Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: BnZs on January 08, 2014, 06:51:38 PM
-
Is there any 190A version that saw service in decent numbers that might add a notch or two of performance for radial-engine Butcher-birds in the LW arena?
-
Some people were arguing in favor of the A7. I do not know the fine details of every 190 version though.
The 190 line can use a fighter to cover the large gap between the 190A5 and the 190D9. Our 190A8 is terrible as a fighter and from what I understand it is a heavy armored buff killer version.
I'd say it is a low priority, but also relatively small effort on HTC side. Good option to keep on the wish list in case HTC have a little time after they are finished with the Beaufighter. So is a 109G6/AS.
-
I don't have time to get into research but the A7 is it, if I remember correctly. The A5 is the most nimble of the 190s in question. The A8 had a number of improvements that increased the weight into a new class of 190s, per se. The A7 retained the same basic weight and design characteristics though had a more powerful engine and added the 13mms in place of the little .303 poppers in the nose. So basically an A5 in turning, very little weight gain, firepower of the D9 with a couple hundred extra horsepower.
Basically, a souped up A5. That extra horsepower for no weight gain would make the A5 even more deadly in the vertical game and would likely lead to it being one of the premiere fighters in-game. Again, from memory.
boo
-
No extra horsepower in the A-7, basically an A-6 adapted for the 13mm cowling guns.
Several/many A-8 had more power via the additional fuel injection system available for both supercharger speeds, the A-9 was a true increase in both power and critical engine altitude although numbers were low in 44 with some hundred produced.
-
930 fw190a9's where built.
190A9 using 1.78ata @ 2700U/min in the first gear supercharger is the most common variant
-
What is the weight of the A9 compared to the A5?
And was the power increased from the A1 to the A3, with the A5 being an A3 with minimal changes? I remember there was a sportscar in the mix, with a power increase without a weight increase. Likely I'm confused on this as well. It could be the other way around, as in the A3 has the power of the A5 without a weight increase of the A5.
In any case, I want the lighter, more powerful A(?) version sportscar.
boo
-
A-1 to A-3 had the 801C engine with 1560PS, A-4 to A-8 the 801 D-2 engine with 1700PS, A-9 the 801S engine with 1930 PS
The A-9 should have a weight similar to the later A-8 (which had a larger engine oil reservoir with thicker armor, 30kg more weight from armor alone)
Weight of the later A-8 is supposed to be 3490kg empty and 4391 kg loaded.
EDIT: just 660 A-9 are known to be produced/accepted by the Luftwaffe up to and inclusing March 45.
-
When I read pilots reports about the A8, I can just not believe we have the same plane, specially its total inability to pull angle without trim.
-
From older discussions I remember someone stating they used the heavily armored Sturmbock variant to model the A-8. This is ~150kg heavier than the A-8 and most likely has a forward CoG shift due to the armor added to the cockpit area.
-
A8 is faster on the deck than any other A-series in AH due to its higher wep (2000hp)
-
It's actually 1900 PS (+/- 25 PS, can't remember exactly)
-
"never trust wiki", but is say 1980 hp for the A8.
-
Well, I've seen sources listing 348-352 as top speed at sea level for the A-5. Ours does 339. The more generous figure would be a significant improvement, but not so much that it would be any kind of widely-used super plane.
-
IIRC, our 190A-5 represents an earlier time-frame for the A-5 production run. Later units were cleared for use of higher ata (3.1 vs 2.6, as I recall, but I could have that wrong.)
-
Close to 2000 PS may have been pure engine power but not the power arriving at the prop, you always have to deduct the power to drive the fan which is ~70 PS at sea level. For the same reason the 801 D-2 is stated to be 1700 PS at sea level and not close to 1800.
-
I know AH goes through revamps of airplanes, adds new birds, etc. In the vein of revamping the 190s, how close are our birds to actual specs, considering we may have more accurate information now?
As an example, is it fair to say the A5 should have slightly more power? I've read a healthy debate with evidence that the A8 in AH is overweight, and should have its weight reduced by some 300lbs. Are there similar, easy coding tweaks to bring these more into line with real life? I know that after much complaint AH remodeled the damaging on the Dora so that a dirty look didn't cause the radiator to leak. We are talking, I believe rather simple coding. And none of these would turn the 190 series into ubber birds that will turn like a Zero, climb like a Komet and take damage like an Il-2, just little tweaks to ensure we are flying the most realistic version.
