Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: hazed- on March 22, 2002, 10:51:31 AM
-
This is specs given for 190a8 with same 4x20mm loadout in
'The wings if the Luftwaffe'
by captain Eric Brown CBE,DSC,AFC,RN.
isbn 1-85310-413-2
A flight tester of all the captured aircraft during and after the war.
AN excellent read and source of information.He comments on all aspects of the aircraft, which is an extensive list!
Focke Wulf 190a8 specification:
Power plant: On BMW 801D 14 cylinder radial air cooled engine rated at 1,700 hp for take off and 1,440 hp at 18,700 ft (5700m) fuel capacity 115.5 Imp gal (524 l) in two fuselage tanks plus 25.3 Imp gal (115 l) in optional rear fuselage tank plus provision for 66.2 Imp gal (300 l) drop tank,
Performance: (clean): Max speed 355 mph (571 km/h) at sea level, 402 mph (647 km/h) at 18,045 ft (5,500 m); max speed with GM1 nitrious oxide boost 408 mph (656 km/h) at 20,670 ft (6,300 m); normal cruising speed 298mph (480 km/h) at 6,560 ft (2,000 m); initial rate of climb 3,450 ft/min (17.5 m/s); time to climb to 19,685 ft (6000 m) 9.1 min; to 26,250ft (8000 m) 14.4 min; to 32,800 ft (10,000 m) 19.3 min; service ceiling 33,800ft (10,300 m) and with GM1 boost 37,400 ft (11,400 m); max range 644 mls (1,035 km) at 22,970 ft (7,000 m); range with one drop tank, 915 mls (1,470 km) at 301 mph (485 km/h) at 16,600 ft (5,000 m).
Weights: Empty equipped (clean) 7,652 lb (3,470 kg); empty equipped (fighter-bomber) 7,740 lb (3,510 kg); normal loaded 9,660 lb (4,380 kg); max take-off (fighter-bomber) 10,724 lb (4,865 kg)
Armement: two 13-mm MG 131 machine guns with 475 rpg in fuselage; tow 20-mm MG 151/20E cannon with 250 rpg in wing roots and two 20-mm MG 151/20E cannon with 140 rpg in outer wing panels.
So we have same loadout but in AH we dont even APPROACH 3000 ft/ min.Reading stuff like this just depresses me.Why is AH so different to what we see in the books? I trusted HTC had the right info on the 190s but this is a book written by an ALLIED test pilot.Hardly likely to lie about them.The book is very much written as a tester would describe an aircraft to another tester.
hope this opens a few eyes .
this is repeated from my other post after testing 4 aircraft.I then received a book i had ordered(above) and read the specs with quite some surprise.The 190a8 in AH is muted and performs FAR worse than these figures.WHY?
-
I should know better than to do this but....
): Max speed 355 mph (571 km/h) at sea level, 402 mph (647 km/h) at 18,045 ft (5,500 m); max speed with GM1 nitrious oxide boost 408 mph (656 km/h) at 20,670 ft (6,300 m); normal cruising speed 298mph (480 km/h) at 6,560 ft (2,000 m); initial rate of climb 3,450 ft/min
these numbers (in bold), look very similar to the HTC chart with WEP on. I wonder if the error, if there is one, lies somewhere in this area.
-Sikboy
-
Whaa? No squeaking? :)
-
I don't squeak staga, I mock. And if you don't have anything productive to add... well, you know the rest.
;)
-Sikboy
-
hmm what fuel did they use in tests ? Maybe they did use high octane fuel with higher manifold pressure ?
-
LOL
-
Skiboy was onto something... but he should of used the whole paragraph....
"Performance: (clean): Max speed 355 mph (571 km/h) at sea level, 402 mph (647 km/h) at 18,045 ft (5,500 m); max speed with GM1 nitrious oxide boost 408 mph (656 km/h) at 20,670 ft (6,300 m); normal cruising speed 298mph (480 km/h) at 6,560 ft (2,000 m); initial rate of climb 3,450 ft/min (17.5 m/s); time to climb to 19,685 ft (6000 m) 9.1 min; to 26,250ft (8000 m) 14.4 min; to 32,800 ft (10,000 m) 19.3 min; service ceiling 33,800ft (10,300 m) and with GM1 boost 37,400 ft (11,400 m); max range 644 mls (1,035 km) at 22,970 ft (7,000 m); range with one drop tank, 915 mls (1,470 km) at 301 mph (485 km/h) at 16,600 ft (5,000 m)."
