Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Debrody on August 29, 2012, 01:50:07 AM
-
Why is the A8 as much slower than the A5, except a very tight altitude zone near the deck? Whats the difference between the two models?
-
Good question, I think earlier forum's referred to weight.
One more thing , if you pull up with speed , you almost always stall the A8, whereas in the A5 you have to work harder to do the same.
-
I dont know much about their weights, the only thing i noticed is the A8's speed curve is strange, looks like its engine is weaker than the A5's, at least a poorer performer.
What forced the germans to put a worse engine into the same plane's newer model when the A5 is better at every alt (or at least equal), except a small alt window under 3k?
Doesnt seem logical to me.
-
Still the same good old BMW 801 D-2 engine in the A-8, many even received a boost system to regain speed lost from weight increase.
-
Same engine but with more airframe weight and drag on the A-8. The A-8 gets more power from WEP below full pressure height since it has C3 injection (functions the same way as MW50, but using fuel instead of water/alcohol).
-
Same engine but with more airframe weight and drag on the A-8.
The AH's speed curve says just a tiny bit otherwise...
-
What do you think it says?
-
If it would be the same engine but with more drag and weight, the speed curve would be nearly identical, with peaks at the same alts. Of course the heavyer-draggíer aircraft would be a little bit slower, just as on the 109G2-G6, or the Spitfire8-16.
The peaks on the A8's speed curve are at different altitudes than on the A5, also the A8 is slower than the A5 everywhere, except under 3-4K. Especially at higher altitude, the A5 is pretty good up to 23-24K while the A8 falls sharply back over 19K. Is the BMW 801D engine even turbocharged? (exuse me for my aknowledge...) If so, looks like the A8's one is geared towards the lower altitudes, but the A8 isnt faster at all... ergo, it seems, its engine is weaker.
Are the speed curves correct? If so, what was the logic behind decreasing the performance? The germans were focusing on the low-alt ground attack missions that much, so they sacrificed the high alt speed?
Please enlighten me, im curious.
Thanks,
Debrődy
-
Are you sure of that?
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=9&p2=23&pw=2>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
Seems like a slight speed benefit at all alts except where the power dips don't overlap at the same alt. Above FTH is another matter, but up at those alts the weight will make a major difference.
P.S. The focus was on putting better and better armament into the plane. MG/FF in the outboard position was very outdated. Underwing gunpods were too draggy. The MG151/20s outboard, the option for Mk108s outboard, and the cowl guns upgraded to 13mm, were the main concerns. There were other changes, of course, but the main impetus for the update was to keep the firepower up to the level of what they had to shoot.
IL2s on the Eastern front were soaking up tons of ammo for little results. Bombers on the Western front were very resilient, even before big heavy US formations (lancasters, etc). They needed the firepower more than anything else.
-
Krusty,
We both know that the focuse of this game with fighters is to wring every possible ounce of aerobatic potential from the airframe even if the fighter was specificly designed to move mud or mug bombers in the real WW2. Before the A8 in 44 and the build up of P51 in the theater. The earlier FW airframes were concidered air superiority fighters on par with their contemporaries. Daylight bombing and the war in the east changed the focus on what the FW airframe was needed for.
1.) When the A8 was released, was it released as an air superiority fighter or as a mud moving bomber mugger?
2.) Granted just like in AH there were a handful of pilots who were the exception not the rule. What happened to A8s that were unfortunate to not be able to dive away from spitfires, Tempest, Typhoon, P38, P47, P51, Yak, Lavochkin they ran into?
-
Simply because something was improved doesn't mean that it must be faster. Look at the differences between the G-2 and G-6. Most pilots liked the improvements and would trade the small amount of speed for them. They meant the difference between life and death sometimes.
Whether it was against the heavy fighters, heavy attackers, medium bombers, or heavy bombers, they needed the firepower. The Mk108 was already being rushed as much as possible, but it didn't get there until 1944 for most planes. It's also why the push for performance-killing gondolas on 109s. They just needed more firepower more than they needed speed or manueverability.
EDIT: Also, the term air superiority is a very modern concept only developed with the F-15. At the time they were just "fighters"... Multipurpose fighters. Yes, they were designed to kill, and they did that quite well. Even the A8 was quite lethal. Keep in mind the quality of pilot was also diminishing, as green recruits were rushed in as replacements for veterans. More firepower meant more killing with less firing time, and more chance to move on to the next target or get the hell out of dodge. Even when considering fighters this is true in AH as well. You're in a furball, you get behind somebody... the faster you can pop him the faster you can break to avoid being targetted, or get onto the tail of the next target. Either way, more firepower helps you out a great deal.