If this required research and a formal request of AH, Skuzzy, et al count me in. :aok
boo
-
Boo,
I dont recall the exact weights but it depends on the loadout and IIRC it varies between 50KG and 100KG and there may even be 1 loadout that is slightly underweight..... :O
It would be nice to see an A9 and possibly an early A2/3 added but I'd rather have a 109 AS model added first.
:salute
-
IIRC, our 190A-5 represents an earlier time-frame for the A-5 production run. Later units were cleared for use of higher ata (3.1 vs 2.6, as I recall, but I could have that wrong.)
Don't know where I came up with those numbers. Our current 190A5 runs at 1.42 ata, and later units were cleared for 1.57 ata.
-
Don't know where I came up with those numbers. Our current 190A5 runs at 1.42 ata, and later units were cleared for 1.57 ata.
If that translated into sheer horse power that would be a 10.56% increase in power. If so, let's go it!! That's my sportscar baby... :airplane:
boo
-
No A-5 was ever cleared for 1.57 ata unless it was a fighter-bomber with the C3-injection system, suitable only for low alt up to ~1000m.
-
Drawing a summary to the past few posts:
It would seem that it is held by a few the A5 had a boost of ata to 1.57.
IF this can be documented then the question is to how many planes? Does it matter if it was done in the factory versus the field? Does the example of the canopy for the G-14 and K-4 matter, where I have read some factories added them, others did not.
In any case, if it can be documented that a certain number of A5s had the ata increased to 1.57 then the gods of AH should fix this asap. If not...
boo
-
Drawing a summary to the past few posts:
It would seem that it is held by a few the A5 had a boost of ata to 1.57.
IF this can be documented then the question is to how many planes? Does it matter if it was done in the factory versus the field? Does the example of the canopy for the G-14 and K-4 matter, where I have read some factories added them, others did not.
In any case, if it can be documented that a certain number of A5s had the ata increased to 1.57 then the gods of AH should fix this asap. If not...
boo
Agreed. If the A-5 could do 350 on the deck, it would likely get quite a bit more popularity.
-
The A-5 is an awesome plane and of the 190 variants I fly it exclusively...it is rather slow compared to the Dora but oh well...who wants to be a Dora dweeb anyway :devil I'll up a A-8 to chase bomber formations but it's so heavy when a Ta-152 works better...I would really enjoy an increase in hp for the A-5
-
Agreed. If the A-5 could do 350 on the deck, it would likely get quite a bit more popularity.
There seem to be some good indications of it doing around 350 at sea level. This would make a difference. The A5 actually does 374 at 5K in AHII, which is not bad, but speed *right on the deck* is so important.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5.html
-
The 190A5 is doing pretty decently even by LW standards between 5 to 10K...still, altitudes under 5K are so important in AHII and it looks like the A5 was actually strong there as well. Current deck speed is 339, 352 or so would be a BIG difference.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=86&p2=23&pw=1>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
-
Compare with this, A5 with 1.42ata making a little over 350 on the deck.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5-level-43-b.jpg)
-
The A8 can run away from Spit16 and Ki84 yak3, something the A5 have to fight against.
The newly perked Spit14 47m and 51b/d forces the A8 to turn and get chewed up by the turn'y planes planes, best bet is to roll in between the trees and hope the fast plane auger or is a bad shot.
The A9 with TS engine was faster with mw50 made 1.82 ATA, and would probably be closer with the faster planes at the deck.
-
The A8 can run away from Spit16 and Ki84 yak3, something the A5 have to fight against.
The newly perked Spit14 47m and 51b/d forces the A8 to turn and get chewed up by the turn'y planes planes, best bet is to roll in between the trees and hope the fast plane auger or is a bad shot.
The A9 with TS engine was faster with mw50 made 1.82 ATA, and would probably be closer with the faster planes at the deck.
The A5 is faster than the A8. About the only thing the A8 does better in terms of speed is retain the E longer, and why I do not know. So if the speeds begin at 400+ TAS, then the A8 probably can keep ahead of the pursuing lot you mentioned, if the speeds started at 250 TAS then the A8 will get caught. Likewise, the A5 will be able to keep ahead of the lot you mentioned longer if the speeds started slower, but ultimately the A5 is simply faster than the A8.
