.
It was a cut down description Krusty - if you bothered to read the beginning "I would consider the 190 tied for the Jack of all trades as a Fighter - in comparison to the P-47 Jug - both which I consider the best fighters in WW2 for this reason"
My opinion, now off my nuts.
-
I apologise, I threw some stinky bait out on a line with the reference to the Finn Brew... but since it hooked you, might as well reel it in - An "AH Finnish Brewster" is as it sat on a runway in Finnland during roughly the late-summer of 1945 - as opposed to one de-crated on a Finnish Dock, or any example to be found prior to a date of or after the end of all hostilities. I want an "AH Finnish A8" too. ;) Clear?
(And to be honestly clear - just because it happened with ONE ac in AH, doesn't justify expecting it to happen for other ac, including the 190. I like the AH Finn Brew, but I was trolling you, so unless there is some further point we both would rather persue over it, Ill drop it.)
There is nothing particular that has "happened" for Brewster in AH that's different from other ACs. There was nothing different in the flight performance of a Brewster in 1939 compared to 1945 except the fact that they were totally war weary by 1945 and it was a small miracle that they were kept flying so long without proper spare part supply. I kind of doubt you'd want an 190A-8 which has seen so much combat that it's about worn out.
-
"Your books quote has truth to it Guppy"
To me Guppy's book sounded like typical History Channel type pseudotechincal BS.
The FW190 was as much a "bomber interceptor" as P-38 was a "bomber". However, 190 was much better for the job than 109 and under overwhelming pressure from escort fighters it combined the best characteristics of weapon effect, speed and survivability to intercept bombers at that situation. Even the A8 got its fair share of fighter kills and from armament point of view carrying the extra outboard cannons, which were handy against bombers, did not hamper it in dogfight too much.
If we consider which fighter in US ordinance would have been best bomber interceptor in similar setting the answer is pretty clear: P-47. Radial engine, speed, armament. Although there would have been pressure to upgrade the armament to four 20mms if it faced such task.
Now would that meant that is was a "bomber interceptor" or merely a fighter that was best for the job at hand?
-C+
So why did they add cannons to the Spitfire? Why did they add armor plate? There's nothing wrong with what the kid's book said. The point was clear. As the job of the 190 evolved it took on more armor, heavier weaponry and weight. As with any fighter evolution it became more weight compensated with by more horsepower. That didn't make the plane more agile. If you are going to fly aerobatics you'd want a Spit I. that doesn't make it a better combat plane. You'd want a Spit 21 with all the brute force and 4 20mms.
What is it exactly this 190A8 is supposed to do that it doesn't?
What would the 'perfect' A8 offer that the A5 doesn't?
To me the 'perfect' Spitfire for AH would be the Spitfire LFIX with the Universal wing, and Merlin 66. We don't have it, even though it was the most produced Spitfire IX variant. No extra weight from hard points. No extra weight from the additional fuel tanks as in the VIII. And it did most of the fighting for the RAF over France from 43-45.
We don't have it.
Is that essentially what folks want? They want their vision of the 'perfect' A8 that will do what they want it to?
-
Thats what I want Dan.
-
Thats what I want Dan.
That is understandable, but is it justifiable? Which Fw190A-8 best fills that hole in AH?
Using Dan's Spitfire IX reference, the Spitfire F.Mk IX with the universal wing and a Merlin 61 from July of 1942 best fills a gap. The Spitfire Mk VIII fills the 1943 gap, the Spitfire Mk XVI fills the 1944/45 gap and together the Mk VIII and Mk XVI can be used in place of Dan's "perfect" Spitfire LF.Mk IX with the universal wing. The only really significant gap in the Spitfire lineup in AH is the lack of the Seafire L.Mk III.
So, using the Spitfire's lineup as a reference of what good coverage looks like:
1940: Spitfire Mk Ia
1941: Spitfire Mk Vb
1942: Seafire Mk IIc
1942: Spitfire Mk IX
1943: Spitfire Mk VIII
1944/45: Spitfire Mk XVI
1944/45: Spitfire Mk XIV
What lineup of Fw190s would provide the best coverage of the timeline in a similar fashion?
-
What I meant to say in the last sentence is: There certainly is more proof available that the armor what the 190A-8 has in AH is what the real thing had in standard fighter config.
In other words, the weight matches this chart when it comes to the 4x20mm config:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/fw190weights.jpg)
This is incorrect. You have cherry picked what is probably the one and ONLY reference that states 4400kg, ignoring dozens of others from 1943 through 1945 that list 4300kg for a fully loaded 190A8 (standard with 4x 20mm and aux tank filled), to back you up. I notice that while pretending to break things down it neglects to break down the amount of armor loaded out on that particular airframe.
I've posted tons of it before. For some reason wwiiaircraftperformance.org is down, but I noted what the links said because I know people don't always click them to read them. I don't seem to have saved them locally or I'd have re-uped them.
From the ill-fated thorsim thread:
Just going to compile a little list of different tests and different airframes on different dates (including the untranslated version of the 2 images I linked earlier in this thread), all listing weights and loadouts for the test.
These are not meant to really debate what performance we have or should have, but are only used as examples of historic weights in wartime testing (battle loaded) airframes. Also note dates are day/month/year, NOT the normal month/day/year.
New links:
serial no.: 801-048
date: 13.11.1943
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-level-speed-13nov43.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm
Lists 4350kg for fully loaded 2x20/2x30
serial no. 801-051
date: 13.11.1943
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-climb-13nov43.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm
Lists 4350kg for fully loaded 2x20/2x30
serial no. 801-132
date: 25.10.1944
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-25oct44.jpg
Already previously listed, but translated chart:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-25oct44.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm
serial no. (A-8 not listed, ta152 comparison)
date: 3.1.1945
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-3jan45.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm.
serial no. (A-8 not listed, anothe rta152 comparison)
date: 12.1.1945
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-12jan45.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm
serial no. (A-8 not listed, compares multiple variants)
date: 1.10.1944
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/leistungsdaten-1-10-44.jpg
already previously listed, but translated chart:
http://www.vermin.net/fw190/translated-fwchart.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm
from 2009:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,258131.0.html
From 2008 (ignore the trolls):
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,228970.0.html
Just as reference...
Note the dates are day-month-year, not the typical US standard of month-day-year.