-
The only place where the A-8's power curve is different from the A-5 is for WEP. That's because the A-8 has higher WEP boost which reduces full pressure height for each supercharger stage. More boost = more fuel burn = more air needed = lower altitude where the supercharger can deliver the needed pressure for full boost.
-
1.) When the A8 was released, was it released as an air superiority fighter or as a mud moving bomber mugger?
The mud mover was the F-8 just as the F3 (based on the A-5) was a mud mover.
-
The mud mover was the F-8 just as the F3 (based on the A-5) was a mud mover.
F-3 is corelates to the A-3, F-5 on the A-5, F-8 on the A-8, F-9 on the A-9, etc..
Would be nice if our F-8 got a little revamp (more ord/canon options/variety), and we got an earlier A-8 and turned the current A-8 into a much later A-8 (or leave it as is and add an A-9 :x ).
The "problem" with our A-8 is that it's been too averaged for a very wide-ranging and extremely dynamic plane varient (when looking at all of it's various possible production models and enmass field/powerplant upgrades). Having two of it's heavier (and underpowered) varients as the ONLY available options in Aces High IS it's only "problem", at least imho.
-
The mud mover was the F-8 just as the F3 (based on the A-5) was a mud mover.
And following that the G series.
-
And following that the G series.
No, that was a different beast. Long range fighter-bomber with additional DTs and reduced armament.
-
It was a "mud mover" as Milo put it. With the success of the F series the Germans wanted a longer range version. They called it "Jabo Rei", short for "Jagdbomber mit vergrösserter Reichweite" (fighter-bomber with increased range).
-
F-3 is corelates to the A-3, F-5 on the A-5, F-8 on the A-8, F-9 on the A-9, etc..
Would be nice if our F-8 got a little revamp (more ord/canon options/variety), and we got an earlier A-8 and turned the current A-8 into a much later A-8 (or leave it as is and add an A-9 :x ).
The "problem" with our A-8 is that it's been too averaged for a very wide-ranging and extremely dynamic plane varient (when looking at all of it's various possible production models and enmass field/powerplant upgrades). Having two of it's heavier (and underpowered) varients as the ONLY available options in Aces High IS it's only "problem", at least imho.
You've got quite a few things mixed up there...
The F series is not analogous to the A series. the A-5 is where they really started creating F-3 models. A-5/U-kits were really the same as F-3 and G-3 variations. These designations were applied after the fact when it was decided an F and G line would be better off tailored to their specific duties.
The F-3 was directly built off of A-5s. They were identical. It was just a way of hanging an extra couple of bombs off the wings. It was not that different. When you get to the F-8 they renamed the system to match the equivelant A-series (so F8 = A8 with modifications). This is also when they started adding more armor specific to ground attack. Plates lined the belly of the plane, as well as the oil cooler ring being much thicker. No outboard guns were carried, ever, in F-models because weight problems. There would be a couple of bomb options to add to our F-8 but realistically speaking there's not much more to add to it. It didn't have any guns options.
The G-series was a bit different. These were intended to be long-range planes. They would replace the Ju87-R-2 series. They were meant to fly very long range sorties over relatively safe airspace and deliver a small bomb load and return to base. To this end they had plumbing on both wings to carry 2 DTs, and a centerline bomb. Rarely, you could have the opposite (single center DT and 2 wing bombs). They had the cowl guns removed, a reduced 20mm ammo load to save weight, and an added oil reservoir in the cowling to accomodate longer flight times. They had direction finding and sometimes autopilot equipment to better facilitate endurance flights. However, they were most often dropping a single bomb on one target at a time. Not very useful for AH.
Our 190A5 is actually modeled after a crashed/rebuilt G-3, reballasted to A-5 supposedly. HTC won't say this, but it matches the speed curves exactly. Other A-5s were much faster. Not sure if it was the captured/reworked nature of the plane, or what. We pretty much have the worst of the worst examples for our A-5 performance in-game. Not sure about how our A8 stacks up (normal, worse, better than average?).
EDIT: However, our A-8 has the weight of a sturmbock but NO armor benefit from one. It's significantly overweight by about 250kg, and the guns loadout weights seem a bit off-kilter too.
-
The only place where the A-8's power curve is different from the A-5 is for WEP. That's because the A-8 has higher WEP boost which reduces full pressure height for each supercharger stage. More boost = more fuel burn = more air needed = lower altitude where the supercharger can deliver the needed pressure for full boost.
So the more boost it gets, the slower it is?
Seriously, that logic just cant be right. Reduce the boost and it will be faster at high alt? Then why the germans werent limiting the high alt boost on the A8? Just as how the G14 works, compared to the G6.
If a plane gets more power, its supposed to be faster, not slower, right?
-
According to my sources:
A4 -> F1
A5 -> F2
A5U17 -> F3
A7/A8 -> F8
As with F series there were only G1,G2,G3 and G8 used operationally.