One of the best dog fights I've ever had while in a A5 has been at 18-22k vs a P51D. It went back and forth for 10+ minutes, neither of us could gain a true advantage. Finally, I took a risk in getting him in a rolling scissors with too little E and he was able to hang with me and got a shot. My error, his gain. He won.
Don't ever discount the A5 in the 190 roster, it is a workhorse and isn't too far behind the Dora in speed, and outside of firepower (30mm option) the A5 is better than the A8 in terms of handling, turn, acceleration, speeds, and stability/forgiveness.
-
The 190A-5 is my preferred 190.
-
Mine too unless I'm upping with the specific intent to run something down. Then it's Dora time. I have little to no use for the A8 unless I'm feeling masochistic.
Wiley.
-
All A series 190 in AH depends on you flying in its best envelope ie fast.
The A5 does indeed do everything better than flying at max speed at the deck.
It lacks fire power by quite some compared with the A8. even with the 4*20mm
Also you get away with much more damage in the A8 as compared with the A5, owing to its thicker armour in rear seat, oil cooler and thicker canopy. Flying the A8 as a dog-fighter soon give you the wound badge, or worse.
You can, because of many pilots does not possess SA qualities, fight some, but only as long as you have altitude and or speed to get out of the fight.
-
On the Russian front JG5 had a number of A2s. If HTC increase the number of Russian aircraft the A2 would make for a good era match up.
-
It lacks fire power by quite some compared with the A8. even with the 4*20mm
I never take the two MG/FF cannons as their ballistics are so different than the MG151/20s and their clip is smaller, so I prefer to save the weight.
-
All A series 190 in AH depends on you flying in its best envelope ie fast.
The A5 does indeed do everything better than flying at max speed at the deck.
It lacks fire power by quite some compared with the A8. even with the 4*20mm
Also you get away with much more damage in the A8 as compared with the A5, owing to its thicker armour in rear seat, oil cooler and thicker canopy. Flying the A8 as a dog-fighter soon give you the wound badge, or worse.
You can, because of many pilots does not possess SA qualities, fight some, but only as long as you have altitude and or speed to get out of the fight.
Comparing the dual 20mm of the A5 vs the quad 20mm or dual 20mm/dual 30mm of the A8 is like asking which handgun cartridge will kill a person if shot in the heart. Sure, the .357 Mag is the winner without question, but the .38 Special works just fine. Point being while it is nice to have that 18 lb sledgehammer to squish that bug, a rolled up newspaper will do. The only time I see it worth while to take the quad 20mm of dual 20mm and dual 30mm is when bombers or ground structures are the target. Otherwise, you're just hauling around weight not needed. YMMV.
-
I feel like the ENTIRE point of the 190A8 (in AH) is to be overkill. Minus the guns, there's simply no way to justify taking it over the A-5.
-
Is there any 190A version that saw service in decent numbers that might add a notch or two of performance for radial-engine Butcher-birds in the LW arena?
Eric Brown in his book "Duels in the Sky: World War II Naval Aircraft in Combat", he considered the FW-190A-4 to be one of the best fighters of the war and the best one Germany produced. In his other book "Wings of the Luftwaffe", he heaped more praise on the FW-190A-4 and the entire line of Focke Wulfs. In his flight evaluation report, he stated that the A-4 was the equal to the Spitfire Mk IX and the determining factor between both planes would fall to pilot skill and the ability of both pilots to squeeze out every thing their plane could give.
ack-ack
-
Excerpt from Wings of the Luftwaffe by Eric Brown.
"My first opportunity to fly the Focke-Wulf did not arise until 4 February 1944, the actual aircraft being the previously-mentioned Fw 190A-4/U8 PE882. This fighter had seen a lot of flying from the RAE and was destined, 10 weeks later, to be transferred to N° 1426 Flight at Collyweston with which it was to fly until 13 October 1944, when, after a fire in the air it was to crash on the road between Kettering and Stamford, demolishing there three walls before coming to rest in the garden of a house. On this cold February morning at Farnborough, however, the sad demise of this particular Focke-Wulf was still some way into the future, and despite the substantial number of hours that it had flown since reaching British hands, it gave every impression of youthfulness.