In short, 4300kg was the standard loaded weight all the way to the end of the war, for a Fw190A8 standard production model with 4x20mm loadout and full aux tank.
-
Thats what I want Dan.
Josh I watched you not long ago, eating people up in an A8. You seemed to handle it just fine
What doesn't it do that it should? :)
-
This is incorrect. You have cherry picked what is probably the one and ONLY reference that states 4400kg,
I'm not "cherry picking" anything. There certainly isn't anything incorrect about it, as far as I know the data comes straight from Focke-Wulf. I'm just saying to which data the AH weight is most likely based on. I've seen different weights as well but nothing substantially different.
The weights you posted are weights at which the planes were tested with. It doesn't necessarily mean that's the full take of weight of certain configuration. I find a weight table like the one I posted a much more reliable source on what was the actual all up weight than a single weight reference in a performance chart.
Yes, it has all been discussed before, long before you registered on this board actually. As far as I know lot of the data on the Mike Williams' site had not surfaced yet when HTC produced the 190A-8 to the sim. That weight table is from a translated Focke-Wulf manual/document which Italian AH flier Gatt got hold of, scanned and sent to HTC. Climb and speed performance of the A-8 in AH also match the data found on that particular document.
Rather pompous of you Krusty to come here and tell us that a weight table which comes from Focke-Wulf is "incorrect". Hilariously priceless in fact.
-
That would be my point, one of the pre-A4s with the cowl extension/rework. Would have the weaker powerplant and if it had WEP at all it would probabley be the worst of any german fighter modeled in the game.
I think its maneuverability and diference in CG would be better than our A-5, but it won't be better overall than the A-5 in terms of endurance or even durability/engine-reliability.... just my speculation.
And yet, the early 190 slaughtered spits and turned inside the contemporary 109s. I do not have hard evidence, but that's what the pilots said.
-
And yet, the early 190 slaughtered spits and turned inside the contemporary 109s. I do not have hard evidence, but that's what the pilots said.
You mean the 190s vs Spitfire V? It was over the Channel in 1941/2 where I read this also, whether its accurate or not I can't say, I do remember British Spit V pilots claiming to be outclassed entirely by 190a5s.
From vague what I can remember:
190s rolled better, climbed better, dived better and out accelerated
I cannot recall what version of the 190 this was, the A-4 was available June/July of 1942 -
-
Just for Info:
The Fw 190 A-5 manual issued 12/1943 (data from 8/1943) has an all-up weight of 4106 kg while a performance report from Focke-Wulf Flugmechanik (dated 10/1943) notes only 4000kg.
It's obvious the Fw Flugmechanik reports either all have a weight problem or are calculated with reduced fuel or they removed something else to arrive at these weights.
In a Fw Flugmechanik range chart for the A-8, dated 12/43, the weight is stated as 4365kg.
-
You mean the 190s vs Spitfire V? It was over the Channel in 1941/2 where I read this also, whether its accurate or not I can't say, I do remember British Spit V pilots claiming to be outclassed entirely by 190a5s.
From vague what I can remember:
190s rolled better, climbed better, dived better and out accelerated
I cannot recall what version of the 190 this was, the A-4 was available June/July of 1942 -
One of the reasons I flew a Spit V in the previous scenario was to see if all I'd read about how the 190 outclassed it was reflected in the game.
I laughed out loud more then once when history would repeat itself via AH. All the Spit V had going for it was turning circle. The 190 dominated unless it got into a slow turning fight. I found myself using Johnnie Johnsons tactics. Either avoid the 190s or get them on the deck and hope to get them slow.
It sure made it clear why the Spit IX was such a godsend to the RAF fighter drivers.
-
And yet, the early 190 slaughtered spits
"Spitfire Mk Vs" not "Spitfires". Be specific or you look stupid.
-
"Spitfire Mk Vs" not "Spitfires". Be specific or you look stupid.
Sure I appreciate your feedback and I admit that was a bit vague, but I'd advise you to use your brain also.
Guess which types the early 190s saw action against? The early spits!!! :O
-
Sure I appreciate your feedback and I admit that was a bit vague, but I'd advise you to use your brain also.
Guess which types the early 190s saw action against? The early spits!!! :O
Well, and the Mk IX.
The way you phrased it made it look like a "My Fw190 should be slaughtering Spitfires, but it doesn't so it is undermodeled" whine. If you meant only the Spitfire Mk V I apologize for being overly harsh in my wording. That said, the Fw190A-5 does slaughter Spitfire Mk Vs in AH.
-
The way you phrased it made it look like a "My Fw190 should be slaughtering Spitfires, but it doesn't so it is undermodeled" whine.
That is your interpretation and not my responsibility. However it is good practice around here to be so clear that it is impossible to misunderstand, or else someone is bound to and will jump on you for it. The fact that you did, kindof proves it, and if you hadn't I'm fairly sure at least a dozen others were itching to. The lack of respectful and insightful communication on these boards is a good reason to stay off them altogether, if you ask me. However the thought strikes me that since you didn't ask you probably don't care but there you have it anyway. :)
-
As pointed out, the generic term "Spitfires" wasn't even applicable to early Fw190s. You're clarification included the erroneous comment "Guess which types the early 190s saw action against? The early spits!!!" when the Spitfire Mk IX was also faced by early Fw190s, an opponent they found to be much more difficult.
-
Depends on how you define 'early 190s' right? Or perhaps it would be better to define it by a time period? How difficult is it to get through to people here? My interpretation of the way you post is that you're just trying to corner me here proving some kind of point that I really don't care about. Additionally, you are wasting my time. I did not post here to pick some kind of forum fight, it seems to me that you did. If that is the case, you certainly picked the wrong guy.
In 1941 and well into '42, the spit jocks were terrified of the 190. Will that do it for you? Or is it just another rant to you? Are you finding it challenging to be friendly, much?
-
Can we get this skin for it as well?
(http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/fantasy_1/F069_Fw190A6_Jasta79b.jpg)
(Notice the various antennae for the Ueberkerplotz SKZ-52 radio system.)
-
I flew 190A-5's in the "Enemy Coast Ahead" scenario. We flew against Spit V's, Spit IX's, and Typhoons. I took the A5 because I thought it would be the least-popular plane in the scenario, but the A5 was great against those aircraft, and the plane that gave us the most trouble was the Typhoon.