I believe those #s are for a clean config, unless some fields didn't make it into the above quote.
-SW
-
Hazed, do you know whether these specs are from GM1 device equipped 190A8? Due the weight of that system, I suppose that initial climb rate would be different than with a normal 190A8.
What most intrigues me is just that "aux" tank. Was it normally present? If so, as an extra fuel tank (too little endurance gained)? As a GM1 device? As a MW50 tank? Each different answer imply different substained climb rates.
-
Hazed.....did that aircraft have a full ammo load for testing? That might explain the difference.
-
ok just performed all these tests in AH offline in nsdisles map with no wind layers
190a8 (clean) 4x20mm 75% FUEL LOAD
MAXimum speed at 20,670 ft with wep for OVER 5 minutes 399mph (400max)
MAXimum speed at 18,045 ft 385-390mph
MAXimum speed at sea level (@50ft) 325-330mph with WEP 349mph
All these speeds were attained by diving to 450 mph to the altitude for test and then allowing the aircraft to settle into its maximum speed non WEP (takes quites a while but eventually remains steady)
Im not going to start any of the roadkill conspiricy crap, Im not whining, I just want an answer. Preferably from HTC as I dont trust any of these so called real charts.
This is from the horses mouth as it were.I sought to find this book because I knew it was an Allied test pilot.His results im sure you'll agree are hardly going to be inaccurate or biased.He shows much enthusiasm for the aircraft he tests in this book but its from the standpoint of an enemy of this technology not a user of it.
BTW this is the first plane i have tested verses the information in this book.
the 109g6,ar234B,ju88,me262,he177,bf110 and ju87 amongst others are in here and ill be looking closley at their performances.
But rather than feeling pleased with myself for finding this information it has just dissapointed me.
Even if this books figures are slightly off the discrepency with AH is, I think you'll agree HUGE.
355 at sea level? we barely touch 330! :mad:
-
Just a short notice about the data given in Brown's Book.
It is not actual RAF test data, that the data presented in many books (especially from William Green).
Edit: All german tests were made at Rüstgewicht (=Normal Combat weight) including all guns, ammo, fuel, often ETC-racks. But without additional payload like bombs, rockets or Droptanks.
-
Yeah, okay... but that's not a clean config you used hazed.
I assume by clean (this usually means unloaded) config in this case, he meant no ammo (Maybe even no guns) and fuel load is unknown. Where was this test done? What time of year was this test done?
AH most likely has much different atmospheric effects than where and when this test was performed. And on top of that, we don't even know which (if any) system (GM1/MW5) for the climb rate.
And why are you using only ONE source? You really should know better than that, it's best to look at atleast 3-4 sources to get a better idea.
-SW
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
Hazed, do you know whether these specs are from GM1 device equipped 190A8? Due the weight of that system, I suppose that initial climb rate would be different than with a normal 190A8.
What most intrigues me is just that "aux" tank. Was it normally present? If so, as an extra fuel tank (too little endurance gained)? As a GM1 device? As a MW50 tank? Each different answer imply different substained climb rates.
mandoble thats the initial climb rate in the specs not sustained but the climb to 19k is a good indicator of the differnce in performance.
Ive opened a can of worms im sure but it needs to be adressed by HTC or someone with a good idea of what exactly could be wrong. I think its time to show us the charts/specs used for the AH model.If its a test done in the usa then lets see it please.
-
Originally posted by Naudet
Just a short notice about the data given in Brown's Book.
It is not actual RAF test data, that the data presented in many books (especially from William Green).
Edit: All german tests were made at Rüstgewicht (=Normal Combat weight) including all guns, ammo, fuel, often ETC-racks. But without additional payload like bombs, rockets or Droptanks.
you saying its at combat weight or that william green is making it up? :) (same old thing. we find some data and its said to be nonsense.its depressing isnt it)
pretty convenient that.
notice i did AH tests with 75% fuel to allow some margin of error.
25% is VERY generous.
-
Here's some data from the Il-2 Sturmovik site.. I would give you data from some of my books... but I'm not at home so I just wanted to run this by you.