The BMW 802D engine was started by an inertia starter energized by a 24-volt external support or by the aircraft's own battery. The big radial was primed internally, both fuel tanks and pumps selected ON and the cooling gills (sic?) set to one-third aperture. We had found that the BMW almost invariably fired first time and emitted a smooth purr as it ran, such being the case on this particular morning, and once i had familiarized myself with the self-centering tailwheel – a feature that had been criticized by some AFDU pilots – I found taxying the essence of simplicity as the fighter could be swung freely from side to side on its broad-track undercarriage. Furthermore, the brakes were very good, although the view with the tail down left much to be desired.
I soon felt completely at home in the cockpit. After lining up for take-off, I moved the stick to an aft position in order to lock the tailwheel, applied 10 degrees of flap, set the elevator trimmer to neutral and the propeller pitch to AUTO and gently opened up the engine. I encountered some tendency to swing to port but easily held this on the rudder, and using 2,700 rpm and 23.5 lb (1.6 atas) boost, found the run to be much the same as that of the Spitfire Mk IX. Unstick speed was 112 mph (180 km/h) and after retracting the undercarriage by depressing the appropriate button, I reduced boost to 21.3 lb (1.45 atas) and at 143 mph (230 km/h) activated the pushbutton which raised the flaps. I then set up a climbing speed of 161 mph (260 km/h) using 2,500 rpm and this gave a climb rate of 3,150 ft/min (16m/sec).
A remarkable aspect of this fighter was the lack of retrimming required for the various stages of the flight. There was no aileron trimmer in the cockpit, but if the external adjustable trim tab had been inadvertently moved as a result, for example of a member of the groundcrew pushing against it, an out-of-trim force of considerable proportions could result at high speed. Decidedly the most impressive feature of the German fighter was its beautifully light ailerons and its extremely high rate of roll. Incredible aileron turns were possible that would have torn the wings from a Bf 109 and badly strained the arm muscles of any Spitfire pilot trying to follow. The aileron maintained their lightness from the stall up to 400 mph (644km/h), although they heavied up above that speed.
Part II next post.
ack-ack
-
The elevators proved to be heavy at all speed and particularly so above 350 mph (563 km/h) when they became heavy enough to impose a tactical restriction on the fighter as regards pull-out from low-level dives. This heaviness was accentuated because of the nose-down pitch which occurred at high speeds when trimmed for low speeds. The critical speed at which this change in trim occurred was at around 220 mph (354 km/h) and could easily be gauged in turns. At lower speeds, the German fighter had a tendency to tighten up the turn and I found it necessary to apply slight forward pressure on the stick, but above the previously-mentioned critical figure, the changeover called for some backward pressure to hold the Focke-Wulf in the turn.
At low speeds rudder control proved positive and effective, and I found it satisfactory at high speeds, seldom needing to be used for any normal manoeuvre. It was when one took the three controls together rather than in isolation that one appreciated the fact that the Fw190's magic as a fighter lay in its superb control harmony. A good dogfighter and a good gun platform called for just the characteristics that this German fighter possessed in all important matters of stability and control. At the normal cruise of 330 mph (530 km/h) at 8000 ft (2400 m), the stability was very good directionally, unstable laterally, and neutral longitudinally.
Some penalty is, of course, always invoked by such handling attributes as those possessed by the Fw 190, and in the case of this fighter the penalty was to be found in the fact that it was not at all easy to fly on instruments. Of course, Kurt Tank's aircraft was originally conceived solely as a clear-weather day fighter. It is significant that all-weather versions were fitted with the Patin PKS 12 autopilot. I checked out the maximum level speed of my Fw190A-4/U8- which incidentally, had had its external stores carriers removed by this time- and clocked 394 mph (634 km/h) at 18,500 ft (5640 m), and I ascertained that the service ceiling was around 35,000 ft (10 670 m), so it matched the Spitfire Mk IX almost mile per hour and foot per foot of ceiling. Here were apparently two aircraft that were so evenly matched that the skill of the pilot became a vital factor in combat supremacy. Skill in aerial combat does, however, mean flying an aircraft to its limits, and when the performance of the enemy is equal to one's own, then the handling characteristics become vital in seeking an advantage. The Focke-Wulf had one big advantage over the Spitfire Mk IX in that it possessed an appreciably higher rate of roll, but the Achilles Heel that the AFDU had sought with Armin Faber's Focke-Wulf was its harsh stalling characteristics which limited its manoeuvre margins.
