Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Hans on April 28, 2000, 02:24:00 AM
-
I know the Fw190-A4, but whats different about an A5 compare to it?
Hanz.
-
The Fw 190A-5 entered production in November, 1942, and is almost identical to the Fw 190A-4.
The engine was moved forward about 15cm by lengthening the fuselage forward of the wing root. This required changes to some of the cowling and maintenance panels. The air outlet slots behind the engine were replaced with adjustable cooling gills.
The only other changes were updates of equipment like avionics and the oxygen system.
-
It will be VERY interesting to see how this 190A-5 performs.
From everything I have read, it should outclimb a Spit IX from 15,000 to 23,000 feet, perform better in the vertical, accelerate better, roll better and dive better.
The Spit IX's only real advantage will be in turn radius and rate, and climb rate at high altitude.
Pilot skill should be the determining factor in any co-e encounter between a Spit IX and a 190A-5.
Let's see how it will perform in the arena!
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
http://www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'
-
GATT seats in his best-loved armchair, lights up a cigar, stretches his legs and waits for the dispute (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Jokes apart Jekyll, forget to be able to cope with Spitfire IX's in any co-E situation (if the Spit pilot is not a dweeb, that is).
[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 04-28-2000).]
-
Gatt your so right (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Guys being able to "handle on an even basis" in the real world in squadron level activities, is not the same thing as a 1 v 1 in the arena with icons.
Don't matter to me though, I'll be flying the Yak (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
Carpe Jugulum
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"
-
Hehe gatt. I'm just summarising the outcome of a 190A4 -v- Spitfire IX analysis done by Enemy Air Flight at RAE Farnsborough during 1942.
The 190 outclimbed the Spit IX between 15,000 and 23,000 feet
The 190 was faster in acceleration
The 190 was faster in a roll
The 190 was faster in a dive
The 190 could outzoom climb the Spitfire IX
The Spitfire could easily outturn the 190 in a tight turn.
As a result, British pilots were warned to fight the 190 in the horizontal plane, as the 190 would surely fight in the vertical.
By the time the Merlin 66 was installed, the analysis concluded that the margin of difference between both aircraft had "narrowed", and that in individual combat between the two, pilot skill would probably win the day.
But sadly, that sure doesn't sound like any 190 I've ever seen in either AH or "the other sim".
Sure, I suppose you could regard the EAF analysis as "anecdotal", but seriously folks, I've got about 10 different books quoting different initial climb rates for both the Spit IX and 190A4. The 190's initial climb rate apparently lies somewhere between 2,350 feet/min and over 4,100 feet/min according to these books.
Frankly, I'd take the word of a person who had actually flown both aircraft before I would rely too much on a book produced perhaps years after WW2.
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
http://www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'
-
"Yak"---what you do if you drink to much Beer
------------------
Milo
"A MiG on your 6 is better than no MiG at all"
II/JG2 "Richthofen" (http://www.busprod.com/weazel2/)
-
I am just waiting to see what Field Modifications we get to use!!
Gorf
-
I suppose you could regard the EAF analysis as "anecdotal"
No, I simply look at how WarBirds and Aces High Focke-Wulf's are modeled.
I gave a look at the copy of the original combat-tests performed by Luftwaffe and Regia Areonautica at Guidonia during february 1943. LW and RA pilots tested the 109G-4, the 190A-5, the C.205, the G.55 and the Re.2005.
They climbed to 6000mt and then did some mock dogfights and dive test. Well, the 190A-5 climbed with all those DB605A-1 engined fighters ... Can you believe it?
How do I have to explain such results? And those from RAF? I dunno. The only thing I know is that the 190A-5 will climb and turn better than the 190A-8, perhaps she will be a bit faster. But she will be a real dog above 18-20K as well.
And GOD save me the day I'll merge co-alt, co-E with Spitfires.
-
Originally posted by Jekyll:
It will be VERY interesting to see how this 190A-5 performs.
From everything I have read, it should outclimb a Spit IX from 15,000 to 23,000 feet, perform better in the vertical, accelerate better, roll better and dive better.
The Spit IX's only real advantage will be in turn radius and rate, and climb rate at high altitude.
Pilot skill should be the determining factor in any co-e encounter between a Spit IX and a 190A-5.
Let's see how it will perform in the arena!
Please quote the exact source you get this from.
190 won't climb with spit 9 - unless it carries one of it's gadget devices all the waffels whined for.
Spit 9 F climbs to 20k in 6 minutes. LF and HL can both beat this figure by up to 45 seconds.
I'm yet to see 190 stat below 7 minutes to 20k.
Above that 190 is a dog. It won't climb with a spit in 100 years. If you really think 190 will have a climb adventage over spit 9 at 23k - think again.
Maybe 190D9 - but not A series.
190 dive is better only due to the inital acceleration - but spitfire critical mach number is higher - spitfire can dive faster.
Acceleration of 190 is better then spitfire, but if you really think it will save your bellybutton in bad situation - think again. It has advetage - but not enough to make big difference.
E retention of spit 9 is what will kill you.
Make any manouver - and spit 9 is all over your ass. Horizonatl or vertical. Doesn't matter.
Any 190 driver should read historical accounts of the war like a bible - HIT AND RUN.
If you think 190A5 will be a dogfighter - i'll be there to shoot you in the ass.
------------------
Bartlomiej Rajewski
aka. Wing Commander fd-ski
Northolt Wing
1st Polish Fighter Wing
303 (Polish) Squadron "Kosciuszko" RAF
308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF
315 (Polish) Squadron "City of Deblin" RAF
Turning 109s and 190s into scrap metal since 1998
If nothing makes you happier then burning 109 - come and join us - we're looking for few good men
Northolt Wing Headquarters (http://www.raf303.org/northolt/)
-
<<<...forget to be able to cope with Spitfire IX's in any co-E situation (if the Spit pilot is not a dweeb, that is)...>>>
>cough, cough, sputter<
-
ra,
interesting point of view, indeed ...
-
If you really think 190 will have a climb adventage over spit 9 at 23k - think again.
Really fd-ski. I know you love your Spit, but before engaging mouth please ensure brain is in gear.
And please re-read original post. Fw-190 should have climb advantage over Spit IX BETWEEN 15,000 and 23,000 feet. Over 23,000 feet the Spit IX should eat it alive wrt climb rate.
The article quoted was from a magazine titled "WWII Fighters", a publication of Flight Journal.
The article was written by Captain Eric Brown, and as a matter of interest,the editors note to the article reads ...
"During much of WW2, Capt. Eric Brown occupied an intersting and enviable position in that he was the Commanding Officer of Enemy Aircraft Flight - an elite group of pilots whose job it was to test-fly captured German airplanes and evaluate them. As such, Brown is one of the few pilots in the world who can accurately compare the legends as they existed in wartime, rather than doing after-the-fact comparisons. It is with this background that he shares his opinions of the ETO legends - the Spitfire, Bf109, Fw-190 and the Mustang."
The section of the article dealing with the Fw190 reads as follows:
The advent of the Focke-Wulf 190
In the fall of 1941, there appeared in the European skies a serious new threat in the form of the Fw190 - certainly the most advanced fighter in the world at that time. The Spitfire V was now comprehensively outclassed by the newcomer in performance, handling and firepower, but the British antidote eventually arrived in the summer of 1942 when the Spitfire IX was made available to the RAF. This latest Spitfire differed from the Mk. V by having the more powerful Merlin 61 engine with two-speed, two-stage supercharger, a substantial modification to the cooling system, and a four-blade propeller.
At this critical stage in the air war, a significant event happened on June 23, 1942, when a Fw190A-3 was landed intact at an airfield in South Wales; its pilot had become disorientated in combat over the English Channel against Spitfires and believed he was landing at a German base in the Cherbourg peninsula. This war prize was immediately transferred to the RAE and flown extensively by its test pilots, who hoped to unlock its secrets.
The 190 was even more impressive than expected. It had similar performance to the Spitfire IX but had a superior rate of climb between 15,000 and 23,000 feet. It had superb harmony of control, an outstanding rate of roll up to 400mph and a very good all-around view from the cockpit. On the debit side, the 190 had a nasty stall in which, without warning, the left wing would drop violently and the aircraft would almost invert itself. The German fighter had superior acceleration in the dive and generally had an edge over the Spitfire, except in the important matter of performing tight turns. Therefore, the message was clear to Spitfire pilots: fight the 190 in the horizontal plane, for your adversary will favour the vertical one.
This led to cat-and-mouse situatins in combat. I experienced it myself over France in April 1943 when flying a Spitfire IX with a Canadian squadron to escort home a large force of B-17 Fortresses that had bombed a target near Paris. The Forts brought shoals of Fw190s back with them, and a real melee ensued until, suddenly, I found myself apparently alone at 26,000 feet with just one of the 190s slightly above me and ahead. He zoomed up and into a half-roll before diving toward me, and I immediately went into a max-G turn at full power, knowing he would try to follow me around the first third of my turn with his excess speed before trying to break away. However, if I could pull tightly enough, I might tempt him to overstretch himself and spin off the flick stall. I would then follow him comfortably and nail him. But this pilot was no beginner, and he knew just when to half-roll out and dive away, even though he had not taken a shot. From his dive, he zoom-climbed above me again, while I eased my turning circle and was not tempted to follow him vertically. Two similar impasses followed before we both realised we had reached a stalemate and, as if by common consent, we went our separate ways.
I shuld point out that by this time, the Spitfire IX was being re-engined with the Merlin 66, and some versions had clipped wings to improve lateral control, so the slight performance gap was closing on the 190.
In April, May and June 1943, three more intact 190s fell into British hands when they landed at airfields in southeast England as a result of navigational errors. The first two were A-4s and the third was an A-5. As a test pilot at RAE, I did a considerable amount of flying on the first of these A-4s, and this only reinforced my high opinion of the Fw190. There was now little to choose from between the A-4 and the Spitfire IX, and the outcome of aerial combat would lie largely in the skill of the individual pilots.
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron http://www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm (http://www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm)
'feel the heat .......'