Some pics of the action in that scenario:
http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201110_enemyCoastAhead/aar_frame1.htm
-
Depends on how you define 'early 190s' right? Or perhaps it would be better to define it by a time period? How difficult is it to get through to people here? My interpretation of the way you post is that you're just trying to corner me here proving some kind of point that I really don't care about. Additionally, you are wasting my time. I did not post here to pick some kind of forum fight, it seems to me that you did. If that is the case, you certainly picked the wrong guy.
In 1941 and well into '42, the spit jocks were terrified of the 190. Will that do it for you? Or is it just another rant to you? Are you finding it challenging to be friendly, much?
You obviously don't understand the gravity of the situation. 190 threads are no laughing matter, they're serious business!
Wiley.
-
You obviously don't understand the gravity of the situation. 190 threads are no laughing matter, they're serious business!
Wiley.
Oh... my mistake then. :confused:
:rofl
:aok
Have a good day all, I'm going offline for a couple weeks.
:salute
-
Depends on how you define 'early 190s' right? Or perhaps it would be better to define it by a time period? How difficult is it to get through to people here? My interpretation of the way you post is that you're just trying to corner me here proving some kind of point that I really don't care about. Additionally, you are wasting my time. I did not post here to pick some kind of forum fight, it seems to me that you did. If that is the case, you certainly picked the wrong guy.
In 1941 and well into '42, the spit jocks were terrified of the 190. Will that do it for you? Or is it just another rant to you? Are you finding it challenging to be friendly, much?
The 190 dominated the Spit Vfrom it's introduction in the Fall of 41 to the late summer of 42 when the Spit 9 was introduced.
From then on the Spit 9 and the 190A series were tweaked as the need arose and were essentially equals.
-
"Notice the various antennae for the Ueberkerplotz SKZ-52 radio system."
FuG216 V Neptun (AI-radar) with Letzler antennas. ;)
Basically a "wilde sau" machine -but not in such colours! :lol
-C+
-
FuG216 V Neptun (AI-radar) with Letzler antennas. ;)
Excellent -- they are real! (I thought they were just added in the artwork for looks.)
-
Josh I watched you not long ago, eating people up in an A8. You seemed to handle it just fine
What doesn't it do that it should? :)
I just want all of them. I would like a wider variety....
I know that is not realistic....but it is my "want"...so I am permitted to be unrealistic.
As far as the A8 goes, it does just fine. If I knew how to post films, I would show a good film of a good 1 vs 1 against a G2. Fight was about 8-9k..involved turning and such...dont think we got over 1k from one another during the fight.
decent little spat with a 51 later as well (granted he was damaged some).
-
I'm not "cherry picking" anything. There certainly isn't anything incorrect about it, as far as I know the data comes straight from Focke-Wulf. I'm just saying to which data the AH weight is most likely based on. I've seen different weights as well but nothing substantially different.
The weights you posted are weights at which the planes were tested with. It doesn't necessarily mean that's the full take of weight of certain configuration. I find a weight table like the one I posted a much more reliable source on what was the actual all up weight than a single weight reference in a performance chart.
Yes, it has all been discussed before, long before you registered on this board actually. As far as I know lot of the data on the Mike Williams' site had not surfaced yet when HTC produced the 190A-8 to the sim. That weight table is from a translated Focke-Wulf manual/document which Italian AH flier Gatt got hold of, scanned and sent to HTC. Climb and speed performance of the A-8 in AH also match the data found on that particular document.
Rather pompous of you Krusty to come here and tell us that a weight table which comes from Focke-Wulf is "incorrect". Hilariously priceless in fact.
Your pomposity knows no bounds, WMaker. You, sir, are a griefer most times a conversation comes up.
The weights are not calculated weights. They are fully loaded, fully armed, 100% fueled airframes. They break down subvariants (i.e. /r4, /r8) and these are not subvariants but stock planes.
You know for a fact that many "sources" are not credible, and you throw this in anybody's face if it suits your needs, yet you stand behind a questionable resource that does NOT break down all the weight details as thoroughly as some others do, and you stand behind it religiously, spouting your insults (at me) simply for the sake of making a furious sound, but signifying nothing.
Grow up. Seriously.
That one single weight chart is not very detailed and is probably the only one of its kind to spell out 4400kg, and you latch on to it (the very definition of cherry picking) just to prove your own point.
P.S. The most glaring condemnation is on that image itself. Can you find it?
P.P.S. wwiiaircraftperformance is back up, so I encourage you to go back to my quoted post and check the links out for yourself. They are also from the manufacturers, and there's a toejamload more of them than your 1, which does not reflect a standard configuration.
-
Krusty for once and for all. What is it that the AH 190 doesn't do that it should? You've been at the forefront of the never ending 190 whine for as long as it's gone on. And no one can tell me what it doesn't do.
The heck with the numbers. You are arguing about maybe 200 pounds? That's nothing. The same numbers variances show up with Spits too. I don't see the Spit guys carrying on for years about it like this has.
What do you want the A8 to do beyond be the rallying cry of the Luftwhiners?
Unbelievable. Same whine 12 years ago.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,27193.0.html
-
Your pomposity knows no bounds, WMaker. You, sir, are a griefer most times a conversation comes up.
The weights are not calculated weights. They are fully loaded, fully armed, 100% fueled airframes. They break down subvariants (i.e. /r4, /r8) and these are not subvariants but stock planes.
You know for a fact that many "sources" are not credible, and you throw this in anybody's face if it suits your needs, yet you stand behind a questionable resource that does NOT break down all the weight details as thoroughly as some others do, and you stand behind it religiously, spouting your insults (at me) simply for the sake of making a furious sound, but signifying nothing.
Grow up. Seriously.
That one single weight chart is not very detailed and is probably the only one of its kind to spell out 4400kg, and you latch on to it (the very definition of cherry picking) just to prove your own point.
P.S. The most glaring condemnation is on that image itself. Can you find it?
P.P.S. wwiiaircraftperformance is back up, so I encourage you to go back to my quoted post and check the links out for yourself. They are also from the manufacturers, and there's a toejamload more of them than your 1, which does not reflect a standard configuration.