***
According to my tests:
A5 has MIL 1.34ATA, WEP 1,42ATA, 19k FTH
A8 has MIL 1.34ATA, WEP 1.58/1.64ATA, 20k FTH
The speed curves do not look correct IMO. Increased boost should push the FTH downwards along the top line. See here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-12jan44.jpg
The FTH rises only with GM-1 where more oxygen is injected into engine via chemical reaction. MW50 and C3 only provide additional cooling and enable more ATA for engine. The curved top line for a supercharger is practically the speed limit of the charging impeller as it can only rotate at certain max speed after it starts to heat up radically and the efficiency starts to fall, this concerns the turbocharger as well.
***
No 190 had turbochargers, although Hirth turbos were tested along with inverted V engines. All German fighters were supercharged with various types and configuratins of superchargers. As a clarification a turbocharger utilizes exhaust pressure to charge incoming air, whereas supercharger takes its power mecanically from engine via a clutch, although 109s have a hydraulically coupled supercharger and that is why its speed curve is different to that of machanically coupled BMW801 of a 190.
-C+
-
The 801s (and Jumo 211/213As) had a two speed supercharger, that's the break in the power curve, similar to the break in Merlin-powered engines when the second stage kicked-in.
DB engines had a single-speed supercharger with the noted fluid coupling.
F-1= A-4/U3
F-2= A-5/U3
F-3= A-5/U17, the first to be noted with underwing racks for 50kg bombs
F-8 -according to Fw docs they planned to remove some of the additional armor due to weight limitations
G-1= A-4/U8
G-2= A-5/U8
G-3= A-5/U13
G-8 - only built as pure groundattack G-8/R5, similar to the F-8 but without extra armor
-
So the more boost it gets, the slower it is?
Seriously, that logic just cant be right. Reduce the boost and it will be faster at high alt? Then why the germans werent limiting the high alt boost on the A8? Just as how the G14 works, compared to the G6.
If a plane gets more power, its supposed to be faster, not slower, right?
Look, this is not rocket science ok; let's look at the speed chart for MIL power:
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=23&p2=9&pw=0>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
Both aircraft have the same engine power. You can clearly see how the A-8's heavier weight and more drag (gun bulges and protruding cannon muzzles etc.) causes the aircraft to be slower than the lighter and less draggy A-5. At the same engine power.
The only thing I find strange is the way both curves taper down to the same speed at sea level. I'd expect the A-5 to be faster at all altitudes.
Now let's look at the WEP speed chart:
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=23&p2=9&pw=1>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
Now the A-8 has more power than the A-5 and you can clearly see that the added power makes up for the added weight and drag. The A-8 is faster below 4k and between 10k to 18k. However the A-8's engine has the same supercharger so the added engine boost lowers full pressure height (the maximum altitude where the supercharger manages to provide full boost) to 18k from about 23k for the A-5. Above 18k the A-5 is faster not because it has more power, but because it is lighter and less draggy than the A-8. Above 23k both engines are again producing the same power since they are now limited by the supercharger.
-
The speed curves do not look correct IMO. Increased boost should push the FTH downwards along the top line. See here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-12jan44.jpg
Well, if you look at the chart it actually does:
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=122&p2=9&pw=2>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
You can clearly see that the FPH of both supercharger stages are lowered for WEP.
MW50 and C3 only provide additional cooling and enable more ATA for engine. The curved top line for a supercharger is practically the speed limit of the charging impeller as it can only rotate at certain max speed after it starts to heat up radically and the efficiency starts to fall, this concerns the turbocharger as well.
Not quite; MW50 and C3 is injected in the eye of the supercharger, cooling the charge as it is compressed by the impellers. The cooling does not allow more pressure; it makes the charge denser. I.e. more air and fuel in the same volume at the same pressure. FPH is reduced since the supercharger must do more work to compress the denser air, but the benefit is greater than the loss:
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=122&p2=1&pw=2>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
As you can see, even above FPH there is a benefit of using MW50/C3 injection since the cooler, denser charge has more energy.
-
I suspect the overweight nature of our A8 is the main culprit for speed... though I don't know why it would affect it THAT much. The outboard guns only detract 1 mph. The cowling bumps are minimal. Otherwise the airframe is identical, as far as drag, surface area, wing area, frontal area. Identical.
So I'm a bit at a loss as to why such a drastic difference off-wep. I've never really understood that part.
This is just for in-game curves. Historically the A-5 did even better than ours, so who knows what's going on.
-
I'm guessing we have one of the Sturmbock versions with the heavy armor (including external armor on the sides of the cockpit) for bomber interception. Not the Normaljäger which was lighter and cleaner.