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 04-28-2000).]
-
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Ok, explain why 190 would climb better then spit 9 form 15k to 23k ?
In technical terms that is (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
Bartlomiej Rajewski
aka. Wing Commander fd-ski
Northolt Wing
1st Polish Fighter Wing
303 (Polish) Squadron "Kosciuszko" RAF
308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF
315 (Polish) Squadron "City of Deblin" RAF
Turning 109s and 190s into scrap metal since 1998
Northolt Wing Headquarters (http://www.raf303.org/northolt/)
-
Sure, fd-ski..... you go first
Please explain in technical terms the top speed of the Spitfire IX at 7,500 feet, the climb rate of the Spitfire IX between 9,200 feet and 12,600 feet, and the roll rate of the Spit IX at 17,250 feet at 325 kias (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
In technical terms, mind you. I expect to see the equations by the end of class (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Seriously fd-ski, I appreciate that you would want to see the Spit IX as the dominant fighter in the arena, after all, I wouldn't expect you to change THAT much from WB days (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I would like to see ALL the aircraft modelled in AH perform according to their attributes.
Including the Spit IX .....
but also including the 190 variants (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Your turn ..... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron http://www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm (http://www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm)
'feel the heat .......'
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 04-28-2000).]
-
Referring to the other monster-thread about the C.202 performance would be interesting to learn why there is so much difference between RAE tests, Luftwaffe manuals, personal accounts and what we usually see in WB and AH arenas.
I'd like to see the technical reasons why the 190A-4/5 is usually such a dog against Spitfire V and IX, even up to 20,000ft.
My comments about (virtual) Spitfire V-IX performance were a bit ironic and polemic. Jekyll, really, I'd like to see anything of what I've red in tons of tech books and bios about the 190A-5. I'm afraid she will be a copy of the WB's one. So, thats why I wrote something like: "forget to cope with Spit IX, unless you catch one of them unaware".
ironic mode on
Were all guys at RAE drunk? Were chief LW and RA test pilots drunk? Were JG2 and JG26 all supermen during 1942-43 engagements over the channel? Were the MW50 and GM-1 two magic-boxes?
ironic mode off
I'm still in best-loved armchair waiting', go on guys ... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
In technical terms, mind you. I expect to see the equations by the end of class
ROFLMAO.
Nice to see us luftwabbles have someone who will stand up to the #'s slinging fd-ski. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Your turn fd-ski. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
hblair,
<===< The ASSASSINS (http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/rowgue/index.html)>===>
(http://heathblair.tripod.com/spitflame2.JPG)
"Knocking the training wheels off of spitsters for a good long while"
[This message has been edited by hblair (edited 04-29-2000).]
-
Exactly why does the FW190 A5 perform more poorly then the A8 at alt 20K +. Can someone give me the technical reason? What difference between the two aircraft makes them perform so different?
JMW
-
I'd like to see the technical reasons why the 190A-4/5 is usually such a dog against Spitfire V and IX, even up to 20,000ft.
Mate, if the real 190A-4 performed as badly in climb, zoom etc against the Spit V as it does in WB, just why was late 1941/early 1942 such a dark time for the RAF? Why was the Spit V so comprehensively outclassed by the 190 when in AH all the 190 can do against the V is run?
You simply cannot derive all of an aircraft's flight characteristics (at least for the purposes of an online sim) from books which may have been produced years after the fact.
Here's another example. The P47 Thunderbolt. I've just finished reading Robert S. Johnson's 'Thunderbolt', in which he talks about the performance difference after the paddle blade propellers were installed in January 1944.
Now, you may have read about Johnson's mock combat against a Spit IX in his P47C. The Spit could easily outclimb him in an extended climb, but Johnson used his roll rate, dive and zoom performance to win the fight.
Well, he had another mock fight against a Spit IX AFTER the paddle blade modification to the P47.
The result?
The Jug was able to climb away from the Spit IX with ease. In Johnson's words, "Never again would a Me-109 or Fw-190 be able to outclimb my thunderbolt". In the opinion of the engineers, the paddle blade props were worth at least an additional 1,000hp.
But we've never seen THAT kind of Jug in WB, have we?
Or John Godfrey's turnfight in a P51-B against a long nose 190 (presumably a D9). Fairly equal in turning ability, the 190 was able to get an advantage through its superior vertical performance.
Try that in a WB arena, or in AH for that sake, and you'll get your a#$e handed to you in quick time.
Pilot accounts - test pilot accounts ... hmmm maybe they all had hypoxia from too much time at 30,000 feet (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
But the performance, particularly vertical performance, of some late war aircraft as simulated in the past has always seemed a bit screwy to me!
-
One problem with these discussions on these boards is that apart from a small group - wells and funked comes to mind - numbers are thrown around more or less according to hidden agendas.Another caracteristica is the outcry for first hand numbers (often formulated in a way that makes it impossible anyway - just to be sure) when actual combat\flight experience are mentioned.
Long time ago, in another thread on another board I pointed out that some of the creators of this and other close related games have open admitted that when it comes to FM's the given numbers (true or false) only will carry you that far.After that it is
your perception as a FM coder that carry the rest: how you expect that FM to perform in vivo.Your historical bias so to speak.This will be blended with your wish to make a commercial succesfull game: playability.
Anyways to get your historical bias as correct as possible you *have* to listen to the anecdotes.And you have to be *very* choosy.But just as it is possible to use trustworthy witnesses in a 60 year old murder case, it is possible to find those trustworthy anecdotes.
One such person have to be E. Brown (not surprisingly for those aforementioned people with their agendas E. Brown is just another pilot, well even less as he didnt see much combat).
Think about Jekyll's quote once more:
"The Forts brought shoals of Fw190s back with them, and a real melee ensued until, suddenly, I found myself apparently alone at 26,000 feet with just one of the 190s slightly above me and ahead. He zoomed up and into a half-roll before diving toward me, and I immediately went into a max-G turn at full power, knowing he would try to follow me around the first third of my turn with his excess speed before trying to break away. However, if I could pull tightly enough, I might tempt him to overstretch himself and spin off the flick stall. I would then follow him comfortably and nail him. But this pilot was no beginner, and he knew just when to half-roll out and dive away, even though he had not taken a shot. From his dive, he zoom-climbed above me again, while I eased my turning circle and was not tempted to follow him vertically. Two similar impasses followed before we both realised we had reached a stalemate and, as if by common consent, we went our separate ways."
For those of you who know the brand W's A4 these maneuvers in this altitude is a shere impossibility.Even though I'm looking forward to the A5 I wouldnt expect anything just marginally close either - just think about the AH move-and-you-loose-E concept.
Its ok though: just accept that this is a game with a historical paint, not vise versa.
Personally I feel fine with that.
danish
[This message has been edited by danish (edited 04-29-2000).]
-
JMW: There is no technical reason, because it's impossible that the Fw 190A-5 can perform worse than the 1000lbs+ heavier Fw 190A-8.
-
Now, you may have read about Johnson's mock combat against a Spit IX in his P47C. The Spit could easily outclimb him in an extended climb, but Johnson used his roll rate, dive and zoom performance to win the fight.
Well, he had another mock fight against a Spit IX AFTER the paddle blade modification to the P47.
The result?
The Jug was able to climb away from the Spit IX with ease. In Johnson's words, "Never again would a Me-109 or Fw-190 be able to outclimb my thunderbolt". In the opinion of the engineers, the paddle blade props were worth at least an additional 1,000hp
The paddle bladed prop added 400ft/min to the Jug's climb rate. As far as I can make out, that gives it an initial climb of 3600ft/min. The Spit IX had a climb rate of between 4200 and 4700ft/min by 1944.
I don't know what Spit he conducted this climbing test against, but it must have been a very old, very tired 1942 version.
------------------
Spit dweeb and proud of it.
[This message has been edited by Nashwan (edited 04-29-2000).]
-
first, we had this conversation before...true, fdski? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Ok, lets keep the faith on HTC, and Pyro. Lets see if he models a true Fw190A5 or a heavy truck shaped as a Fw190. Lets see if he models a nimble, fast, versatile and maneouverable fighter or a heavy, fast, one-misson-only (buff hunting), cow-moving-like interceptor.
Fw190A5 was a diamond in 1943. Like it or not, RAF people...Fw190 made RAF pilots eat their hats during all 1942-43 period over the channel. It had a great E_keeping, a impressive acceleration, and (YES!), equal climrate, or better, than SpitIX until 20K.
NOW! Dont hide that SUPERIOR qualities behind the fact that they were used in furballs. Luftwaffe doctrine was that of a teamwork, thats why Fw190s were used that way. A5 was an EXCELLENT FIGHTER...FIGHTER, not interceptor.
A couple of nights ago, Zigrat and I made some tests on Fw190A8 vs SpitIX. He was low and quite fast, and I came from above. I found INCREDIBLE that with gentle pulls, and always remaining on the vertical, after the THIRD PASS I had to run away or die (I came back and died, of course (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)). THIS WAS NOT TRUTH ON WWII!!!! Fw190A8 was heavy and had poor climbrate, but still it could zoom away greatly and keep E up in vertical maneouvers.
HERE THAT IS NOT TRUE!!!!!
I,by myself, really hope that Pyro will model Fw190A5 as it was, the best fighter in the world in 1943, and a VERY dangerous opponent in 1944. I keep my faith in it modelled right, because if it is another flying brick as Fw190A8, that cant beat a SpitIX in its life, then I'd better start playing again Falcon 4.0.
------------------
Ram, out
Fw190D9? Ta152H1? The truth is out there
JG2 "Richthofen" (http://www.busprod.com/weazel2/)
(http://nottosc.tripod.com/ram190.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 04-29-2000).]
-
Oh, this is gonna be fun (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Excuse me at this time, i gotta split from the house for few hours but later tonight i'll post some stuff.