:huh :huh :huh
Well have you seen another primary source (straight from the manufacturer) weight table of an A-8? I certainly don't recall seeing one. Another weight break down of an A-8 that I've seen is in the Kurt Tank's bibliography but the source is unmentioned.
You are saying that I'm using a source that fits my "needs"? I really have no "needs" on the issue but when it comes straight from the horse's (manufacturer's in this case) mouth I really have very little reason to doubt it. Certainly there are inaccurate sources but like I said I tend to believe primary source data.
And in the end I'm not latching on to anything here. I merely saying that AH matches that chart in the 4x20mm, 100% fuel condition and that's why I believe that it is this data that has been used in the modeling of the AH A-8.
Where did I say calculated weights? I said that those are the basic weights the planes were tested at (wwiiaircraftperformance.com -datasets). It is possible though that in some cases the weights are indeed "calculated" in that they are basis of dataset that itself is calculated instead of test flown data. That doesn't mean that the weights mentioned need to be the absolute full take off weight in particular config.
-
Krusty for once and for all. What is it that the AH 190 doesn't do that it should?
Don't give me that crap Guppy... WMaker's taking a A8/R8 and claiming it's a stock A8 weight listing. The weight issue is a noticable issue. 100kg adds up. The outboard Mk108 weights are wrong (too heavy) and the outboard MG151 weights are wrong (too light), and overall the performance suffers.
Please don't mix me up with the luftwhiners asking for a super Fw190. I just want a representative one. Either give us the ARMOR that we have the weight for, or take the weight off.
We have a mixed breed with the worst of both worlds, and you yourself have decried HTC's frankenstein mixes in the past.
It's not a whine. It's a fact. We have the weight but not the added armor. You know better and you know me better. I'm not crusading for it. I simply interjected in the recent discussions what we already know. That you have to ask me is either rhetorical and you're trying to prove a point (which I surmise) or you never actually read any of the discussions since 1999.
-
:huh :huh :huh
As a matter of fact I have seen a few weight breakdowns all from official sources. Same problem as with this one, though, they weren't very detailed and some were for different variants (often detailing what it has over the stock version).
You've listed a 190A8/R8 (with a BMW801TU engine -- oh and it's dated right at the time the sturmbocks were put into service which would indicate why they might want a weight breakdown on the new variant). The very engine "power egg" itself had nearly 2x as much armor around the oil ring, and the R8 standard also included armor over the guns, pilot, and vital areas.
German flight tests list full takeoff weights, not calculated in-flight reduced weights. Otherwise they make special note saying something to that effect (i.e. they comment about reduced fuel load, reduced weight, ballast added, etc).
You've just proven my point, though. We have the extra weight, but none of the extra armor. It should have almost the same armor as the 190F8. You fly an F8 in-game and you'll find you never lose oil. You'll find you lose parts of the plane before it stops functioning. Take an A8 up and the first thing you lose is oil, second thing is outboard guns, and third is pilot wound.
-
WMaker's taking a A8/R8 and claiming it's a stock A8 weight listing.
What makes you think it is an A-8/R8 instead of a standard A-8? In the column where it lists the weight (4391kg) which matches AH in the same configuration (4x20mm/100% fuel) it says "Fw 190 A-8". Below that it then lists different rustsatzes with their weight differences clearly naming them as /R2 and /R3. I don't see anything on that table that would make me think that the 4391kg figure is for A-8/R8 instead of standard A-8.
Here's the original Focke-Wulf document the one I first posted was translated from:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/germanweighttable.jpg)
-
Because the standard A8 had a BMW 801D, not a BMW 801TU.
EDIT: Further, every resource that states BMW 801D lists 4300kg max takeoff with 4x20mm loadout.
-
From the same resource, note the weight differences with the different engines (and variants).
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-3jan45.jpg)
-
Because the standard A8 had a BMW 801D, not a BMW 801TU.
It says, in the end of the document: Installation of the BMW 801 TU engine increases aircraft weight by about 35kg
First it lists bunch of weights and then says that TU engine increases the weight by 35kg.
-
From the same resource, note the weight differences with the different engines (and variants).
Those are weights the planes were tested with. You said that you've seen other weight tables from official sources. I'm very much interested in seeing them as they should light the issue further.
-
First it lists bunch of weights and then says that TU engine increases the weight by 35kg.
No, again. Many of us have been over this before. Allow me to clarify.
Here's the full document:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/td284.pdf
Page 5 shows an example of how much weight might be seen on the TU variant over the D variant. That's open to a bit of variation because some of the sturmbock had various armor panels removed, the extra glass panels, etc. There was also a progression in the development of the armor and it varied at different points in history.
From the get-go it's talking about 801TUs and TS/TH engines throughout. The note is there because this weight list is for a plane that has that engine. See the image I posted just above this. Note the weights match for the TU variant?
WMaker, as a standard, as a methodology, Germans listed fully loaded takeoff weight, NOT partially loaded weights. Different nations did different things. Germans listed fully loaded weight on charts. ANY exception to this rule was carefully and explicitly described in the chart itself.
-
No, again. Many of us have been over this before. Allow me to clarify.
Here's the full document:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/td284.pdf
Page 5 shows an example of how much weight might be seen on the TU variant over the D variant. That's open to a bit of variation because some of the sturmbock had various armor panels removed, the extra glass panels, etc. There was also a progression in the development of the armor and it varied at different points in history.
From the get-go it's talking about 801TUs and TS/TH engines throughout. The note is there because this weight list is for a plane that has that engine. See the image I posted just above this. Note the weights match for the TU variant?
WMaker, as a standard, as a methodology, Germans listed fully loaded takeoff weight, NOT partially loaded weights. Different nations did different things. Germans listed fully loaded weight on charts. ANY exception to this rule was carefully and explicitly described in the chart itself.
Check that sentence from the German weight table. It says: "TU-triebwerks ergibt ein Mehrgewicht von ~35kg". Mehr is more in German. A more fitting translation IMO would be "Addition of BMW 801 TU-powerplant adds an extra weight of circa 35kg". Ie. 35kg on top of the weights mentioned in the table when TU-powerplant is installed. I'll let native German speakers say what they think it says. :) I'll leave it at that.
-
I know what it says. I've explained what it means.