-
"The only thing I find strange is the way both curves taper down to the same speed at sea level. I'd expect the A-5 to be faster at all altitudes."
That tells me that between these two aircraft there is basically not much difference dragwise from aerodynamic point of view, not from guns or gun bulges. The difference starts to emerge with altitude because of increased weight which increases induced drag.
***
"You can clearly see that the FPH of both supercharger stages are lowered for WEP."
And that is correct, but the point is that you cannot go faster above FTH unless you get more air injected into engine and that happens only by installing a larger impeller which still has the same limitation for "tip speed" which affects the smaller impeller, so bigger impeller actually rotates slower in the axle than a smaller impeller but due to larger geometry it can move more air in less dense air, but still the "edge" of the impeller travels at the same speed as that of a smaller impeller. However, as you increase the impeller size its efficiency drops below that of a smaller impeller in denser air, possibly because its output needs to be heavily restricted to prevent over boosting because its rotation speed is tied to engine revs? This should not much of a problem in fluid coupled superchargers, as in DB605AS engines vs DB605. Interesting in this chart is that in 109 the airspeed is increased also above FTH: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g6-combat-emergency.jpg
Maybe the different behavior can be explained by the fluid coupling vs. clutched? But that would mean that in DB605 the impeller is not running at maximum speed which is possible due to fluid coupling. In FW that is not a option. There's two gears, low and high and the resulting impeller revs are tied to engine revs and the only way to limit boost is to regulate the air feed before (or after) the impeller.
***
So you can either rotate one impeller at various speeds, as it is done in 190, or you increase the number of impellers as in Spit 14 and Ta152 which is more efficient but comes with a noticeable weight penalty.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-3jan45.jpg
Or, you can provide additional oxygen chemically e.g. with GM-1. Which is what I think we see here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-level-speed-13nov43.jpg
***
"FPH is reduced since the supercharger must do more work to compress the denser air, but the benefit is greater than the loss"
That sounds logical too. I'm don't know which explanation is right.
I have tried to explain this rather difficult concept to myself by simply comparing the speed charts and the known charger configurations in various planes and I'm happy of any new information people can provide. :aok
-C+
-
Oh, as a side note regarding F-1/F-2 models:
Technically it is true that the F-1 was based on the A-4 variant, however the main addition was a centerline ETC50 bomb rack and the deletion of outboard MG/FF weapons to save weight. Only 18 were built, since the A-4 was replaced by the A-5 quickly after the order was placed. The order was changed from 190A4/U3 to 190A5/U3, and the A5/U3 was intended to be the first F-1 production series. However, after-the-fact they named the small number of A-4/U3s as "F-1" and decided to rename the A5/U3s as "F-2." Only 60 of these were made. Also, our 190A-5 in-game has the ETC50 rack which was quite common, so we have that base covered. The main production variant was the F-3, which was essentially an A-5 with wing racks and possibly more protection for the fuel tanks. Over 270 of these were built ad well received by jabo units. It's main differing points from the F-8 is it did not have C3 injection, and did not have the aux tank to store extra fuel for this C3 injection. Main loadout was simply the 50kg racks outboard and 1 centerline DT or bomb.
For all intents and purposes, it really went from F3 to F8.
-
Or, you can provide additional oxygen chemically e.g. with GM-1. Which is what I think we see here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-level-speed-13nov43.jpg
I'm not sure what those lines indicate, but it cannot be GM-1. GM-1 isn't allowed below 10,000 meters, and was never installed on any of those planes. It was a heavy installation and took up a lot of room. Looking at that chart it does seem that our A-8 matches the top SPEED of a standard A-8. We just have the weight performance problems. That means that once the weight is fixed our top speed might be adjusted back down a bit to stay in line.
-
I'm not sure what those lines indicate, but it cannot be GM-1. GM-1 isn't allowed below 10,000 meters, and was never installed on any of those planes.
Those lines look exactly what engaging GM-1 would look like as a performance gain similar curves are seen in plenty of other original speed performance docs which explicitly associate them as being due to the use of GM-1. The actual altitude at which GM-1 can be used depends on the feed rate of the nitrous oxide and the engine that it is being used in.
Here for example in this flight test of a Bf109G-3 (DB605A-1) GM-1 injection is engaged at 8000 meters:
1. Flug an 9.9.43
Steigflug mit Dauerleistung bis in VDH, über VDH
Steigflug mit Kampfleistung. Ab 8000 m Zusatzlich
GM 1.
http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_Lmessung_gm1/109G3_16261_gm1.html#blatt1 (http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_Lmessung_gm1/109G3_16261_gm1.html#blatt1)
While the use of GM-1 was very very rare, saying that it was never used by 190A isn't correct either. In his book Fw190 Jagdflugzeug Peter Rodeike for example mentions the use of GM-1 in an Fw190A-8/R4 in the end of '44/start of '45 by 10./JG 11. A GM-1 went into the same space that was normally occupied by the AUX tank.