I don't know imperial->metric conversion, so you gotta do it... but does this data match any of the data you posted Hazed?
Engine: BMW-801D-2 + MW 50.
Power:
Take-off : 1,800 HP
Speed:
Sea level: 530 km/h.
At 6,000 m: 625 km/h.
Turn time at 1,000 m: 23-24 sec.
Climb to 5,000 m: 6.8 min.
Climb in a combat turn: 700-750 m.
Service ceiling: 10,500 m.
-SW
-
Hazed, I know, what I mean about having this device installed is just the device itself and its weight, not whether it was switched on or not. I say that cause between the numbers there are some related to the GM1 usage. This was a completely different device than the plain small extra fuel tank.
Excelent work here and with the performance tables of 38, 110, 47 and A8
-
I don't think that AH will open the Vault on what information they base their FMs on. If only because to do so would have even more people second guessing them, and would offer information that was hard fought to their competitors. I just don't see it happening. In the past, errors have been noted. Changes have been made. You are bringing in evidence, and some of us have tried to analyse it, to find out what the descrepency is. I'm not sure that we will be able to explain it, but all the same, I don't think HTC is going to say "Here everyone, look at this data that we painstakingly uncovered, please don't use it in your sim!" I could really use those extra MPH though lol
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
I don't know imperial->metric conversion, so you gotta do it... but does this data match any of the data you posted Hazed?
Engine: BMW-801D-2 + MW 50. : BMW 801D
Power:
Take-off : 1,800 HP : 1,700 HP
Speed:
Sea level: 530 km/h. : 571km/h
At 6,000 m: 625 km/h. : at 6,300 m:656 km/h
Turn time at 1,000 m: 23-24 sec.
Climb to 5,000 m: 6.8 min. : only climb to 6,000 m stated and its 9.1 min
Climb in a combat turn: 700-750 m.
Service ceiling: 10,500 m. : 10,300 m (11,400 m with GM1)
-SW
added what i have in book in bold. this help?
-
1st i had a little error, all german tests are done at Fluggewicht. Fluggewicht = Normal Combat Weight
Rüstgewicht is just the plane without fuel or ammo on board, just with all necessary equitment installed.
And to the IL2 data, IL2 uses data from a russian test of a FW190A8, and to be honest, i think noone really knows in which condition the plane was.
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
Hazed, I know, what I mean about having this device installed is just the device itself and its weight, not whether it was switched on or not. I say that cause between the numbers there are some related to the GM1 usage. This was a completely different device than the plain small extra fuel tank.
Excelent work here and with the performance tables of 38, 110, 47 and A8
mandoble i think this a8 has gm1 but in the rather lenghy description of the whole flight testing Capt. Brown performed, he is very specific about turning on or off GM1 or methenol water injection. From what ive read these results are with GM1 off and then he adds GM1 for the extra performance and to test added altitude gains. I would suspect the GM1 is not used for the climb to 19k but as the book is new i havent absorbed all the info, only recieved it a few hours ago. :D
this is an interesting excerpt from a 190a4 test he flew:
'I checked out the maximum level speed of my fw190A-4/U8--which incidently had had its external stores carriers removed by this time --- and clocked 394 mph (634 km/h) at 18,500ft (5,640 m). and I ascertained that the sevice ceiling was around 35,000 ft (10,670 m). so it matched the spitfire IX almost mile per hour and foot per foot of ceiling.Here were two aircraft that were so evently matched that the skill of the pilot became the vital factor in combat supremacy'
(btw he isnt claiming evently matched in turn etc as earlier he talks of where each aircraft outperforms the other in turn, climb, zoom etc and is very specific about differing speeds at various alts)
you gotta buy this book mandoble :D
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Yeah, okay... but that's not a clean config you used hazed.
I assume by clean (this usually means unloaded) config in this case, he meant no ammo (Maybe even no guns) and fuel load is unknown. Where was this test done? What time of year was this test done?
In civil aviation clean configuration means gear and flaps up. With military aircraft it also means without any bomb racks/pylons/external stores. This doesn't include internal stores in anyway.
During WW2 it was very common among both sides of the conflict to test combat aircraft at their combat weight...if this couldn't be achieved with original equipment for some reason, ballast weights were used. It is pretty logical considering that otherwise the results wouldn't be very useful for any kind of operational analysis/comparision between combat aircraft. As Naudet states sure there were test made with as light weight as possible but these are by far the minority.