The entire document is in anticipation of the BMW801TU and keeps mentioning it over and over including weights and additional armor, despite the fact that it was almost never put into service.
The TU was intended to be a 2000hp model as an intermediate step to the A-9 variant, which was also being pursued at this time (perhaps also why they released the manual in late 1944 instead of mid 1943). The BMW 801D-2 is the standard powerplant for the Fw190A-8. See the charts I've already listed. The performance charts for BMW801Ds all share a complete concensus with regards to the weight of this craft and the weight of an 801T aircraft.
I'll leave THAT to speak for itself. The info is there. It's been there for 70 years, pretty much.
-
Don't give me that crap Guppy... WMaker's taking a A8/R8 and claiming it's a stock A8 weight listing. The weight issue is a noticable issue. 100kg adds up. The outboard Mk108 weights are wrong (too heavy) and the outboard MG151 weights are wrong (too light), and overall the performance suffers.
Please don't mix me up with the luftwhiners asking for a super Fw190. I just want a representative one. Either give us the ARMOR that we have the weight for, or take the weight off.
We have a mixed breed with the worst of both worlds, and you yourself have decried HTC's frankenstein mixes in the past.
It's not a whine. It's a fact. We have the weight but not the added armor. You know better and you know me better. I'm not crusading for it. I simply interjected in the recent discussions what we already know. That you have to ask me is either rhetorical and you're trying to prove a point (which I surmise) or you never actually read any of the discussions since 1999.
The question remains. What does the AH 190A8 not do that it should?
-
The question is facetious. It's not a matter of what it does. It's a matter of how well it does it. Compare any plane flying in the MA to any plane flying with a bomb hanging underneath it in the MA, and they're still the same plane, but one is going to handle and react better, be more responsive. Look at how much an effect a couple hundred pounds had on the P-38G. It turned it from a surprisingly "light" fighter into just another P-38. It's still a P-38. It doesn't fly any faster, climb any better, for all intents and purposes it's the same plane. The weights are just more accurate.
Please recall that I also petitioned for and got HTC to add weight to the ETC rack (130lbs). I'm not rampaging like some do for a super fast A9 variant with MW50 or GM1 or some setup that didn't exist.
-
One thing I noticed just a moment ago is that with a tiny bit of math you can deduce exactly where the 4400kg comes from.
Seen here (already posted):
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-level-speed-13nov43.jpg
It breaks down 5 different weights for different variants. Adding 30mm outboard instead of 20mm adds 50kg. This seems to be a common agreement no matter what the engine is.
There we see the difference between a stock A8 and an A8/R2 (with 30mm outboard) is 50kg. Then look down at the lowest weight listing you will see the A8/R8, which by definition was the sturmbock with extra armor that had 30mm outboard. It is 4450kg.
Remove the 50kg (by this I mean, turn it back to 4x20mm) and you have the up-armored R8 with 4400kg weight.
That's pretty definitive proof we have a mixed version modeled in-game.
Edit: Sorry if I seem to be harping on the subject, I did just now notice this and wanted to share.
-
The question is facetious. It's not a matter of what it does. It's a matter of how well it does it. Compare any plane flying in the MA to any plane flying with a bomb hanging underneath it in the MA, and they're still the same plane, but one is going to handle and react better, be more responsive. Look at how much an effect a couple hundred pounds had on the P-38G. It turned it from a surprisingly "light" fighter into just another P-38. It's still a P-38. It doesn't fly any faster, climb any better, for all intents and purposes it's the same plane. The weights are just more accurate.
Please recall that I also petitioned for and got HTC to add weight to the ETC rack (130lbs). I'm not rampaging like some do for a super fast A9 variant with MW50 or GM1 or some setup that didn't exist.
OK so in the end you don't believe the 190A8 is as responsive as it should be.
As for the 38G, you don't know it very well if you think it's just another 38 :)
-
What caused the weight creep from A5 to A8? The difference is 300kg but if the wing was lightened from A6 onwards the weight creep from equipment is probably at least 350kg+? Anybody seen calculations on this?
-C+
-
The wing was not lightened, it was strengthened. Meanin, made more weight efficient for its design purposes. If anything that would mean more well suited for combat loads/stresses and damage.
-
Remove the 50kg (by this I mean, turn it back to 4x20mm) and you have the up-armored R8 with 4400kg weight.
That's pretty definitive proof we have a mixed version modeled in-game.
...or they used a document they had on hand at the time (1999/2000) which listed a complete weight break down (the one I posted) for the aircraft and used it?
When there's a primary source which matches with the game there's no reason to make up myths about "mixed up-armored" versions. And that weight table clearly says that if the TU-engine is installed it adds 35kg on top of the weights listed in the table not that that weight is already included. Anyone who can speak German should be able conclude that but I'll let the native speakers decide.
According to that same document (can post later if needed) the difference in the weight of the armor between standard A-8 and A-8/R8 is 111kg.
-
"The wing was not lightened, it was strengthened."
Beats me but I recall it was said that one way of battling the weight creep was to redesign the outer portion of the wing and in the process to make it accommodate a wider range of Rüstsätze.
"According to that same document (can post later if needed) the difference in the weight of the armor between standard A-8 and A-8/R8 is 111kg."
I recall that there was a different armour for the ammo box for MK108. Was it only installed for R8 or also for R2?
-C+
-
I'm not rampaging like some do for a super fast A9 variant with MW50 or GM1 or some setup that didn't exist.
I don't see anyone asking A-9 with MW50 or GM-1. A-9 used C3 injection just like the A-8.
-
"The wing was not lightened, it was strengthened."
This is a false urban legend that has been perpetuated ad nauseum. The wing remained unchanged. They simple rearranged the pattern of the ribs slightly to allow for new ammo storage boxes instead of the drums for MG/FF. It was neither strengthened, longer, shorter, heavier, lighter. Every one of these is one of those urban legends going around about the A-6 wings.
Wmaker, you can't spin it that way. If they have included a stock A8 with the weight of an A8 sturmbock, but NOT added the extra armor, that is by very definition a mixed up set of standards. It's very plausible this is the data they used, but that doesn't justify its use. We had many mixed flight models including the old Spit9, the old Typhie.