------------------
Bartlomiej Rajewski
aka. Wing Commander fd-ski
Northolt Wing
1st Polish Fighter Wing
303 (Polish) Squadron "Kosciuszko" RAF
308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF
315 (Polish) Squadron "City of Deblin" RAF
Turning 109s and 190s into scrap metal since 1998
Northolt Wing Headquarters (http://www.raf303.org/northolt/)
-
Guys:
These two planes are equal except for one thing: The Spitfire is 1000 lb lighter.
It also has a bigger wing. As a result the Spitfire climbs better and turns better. More lift, less weight, nearly the same power.
To back this up:
I don't have test figures for the turn rate.
But I do have test figures for speed and climb.
Check out these links:
Excerpts from Fw 190A-5 Manual (http://members.xoom.com/mikewaltz/F-TR-1102-ND.htm)
Several Sets of Spitfire Mk. IX Test Data (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html)
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 04-29-2000).]
-
IMHO If they model the planes right, the Spit. Mk. IX will still win in a Co-E merge with pilots of equal skill.
But the Fw 190A-5 will be a very difficult opponent if it has the initial advantage over the Spit. Mk. IX.
And if the Fw 190A-5 doesn't like the fight, he should be able to dive away and exploit his low-altitude speed advantage.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 04-29-2000).]
-
err Funked.
If I'm reading P76 correctly, that means that the initial climb rate for the A5 is somewhere between 3,200 and 4,000 feet per minute. Unfortunately the charts are pretty hard to read.
The 190A-8 modelled in Aces High has the following climb rate.
0-5k Average 3000 ft/min
5k-10k Average 2255 ft/min
10k-15k Average 2083 ft/min
15k-20k Average 1973 ft/min
Now if we take the middle of the two climb lines on P76, the A5 should have roughly the following climb rate.
0-5k Average 3600 ft/min
5k-10k Average 3000 ft/min
10k-15k Average 2800 ft/min
15k-20k Average 2800 ft/min
Yep, that'll do quite nicely thanks (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Oh and nashwan, if you've ever flown WB you'll know that the initial climb rate on the P47D is nothing like 3600fpm. There's a lot of Jug drivers in "the other sim" who only dream of a climb rate like that (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) But I suspect that the paddle bladed prop was even more effective in the zoom and in high AOA maneuvers. Johnson also wrote of being bounced by a 190 at ground level and racking the Jug around into a steep climbing turn up to 8000feet, where the 190 stalled out. Maybe the paddle prop also allowed the Jug to 'hang' on its prop a lot better than before?
Either way, that sure aint the Jug I used to fly in brand W.
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron http://www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm (http://www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm)
'feel the heat .......'
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 04-29-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 04-29-2000).]
-
To read the charts, use the right click and zoom feature of IE.
-
One other question. My references state that the 190A-4 was the first version to be equipped with the BMW801D-2 radial engine. It was an 14 cylinder radial capable of delivering 2100hp (1567 -kW) with MW50 injection. The aircraft carried enough MW50 for 40 minutes use, although it was restricted to a maximum of 10 continuous minutes use.
Now if that is the case, the power loading for the 190A-4 and Spit IX should be something like:
Fw190A-4 8000/2100 = 3.80 lb/hp
Spitfire IX 7500/1720 = 4.36 lb/hp
So wouldn't this give the 190 a significant acceleration/zoom advantage over the Spit IX?
And if so, what the hell kind of engine is HTC using in the 190A-8?
Two thousand, one hundred horsepower. More than the P47 or F4U Corsair, in an airframe half the weight of the P47 and around 4,000lb lighter than the F4U.
Think about it guys. Something seriusly wrong somewhere methinks.
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
http://www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'
-
The MW 50 system was not used on production 190's until the A-8. Even then it is unclear whether it was used on more than a handful of planes.
Also, when you say it had more power than the Corsair or Thunderbolt, you need to compare apples to apples. Those aircraft had water-methanol injection too.
Using the water-injected R-2800-8W, the F4U-1A, -1C, -1D were good for 2,135 hp up to 12,400 feet. R-2800-18W (F4U-4) was good for 2,380 hp at Sea Level.
The P-47D was good for 2,300 hp up to 27,000 feet (R-2800-21 and -63) or 2,600 hp up to 25,000 feet (R-2800-59).
-
Fd-ski
The blower on the Merlin is losing pressure(= less HP) up to 23,000 ft at 23k the blower drops a gear (speeds up) and recovers performance.
The blower on the BMW is just geared for a different altitude band. Switches speeds at a different altitude.
Dont have any numbers to back this up but I would suspect the BMW engine switches to high blower at 15,000ft? Recovering HP at a lower alt than the Merlin but topping out faster.
Then again, Maybe Eric is just full of toejam (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Had a look at your charts funky one. Cool! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
but kinda hard to read.
Looks like high blower kicks in at around 10,000ft?
-
Do I see some fear of the comin 190 a5 in the posts from the barbie and the hog drivers?
MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Crabofix <What happend?...:A stranger morgie turndee burndee ,flip flip flip flip flip flip>
-
Yep, that's 4000 fpm with emergency power (no MW50) at a weight of 8500 lbs or so. I'm pretty sure we have the heaviest (sturm) of all 190A8 models, although I don't recall Pyro ever confirming that. At least the climb rate indicates that this is so.
The main flaw in the German machines are the sustained turn speeds (turn rates) which should be over 200 mph for both 109 and 190 models, compared to 150-175 for most other fighters with larger wings. Sure, the German planes won't turn inside anything, but they climb well and should hold lots of speed in turns. That extra 50 mph coming out of a hard turn is almost enough to pull off a hammerhead right then and there or at least allow for a faster escape. It's the speed advantage that makes the zooming ability.
-
Hell, when I started this post all I wanted to know was what the differences between the -A4 and the -A5 was (engine mounting...thanks Funked). I had no idea I was opening a forum for Spit versus FW. Keep it up though, it is good reading (my opinion is neither is better).
I do think that the -A5 is going to be a good airplane and will be better in air-to-air than the -A8 (bomber-killer varient = heavy guns and heavy armor = bad fighter).
Hanz, who may have to put his Macchi 205 and 109G-10 back in the hanger.
[This message has been edited by Hans (edited 04-30-2000).]
-
The max loaded weight of the 190A-8 was, I believe, around 10,800lb.
Take off 1,100lb for the bomb it could carry on the central rack.
Take off another 1,100lb for the two 550lb bombs on the wings
Take off another 200lb (approximately) for the extra 25 gallon of fuel
Take off another (approximately) 50lb for the extra fuel tank and associated piping
Take off another 400lb (minimum)for extra armour on the A8.
Hmmm we finish up with a loaded weight on the A4/A5 variants of around 8000lb for the aircraft.
And that doesn't even take into account the weight difference between the Mg131 machine guns and the Mg17's on the A4/A5 variants?
And how about the weight difference between the Mg151/20 and MGFF cannon (and associated shell loads).
Wells, I always find your posts most interesting, but according to some of my data the A4/A5 variants DID have MW50 which 'upped' the available power to 2,100hp. Maybe I misinterpreted your post. Are you saying that the 190A-4/5 did NOT have 2,100 hp available to it?
And certainly, if you look on the climb rate data on funked's post, it is pretty clear that the rates were calculated using both normal military power and 'boost' (whether MW50 or plain water injection) respectively.
Fw190A-4: FuG16Z radio; BMW 801D-2 with MW50 injection, U1 and U8 fighter-bombers; U4 ground-attack fighter, R6 bomber-destroyer; 'Trop' sub variants; introduced first Rustsatz.
The above is an extract from "Fighters of WW2", published by Aerospace Publishing.
Interestingly, Janes "All the Worlds Aircraft" 1945 lists the times to altitude of the A8 using MW50 injection. MW50 took roughly 10 minutes off the A8's time to 32,800 feet, yet according to funked's climb chart, the tested A5's climb (supposedly without MW50) bettered the A8 with MW50.
Does that make any sense to you?
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron http://www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm (http://www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm)
'feel the heat .......'
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 04-30-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 04-30-2000).]
-
Although I am not competent to comment on exact data and numbers, I can see 2 different approaches here.
First is the one clearly taken in WB, and you have a flying brick of 190. Its pilot has to have mental discipline of a Buddist monk if he wants to survive.
The other approach would take more of historical reputation and pilot stories into account, but we all know it is hard to judge that. Model 190 according to that and you will have a terror plane.
Current A-8 is a flying brick and its pilot has to be much better than his opponent if he wants to win a fair fight.
Our G-10 has incredible turn radius. Just about everything can turn inside it. Luckily, it has a fantastic engine and best WEP in the game, so it compensates for it.
I suppose if A-8 with MW 50, it would be much better plane in AH. So, why the Germans put MW 50 only in a handful of 190s ? This game suggests that 190s badly needed it. Somehow it is hard to believe Germans rather put more fuel than a MW 50 (they didn’t have to fly long sorties in 1944 and they had a drop tank option). Could it be that A-8 actually performed better without MW 50 than we think ?
-
Jekyll,
Power
I reiterate that AFAIK there were no MW 50 equipped A-4 or A-5 aircraft in service. Furthermore I've never seen a boost pressure, rpm, or altitude associated with the magical 2100 hp figure, so I'm not sure it is a real number or just an estimate.
The maximum power used on the USAAF G-3 climb and speed charts on my website is just the full emergency/takeoff power of the engine as noted on the power charts. This just means the maximum supercharger boost was used. There was no injection of anything but fuel on that aircraft.
Weight
There's no mystery about Fw 190A weights. There are many direct measurements available. No need to back-calculate the weight from the A-8 weight. BTW no wing bomb racks on the A-8.
I recommend Alfred Price "Focke Wulf 190 At War", Wolfgang Wagner "Kurt Tank Focke-Wulf's Designer and Test Pilot", and Heinz Nowarra "Fw 190 & Ta 152, Aircraft & Legend".