-
Both aircraft have the same engine power. You can clearly see how the A-8's heavier weight and more drag (gun bulges and protruding cannon muzzles etc.) causes the aircraft to be slower than the lighter and less draggy A-5. At the same engine power.
The only thing I find strange is the way both curves taper down to the same speed at sea level. I'd expect the A-5 to be faster at all altitudes.
Now let's look at the WEP speed chart:
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=23&p2=9&pw=1>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
Now the A-8 has more power than the A-5 and you can clearly see that the added power makes up for the added weight and drag. The A-8 is faster below 4k and between 10k to 18k. However the A-8's engine has the same supercharger so the added engine boost lowers full pressure height (the maximum altitude where the supercharger manages to provide full boost) to 18k from about 23k for the A-5. Above 18k the A-5 is faster not because it has more power, but because it is lighter and less draggy than the A-8. Above 23k both engines are again producing the same power since they are now limited by the supercharger.
Thanks for explaining this for me. :salute
-
You're welcome :salute
-
Some corrections to the build numbers:
18 F-1, 270 F-2, 432 F-3, 50 G-1, 626 G-2, 550 G-3 and finally 146 G-8/R5.
Many F- and G-series aircraft were retroffitted with the C-3 injection system, an early/ low-alt version of what later became "erhöhte Notleistung" in the A-8/F-8.
-
My mistake, havent read up on it in months.
The 801s (and Jumo 211/213As) had a two speed supercharger, that's the break in the power curve, similar to the break in Merlin-powered engines when the second stage kicked-in.
DB engines had a single-speed supercharger with the noted fluid coupling.
F-1= A-4/U3
F-2= A-5/U3
F-3= A-5/U17, the first to be noted with underwing racks for 50kg bombs
F-8 -according to Fw docs they planned to remove some of the additional armor due to weight limitations
G-1= A-4/U8
G-2= A-5/U8
G-3= A-5/U13
G-8 - only built as pure groundattack G-8/R5, similar to the F-8 but without extra armor
Some corrections to the build numbers:
18 F-1, 270 F-2, 432 F-3, 50 G-1, 626 G-2, 550 G-3 and finally 146 G-8/R5.
Many F- and G-series aircraft were retroffitted with the C-3 injection system, an early/ low-alt version of what later became "erhöhte Notleistung" in the A-8/F-8.
This is the correct/great info.
-
I suspect the overweight nature of our A8 is the main culprit for speed... though I don't know why it would affect it THAT much. The outboard guns only detract 1 mph. The cowling bumps are minimal. Otherwise the airframe is identical, as far as drag, surface area, wing area, frontal area. Identical.
So I'm a bit at a loss as to why such a drastic difference off-wep. I've never really understood that part.
This is just for in-game curves. Historically the A-5 did even better than ours, so who knows what's going on.
Yeah, its a bummer that the original A5 tests show 352 at sea level at 1.42 ata, ours only does what, 329?
At best altitude ours is running ~20mph slow as well. :bhead
ps. The 190 that Capt Eric Brown tested was most likely a misidentified F model, so a lot of the turn radius and rate info that we get for the early A's is much worse than it should be. :frown:
-
Yeah, its a bummer that the original A5 tests show 352 at sea level at 1.42 ata, ours only does what, 329?
At best altitude ours is running ~20mph slow as well. :bhead
ps. The 190 that Capt Eric Brown tested was most likely a misidentified F model, so a lot of the turn radius and rate info that we get for the early A's is much worse than it should be. :frown:
Loaded weight of the late war Fw190A-8 was 4400kg. With the MK108s the weight increased by ~50kg. I would think Brown tested an A-8 with the extra armour.
A fighter bomber weighed 4775kg.
from Tech Description #284.
-
Those lines look exactly what engaging GM-1 would look like as a performance gain similar curves are seen in plenty of other original speed performance docs which explicitly associate them as being due to the use of GM-1. The actual altitude at which GM-1 can be used depends on the feed rate of the nitrous oxide and the engine that it is being used in.
While the use of GM-1 was very very rare, saying that it was never used by 190A isn't correct either. In his book Fw190 Jagdflugzeug Peter Rodeike for example mentions the use of GM-1 in an Fw190A-8/R4 in the end of '44/start of '45 by 10./JG 11. A GM-1 went into the same space that was normally occupied by the AUX tank.