We know the armor isn't modeled by comparing damage modeling of the A8 to A5 and F8. We know the weight is there when it should not be. Therefore, this A8 flight model is wrong. Doesn't matter what different parts they took to compile it, it just matters that it's wrong and needs to be fixed. It's not making up a "myth" as you claim (more inflamatory diversion from the main discussion).
Do you ignore dozens upon dozens of primary source documents which state explicitly 4300kg, ranging from 1943 to 1945, all agreeing exactly the weight for a 801D-engined A-8?
If you do, then you are deluded and this conversation can end. If you don't, then you are forced to agree, and this conversation can end. As it stands you are either trolling or intentionally inciting argument for your own kicks and grins. The evidence is conclusive.
-
Can we haz a9?... :D
-
"They simple rearranged the pattern of the ribs slightly to allow for new ammo storage boxes instead of the drums for MG/FF."
Counted some rivets on some profiles I have and it seems that the outer wing remainded externally unchanged if rib position is considered, but there are changes around gunbay and inwards from there.
-C+
-
Aces High FW190-A8 Weights
Fuel 100%, no Drop Tank, 3 gun loadouts.
----------------------------------------------
2-MG, 2 - MG151\20 : 4245kg
2-MG, 4 - MG151\20 : 4391kg
Same load 25% fuel : 4046kg
2-MG, 2 - MG151\20, 2 - MK108 : 4486kg
How is 91kg significant at 100% fuel when no one with experience in the game will fight with their A8 at 100% fuel?
-
100kg will make a difference because whatever fuel load you fly with will remain the same.
P.S. I often take 100% internal on the A8 to burn plenty of it on climbing out, and for longer missions (gives you ~30 minutes), the better to use the guns package with. Most folks that know how to fly it don't have to worry about the fuel so much. Only folks that don't know how to fly it take 25% and try to pretend it's a spit.
-
I was just wondering where Hitech got the extra 200lbs stuffed in there......what are they, or is that 91kg the wiggle weight played with by sources.
Aifcraft performance web site shows an A8 tested with the outer 20mm deleted. Weight was 4224kg. Our A8 with the outer 20mm deleted is 4245kg.
Tested A8: 4300kg - 4224kg = 76kg...Engine 801 D-2/316248
AH A8: 4391kg - 4245kg = 146kg...Engine ???
I'm confused.
-
I was just wondering where Hitech got the extra 200lbs stuffed in there......what are they, or is that 91kg the wiggle weight played with by sources.
Probably the same source Wmaker is quoting, which is a primary source document from Focke-Wulfe.
-
91kg is the weight of 115ltr fuel tank in aft fuselage. Take 100% and you see that AUX is installed. Take 75% and you notice that A8 weights 4300kg and does not have AUX.
The tank was different for all fuel, GM-1 and MW50 so I presume it was relatively easy to take out if it was not used.
I always fly A8 with 75% fuel.
-C+
-
Ah, so; in the tests presumably they didn't have the AUX tank installed?
Am I understanding this right?
-
From: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a8-733705-2.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Condition:
Engine 801 D-2/316248
A-8 production condition (without outer wing weapons).
Armament: 2 Mg 131, 2 MG 151 (MG 151 with 230 rounds ammunition each).
ETC 501. Fixed wheel flaps.
Perlon-landing-gear tires the Firm Conti 25.10. ./. 10.11.
Ballast: In the FT area 10 kg.
In fuselage center instead of drop tank 125 kg.
Between ground flap and master compass 75 kg.
30.10. ./. 6.11.44 Take-off weight G = 4224 kg
Center of gravity position = 0.78 m.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. After replacement of the engine that failed from supercharger damage, serial No. 328909, level speeds using combat and take-off power were flown in the as-delivered condition. With consideration of Flight Report Nr 1 represented ram pressure measurements the salient points of the speed plots produced the following values:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. For the check of the rear position of the center of gravity for bad weather fighters the machine was brought, through ballast, to a rear center of gravity with full drop tank from s = 0.78 ./. 0.76 m . With this the airplane is significantly unstable and must be flown carefully. Only after consumption of the fuel supply up to approximately 100 litres for each main fuselage tank, thus a S-position of 0.72 m, is determined to give sufficient stability around the transverse axis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From what I've found over the years the term "as delivered" means they requested a factory standard production non modified aircraft. In this case they requested the 2 - 20mm factory version.
Tested factory version 2-20mm: 4224kg
Ases High A8 2-20mm: 4245kg <--- arguing over 21kg
Aces High A5 2-20mm: 3893kg
So our game argument is over 91kg with the 4-20mm A8 version? I still think when we are talking A8 it's hippos in pink TuTu's. The A5 is a dancing rodeo bull.
-
Someone should get the BMW engine numbers right, the 801TU used an 801Q-2 engine which was basically a D-2 with the strengthened oil tank/oil cooler armor. It had exactly the same power as the 801D-2.
The Fw 190 A-8 manual of September 1944 (data from July 1944) has 4272 kg for a fully armed and fueled A-8 ..... without aux tank. Aux tank installed and filled added another 120kg (this weight may include the required ETC 501 installation).
During the testflights the aircraft may have been 100% armed and fueled but they have also been lightened by leaving out some stuff (some radio components, survival kits, whatever) as both the official Luftwaffe aircraft manuals and Fw's own range/performance calculations use weights close to 4400kg.
-
Then Hitech is calcualting the correct Lead(Pb) TuTu for this hippo and life is good......... :x
I've always noticed once I got to about 3/4 Aux tank burned off, this hippo started dancing like a husky rodeo bull. Or is this whole long standing argument that it should dance like a bull moose in rut? Thats how I look at the A5's performance with 2-20mm at 3/4 aux tank burned. Hippos do kill more people every year than bulls and moose.
-
That means theres nothing wrong with the A-8 then?
CAN I HAZ A-9 NAO? KTHNX
-
Incorrect. The weights are wrong. Any standard Fw190A-8 with 4x20mm (by the way they almost never came from the factory with just 2 guns) weighed 4300kg fully loaded in combat configuration. That's with radios, guns, pilots, full fuel, aux tank, etc.
Picking apart one single manual released around the time Sturmbocks were being introduced, referencing A8/R8 configurations and weights, and even referencing engines the standard A8 did not have....
.... does not refer to a stock A8.
Try finding more than one reference next time. Make sure it's not referring to a subvariant that weighs more.