From these sources here are the takeoff weights I have found, for max. internal fuel and ammo:
Fw 190A-1
8305 lb (Wagner)
4 x MG 17, 2 x MG FF
Fw 190A-2
8470 lb (Wagner)
2 x MG 17, 2 x MG 151/20
Fw 190A-3
8789 lb (Wagner)
2 x MG 17, 2 x MG 151/20
The AFDU estimated their Fw 190A-3 (The one they flew against the Spitfire Mk. IX, from which all those climb comparisons are derived) at 8600 lb. This plane had 2 x MG 17, 2 x MG 151, and 2 x MG FF. I'm guessing this weight is without ammo.
Fw 190A-4
No figure for this plane, but virtually identical to A-3.
Fw 190A-5
The aircraft on my pages (an A-5 modified by the Germans to G-3 standard then modified by the USAAF back to A-5 standard) weighed about 8500 pounds without outer cannon or cowl MG's.
Fw 190A-6
Wagner's book quotes 9035 lbs for an A-6 with 4 x MG 151/20 and 2 x MG 17. This weight also includes 330 lb for a GM 1 kit, so make that 8705 lb for a standard aircraft.
Fw 190A-7
I don't have a figure for this plane, but it's virtually identical to the A-8.
Fw 190A-8/R2
In Wagner's book there is a breakdown of weight for this MW 50-equipped model. The takeoff weight is 9570 lb. This model carries 2 x MG 131 in the cowl, 2 x MG 151/20 in the wing roots, and 2 x MK 108 guns in the outer wing stations. Unfueled unarmed weight was the same as the A-6 mentioned above, so any differences are due to the fuselage MW 50/fuel tank (filled with fuel in this case), as well as the armament.
Weight of Armament
It's hard to compare the weight of these planes because of the differences in armament. Here is a breakdown of the weights of guns and ammo for different stations on the Fw 190A series.
Cowl Guns:
2 x MG 17 + Ammo 354 lb
2 x MG 131 + Ammo 308 lb
Inner Wing Guns:
2 x MG 17 + Ammo 163 lb
2 x MG 151 + Ammo 396 lb
Outer Wing Guns:
2 x MG FF + Ammo 326 lb
2 x MG 151/20 + Ammo 308 lb
2 x MK 108 + Ammo 530 lb
-
Hristo said:
The other approach would take more of historical reputation and pilot stories into account, but we all know it is hard to judge that. Model 190 according to that and you will have a terror plane.
LOL! Not a whole lot of Spitfire Mk. IX, Typhoon, Tempest, P-47 or P-51 drivers thought it was a "terror plane".
In any case, it is simply not possible to convert stories and reputations into flight models.
So, why the Germans put MW 50 only in a handful of 190s ?
They had difficulty getting a reliable system into mass production. The engine was ready for the system from A-4 onwards, but the full system didn't get into production until the A-8. Even the D-9's were only fitted with MW 50 by retrofits after production. It was one of many development problems they had a hard time dealing with.
P.S. Pyro's approach of looking at available engineering data to build flight models is the only reason you have a 450 mph Me 109G-10. Actual test data indicate she was only good for 425 or so. Be very careful what you ask for Hristo.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 04-30-2000).]
-
Have any of you read Johnnie Johnson's book ? He writes about Spit5's v 190's .
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345304721/qid=957096572/sr=1-5/103-3449194-5067009 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345304721/qid=957096572/sr=1-5/103-3449194-5067009)
[This message has been edited by air_spro (edited 04-30-2000).]
-
"As the RAF desperately sought to introduce an answer to the Fw-190, production of the German fighter was stepped up as Focke-Wulf factories at Cottbus, Marienburg, Neubrandenburg, Schwerin, Sorau and Tutow joined the programme, as well as the Ago and Fieseler plants. The Fw-190A3, with 1268-kW (1,700 hp) BMW 801DG, four 20mm and two 7.92mm guns, joined II/JG 26 in March 1942 and shortly therafter the only fighter geschwader in the West, JG 2.
Thus, by the time the RAF was ready to introduce its new Spitfire IX and Typhoon fighters to combat over the Dieppe landings in August 1942, the Luftwaffe could field some 200 Fw 190As in opposition.
Unfortunately, not only had the RAF underestimated the numbers of these fighters available but they were unaware that a new version, the Fw 190A-4, had appeared with a water-injected 1567-kW (2,100 hp) BMW 801D-2 engine and a top speed of 670 km/h .......
The result was a stinging defeat for the RAF, which lost a total of 106 aircraft, including 97 to Fw 190s."
Sorry, just couldn't resist (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Jekyll, where is that quote from? I've seen references to MW 50 on the A-4 like that in a couple of other books too.
However I have some technically detailed books on the subject (see previous post) that describe the development problems that delayed the introduction of the MW 50 system until the A-8. The majority of sources, and particularly the more detailed sources, agree on this fact.
This is supported by the absence of any RLM record of performance testing of an MW 50 equipped A-4, and the absence of MW 50 equipment from any captured Fw 190A until the A-8. Many of the groups testing these aircraft (particularly the US) completely disassembled and tested every aspect of the aircraft. I'm pretty sure they would have found the MW 50 system if it existed. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
There was a petrol injection system used on some ground attack aircraft (A-4 and subsequent F/G series) where fuel was injected into the supercharger to cool the mixture and give some anti-detonation effect. Maybe this system is the source of the confusion?
This subject has been discussed on several boards, in exhaustive detail, and the search for confirmation of MW 50 on the Fw 190A-4 has never come up with anything solid. Good luck. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
<Ironic mode ON>
Ok,of RAF pilots, you are COMPLETELY right. The Fw190A5 was an useless plane that could easily be won by a SpitIX hands down. The fact that LW had a K/D ratio on the channel in 1942-43 of nearly 3/1 was only because British people wanted to make Hitler confident before the invasion. Yah, thats it.The Dieppe raid air defeat was only a "strategical desinformation" for the Luftwaffe to dont let them know how bad their planes were. Yeah, right.
And Me109G10, just like K4,was in fact a glider plane with a little prop on it. Yes, thats it. 450mph were also a bad information given by RMA to make their pilots confident. of course.
And MW50 wasnt equipped to any G6 in WWII, too..Of course. That is why G6 is such a pig here. Yah, thats it.
Of course, again with Fw190, That was an useless plane brought in by the uncompetent German aircraft engineer Kurt Tank, widely known by his stupid designs. It was clear that Fw190A wasnt in the same leage as their enemies. Of course. Agree 100%.
All in all, The fact that the Luftwaffe was flying in ABSOLUTELY toejamty planes is well known by all of us...luftwaffe's aircraft were all pure crap, of course.
YES!!! OF COURSE!!
<Ironic mode off>
I Repeat...if A5 cant fight 50% 50% with a Spit IX as it did historically I'll grab my falcon 4.0 again.
THATS IT
------------------
Ram, out
Fw190D9? Ta152H1? The truth is out there
JG2 "Richthofen" (http://www.busprod.com/weazel2/)
(http://nottosc.tripod.com/ram190.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 04-30-2000).]
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 04-30-2000).]
-
RAM, with your attitude sometimes I wish you WOULD play Falcon.
Spend as much time and money as I have studying the Fw 190 and flying it with Luftwaffe flight sim units, and maybe I will listen to your fantasies errrrr opinions.
That said, the A-5 should be 500-1000 lb lighter than the A-8, and I'm expecting it to be a much more "sporty" aircraft, particularly if the 2-cannon loadout is used.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 04-30-2000).]
-
Originally posted by funked:
RAM, with your attitude sometimes I wish you WOULD play Falcon.
Funked. I'm doing nothing more than repeating all the words by RAF-flyers.
They keep on saying that Fw190A was clearly (!!??) inferior to Spitfire IX. And of course, nothing near P51 and P47, or P38 (heressy!!! hang me I'm comparing Fw190 with AMERICAN IRON!!! i deserve to be hanged from my ears!)...
You are ignoring the fact that during 2 big and lasty years, Spit IXs were splattered time after time by Fw190A.
You are ignoring that Fw190A was a feared enemy, able to beat ANYTHING the Allied had. You are ignoring that Fw190A was regarded as the best fighter plane in the world in 1942-43.
You are ignoring that Fw190D9 is considered one of the best prop planes in WWII.
YOu are forgettign that german aircraft industry was YEARS over allied...F86, MiG15, Hawker Hunter...ALL OF THEM based on German WWII designs or studies (The Sabre wasn't to be a swept wing plane until Americans put their hand on WWII german tests, ans MiG15 was nothing more than a COPY of a design made in 1944 by KURT TANK! the same inutil that designed Fw190).
Nah, why to keep talking about this. A5 should be able to fight 50% 50% with SpitIX...and that THE LESS! because Fw190A5 was better E fighter than SPit IX.
------------------
Ram, out
Fw190D9? Ta152H1? The truth is out there
JG2 "Richthofen" (http://www.busprod.com/weazel2/)
(http://members.tripod.com/JG2/images/Ram.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 04-30-2000).]
-
Hehe, we've got them going now (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
How about this quote.
"Inevitably, some 190s fell into Allied hands, and thereby lies a tale. In 1943, Grumman test pilots flew a 'short nose' Fw 190A in England. Tremendously impressed, they returned to Long Island and related the tale to Leroy Grumman, sauing, "Boss, if we put an R-2800 on that airframe, we'll have a world-beater".
The boss listened; the engineers got busy, and the guys and gals on the shop floor began to cut metal. In August 1944, the F8F-1 Bearcat tucked its wheels into the well for the first time, proving that in aviation, as in all things, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."
BTW no wing bomb racks on the A-8.
There were on the A8/R2 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
LOL! Not a whole lot of Spitfire Mk. IX, Typhoon, Tempest, P-47 or P-51 drivers thought it was a "terror plane".
The dead ones sure did.
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 04-30-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 04-30-2000).]
-
And to add to the F8F story...loook at the Hawker Fury...hummm-...emmm...errrr...
Seems quite a Fw190 isnt it?...
oh, must be my imagination
-
yeah and the a6m zero looks like the 190 too lol
judging book by cover are we?
-
Jekyll:
Fw 190A-8/R2 did not have wing bomb racks. I don't know what you are talking about.