Good point. I agree it "looks like" a GM-1 line, but I think it is probably an estimated or calculated "what-if" line. GM-1 on Fw190s is one of those things that is a great controversy. There is abundant false claiming that it used it, along with claims that the MW50 was used on models as early as the A-4. Overall despite some plans and claims, it was never put into actual use. If it was tested on one or two airframes, it doesn't explain why so many different variants of Fw190A8s with different weapons setups would all have GM-1. Also, while it may take up the space of the aux tank, it would weight more, or weigh "differently" but the weights on that chart are dead-on standard weights across the board.
Finally, I think that any chart that actually used GM-1 or MW50 or any special additive spells that out clearly like in this chart:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-3jan45.jpg
It says which are carrying MW50 and how many liters, as well as how many liters of gas.
-
Some corrections to the build numbers:
18 F-1, 270 F-2, 432 F-3,
And what sources are you citing for these numbers? The F-2 number seems higher than any I've seen recently. It was a short run series. Or are you considering all A-5s of equivelant setup, that weren't really custom-made F-models? Because those would be considered A-5s IMO.
-
Is there a single person alive who all of you accept as the living expert on the FW190?
If so, is he willing to put this to rest for all of you?
-
Yeah, its a bummer that the original A5 tests show 352 at sea level at 1.42 ata, ours only does what, 329?
At best altitude ours is running ~20mph slow as well. :bhead
ps. The 190 that Capt Eric Brown tested was most likely a misidentified F model, so a lot of the turn radius and rate info that we get for the early A's is much worse than it should be. :frown:
I could reach 339-340 at 20 feet alt, with wep. 327 is at 1.3 ata. Still 12mph slower than your data tho.
Whats the source for the 352?
-
And what sources are you citing for these numbers? The F-2 number seems higher than any I've seen recently. It was a short run series. Or are you considering all A-5s of equivelant setup, that weren't really custom-made F-models? Because those would be considered A-5s IMO.
The numbers are from the german wikipedia which in turn originate from the Military Bundesarchive Freiburg. I don't know how the Luftwaffe counted these versions but it seems they separated the early F- and G-series aircraft (if built as A-4/A-5 U3 version) from standard A-4/A-5 because they received their own designation later on. Both Focke-Wulf and Arado built 135 F-2 each so the run was obviously not that short. All 432 F-3 were built by Arado and the majority of the F-8 as well.
GM-1: was tested and may have been an option for very special mission but I doubt they ever used it.
MW-50: was tested with A-4 or A-5 but performance increase wasn't as good as with C3 injection. In late war it's claimed they reverted to an improved MW-50 system as they couldn't effort the higher fuel consumption of the "Erhöhte Notleistung" system anymore.
-
I agree it "looks like" a GM-1 line, but I think it is probably an estimated or calculated "what-if" line.
The fact that it is calculated like the rest of the curves is clearly noted in that document. The curves are calculated based on a power curve which was obtained from earlier testing of a single example of a BMW 801D engine.
GM-1 on Fw190s is one of those things that is a great controversy. There is abundant false claiming that it used it, along with claims that the MW50 was used on models as early as the A-4. Overall despite some plans and claims, it was never put into actual use. If it was tested on one or two airframes, it doesn't explain why so many different variants of Fw190A8s with different weapons setups would all have GM-1.
Now you say that it is a matter of great controvercy but were so confident in saying that it was never used earlier? :headscratch: Peter Rodeike's has found at least 11 Fw190A-8/R4s from AGO's production records and R4s were used by 10./JG 11. At least one is found from the 10./JG 11 loss reports. So Krusty, what is your source to the fact that GM-1 was never used by 190As? Considering how thoroughly Mr.Rodeike has researched the Luftwaffe and its aircraft, I take his word over yours any day of the week.
Scan from Rodeike's book:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/A8R4_production.jpg)
-
I don't really fly the 190s much but the 190A-5 is my favorite. It seems to me that the A-5 with the four 20mm gun package fly's much much better then the A-8 with the same gun pack. Plus there is no armor advantage in the modeling of the A-8 in the game over the A-5 and I get a pilot wounded just a fast in the A-8. So if I am going to use a 190 to deack I fly the A-5. If I plan to use a German bird for a dog fight I will take any model ME-109 over the 190.
-
Im flying the A-series in AH making up for 90% of my total flights.
The only thing that make me go .. hmmmm is when I try to pull up hard from level at most speeds 250-> faster, and I get stall horn screaming all the way to departure of controlled flight.
The A5 does not behave this way.
Is the A8 that much more nose-heavy ?
I have read many combat reports of late p47 outturning A8 turning to the right with paddle-prop and jg26 war diary volume 2 say the same.