-
Originally posted by hazed-
turning on or off GM1 or methenol water injection.
In the same plane??? Both systems???
Originally posted by hazed-
you gotta buy this book mandoble :D [/B]
I would be as or even more depressed than you after reading it ;)
Wulfe, your numbers are a bit extrange to me, BMW801D2 with MW50 should do 1900Hp (or more) on the deck instead of 1800.
A last point here, we have different top speed numbers for 190A5 and A8, why having same airframe? and no, it cant be the weight.
-
So basically between those 2 data comparrisons either lies the answer to what it should really be like... or one of them is very wrong....
I can't say for certain either is right/wrong, because that's just some quick stuff from a "reputible"(because they made the plane in the game) site I pulled here just for comparrison purposes.
I won't have access to my books at home until Monday (won't be home till then), but if this thread is still alive I will post data from "The Great Book Of WWII Airplanes" "Encyclopedia of the worlds fighters" and from "Hitler's LuftWaffe"....
Not as a means to discredit your info, but just for comparrisons.
-SW
-
Il-2 has errors, at least in the game a/c data section.
A factory graph for the A-8 shows @ SL a speed of 500kph to 564kph depending on the ata. No ETC501, surfaces filled and polished
-
Great Book of WW2 Airplanes A8 data
Max Speed: (clean)
355mph (570kmh)SL
402 mph (647kmh)18,045ft
with GM1 408 mph at 20,670ft
time to 19684ft(6000m) 9 min 6 sec
time to 26,250ft(8000m) 14 min 24 sec
801D-2
Take off 1700hp 2700rpm 20.2psi boost
climb and combat 1500hp 2400rpm 18.7psi
This book also shows MK103 gondolas
SKurj
-
SW heres conversion:
SW' book : hazeds book : AH test
6000m 625km/h (388mph) : 6300m 656km/h (408mph) : 6300m 642km/h (399mph)
SL 530km/h (329mph) : SL 571km/h (355mph) : SL 523-530km/hr (325-330)
just to make it easier to understand.
-
It seems likely to me that HTC has culled data from multiple sources, and used an average of the numbers to off-set potential bias or outliers. With that in mind, your AH test speed is pretty much right between what the two books claim. The SL speed is still low, according to these two sources, but as you've pointed out, we don't know what sources HTC has used.
-Sikboy
-
I've posted this about 8,765 times ;) but here it is again.
These charts are from:
"Fw190A-8 Aircraft Handbook"
D. (Luftt) T.2190A-8
effective July 1944, Issued September 1944
This is the english translation, of the edition issued by Wittmer, Chief of Technical Services, Luftwaffe High Command, Berlin 5 September 1944.
Standard Fw190A8 (4 cannons)
Performance vs Altitude Chart (http://www.vermin.net/fw190/190-1.jpg)
Fw190A8 (4 cannons) + GM1
Performance vs Altitude Chart (http://www.vermin.net/fw190/190-2.jpg)
Fw190A8/R2 (AH 190 with x2 30mm cannons)
Performance vs Altitude Chart (http://www.vermin.net/fw190/190-3.jpg)
-
vermillion how about explaining what the charts say? and saying where it matches or doesnt match what we see here?
That chart is dutch to me but am i right in thinking it says 350mph at sealevel for the 190a8 4x20mm?
-
Hazed, if you will look at the charts you will notice that the charts I posted match the data that AH posts in the Help section exactly.
Now, my charts show that the max speed for the Fw190A8 with 4 cannons at Sea Level should be 355mph.
I just went offline and test this myself. With 4 cannons, 100% fuel in a clean configuration (no droptanks, and no wgr21's) and at a altitude of 100ft on autolevel & WEP, I got the aircraft to hit 355mph TAS (the red tick mark) dead on.
Which matches the charts I have and Pyro's posted charts exactly.
Here's the film.
190 TEST FILM (http://www.vermin.net/temp/190-test.zip)
You might go back and check your previous tests and see what you get again.
-
vermillion I didnt think the above list refered to the aircraft under full wep and your film wouldnt download said corrupted file so i did another quick test using wep until it ran out and mine still never got above 449mph (red indicator never quite covered the 350 mph marker which converts to 563.15 kmph) which is at least a lot closer to the 571km/h stated in the book.