-
You are begining to loose your audience in this private fight with HTC, WMaker and Denniss.
Can you post up links or pages from the pertinant hand books? Otherwise there is now no way to keep track of the players being argued over.
What constitutes the authoritive narritve from one period in 44 to another on what is the standard list of peices of "stuff" an A8 should roll off the floor loaded into it? Which narritve did HTC choose? What is wrong with the test I linked in which a Facotry A8 was requsitioned sans outboard 20mm? The game gives us that option so HTC decided it was standard enough from some source.
Why is one handbook more definative versus another across releases in 44?
It's obvious the 4 parties in this whizzing match have seen all of the same documents. Why are three of them wrong and you are right?
-
"Ah, so; in the tests presumably they didn't have the AUX tank installed?
Am I understanding this right?"
Sorry I was not too clear about this. The 91kg is just the weight of the 115ltrs of fuel, not the tank and tubing. If there is nothing mounted in rear compartment the weight drop is bigger. As the AUX tank shifted the CoG rearwards if was used only for long range or transfer flights and it was to be empty by the time of action. Thus I presume that its full fuel weight was possibly left out of calculations for pure fighter configuration. While it is possible that there were planes with AUX tank removed altogether it is likely not a representative of an aircraft coming out of factory.
What is confusing, however, is that the designation R5 is reserved for Rüstsatz of 115ltr AUX tank in A8. Why assign and identifier for it if it is factory fitted?
-C+
-
Do you have primary evidence of the /R5 designation for the aux tank? I have not seen this designation in FW or Luftwaffe documents, AFAIR the Aux tank was not factory-installed in the first A-8 production series but was to be retrofitted at the unit level.
The CoG shift was cured by the mandatory ETC 501 carrier mount moved forwards, the aux tank was always used (if enough fuel available) for longer range combat missions. It's very much possible it was emptied first though (on the way to target/interception point). Later on the aux tank was used for the MW-50 boosting agent.
-
"Do you have primary evidence of the /R5 designation for the aux tank? I have not seen this designation in FW or Luftwaffe documents, AFAIR the Aux tank was not factory-installed in the first A-8 production series but was to be retrofitted at the unit level."
You may be right. FW190A8 handbook dated effective 1944 July onwards does not seem mention AUX in default configuration at all. Its total weight fuel + tank is 116kg. Aircraft weight in this configuration (fighter) without AUX tank is 4287kg. AUX tank and its installation is mentioned as "when required" suggesting that it is not installed if not needed. That would indicate also that there was a need for designation to those machines that had it installed. R5 is only used in A8 which had the floor opening for installation (as a side note both original FW190Ds on display in USA have these installed, default configuration for Ds?).
My source for R5 designation is Focke Wulf FW190 in action, Squadron Signal publications, Jerry L Campbell.
If the tank would be omitted in 75% fuel loadout in AH it would mean weight saving of only 25kg. I'd rather have the AUX than need to take DT+ETC if longer range is needed.
-C+
-
Was there a time the Aux tank was not a part of a factory standard A8 but, instead an addon? If in fact the 91kg is accounted for by the weight of the fuel in our current A8 version in the game. If you select 75% fuel in the hanger the Aft tank selector shows at 80%. Two internal fuel tanks forward and rear are standard. The Aux system behind bulkhead 8 was for GM_1 or fuel.
A8 4-20mm 100% fuel, weight: 4391kg
A8 4-20mm 75% fuel, weight: 4277kg
114kg is not quite 91kg but the Aux system was about 120kg. Are we splitting hairs here per chance?
A8 4-20mm 100% fuel, ETC 501, weight: 4441kg
ETC 501: 50kg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Manual D.(Luft) T. 2190 A-8 July 1944, Issued September 1944
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Data page 2.
4. Power Plant
A. Engine
BMW-801D
------------------------
C. Tanks
Behind bulkhead 8 there is also provision for the Installation of a GM_1 tank, 85, Liter (18.7 gal) capacity, or an auxillary fuel tank, 115 Liter (25.3 gal) capacity.
------------------------
5. Equipment
C. Armament modifications
Various weapons installations are available; the changes apply to the wing mounted weapons only.
The sub-designations are as follows:
A-8/R1 2 x 2 MG 151/20E
A-8/R2 2 MK 108
A-8/R3 2 MK 103
---------
General Data page 3.
B. Aircraft Data
4. Weight Data
Mission Type I
I: Fighter operations with 2 MG 131s and 4 MG 151/20Es
Weight in lbs.
Empty weight....................... .........6750
Additional equipment.................... ...858
Empty equpped weight...................7608
Pilot........................ ......................222
Fuel, forward (51.1 gal)...................402
Fuel, rear (64.4 gal)........................504
Drop tank (66.2 gal)......................------
Oil (12.1 gal)............................. ....111
Ammunition MG 131
(2 x450 rounds)......170
Ammunition MG 151/20E
(wing-roots)(2 x 250 rounds)......243
Ammunition MG 151/20E
(outboard)(2 x 140 rounds).......137
Disposable weight on ETC 501........-------
Winter-emergency equipment.............55
Loaded weight....................... .......9452 (4287kg)
-------------------------
GM_1 or Aux system approx.............265
Updated Aux weight....................... 9717 (4407 kg)
-------------------------
Loaded weight and ETC 501............9827 (4457 kg)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So is Krusty arguing for the non-GM boosted TypeI A8 fighter package? I'm still confused. Has HTC specified if the Aux tank and boost system is installed behind bulkhead 8. Or is our A8's boost system still petrol injected into the air intake? Are we using an HTC Cartoon special giving us 4391kg which is driving Krusty nuts?
-
You obviously don't understand the gravity of the situation. 190 threads are no laughing matter, they're serious business!
Wiley.
:rofl :aok Sig worthy.
I try to stay away, but then something just keeps dragging me back in to them!
Edit: Bustr and Charge, fantastic digging and citations.
-
FW190 pilot (http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3padhw/)
-
I know this is an older thread. No intention to stir any pots here, just wondering if there is anything in the works for any new planes, or more specifically any new to LWMA Lw planes. Merely curious here, I have no complaints about the current Lw lineup and wouldn't want to see any disappear. My only observation after only 2 months of play would be that I don't seem to notice any armor difference between the 190A-5 vs. the 190A-8, however with the damage I'm sustaining maybe any extra armor wouldn't make a difference.