RAM:
"YOu are forgettign that german aircraft industry was YEARS over allied..."
Pure fantasy. The truth is clear now - you are delusional.
If you really think that is true, you do not know much about history or engineering.
Don't accuse me of "ignoring" things. I'm quite aware of what occured in the war.
I'm not defending the flight models in this game as they exist. All I'm doing here is answering questions about the Fw 190 to the best of my ability.
If you don't like my answers, then do some research and find better information.
One thing you might consider is that real-life combat was determined by many different factors than in our game. Having the best co-alt co-speed dueling plane meant bloody little in real life. Look at what happened to the poor Japanese.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 04-30-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Citabria:
yeah and the a6m zero looks like the 190 too lol
The only resemblance I see between Zero and Fw190 is the radial engine...you might need glasses (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Of course we all know that the 190 was derived from Howard Hughes' pre-war racer. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Say, if the A-5 was 500 to 1000 lbs lighter than an A-8, we should be able to simulate the A-5's flight characteristics by flying an A-8 very lightly loaded. Take an A-8 with 25% fuel, 2x20mm loadout, and sit on the runway and fire the guns till they're empty. That should put you right at about the takeoff weight of a A-5 shouldn't it? It handles like a dream.
I've managed to kill Spit IX's and Niki's 1 v 1 with an A-8 on fumes, the A-5 should be able to do the same with maybe 50% fuel. I don't think the Luftwaffles will have anything to complain about.
ra
-
Thanks Jekyll,
The A5 in the USAF tests that Funked has was a converted G model (ground attack) and if ANY Fw-190 would have had MW50, it would be a ground attack model as nothing could catch it down low, except for the Typhoon when it came out. The maximum boost for the engine was about 41" where the engine produced 1700 hp. One could only imagine what 2000 hp would do for that plane!
-
Ra - That's what I'm talking about. Now imagine an A-5 on fumes. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
The way I see it, the next 190 that is introduced better be more than a little different than the existing one - otherwise there'd be no point in introducing it.
Now, if there's not a big difference between A5 and A8, maybe we should wait for a D9 instead?
--
StSanta
II/JG2
-
Originally posted by wells:
Thanks Jekyll,
The A5 in the USAF tests that Funked has was a converted G model (ground attack) and if ANY Fw-190 would have had MW50, it would be a ground attack model as nothing could catch it down low, except for the Typhoon when it came out. The maximum boost for the engine was about 41" where the engine produced 1700 hp. One could only imagine what 2000 hp would do for that plane!
Can we have it, please ? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
I do wish you Luftwobbles would get your chronology straight. When you're saying how good the Luftwaffe was then RAF planes were introduced much earlier than in real life, when you're frightened of them and trying to keep them out of the arena they were introduced much later.
48 RAF squadrons took part in the Dieppe operation. 3 squadrons of Typhoons, a small number of Spit IXs, and the rest a mix of Spit Vs, Hurricane IIs and asorted other types.
RAM, you said YOu are forgettign that german aircraft industry was YEARS over allied. If this is the case, why are we told that the Spit 14, introduced into service at the begining of 44, is such an Uber Plane it will totally unbalance the game.
-
Ppl!! ppl lets stay on friendly terms! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Saying just Spitfire IX is just as if you wrote Bf109G .... there is variying performance among the diffrent submarks on the Spitfire IX as well as it was the case with the Bf109G-series. As we know there is quite a bit differance between a G-2 and a G-10 performancevise.
Spitfire IXA aka F.IX, anno 1942-43 (Re-engined Spit V )
with a Merlin 61 will have a very close contender in a FW190A-4/5 in everything but pure turningcirlcle.
Spitfire IXB aka LF IX anno mid 43 (introduction to 1 Wing) have a radicaly improved performance over the "old" Spitfire IXA because of its new Merlin 66 engine it willl have an distinct edge over the FW190A-4/5 in most areas exepet rollrate were the FW190 still is superior.
( The A and B designations was used by the units since they got the new planes befor it had gotten its offical designation LF IX)
Spitfire XIV entered service in very beginning of 1944 yes but "only" as a V1 chaser. In october 1944 the allies had overrun the last of the V1 ramps and RAF reassigned the mark XIV's as its peremier airsuperiority fighter while most of the IX's were used in the fighter-bomber role.
As a note I cant decide what plane i like most of many of the ww2 aircrafts. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Love them all (almost... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) )
------------------
Nattulv
2.Lentueen Päällikkö
Lentolaivue 34 (http://www.muodos.fi/LLv34)
[This message has been edited by LLv34 Nattulv (edited 04-30-2000).]
-
Nashwan:
The reason for me to write in this thread is not because I want to hype the 190 more than reality can carry.
Its because I see repeated gabs between chosen lab-like anecdotes (incidens where parameters are reasonally well described and simple), comparison testflights - and what I see in these games\sims.Further the most important (wellknown) comparison testflight is vs. Spit IX.
Im not trying to bash the spit - Im just using it as a parameter to compare.And yes: bring in the XIV ;=)
danish
-
Funked:
"In any case, it is simply not possible to convert stories and reputations into flight models"
-if you can code, yes it is.
;=)
danish
-
Danish, I make my living partially by simulating things. I've yet to see a modeling package that accepts anectdotes as input. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Nashwan, one particular plane shows that German plane industry was at higher technology level than Allied.
Hint: swept wings (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
To add a little gas to the fire.........
Fuel for the Few (http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/rowgue/fuel.html) reprinted from Areospace Magazine 1990
Remember please that I fly the 190, and love shootin' Spits.
BUT the higher octane gas the Brits used SIGNIFICANTLY contributed to the Spitfires' remarkable performance.
As a side note, a couple of years ago, when I played AW3, they modeled this particular feature, in that when fuel was hit at a base, the Allied type planes had reduced performance where as the German Iron was uneffected when taking off from a fuel porked field.
That would add some more strat to AH if the copied this feature.
(http://pages.hotbot.com/games/davekirk/images/Mil.jpg)
------------------
<< MILENKO >> (http://pages.hotbot.com/games/davekirk/milenko.html)
<===THE ASSASSINS===>Webpage (http://members.xoom.com/rowgue/assassins.html)
««You can kill me, Can't ya?»» (http://members.xoom.com/rowgue/killsomeone.ra)
-
I newer flew any 190 in real life. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
But what i know it was considered as great and very dangerous plane by Polish and Czechoslovak pilots in RAF.
BTW 1st 190 was captuped by Czechoslovak pilot who forced one to land.
------------------
(http://home.cfl.rr.com/sr20534/sr2053.gif)
JG2 "Richthofen" (http://www.busprod.com/weazel2/)
No.310 squadron RAF "Czechoslovakia"
[This message has been edited by sr2053 (edited 04-30-2000).]
-
Danish, I make my living partially by simulating things. I've yet to see a modeling package that accepts anectdotes as input.
Ahh funked, but when you are finished coding your simulation, wouldn't it be prudent to compare your results with such things as Eric Brown's flight analysis, just to be sure YOUR inputs were correct?
Fw190 Spit IX whatever.
At the end of the day the situation is this:
By 1943 the British had flown a captured 190. They had compared it with a Spitfire IX. In the OPINION of the test pilot, the 190 had superior acceleration, climb between 15k and 23k, roll, dive and zoom climb. The Spit had by far the better horizontal turning circle.
And if the output of your simulation, 60 years after the fact, don't match the results from flying the REAL AIRCRAFT... then plainly something is wrong with your simulation (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Remember, according to the numbers, a bumblebee cannot fly either (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
http://www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'
-
Jekyll,
I have some anecdotes of a P-47 vs 190 test flights. The 190 pilot had NO combat experience but had alot more flying time in more types than the P-47 pilot. Is that a fair test? Not in my opinion. NO amount of general flying experience can make up for even a little ACM knowledge and experience in a mock dogfight. Look at all of us who've been flying sims since 1980 or so and thought we knew how to fly when we first signed up for AW or WB or whatever and got our tulips shot off! hehehe
Most anecdotes don't give enough information like the loadouts, weights, power settings, climb speeds and stuff that is essential if one is to test things out in a simulation.
I like the one where the 190 is compared to the Spit VB and the climb speeds used are the same? Hello? What speed was that? The Fw-190's best speed? The Spit's best speed? Some other speed? The FW-190 was superior? So I guess the speed was somewhere around 250 mph then, right? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
It's like, give me some numbers so I test it out in the simulation!!!
-
yeah and the a6m zero looks like the 190 too lol
judging book by cover are we?
Sorry citabria, but I don't quite understand what you're getting at here. Are you saying the F8F Bearcat was NOT a direct outgrowth of the Fw190A series?
Tell you what, I like a little wager at times. What's say the loser agrees to fly for two hours in an unescorted C47 at say, 2000 feet near an enemy field, broadcasting his position every 5 minutes on common channel? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
But be real careful my friend. The evidence I have is pretty damn convincing (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
FWIW, I happen to think that the Spitfire was THE design of the war. With minimal modifications, here was a plane which went from 300mph in 1939, to 450 mph by war's end. Climb rate went from mid 2000fpm to over 5000fpm. If it had had longer 'legs' it would have been a world-beater!
And it STILL has the record for the fastest true speed ever reached by a piston-engined airplane (0.91 Mach).
But I think the 190 was competitive.
And wells, where did I say anything about mock combat? I was talking about the kinds of things test pilots get paid to test!
Climb rate, zoom climb, acceleration, dive speed, roll rate. Nothing at all to do with ACM.
Hehe, maybe Eric Brown was an agent for Hawker-DeHavilland (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
<<Are you saying the F8F Bearcat was NOT a direct outgrowth of the Fw190A series?>>
Saying the F8F was a 'direct outgrowth' of the 190 is a stretch IMHO. 'Inspiration' would probably be a better word to describe the effect of the 190 on the Grumman designers. They knew how to design fighters, the 190 just led them to a new approach. Most designs do not happen in a vacuum, they are derived from other successful designs. IMHO the F8F was a more ambitious design than the 190, it had much greater bombload and range, and could operate from a carrier. Whipped together in 10 months!
ra
-
The only thing the Fw 190 showed the Grumman people was how small an airplane one could build around a big radial. As far as detail design there are few similarities.