Redid the tests this time with full wep in AH offline this time with full 100% fuel:
climb to 19,685ft 9 minutes 44 seconds
climb to 26,250ft 15 minutes 30 seconds
climb to 32,800ft gave up after 25 minutes was at 31,000ft but climbrate less than 400ft/min.
then i dived to over 450mph leveled at following alts, applied full wep until gauge stopped moving
top speeds this time under wep:
20,675ft 402mph
18,045ft 399mph
sea level 350mph(maybe touch over) by this time i had 75% fuel aft left btw
so top speed is not as bad as i at first thought it was (if top speed stated in book means with wep engaged?)
seems top speed is quite close but still lower and look at the difference in climb time to 32,800ft! it was supposed to be at 32,800 by 19.3 minutes.
Is it possible the fact im climbing on auto pilot makes a difference?
and such a large one? over the years flying AH 190 ive found reducing speed makes little if any difference but once around 25-30k is there a way to increase climb time by 5 minutes by going faster or slower on climb? seems unlikely.
or is it this is indeed a GM1 fitted 190a8 and then if this is the case why on earth didnt AH get the GM1 version?
another thing I'd like to know is how is time taken to get to top speeds under acceleration (wep or non wep) calculated? do HTC also use charts?
-
Take a look at those charts and you will see that the shaded portion under the curve, is basically WEP if you read the discriptions. The non-WEP max speed is 338mph if I'm reading the chart right (my vision is somewhat blurry due to recent multiple eye surgies, and the later in the day it gets, the more tired my eyes get). You can test against that value if you wish.
In most every case when looking at aircraft data, max speed means just that, the maximum speed an aircraft under its fastest condition. But as with anything there are exceptions.
I just looked at my chart again, and it reads that the max speed should be 350mph, not the 355 I typed in earlier, I misread the the charts fine lines. Sorry for the mistake.
On my FE the red tick mark is just starting to edge over the 350mph mark. In other words the red line's center is directly on the 350mph mark, while its leading edge is past the 350mph mark. It may differ very slightly from video card to video card, and resolution to resolution, but I don't know for sure. But I do know that HTC uses a version of the FE that has a digital readout to test the FM's.
Regardless, its very very close on my computer.
The charts I posted are basically data directly from Focke-Wulf provided to the Luftwaffe high command (but translated too english after the war for this english translation). I have no idea how Brown or others got their data, but I've seen other similar data charts originally from Focke-Wulf, so I tend personally to put my faith in them rather than from other sources. Unless someone has the original charts in German, and they show something different, I would tend to think its about the best source of data you can reasonabley get.
-
Each horizontal hash/grid line is 4 kph. The first speed line on the left (#3) is for 2300rpm engine speed, #2 is 2400rpm, #1 is for 2700rpm. Shaded area is with 1.58/1.65ata boost.
Each vertical hash/grid line is 100m.
At the top is explaination of #1, 2, 3. ie. max. endurance cruise - 2300rpm - 1.20ata
-
vermillion have you got this sort of data for all AH planes? and have you tested them all?
I kinda got the bug now :( lol
to recap AH 190a8 top speeds:
20,675ft : 399-400mph (642km/h) +WEP 402mph (647km/h)
18,045ft :385-390mph (627km/h) +WEP 399mph (642km/h)
sea level : 325-330mph (531km/h) +WEP 350mph (563km/h)
SW as you can see maybe your book refers to non wep top speed and mine refers to with wep? (with errors?) how weird.
-
Not all of them Hazed, but quite a few of them.
I have pilots manuals or flight tests for pretty much all of the American planes, and I have alot of stuff for the German planes (all the 190's I think, the ta152, and either the E or F 109). But its really hard to find hard data on Soviet, Japanese, and Italian aircraft.
Which aircraft are you interested in, in particular?
-
Or perhaps the Germans who tested these planes 'modified' the test results so that when the Allies captured them they would need them to maintain the planes.
-
verm P38L P47d25 NIKj P40 Tempest Typhoon B17 Lancaster ? any really but i guess the P47 would be cool to test as i really dont 'know' its AH abilities much and would help to learn them as i test.