:salute
-
I know this is an older thread. No intention to stir any pots here, just wondering if there is anything in the works for any new planes, or more specifically any new to LWMA Lw planes. Merely curious here, I have no complaints about the current Lw lineup and wouldn't want to see any disappear. My only observation after only 2 months of play would be that I don't seem to notice any armor difference between the 190A-5 vs. the 190A-8, however with the damage I'm sustaining maybe any extra armor wouldn't make a difference.
:salute
190A8 is supposed to be more armored but the few times I flew it, I died just as easily if I had been in a 190A5. The A5 is more maneuverable and therefore, has a better chance of surviving than the dump truck that is the A8.
A5 > A8.
Likewise, the F8 dies just as easily if I ever run across one. F6Fs eats taters all the time. Il-2s eats taters, all the time. A-20s eats taters. FM2 and F4Fs eats taters. 190A8 and F8 goes boom with one tater all the time. Armored? Pfffttt.
-
I actually feel the 190F8 is more heavily armored.
I've taken a HELL of a lot of ack to the front before, and the engine seems pretty damn well armored. Infact, I can't really recall a time when I actually lost my engine on the 190F-8 without having a 110 or something packing 30mm's HO me.
-
Do they let us know when there is a new ride in the works?
-
F6Fs eats taters all the time. FM2 and F4Fs eats taters.
:huh
Film? I have never once tatered a *fighter* without them losing at LEAST a stab or engine, I honestly just want to see a film of it happening as I am curious. I hear about people whining "I hit him with 30mm but he took no damage bs!!" etc. But have never had it happen to a fighter before, fighters are 1 hitter quitters with taters, unless you only hit their stab or engine. :headscratch:
-
:huh
Film? I have never once tatered a *fighter* without them losing at LEAST a stab or engine, I honestly just want to see a film of it happening as I am curious. I hear about people whining "I hit him with 30mm but he took no damage bs!!" etc. But have never had it happen to a fighter before, fighters are 1 hitter quitters with taters, unless you only hit their stab or engine. :headscratch:
They lose an elevator all the time. Not a stab. Still, where a tater would've made another plane explode or lose a tail, the planes I mentioned would still be in flying condition. You can test it offline if you like. Or we could do it in the DA
-
This is a great classic thread to dig up for a resurection, good taste. :aok
I know this is an older thread. No intention to stir any pots here, just wondering if there is anything in the works for any new planes, or more specifically any new to LWMA Lw planes. Merely curious here, I have no complaints about the current Lw lineup and wouldn't want to see any disappear. My only observation after only 2 months of play would be that I don't seem to notice any armor difference between the 190A-5 vs. the 190A-8, however with the damage I'm sustaining maybe any extra armor wouldn't make a difference.
:salute
First, welcome to AH, you'll find there is much here to learn (it never stops for most, either the workings of the game, aviation or history).
In regards to the A-5 and A-8, there's the randoms of what region is taking the damage and which have been "reinforced" with aditional armor and then the randomness inherant with the current damage model (the A8's wings were reinforced with aditional armor on the leading forward edges, engine cowl and windscreen - all placed defensively forward to aid in protecting the pilot and a/c from bomber's defensive fire. To everyone's knowledge though, the current damage model doesn't recognise damage taken to a wing from a specific diretion, only damage has been delivered to the l/r-wing-tip, l/r-wing, l/r-wing-root, etc.). Personaly I do observe an increased toughness in the A8 and F8 compared to the others, neither one can eat a tatter or a couple nicely placed 20mm canon shells to the wing without some indigestion, but compared to the A-5 and D-9 they are rather resilient against .30 and .50cal ammunition (to a point). An upgraded damage model has been openly desired by the players and HTC's for improvement in this area (and it's already been in the works, checkout the WWI arena and its a/c for a better idea and current implimentation), however it is not immediatley necessary and would tie up a lot of development resources to impliment everywhere (every aircarft would need some remodling and hopefuly testing)... someday though.
In terms of new luft late war aircraft, we recently (and the most recent) received the Me-410 (mid to mid-late time period). She's not a knife fighter though or one to compete against them, more like your grandpa's buick (if it had a mostly greenhouse/glass cockpit) but with really awesome offensive gun packages ideal for slicing buffs in half).
-
This is a great classic thread to dig up for a resurection, good taste. :aok
First, welcome to AH, you'll find there is much here to learn (it never stops for most, either the workings of the game, aviation or history).
In regards to the A-5 and A-8, there's the randoms of what region is taking the damage and which have been "reinforced" with aditional armor and then the randomness inherant with the current damage model (the A8's wings were reinforced with aditional armor on the leading forward edges, engine cowl and windscreen - all placed defensively forward to aid in protecting the pilot and a/c from bomber's defensive fire. To everyone's knowledge though, the current damage model doesn't recognise damage taken to a wing from a specific diretion, only damage has been delivered to the l/r-wing-tip, l/r-wing, l/r-wing-root, etc.). Personaly I do observe an increased toughness in the A8 and F8 compared to the others, neither one can eat a tatter or a couple nicely placed 20mm canon shells to the wing without some indigestion, but compared to the A-5 and D-9 they are rather resilient against .30 and .50cal ammunition (to a point). An upgraded damage model has been openly desired by the players and HTC's for improvement in this area (and it's already been in the works, checkout the WWI arena and its a/c for a better idea and current implimentation), however it is not immediatley necessary and would tie up a lot of development resources to impliment everywhere (every aircarft would need some remodling and hopefuly testing)... someday though.
In terms of new luft late war aircraft, we recently (and the most recent) received the Me-410 (mid to mid-late time period). She's not a knife fighter though or one to compete against them, more like your grandpa's buick (if it had a mostly greenhouse/glass cockpit) but with really awesome offensive gun packages ideal for slicing buffs in half).
Thanks for the welcome. I'll have to read up on the Me-410 and practice with it. I flew it when I was checking out all the rides in the beginning and that aspect never occurred to me. I did try it to dive bomb a couple of times, but really don't recall how that went. I've been a bit frustrated chasing B17s and Lancs with the Fw's, I'm beginning to comprehend why.
:salute
-
Can I just duct-tape the 410's 50mm onto my 190?