The AFDU comparisons between the Focke-Wulf and the Spitfire Mk IX - with the former's BMW 801 at 2,700 rpm and 20.8 lb (1.42 atas) boost and the latter's Merlin 61 at 3000 rpm and 15lb (1.00 ata)- has revealed that the German fighter was 7-8mph (11-13km/h) faster than its British counterpart at 2,000 ft (610 m) but that the speeds of the two fighters were virtually the same at 5,000 ft (1525 m). Above this altitude, the Spitfire began to display a marginal superiority, being about 8mph (13km/h) faster at 8,000 ft (2440 m) and 5 mph (8km/h) faster at 15,000 ft (4570 m). The pendulum then swung once more in favour of the Focke-Wulf which proved itself some 3 mph (5km/h) faster at 18,000 ft (5485m), the two fighters level pegging once more at 21,000 ft (6400 m) and the Spitfire then taking the lead until at 25,000 ft (7620 m) it showed a 5-7 mph (8-11 km/h) superiority.
In climbing little difference was found between the Fw 190 and the Spitfire MkIX up to 23,000 ft (7010 m), above which altitude the German fighter began to fall off and the difference between the two aircraft widened rapidly. From high-speed cruise, a pull-up into a climb gave the Fw190 an initial advantage owing to its superior acceleration and the superiority of the German fighter was even more noticeable when both aircraft were pulled up into a zoom climb from a dive. In the dive the Fw190 could leave the Spitfire Mk IX without difficulty and there was no gainsaying that in so far as manoeuvrablity was concerned, the German fighter was markedly superior in all save the tight turn – the Spitfire could not follow in aileron turns and reversals at high speed and the worst height for its pilots to engage the Fw 190 in combat were between 18,000 and 22,000 ft (5485 and 6705m), and at altitudes below 3,000 ft (915m).
The stalling speed of the Fw 190A-4 in clean configuration was 127 mph (204 km/h) and the stall came suddenly and virtually without warning, the port wing dropping so violently that the aircraft almost inverted itself. In fact, if the German fighter was pulled into a g stall in a right turn, it would flick out into the opposite bank and an incipient spin was the inevitable outcome if the pilot did not have its wits about him.
The stall in landing was quite different, there being intense pre-stall buffeting before the starboard wing dropped comparatively gently at 102 mph (164 km/h). For landing on this and the numerous subsequent occasions that I was to fly an Fw 190, I extend the undercarriage at 186 mph (300km/h), lowering the flaps 10 deg at 168 mph (270km/h), although the pilot's notes recommend reducing speed below 155 mph (250 km/h) and the applying 10 deg of flap before lowering the undercarriage. My reason for departing from the recommended drill was that the electrical load for lowering the undercarriage was higher than that required for the flaps and German batteries were in rather short supply at Farnborough - that in the Fw190A-4/U8 was most definitely weary- so I considered it prudent to get the wheels down before taxing the remaining strength of the battery further!
The turn onto the final approach was made at 155mph (250km/h), and full flap was applied at 149 mph (240km/h), speed then being eased off to cross the boundary at 124 mph (200 km/h). The view on the approach was decidedly poor because the attitude with power on was rather flat and unlike most fighters of the period, it was not permissible to open the cockpit canopy, presumably owing the risk of engine exhaust fumes entering the cockpit. The actual touch-down was a little tricky as the prefect three-point attitude was difficult to attain and anything less than perfect resulted in a reaction from the very non-resilient undercarriage and a decidedly bouncy arrival. If a three-pointer could be achieved, the landing run was short and the brakes could be applied harshly without fear of nosing over.