I have a very similar specs list in this book for :
focke wulf 200-c3/U4 condor
Hienkel HE 162-A2
JU 87-D1
Do 217-M1
HE 177-A5
ME 262-A1a
Do 335-A0
Focke wulf 190-A8
Ta 152-H1
Arado AR 234-B2
Ju88-G7b
FW 189-A2
Heinkel He111-H16
JU52/3M- G7e
Heinkel HE 219-A7/R2
BF 109-G6
BF 110-G4c/R3
ME 163-B1a(time to 39,370ft 3.35 min!!!! max powered endurance 7 minutes)
ill type some out if you request them.
-
I've got the P47s pilot manual, the P38 pilots manual, and there is a ton of data in America's Hundred Thousand on all the US fighters( this is THE book on American fighters if your looking for a good book, its well worth the money). Funked or Karnak both have alot of data on British planes, so they probably have the Typhoon and Lancaster data (I may have something on the Typhoon that someone posted on AGW but I need to look).
Hard data on the N1K2-J is extremely hard to get and something I have been searching for, for a very long time. From what I can find, from the data searchs in the US Archives, I've been told that flight test data on the N1K2 dont' exist anymore. But I'm still looking.
The data I posted on the Fw190A8 is with WEP as I explained, and its straight from the Focke Wulf factory. Not sure where the data in your book came from, or how it was collected.
-
Verm about the 190a8, if you use your chart what would be the climb time to 32,800 feet?
and would it be less than the 25 minutes+ it takes in AH?
as mentioned in my book it should be around 19 minutes which is a huge difference I think you'll agree.
maybe its modeled with a touch too little power and maybe acceleration also is a little less than it should be as it seems to take ages to get up to speed without a dive.As im no expert I dont know if this is how it should be but with your charts and info is it possible to work out what these values should be?
-
Hazed I hate to say this but HTC doesn't care about the data we players find.. Just take a look at the P-38 and its dive flaps. Any book written about the P-38 said the dive flaps stopped buffeting and restored pitch control. HTC doesn't give rats bellybutton about the P-38.. Why I don't know it should be one of the best planes in AH but it is not :(.. Players in MA all they want to fly are the easy planes (ie spits niks etc.) Very few people (say less than 15% of all players in the MA) fly the planes that take skills and knowing of ACM.. Thats why I think there needs to be a RR arena and FR areana.. The RR areana keeps all the dweebs in there and FR areana has the people that want to fight with ACM and be proud of the skills it takes to fly the plane they fly. And HTC could care less if we find data thats shows if a plane was mismodeled.. If they didn't find it they don't want it. Hazed I would just quite while your ahead. Cause no one from HTC is listening.
This is just what I think and shouldn't be taking to heart.. Cause if it is something I learned in my life. That there is nothing really worth getting pissed off about. I'm just a simple hillbilly and shouldn't be listened to. :D
Cw
=Twin Engined Devils=
-
BigCrate, it couln't be we just disagree with you and get realy sick of reposting the same stuff.
Now BigCrate if I ever see a flame of our integrity by you again you will no longer be on this board.
-
P-38 takes skill? Since when?
I have been flying it, the thing is uber. The only problem is see is how weak the guns are. And how with the upgraded damage model (which should have been left the way it was), it's even more deadly.
The thing is unbeatable in the vertical with flaps, other planes can hardly rope it even if you start out Co-E. It can outturn most any plane except the usually TnBers (spits, zekes, etc), but it has to be a half decent pilot in the TnBer to win. It also excels at bleeding E to force overshoots, which is another nice plus to fit my flying style.
-
...I agreed with you Nath...
P-38 no longer be poor plane.
also its fuselage guns provide enough firepower if you have good shooting.
-Mitsu
-
Hmmmmm Hitech its fine if ya disagree hell i don't care about that.. I'm just simple man. I post the same over and over again
because the or at least thats what I think are wrong.. Widewing
even said they were.. (Sorry widewing don't want to bring you into this.) Tac has done repeated posts on how the dive flaps should work.. Alot of people have posted stuff how the dive flaps should and said they need to be redone.. Now we can't be all wrong can we?? I don't know.. Hitech I didn't mean to light a fire under ya. And I'm sorry for doing so.
When I was talking about having skills to fly certain planes I was talking about the LW planes.. Cause they are mostly E fighters and thats is the hardest form of ACM.. As for the 38 I suck so to me it takes a special touch to fly. I havn't found yet.