-
"And if the output of your simulation, 60 years after the fact, don't match the results from flying the REAL AIRCRAFT... then plainly something is wrong with your simulation."
Sorry, no.
It's also quite possible (in fact common) that the experiments of 60 years ago were flawed. You have to consider both possiblities.
Also, you have to be sure to compare the same planes in simulation that were compared in the experiment. Comparing an Fw 190A-3 with a 1942 Spitfire F Mk. IX is not the same as comparing an Fw 190A-5 with a 1944 Spitfire HF or LF Mk. IX.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 05-01-2000).]
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 05-01-2000).]
-
OK, lets take these one at a time (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
"I couldn't have cared less about the human attendees; I was interested only in the number of new fighters I would be able to evaluate. A Focke-Wulf 190 was supposed to have been present, but it was held up at Wright Field for maintenance. I regretted that because both Bob Hall and Bud Gillies had flown it in England in 1943, and the Grumman XF8F-1 Bearcat was a direct outgrowth of their flights. They were greatly impressed by this German fighter."
Quot from Corky Meyer, Chief Test Pilot for Grumman, regarding the 1944 Fighter Conference held at the Naval Test Centre, Patuxent River, 16-23 October 1944. BTW, Bob Hall was Grumman's assistant chief engineer for experimental flight, and also a test pilot. Bud Gillies was vice-president of flight operations for Grumman, and likewise a test pilot.
OK, next: (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
It's also quite possible (in fact common) that the experiments of 60 years ago were flawed. You have to consider both possiblities.
I love this quote of your funked. What you are in effect saying is "Forget about any test data from 60 years ago... they could have been wrong, in fact, they commonly WERE wrong." Sorry funked, that that statement smells of an almost 'generational' form of arrogance. The test pilots of 50 years ago were not dummies, they knew their job, didn't they? Disregarding this evidence, anecdotal though it may be, leads us to the conclusion that the 190 was an overweight pig which couldn't climb, couldn't zoom, bled E like a stuck pig if you turned it more than 30 degrees, and whose only option when faced with a co-e Spit V was to run like hell!
And that, my friend, is to disregard every single historical statement ever made re the Spit V/190 matchup.
Ya know, I sometimes wonder whether in 5 years time or so, some flight sim programmer (perhaps even HT or Pyro) will look at the code for the 190 in WB and AH and suddenly say, "Hey, what is THAT decimal point doing there?" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
And funked, please take a look at your climb chart for the A5, as modified below:
(http://users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/images/p76.jpg)
What do the read and blue lines represent in the climb rate data? Your original copy may be easier to read.
And as my final (I promise) word on the subject.. can anyone point me in the direction of a reference which states that the 190 bled energy in a turn as much as it does in AH and WB? I mean, at the end of the day, its the 190's e-bleed which is the major cause of its uncompetitiveness. I'd just like to know why it bleeds so much speed off in a turn. I've sure never seen any such references in my reading.
Jekyll
Who wonders why the RAF ever bothered with upgrading the Spit V, when it could PLAINLY whip the pants off the 190.
After all, funked says so (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 05-01-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Jekyll:
Who wonders why the RAF ever bothered with upgrading the Spit V, when it could PLAINLY whip the pants off the 190.
HEhehe Jekyll...I love that last quote...but lets face it, we'll never have nothing near a competitive Fw190 in AH. Its as simple as that, We'll have to be stuck in bricks that cant climb, zoom, and the only things that can do well is bleed E like crazy...Man, even the Mg151 is porked compared with Hispanos!
I wont say a word more in this matter. I'm tired of this. But I stand agan that If I cant fly my favorite plane because it isnt modelled as it was (a feared and competitive E-fighter), then I'll leave. I'm tired of flying Me109 and P51, they are good planes and I have quite good numbers in them (especially in P51) but I simply dont feel as comfortable as in my Fw190. I've let the P51...and Me109 isnt my plane,is as simple as that.I love Fw190. I want to fly Fw190. but if it cant fight even a cow, then this isnt my sim.
<PUNT>
------------------
Ram, out
Fw190D9? Ta152H1? The truth is out there
JG2 "Richthofen" (http://www.busprod.com/weazel2/)
(http://nottosc.tripod.com/ram190.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 05-01-2000).]
-
Jekyll:
First, please retract the following statement:
Who wonders why the RAF ever bothered with upgrading the Spit V, when it could PLAINLY whip the pants off the 190.
After all, funked says so
I've never said anything remotely resembling that. You are thinking of someone else maybe? Either way, the statement is false. Please do not put words in my mouth, that is the shortest and most direct path to my toejam list.
Second:
What you are in effect saying is "Forget about any test data from 60 years ago... they could have been wrong, in fact, they commonly WERE wrong."
NO!
Stop misquoting me.
!!!
I am saying be careful of test results, especially qualitative findings. Why? Because these results are often contradictory.
If you look at a broad spectrum of pilot anectdotes and head-to-head comparisons, you will find they often contradict eachother, even when the same planes are used.
I'm not trying be a snob here but I have read way too many technical books on WW2 airplanes, and the rate of contradiction is amazing.
If you don't trust me, just ask someone with way more experience than me, like Pyro, about this. Sometimes it's hilarious - two pilots fly the same plane and give exactly opposite reports. Their descriptions of control feel, trim behavior, stall speeds, you name it will be different. Sometimes they will report IAS and convert to TAS with standard atmosphere data, but forget that most planes need a calibration factor that is dependent on the pitot installation. So on and so forth.
Here's some anectdotes I've read: P-38 could out turn a Zeke. Me 109 could out turn a P-38. P-47 could out turn an Me 109. Now if we believe all of these, and accept them without examining them carefully, we get a P-47 that out turns a Zeke. The laws of physics, and common sense, should tell you that is not true!
If two sources contradict each other, it's pretty obvious that one of them is wrong.
Or maybe they are both right, but some little detail made the plane behave differently than when the other guy flew it.
But looking at the rate of contradictory information in WW2 era test data and in-flight comparisons, you'd have to be a fool to rely on just one source.
That's all I'm saying. And that is a general statement - I am not attacking the AFDU flyoff results.
Third:
The lines on the climb chart:
The red line is the "Emergency and Takeoff" power setting, 2700 rpm @ 41.1" Hg., which was sustainable for 3 minutes. This power setting corresponds to our flight sim "WEP"
The blue line is the "Climb" power setting, 2400 rpm @ 38" Hg., which was sustainable for 30 minutes. This power setting corresponds to 100% throttle in our sim.
P.S. I was farting around last night with a 2-cannon Fw 190A-8 in the training arena with 25% fuel. I got almost identical climb numbers to the chart above. Needless to say the plane flew GREAT with this light load, and I hope that's what the A-5 is like. Now imagine an A-5 on 25% fuel MUAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA. I think Northolt Wing may "capture" some Fw 190's. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
P.S. If you are having trouble reading the speed chart, it says 415 mph @ 22k. And yes this is a calibrated reading. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 05-01-2000).]
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 05-01-2000).]
-
A couple of good threads that cover Fw 190A emergency power:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum9/HTML/000019.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum9/HTML/000019.html)
http://agw.dogfighter.com/agw/Forum3/HTML/007681-2.html (http://agw.dogfighter.com/agw/Forum3/HTML/007681-2.html)
-
AAaaaaaagh! Its AGW all over again! Run Away! Run Away!
Lugnut
-
I think Godfrey was on crack. The 190D had barely gone into production when he was shot down and captured in August 1944.
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
Since this thread is still in good tone (mainly ;=) Id like to argue a little further on the subject of historical perception or bias in FM's.Further I will stress some fundemantal methological scientific aproaches.
This will conclude in the unevetiable need of choosing the in vivo tests and the anecdotes that *you* define as representative for these planes witch existed some 55 years ago.
____________________________
Quotes from "Warbirds The Story So Far" ISBN 0 9585194 9 8.
Interview with Pyro
Prophet: Can you walk me through the process of developing a flight model? Did you refer to specific data charts and build from there?
Pyro: Depends on what information you have. Typically you try to start with more of the physical data and then work out the performance. I don't know that I can really explain the process.
Prophet: Is that because you're dealing essentially with calculations, numbers etc... ?
Pyro: That's all it is.
Prophet: So are we talking a type of programming here?
Pyro: No, it's not programming; just research, calculations, data entry and a lot of experimentation.
Prophet: So the type of data collected was generated through official USAAF test data etc... ?
Pyro: Sometimes, not all test data is necessarily good to use; much of it can often contradict. You have to read into it, make some sanity checks on it and figure out what you think is most accurate.
Prophet: Can you name some of the reference materials used in compiling your flight data?
Pyro: I don't know, a lot of stuff like USAAF Test #38293282389023 blah blah blah, investigations of combat suitability of blah blah... etc., old pilot manuals were very handy too.
Prophet: Was it a headache reading posts from players that would quote some WWII ace with regards to an aircraft's performance and criticize the WarBirds flight model based on that criteria?
Pyro: Not really, because there's nothing you can do about that. If you read enough literature, you'll always find many contradictions.
Prophet: Did you make use of that kind of information yoursef. In other words, did you ever tweak a plane's performance based on your own perceptions of its capabilities?
Pyro: Of course I did, there's much subjectiveness in all of it. Some things like turn rates can be calculated in the ballpark but there's a myriad of other things that have to be modeled that you're not going to find any real useful data on.
Interviw with Hoof
Prophet: Speaking of flight models.Pyro reveald something to me that few understand I think... that being that
a lot of subjective opinion goes into making a plane behave the way it does... concur?