Late p47's (we pretty much have paddle-prop late-47s in AH, where is the C-model ?? ) also can climb with them, but I have never read about p51s and p47 just pull up and lost them because A8 cant follow nose-up because its so darn nose-heavy, and yes, its with full trim up
-
Grr ,double post
-
tripple post
-
Denniss, while I'm not inclined to take wiki info at first glance, I think it's probably taking A-5/U3s into count, so in that respect it's a plausible number. I guess I was reading about factory-designated F-models rather than designations given after the fact, but I guess we're on the same page.
Wmaker: /R4 is attributed to a GM-1 kit by some sources, and attributed to a package relating to the MG151/20s in other sources. Outside of a few test charts and calculated speed curves, GM-1 wasn't really used in 190As. They didn't have much of it, and even though it was available earlier in the war it was limited to special models which explicitly state they use GM-1.
I don't doubt the author you stated put that into his book. I doubt that it signifies what you think it signifies. Even assuming it refers to a GM-1 setup, that doesn't change anything, either. The aux tank in the 190A-8 was included from the factory to use MW50 or GM-1. That doesn't mean they used MW50. Instead they used that tank for other liquids. Primarily C3 injection. It also doesn't mean that these airframes were ever used. Or perhaps they were the production numbers for the various test frames upon which the GM-1 testing was based.
-
Now you say that it is a matter of great controvercy but were so confident in saying that it was never used earlier? :headscratch: Peter Rodeike's has found at least 11 Fw190A-8/R4s from AGO's production records and R4s were used by 10./JG 11. At least one is found from the 10./JG 11 loss reports. So Krusty, what is your source to the fact that GM-1 was never used by 190As? Considering how thoroughly Mr.Rodeike has researched the Luftwaffe and its aircraft, I take his word over yours any day of the week.
Scan from Rodeike's book:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/A8R4_production.jpg)
10. staffel:
Staffelkapitäne:
Olt Heinz Sahnwaldt, 7.43 - 1.8.43
Olt Günther Witt, 1.8.43 - 11.43
Hptm Siegfried Simsch, 11.43 - 1.1.44
Olt Heinz Grosser, 1.1.44 - 2.5.44
Hptm Erich Viebahn, 5.44 - 15.8.44
Ordered formed 7.7.43 at Husum. On 1.8.43 10./JG11 and 1./JG11 exchanged designations. 17.8.44 united with 11./JG11 and renamed 4./JG11.
10./JG11 and 11./JG11 was known as Kommando Skagerrak between 7.12.43 and 6.44.
No A-8s with 10./JG11, http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/b10jg11.html
-
Wmaker: /R4 is attributed to a GM-1 kit by some sources, and attributed to a package relating to the MG151/20s in other sources. Outside of a few test charts and calculated speed curves, GM-1 wasn't really used in 190As. They didn't have much of it, and even though it was available earlier in the war it was limited to special models which explicitly state they use GM-1.
I don't doubt the author you stated put that into his book. I doubt that it signifies what you think it signifies. Even assuming it refers to a GM-1 setup, that doesn't change anything, either.
Now you are saying "they never had much of it..." and before you said they never had it. :headscratch:
The bottom line is this. Charge said those curves were most probably showing performance while using GM-1 injection. You said that that isn't possible because GM-1 was supposedly only used above 10000m and that 190A's never used it. Considering that the whole chart is based on performance calculations, it doesn't even matter weather it was used or not (and Rodeike's research suggests that it was) as the use was certainly thought of. Because GM-1 never got the fully variable feed rate operational, the use had to be restricted by certain altitude and that is exactly what can be seen in the curve. Charge was talking about that single chart, not about GM-1 use general.
No A-8s with 10./JG11, http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/b10jg11.html
Just like I said earlier, Rodeike disagrees:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/GM-1.jpg)
-
The /R1 designation was used for the underwing dual-MG 151/20 gunpods (A-6 and later, previous models used this for lead machines with FuG 16ZE or ZY radio), /R4 is always GM-1 (A-6 and later.)
-
History of Me410 suggest that GM-1 was used in some occasions when it was available. I don't know why the machines were not readily available to units, maybe it indeed still was a rarity and it was reserved only for special use but it received a lot interest due to high altitude boost it provided. (It seems that while the single seater 410 version was indeed manufactured its numbers were small. It is quite logical to assume that it was used for recon missions but its equipment suggest that it was used as zerstörer i.e. heavy fighter.)
So it seems that GM-1 was available and used but it was not available in same numbers as MW-50 or C3 injection. I recall that GM-1 increased weight more than other systems so maybe its was not a preferred choice in single seaters but in larger planes it offered more advantage than what was its relative weight penalty. After all 109s had the AS engines and 190 got the D model which was somewhat better suited for high altitude work.