Cw
=Twin Engined Devils=
-
P38 Is a great plane thing makes E like a factory, and damage model is better now (not many other planes in ah would take one ping to loose a stab) ;It's harder than zeke weaker than a hellcat ... like most planes. Gun's are strong too I kill often on snapshots and almost always get some damage.
Oh ya and compression is a myth thought up by axis dweebs :D.
The dive flaps they do nothing for me at this point, tho i feel like they should give you some of the feel on the frist notch of p51s flaps; and i don't get that so i don't use em';but in the end the plane isn't 'easy' to fly unless you know what your about.
On the 190 I remember about a year back when HTC fixed the Tiffie we had some nice links to an 'offical' website that had rollrate ;proved to me that the tiffie was right now (even though it won't level in auto with 1 1ker on board) Anyway does anyone recall this site? maybe only had rollrates tho.
-ManeTMP
=Twin Engined Devils=
-
BIGCRATE take this elsewhere ........
I dont want the thread locked off because of this sort of thing.
If HTC chooses to ignore everything in here then fair enough but I dont think they do.The fact HT has answered you means hes read some of it.
From what ive read and discovered since posying this thread it seems the 190a8 in my book is a GM1 version. SW posted his figures and it seems his and mine are a mixture of wep/non wep times for speed.
HTCs climb times in AH are slightly off what my book says up to 17-18k then really off above that so now i'll wait to see what people think. and i have info on 109-g6 and arado and ta152 H so ill be doing tests on those soon.
The climb to alt times are here for all to see. If HTC posts a reason mine are different Id be satisfied but Ive done my part.Ive tested, Ive given details of where i found the info and told them im dissapointed. Now unlike you i dont need to hear every 2 minutes that its being looked into.HTC has the choice and so do I.
I kind of hope htc goes and buys this book as a reference as it has excellent schematics of the entire aircrafts, schematics of all their cockpits.Descriptions of flying characteristics, flap deployment speeds and all manner of usefull info.
They can look into it themselves or ignore it.I can continue playing or stop paying. Im still paying right? :)
I do request that HTC models this GM1 version or adds it as a perk add on and ill gladly pay high perk costs for it.
You dont like the P38 model? give them info you have on it and its sources, go test the AH model and prove them wrong or make them second guess their info.
Or stop paying.
mind you, HT do you think there 'might' be somthing wrong here? if not ill stop testing it and move on to something else heheh.
-
Mane you live in S.A. hehehehe You coming to the con in Aug.??
If ya are we need to meet up and drink some beer at the stockyards :). (hehe if I'm still on AH when Aug. rolls arounds. Not making very friends right now with my big mouth:))
Cw
=Twin Engined Devils=
-
BC forget that piece of junk and start flying Bf-110.
Remember not to dive too fast; It has a bad habit to lose ailerons on the way down... makes landings difficult :)
-
BigCrate, your insane if you think the 38 is not a good plane, especially since its damage resistance was increased radically. And if you look at arena usage, you'll see its quite popular, the last time I looked it was in the top 5 planes in the arena. But this crap of "its suppose to be one of the best" is pure ..... well, I just use the word crap. You've read too many accounts of P-38's fighting slow Zero's in the Pacific.
Hazed, the charts show climb rates vs altitude and from them you can determine if the plane is climbing correctly. Just put the plane in auto climb and check the climbrate every 2k or so, and write it down up to 30k or whichever alt you want. Then check it against the charts. Note that at higher altitudes, this won't be exact because auto climb uses best climb speed for sea level, and at high altitudes you will need a slightly higher best climb speed to match the charts. But it should be close.
Gotta run, I'm off to Austin TX for the week.
-
Hhehehehehehehe Verm don't pay any mind to me!!!! :) I say oe thing and mean another. Verm ya gotta go to 6th street. Theres good beer and music there. With lots of UT honeys :D :D
Verm hope ya have fun Austin tons of stuff to do.
Cw
=Twin Engined Devils=
-
Hazed, I checked my books last night and they appear to agree with the information you posted here.
It states that the GM1 boost was rarely fitted, but it's not clear if the test is with or without MW50 onboard.
So again, I'm not sure.. I'll do some more reading tonite.
-SW
-
any news from HTC on the difference in the climb rates ?
PLEASE?