Hoof: That's an understatement (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) The flight model that HT made is exceptional at hitting performance numbers of the "real thing" (performance meaning sea level max speed, stall speed,
climb rate, etc). But his flight model doesn't "help" the person making the plane flight model in determining how the "real thing" might have "felt" like. The handling qualities, the stall
characteristics, the roll rate/inertia, etc. All of that has to be determined outside of the program. To top it all off, the numbers that you punch into the program are specific to the flight model, thus its really difficult to take data from the "real world" and plug it straight in. Pyro once told me reason the P-39 before 2.0 was so far off was because he punched the numbers straight in, didn't have the experience yet to know how to "tweak" them to get the model to behave right. im ressed to this day how good an artist Pyro was with those flight models.
Further interview with Hoof
Prophet: Why, in your opinion, did the communication between imagic and its player base fail to connect a lot of the time? e.g., like the stuff you're telling me here is not common knowledge?
Hoof: That's a hot topic (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Basically there are two main reasons why. One is that no matter what you say, someone is gonna flame you, and frankly most of us got tired of telling people stuff because of it, But the biggest reason is that there is a fair chunk of stuff in the game that is done with "smoke and mirrors" and a fair chunk that isn't. Players don't know all the time what is done "right" and what is "abstracted". If we tell all the details, then not only is that illusion shattered (and that illusion really helps in the immersion factor), but we spend all our time defending our decisions on what we've chosen to detail out and not. And frankly, that is time that is better spent elsewhere.
_____________________________ _
So there seems to be consensus between Pyro and Hoof that there is some degree of subjectiveness (what i call historical bias) involved when coding your FM.
Now, the game in question is of course WB.There is the possibility that Pyro, Hoof or a third party might join this discussion now and claim that those were the days of WB, what we have now is another game based on much more refined math and coding which eliminates the need for the historical bias when creating the FM.
Somehow I doubt that ;=), most likely the claim would be *less* historical bias than before.
And now a little about fundemantal methological scientific aproaches.
What i would like to stress here is that when you develop a theory about coherence in real life you *have* to show - or at least render - that your theory (calculations of drag, theoretical speed at SL or perhaps a whole FM)is true.
Being involved in medicine and as a spinn off also some medical research for a number of years now, it is a claim for whatever theoretical postulate I propose as the truth that I can relate it to something which is actually happening.If I can not do that it stays as that: a postulate.
Jekyll have allready toutched that principle further up the thread: you have to compare your new FM with whatever you define as your golden standart, what gives you an expectation if you work is right, or might need some changes.
How do you find that golden standart?As funked says "If you look at a broad spectrum of pilot anectdotes and head-to-head comparisons, you will find they often contradict eachother, even when the same planes are used."
There is no way around this problem: you have to choose, you have to get that historical bias and you have to stand by it.But you have to know that it is a matter of debate ,=)
Lets take Hoof one more time:
If we tell all the details, then not only is that illusion shattered (and that illusion really helps in the immersion factor), but we spend all our time defending our decisions on what we've chosen to detail out and not. And frankly, that is time that is better spent elsewhere.
In short: the numbers and the flight tests\anecdotes need each other.Without one or the other they loose meaning.
Ok boys and gals thats it.
Jekyll broght us that beautifull anecdote of Browns enounter with a Fw at +20k feet.Just to show my apreciation I'll bring a tale from Tony Jonsson's "Dancing In The Skies" ISBN 1-898697-03-5
Its the days of the invasion at Normandy -44.Jonsson is on his second tour flying a Mustang III for the RAF.Opponents are JG26 and JG2, all Fw's in area are A8's.
"The enemy split into smaller groups and now a typical aerial battle commenced with aircraft twisting and turning all over the sky. We had only a short distance to go to join our companions, who were fighting great odds, when I searched the sky above and caught sight of another group of Fws approaching from the south and obviously about to join the battle. The R/ T channel was so choked with shouts, oaths and yells of elation that there was no time to give warning. This was a situation fraught with danger but experience had taught me that offence is usually the best form of defence and with that in mind I continued to climb to engage the enemy above. And an extraordinary thing happened-when they saw us coming they turned tail. They probably thought we were part of a larger formation which they did not want to mix with.
Now I felt it appropriate that we make use of the advantage we had gained. We were at 12,000 feet and the Fws climbed for all they were worth, but we gradually caught up with them, and at 22,000 feet we were close enough to open fire. As so often on previous occasions my marksmanship was poor. However, my tracers went close enough to the aircraft I was shooting at to frighten the pilot, for suddenly he rolled over on his back and pulled the nose down into a vertical dive, followed by his wingman.
The Focke Wulf 190 could outdive a Spitfire, but with the Mustang it was a different story. I told Yellow 3 and 4 to continue chasing the other planes, then rolled over and followed the silly fellow, who thought he could leave a Mustang behind in a dive. I told Basil Clapin, my No 2, to follow the Fw on the right and I'd take care of the one on the left. We quickly caught up with them and I was able to direct a long stream of bullets at my adversary before I was forced to pull over to one side as I was about to pass him. I saw that I had obviously hit the plane as one of the landing wheels was halfway extended. Now he would be a sitting duck, I triumphantly thought; the enemy plane was damaged and surely would not fly as well as an undamaged one.
The dog-fight down by the treetops started in the traditional manner with my adversary on one side of a circle in a steep turn and I on the other, each intent on out-turning the other. In the beginning I entered into this game rather placidly, even a little carelessly-this was going to be easy, and I was not going to take any needless risks of stalling out at this low altitude. But, watch out! The German was beginning to gain on me, I'd have to steepen my turn. Bloody hell! I didn't like the look of this; he kept turning still tighter! My engine was now at full power, my wings vertical just above the treetops and the aircraft shuddering on the verge of a stall. I was perspiring and had a tight feeling in my chest. This was unbelievable, and really should not be possible. The Mustang ought to be able to out-turn the Fw 190. This must be an outstanding pilot, or else the Focke Wulf's flying qualities improved with a wheel hanging down! Whatever the reason I now faced disaster. My adversary continued to gain advantage and in a short time it would be my fate either to be shot down or crash due to stalling. Neither choice was very desirable and time was running out. But now my wonderful guardian angels came to my aid once again, and none too soon. The enemy was just about to disappear behind me and I could expect his bullets to start slamming into my aircraft very soon.
A voice whispered in my ear: Use your flaps. In a Spitfire (and Hurricane) such action was unthinkable as in those aircraft the flaps were designed to be either fully up, or fully down (as for landing), but in the Mustang the pilot had the choice of intermediate flap positions. By extending 10 degrees of flap the lift of the wings could be increased without adding too much drag. I wasted no time in selecting 10 degrees and instantly the effect became apparent. The aircraft stopped trembling and 1 was able to tighten the turn so that the circle became smaller. Slowly but surely the situation reversed and I now started creeping up behind my foe, and after a while I was able to open fire on him. When my tracer bullets started shooting past him the pilot no doubt decided that the game was up for he suddenly straightened out, zoomed upwards and baled out just at the moment his aircraft stalled. His parachute only just managed to open before he hit the ground. I was now able to start breathing normally again and rejoice over the outcome. While naturally I was pleased with getting out of this tight spot, it also gladdened me that this plucky and brilliant pilot had also escaped with his life. "
Yo!Wake up!
;=)
danish
-
Oh, where do I begin (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
First, please retract the following statement:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who wonders why the RAF ever bothered with upgrading the Spit V, when it could PLAINLY whip the pants off the 190.
After all, funked says so
If you are going to quote, please include ALL of the quote, including emoticons (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
As a long-time poster to this board and AGW funked, you should be well-aware that a 'smilie' is indicative of a comment made with tongue firmly in cheek.
that is the shortest and most direct path to my toejam list.
I notice that there was no smilie at the end of this statement, so I assume you meant what you said.
Funked, the mere idea of being on your toejam list has me quaking so badly in my boots, I don't know whether I could ever possibly fly AH again. After all, you might shoot me down! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Yu might say nasty things in the BBS, you might ......
Oh wait, you already do that anyway, don't you (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you are in effect saying is "Forget about any test data from 60 years ago... they could have been wrong, in fact, they commonly WERE wrong."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO!
Stop misquoting me.
Hmmm. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, then its a .......
Honestly funked, even re-reading your original post, I cannot see what has you so upset. My statement was an obvious paraphrase of what you said. Kinda like
A=B+C therefore A-B=C. You are in effect saying that tests from the past were "commonly wrong". How else would you, or anyone else, interpret your original statement? BTW, you didn't originally say 'contradictory', you said 'flawed' aka 'wrong', 'faulty', 'defective', 'cracked, breached or broken' (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
And for snakeyes
I think Godfrey was on crack. The 190D had barely gone into production when he was shot down and captured in August 1944.
Well, Robert S Johnson must also have been on crack, because towards the end of his tour he reported engaging 'long-nose 190's', which he originally referred to as Fw 290s. Unless there actually was a Fw 290 (which I have never heard of), perhaps he was also seeing Doras? And Johnson's tour ended in March 1944 I believe!
Finally, again for funked (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Take another look at this modified climb chart. This time, the green line is for the AH Spit V, loaded with 100% fuel and climbing at 100% throttle.
(http://www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/images/p76a.jpg)
Amazing results, no? The Spit V outclimbs the Fw190A5 for every altitude above about 5'800 feet. It even outclimbs the A5 when the A5 is using WEP!
Now, tell me that ain't bogus (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
The dog-fight down by the treetops started in the traditional manner with my adversary on one side of a circle in a steep turn and I on the other, each intent on out-turning the other. In the beginning I entered into this game rather placidly, even a little carelessly-this was going to be easy, and I was not going to take any needless risks of stalling out at this low altitude. But, watch out! The German was beginning to gain on me, I'd have to steepen my turn. Bloody hell! I didn't like the look of this; he kept turning still tighter! My engine was now at full power, my wings vertical just above the treetops and the aircraft shuddering on the verge of a stall. I was perspiring and had a tight feeling in my chest. This was unbelievable, and really should not be possible. The Mustang ought to be able to out-turn the Fw 190. This must be an outstanding pilot, or else the Focke Wulf's flying qualities improved with a wheel hanging down! Whatever the reason I now faced disaster. My adversary continued to gain advantage and in a short time it would be my fate either to be shot down or crash due to stalling. Neither choice was very desirable and time was running out. But now my wonderful guardian angels came to my aid once again, and none too soon. The enemy was just about to disappear behind me and I could expect his bullets to start slamming into my aircraft very soon.