What I'd like to point out is that the speed curves presented in AH wiki for A5 seem incorrect and they do not represent the correct boost configuration. E.g. the speed curves for A5 in MIL and WEP look more like those of GM-1 equipped bird.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/Fw_190A-5
-C+
-
Now you are saying "they never had much of it..." and before you said they never had it. :headscratch:
The bottom line is this. Charge said those curves were most probably showing performance while using GM-1 injection. You said that that isn't possible because GM-1 was supposedly only used above 10000m and that 190A's never used it. Considering that the whole chart is based on performance calculations, it doesn't even matter weather it was used or not (and Rodeike's research suggests that it was) as the use was certainly thought of. Because GM-1 never got the fully variable feed rate operational, the use had to be restricted by certain altitude and that is exactly what can be seen in the curve. Charge was talking about that single chart, not about GM-1 use general.
You attempt to twist things so much to your own favor.. This same thing happens in every "discussion" with you.
As a whole, across the Luftwaffe, they did not have much of it. For Fw190s, specifically, they did not use it. I said the chart could not be correct because it was not in use for those planes, regardless of the alt, UNLESS the chart was simply comparing calculated curves, and not representing actual airframes using GM-1. I'll very clearly admit it's possible GM-1 can be used lower than 10000 meters, but it simply wasn't done on Fw190A-8s. That is the issue at hand.
-
What I'd like to point out is that the speed curves presented in AH wiki for A5 seem incorrect and they do not represent the correct boost configuration. E.g. the speed curves for A5 in MIL and WEP look more like those of GM-1 equipped bird.
Er... uh... What now? They do not!
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=23&p2=122&pw=2>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
In point of fact they seem to closely mirror the curves for the US tests of the 190G-3 that was reballasted after capture.
-
I wonder if we'll ever get a 190A2 or A1 model. I'd think a lot of people would be surprised as to how well those would turn and burn. One thing for sure, if they get added, 30 ENY perk farming machine, here I come.
-
I'll very clearly admit it's possible GM-1 can be used lower than 10000 meters, but it simply wasn't done on Fw190A-8s. That is the issue at hand.
So? We're fairly certian that the P-51D didn't carry both 2 1000lb bombs and 6 HVAR 5" rockets at the same time, yet we're not prevent us from doing that in the game.
190's, 109's, or basically anything German in the game NEVER landed on a carrier, but we can still do it in AH.
Lancasters never pickled off the entire load of bombs all on a single specifically-targeted hanger, but we can still do it.
Whether or not a specific feature or piece of equipment was used in a specific situation is rather irrelevent, so long as it was in fact used. A8 never used GM-1 boost below 10k? Oh well, it could, and if we have GM-1 modled above 10k, we'll have it below 10k as well.
-
You attempt to twist things so much to your own favor.. This same thing happens in every "discussion" with you.
As a whole, across the Luftwaffe, they did not have much of it. For Fw190s, specifically, they did not use it. I said the chart could not be correct because it was not in use for those planes, regardless of the alt, UNLESS the chart was simply comparing calculated curves, and not representing actual airframes using GM-1. I'll very clearly admit it's possible GM-1 can be used lower than 10000 meters, but it simply wasn't done on Fw190A-8s. That is the issue at hand.
Heh, by quoting you word to word I'm trying to "twist things to my favor" :lol Riiiiiiight. :lol
Just like I said, you just didn't know what you were talking about and Charge did. :) Simple enough. :)
You can cry about it as much as you like, the facts won't go anywhere nor change. :)
-
-
-
I could reach 339-340 at 20 feet alt, with wep. 327 is at 1.3 ata. Still 12mph slower than your data tho.
Whats the source for the 352?
(http://i905.photobucket.com/albums/ac254/GREGGSTEELE/fw190a5-level.jpg)
As you can see, the real A5 was quite a bit faster than ours at sea level as well as best alt! :noid :bhead
Pyro, if you see this, will you please add it to the to-do list? :salute
Eternally grateful, STEELE
-
Thanks Shemp.
-
I realized now what is the strange FTH behavior difference between the various two speed superchargers. If the machine is running on same RPM on MIL and WEP and only more boost is applied the FTH will move down as only that way more oxygen can be charged in the engine as the impeller is already turning on its max RPM. But if you are running on LESS RPM on MIL than in WEP the increased impeller speed will provide more boost and only on WEP rotate at its limit so your FT will stay the same or even move to a slightly higher altitude. This depends, among other things, on how big the RPM difference is between MIL and WEP.
Do you people agree or do you have other explanations?
-C+
-
On the BMW 801 engine the lower boost and RPM for Mil may actually result in the supercharger spinning at lower rpm as well, otherwise the FTH in Mil should be higher than with WEP. The Jumo 213 from the Fw 190 D-9 acts different as FTH actually rises in Mil.
On DB engined a/c you could clearly see them achieving their Mil maxspeed at higher alts than with WEP.