I was to fly the Fw 190 many times and in several varieties -among the last of the radial-engined members of Kurt Tank's fighter family that I flew was an Fw 190 F-8 (AM111) on 28 July 1945- and each time I was to experience that sense of exhilaration that came from flying an aircraft that one instinctively knew to be a top-notcher, yet at the same time demanded handling skill if its high qualities were to be exploited. Just as the Spitfire Mk IX was probably the most outstanding British fighter to give service in WW II, its Teutonic counterpart is undoubtedly deserving of the same recognition for Germany. Both were supreme in their time and class; both were durable and technically superb, and if each had not been there to counter the other, then the balance of air power could have been dramatically altered at a crucial period in the fortunes of both combatants.
ack-ack
-
EB's account pretty much matches the A5 we have in game.
-
The A8 4*20mm in AH give you the snapshot capability up to 800 yards, using rudders to point the nose on a reversing plane, in that sense it not an overkill vs fighters.
Also a plane 90 degree crossing the A8 path that get a buckshot from 400 yards will probably be hurt enough to ensure a late kill.
-
The A8 4*20mm in AH give you the snapshot capability up to 800 yards, using rudders to point the nose on a reversing plane, in that sense it not an overkill vs fighters.
Also a plane 90 degree crossing the A8 path that get a buckshot from 400 yards will probably be hurt enough to ensure a late kill.
Lol..... no it doesn't.
-
You Focke Wulf fans will enjoy this book if you don't have it already.
FW-190 In Action (http://www.mediafire.com/view/qov4ab5zc7ktvx4/25980932-FW-190-IN-ACTION-SQUARDRON-1170.pdf)
ack-ack
-
Lol..... no it doesn't.
I too LOL'd.
That is like trying to hold a steady stream while pee'in across the wind.
-
Lol..... no it doesn't.
erm, save knows his 190s.
-
the FW 190 A-9......not D-9.....A-9. best performance. about 900 made, used in in combat, in squad strength, meets all criteria to be added to aces high....except one.....not allied late war. for instance.....we have the p-47m......only 130 made..........we have the f4u C and -4....low numbers made of those....... we dont have the k-84 with 4 x 20mm(536 MADE) or the A-9,or ki-100,or late ki-61,or j2m,or any late german bombers...etc.
-
I'd say the Ar234 counts as a late bomber, wouldn't you? In fact I believe it is the latest bomber in the game.
What the Germans are missing is a mid war bomber to fit between their early He111 and Ju88A-4 and late war Ar234B.
-
About 1/3 of my kills a normal month in the A8 are bombers, the rest are fighters, I know through muscle memory when I can shoot or not. Hardest for me to bring down by far of the single engine fighters, is the Yak3.
I normally get my kills when someone make a mistake or don't look his high/low 5-7.
When someone reverse 1k out I can normally get them if they do a horizontal turn, typically a spit16 or p51 at 800 out, you just have to shoot about 2 airframes in front of them.
The nemisis planes for the A8 is the LA-7, 47M and, the 51D.
2 months ago was about average month in terms of K/D for me, flying almost every day.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/newscores/killsin.php?playername=Save&kcnt=187&selectTour=LWTour166&pindex=9
-
the FW 190 A-9......not D-9.....A-9. best performance. about 900 made, used in in combat, in squad strength, meets all criteria to be added to aces high....except one.....not allied late war. f
We have the TA-152 ME-162 ME-262 and AR-234 so it is not like a late war aircraft has to be Allied to be included.
It would be nice to have an aircraft discussion without lunatic fringe conspiracy theories. I'd love to see the FW-190A9
as well as an earlier A3 or A4. :aok
-
We have the TA-152 ME-162 ME-262 and AR-234 so it is not like a late war aircraft has to be Allied to be included.
It would be nice to have an aircraft discussion without lunatic fringe conspiracy theories. I'd love to see the FW-190A9
as well as an earlier A3 or A4. :aok
No we don't
-
No we don't
And we can't because there is no such aircraft. He obviously meant the Me163 and I am sure you knew that he was talking about the Me163 and not the He162.
-
And we can't because there is no such aircraft. He obviously meant the Me163 and I am sure you knew that he was talking about the Me163 and not the He162.
I was being as pedantic as you :D
-
Loon:
You mentioned that the A-5 is not to far off the Dora. A quick check from Gonzoville would dispute that considerably. Unless your definition of a speed difference of ~20-40mph is not significant. At 10k almost everything about the A-5 seems to fall off, some of which is regained at higher alts. The biggest differentiation however, is that at the range of 250-300mph (and higher I imagine) where 190's excel, the A-5 is 8seconds slower to accelerate than the Dora. Sometimes that's eternity. I'm not intending to badger you, and this is just my interpretation.
I am not as well read or studied as many of you about 190s, but I have felt in AH that either the dynamic of how we fight in the game is so drastically different than the actual way they were used, German 190 pilots possessed much more skill than their adversaries, or the 190 pilots embellished their stories compared to the results I see in game from me and others too.
:salute
-
I was being as pedantic as you :D
Not so sure. I saw it earlier and declined to comment on it because it was an obvious typo. I may not have resisted if he had said He162 though.
-
Loon:
You mentioned that the A-5 is not to far off the Dora. A quick check from Gonzoville would dispute that considerably. Unless your definition of a speed difference of ~20-40mph is not significant. At 10k almost everything about the A-5 seems to fall off, some of which is regained at higher alts. The biggest differentiation however, is that at the range of 250-300mph (and higher I imagine) where 190's excel, the A-5 is 8seconds slower to accelerate than the Dora. Sometimes that's eternity. I'm not intending to badger you, and this is just my interpretation.
I am not as well read or studied as many of you about 190s, but I have felt in AH that either the dynamic of how we fight in the game is so drastically different than the actual way they were used, German 190 pilots possessed much more skill than their adversaries, or the 190 pilots embellished their stories compared to the results I see in game from me and others too.
:salute
I wont argue the speed differences at 20mph at certain altitudes. The Dora shines in terms of WEP, no doubt. Perhaps I should have stated that the A5 is faster than A8 and left it at that. Oh, and may I suggest using AH's own website to compare aircraft. Gonzo's is a few years old and many of the planes are not current, the 190's are one of the few that have not changed in all the years since Gonzo's site went up. You can find the comparison charts under the "Game Info" drop down box.
-
if Gonzo's chart is correct, A8 is faster than the A5 (Wep) from 0-5k, 10-20k, acceleration of the A8 is faster from 150-300mph at the deck.
-
if Gonzo's chart is correct, A8 is faster than the A5 (Wep) from 0-5k, 10-20k, acceleration of the A8 is faster from 150-300mph at the deck.
I've read the charts and checked the charts with my own testing. Mind you, what the charts say and the actual performance is can be two different things. Double check the weights of the plane as registered on the charts, then hop in to the MA and test it for yourself. Speeds especially are not exact.
Without testing it outright, I'd put the A5 ahead of the A8 at all altitudes in terms of non WEP speed and acceleration. With WEP, they are close enough that a while engaged the differences are not going to matter, ultimately. The A5's ability to turn tighter, climb better, and otherwise provide a much smoother platform with carry it further than losing/gaining 5mph of speed or a split second or two of acceleration (on WEP).
Trust me, I take nothing away from the A8. It is a monster and isn't left in the dust but the A5 is more of a decathlon athlete while the A8 is more of a strait up shot putter. I'd leave it at that.
-
I have a much higher survivability in the A8 due to its capability to run away from spit16 , whereas the A5 just won't.
-
EB's account pretty much matches the A5 we have in game.
However, he is talking about an A4, not an A5. Our A5 would seem to be 10-12 mph too slow at sea level, which thing can make a large difference.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5.html)
-
I have a much higher survivability in the A8 due to its capability to run away from spit16 , whereas the A5 just won't.
Yep. An A5 that could make 352 mph on the deck would stand a chance though, especially considering longer WEP. More importantly AFAIK is an A5 that could *catch* more things, like Ponys not at max speed.
-
I have a much higher survivability in the A8 due to its capability to run away from spit16 , whereas the A5 just won't.
You run away from everything. :rofl
-
Well I try to dogfight at high speed for a while, until I get slow and out-turned by Lancaster's , A20's , CV, the sun -then I run.
I had 2 prolonged inclusive fights with saburo yesterday, he in a Mossie and me in A8, me with about 500 feet advantage.
I could stay for about 45 seconds turning and twisting, then run out of steam due to A8 famous barn door drag,
Then I'm forced to run.
If I stayed in all 1vs1 Coalt CoE fights I would die 100% vs a ok pilot in any single engined fighter normally flown in MA.