<IRONIC MODE ON>
Oh! MY GOD!!! HERESSY!!!! danish you are posting a story in with a Fw190A8 outturns a no-flap P51!!!! YOU DESERVE TO BURN TO HELL!!! HERESSY!!!! OHHH!!!!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
<ironic mode off>
Well, now seriously. If you try to turn in a Fw190 with a P51 w/o flaps, you are going to eat dust here in AH. I've made tests on it, fighting with my Fw190A8 versus Av8r, and even I had a fight on MA with FdSki, althoug here FdSki jumped me with altitude so he had the advantage, and I'm quite sure he didnt use flaps cuz he is a dedicaded spit driver, and Spit drivers dont use flaps (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Results? A8 is outturned EASILY by a P51. I had to resort to last chances in both fights, first one on Co-E and the other lower in E. Fw190A8 CANT TURN A toejam!!! I suspect that even B26 turns tighter than a Fw190!!!!
So...or that WWII Story, told by a trusted P51 driver is a pure and stupid troll...or here Fw190A8 is BAD modelled (which one do you think? I guess is not the first one...hint hint).
And I also readed about Johnson's reports on long-nosed Fw190s. I think they were preproduction D-9s, or converted Fw190A-5, as the one in my signature. D-9 were WIDELY IN SERVICE by September '44. Things clear ok?
Nah...I know this is a lost battle but I'll keep on fighting. Fw190 is porked and we all know it. Some will agree some will still say no. But if you ever flown a 190 in AH it feels like a 16 wheel truck. And that wasnt the way it were 190s
------------------
Ram, out
Fw190D9? Ta152H1? The truth is out there
JG2 "Richthofen" (http://members.tripod.com/JG2/)
(http://nottosc.tripod.com/ram190.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 05-02-2000).]
-
Jekyll, Thank you for clarifying your statement. I understand now that you were kidding - no hard feelings.
About data sources
By flawed I mean "less than perfect". And if "generational bias" means I think that aircraft performance measurements are done better these days, then hell yes I have that bias.
I hope you understand my statements about the conflicting information from old anectdotes and tests. It really is a big problem for the flight modeler or historian. The main point I was trying to make is that you have to consider all sources of information, then try to resolve all the conflicts.
In this case you quote from the AFDU head-to-head trials which say one thing about the relative climb rates of the two aircraft. But then if you look at the data sources I gave you links to, you'll find they disagree with the AFDU finding.
Same with the famous Robert Johnson "1000 hp prop". There are individual tests of the two aircraft that indicate a Spitfire Mk. IX will easily out-climb a paddle-prop P-47 at any altitude. I was just reading Ted Parks "Angels Twenty" and he recounts when he was issued a paddle-prop P-47D. He took it up with his wingman in a standard-prop Jug, and they could find no difference in performance in head-to-head comparisons.
Now which source is right? Is one source incompetent? Are they all incompetent? Most likely they are all correctly describing what occured, but the results were skewed by one or more small factors (manufacturing variation climb speed, atmospheric conditions, wear and tear, power settings, fuel quality, the list goes on forever). These small factors are what cause multiple investigators to make different conclusions about performance.
So which one do your build your simulation to match? How do you choose?
The Spitfire Mk. V
First off, I don't know why you are addressing me about this.
I've never defended the Spitfire Mk. V flight model. I don't fly it much and I've never conducted any tests with it.
This is a thread about the Fw 190A-5. If the Spitfire Mk. V flight model is incorrect, by all means, start another thread and let HTC know about it. If you have some good evidence to support your claim, I will back you up 100%.
I'm not sure what your chart shows me, because you are comparing sim performance of one plane to real performance of another.
I'm not trying to be difficult, I truly don't understand your point with this chart.
Here is some test data for Spit V if you want to make comparisons with the sim: http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spitv.html (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spitv.html)
Keep in mind that the RAE/AFDU testing was done using WEP. If you want to compare with their results, do the same in your testing.
-
RAM:
Doras
I agree with you, I think Godfrey saw one of the prototypes. 308 Sqn. also reported a fight with a "long nose Fw 190" during this period.
However be careful with your D-9 introduction date. The D-9 was only in service with two Staffeln of III./JG 54 in September 1944. I don't call that "widely in service".
About Danish's story
So...or that WWII Story, told by a trusted P51 driver is a pure and stupid troll...or here Fw190A8 is BAD modelled (which one do you think? I guess is not the first one...hint hint).
It's not so simple RAM.
There are also plenty of WWII Stories of P-51D's out-turning Fw 190A's.
The AFDU thought they were close enough that trying to out-turn a Fw with a P-51 was "not altogether advised". This to me means they were close enough that pilot skill would determine the victor.
However the AFDU were flying against an A-3.
If you read my posts above, you will discover that the A-3 was much lighter than the A-8.
Do we need a lighter variant of the Fw 190A for dogfighting? YES!
Does this mean the Fw 190A-8 is badly modeled? I don't think so.
If you don't think these weight differences are so important, I will get a Fw 190A-8 with 2 cannons and 25% fuel, you get a P-51D with 100% fuel. Then we will duel. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
<S>
funked
-
Danish, great post, thank you!
It's interesting to read about the old WB code, and then notice that both HOOF and Pyro have increased the complexity of their physics code on their new efforts, presumably to make smaller those "grey" areas where judgement is required.
Today's aircraft manufacturers can simulate their aircraft almost perfectly, but they have access to a lot more experimental data than do our game-makers, they have huge teams of scientists to perfect the simulations, and they aren't limited by running on a PC.
Anyone making a WW2 sim will never be able to overcome the fundamental problems with the experimental data, but I don't think HOOF or Pyro have exhausted the amount of analysis that can be done to make up for that fact. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 05-02-2000).]
-
Results? A8 is outturned EASILY by a P51. I had to resort to last chances in both fights, first one on Co-E and the other lower in E. Fw190A8 CANT TURN A toejam!!! I suspect that even B26 turns tighter than a Fw190!!!!
So...or that WWII Story, told by a trusted P51 driver is a pure and stupid troll...or here Fw190A8 is BAD modelled (which one do you think? I guess is not the first one...hint hint).
I really didn't want to get into this arguement on either side, but when I see things like this ....
RAM, Sorry but this line of reasoning just doesn't hold up. Its got more holes in it than a fruit juice strainer.
Being able to turn an aircraft inside another in combat depends on a whole hell of alot more than pure turning ability.
Alot of it is pilot ability and experience. A good pilot can maintain his E and hold an aircraft at the edge of a stall, while the other flounders into a spin. Plus there is the "balls" factor there too.
If the P-51 pilot was a rookie and flew poorly, its very reasonable that a Fw190 veteran could turn inside of him easily.
Its called lag pursuit.
While the one plane (say the P-51) pulled hard for a immediate max turn, burns all his E, and is now floundering on the edge of the stall barely able to maintain coordinated flight. The second plane (say the Fw190) pulls up slightly and pulls less G's conserving his E. At first the 190 will give up angles and a little distance for a few seconds until the P-51 gets to stall speed. Then all the 190 needs too do is drop his nose slightly, and roll (notice roll, not turn) his guns to bear onto the now floundering target, and accelerate to lethal gun range.
It works.
I did this just the other day in a P-51 against a new guy in a Spitfire.
So does this mean a P-51 can outturn a Spitfire??
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
Carpe Jugulum
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"
-
I think RAM's point is that what happened in the anectdote is almost impossible in our game.
I just disagree with him on the reason for that near impossibility.
-
I too agree that if he saw a 190D, he must have seen a prototype.... which begs the question of whether it was armed (the the Germans typically load the prototypes with ammo)? Obviously a few hundred pounds worth of ammo would affect performance one way or the other.
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
I'm not sure what your chart shows me, because you are comparing sim performance of one plane to real performance of another.
My mistake funked. And to think I've been wrong all these years (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) You know, I actually thought that the idea of a WW2 simulation was to try to recreate the real performance of WW2 aircraft.
Maybe the real Spit V really could easily outclimb the real A5. I don't know, I wasn't there at the time. All I can possibly base it on is the 'anecdotal' reports of the period. Reports you have no doubt read.
Thanks for the SpitV performance link. The results are most interesting (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
My testing for the SpitV, at 100% thrust, shows the following climb profile. The real life results at WEP are in brackets.
Time to Alt Sim Real Life
5k 1.35 (1.30)
10k 3.16 (3.06)
15k 4.56 (4.36)
20k 6.44 (6.40)
OK, so we accept that the sim results for the Spit V are on the mark. And of course we have your climb profile report for the A5. We have no idea what condition the aircraft was in, (pristine, clapped out etc)other than it was originally a G model converted back to A5 standard. I suppose the US had a copy of the A5 standard to work from.
Now the A5 climb data therefore clearly shows that the REAL Spit V would have outperformed the A5 handily in the climb.
So the only possible conclusion is that the RAF in 1941 were a bunch of whiners, who already had an aircraft clearly superior to the 190 in climb. Accordingly, Eric Brown, who flew both the 1943 model Spit IX and the 190A3/A4 and A5, must clearly have been either delusional or unable to read an altimeter and stopwatch.
Thanks funked, that's settled now.
Jekyll
waiting for WW2OL (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 05-02-2000).]
-
LOL y'all so funny, NOT!
Listen up you spitfire loving ninnys,I'm gonna have ta break it down for yas real simple like.
Numbers are just that,numbers. Real life combat reports all follow the same thread,
The FW was a dangerous,competent opponent.
You have the sheer gall to dismiss a report from a guy who was there,who fought the beast, simply because you don't like what he says? Crap, according to every firearms book I've ever read, my .45 colt is not a very good weapon, low velocity,inaccurate.etc.etc.
one note, I know that it will kill people,it does it very,very well. If you do not have 15 minutes of combat time in any of these aircraft versus any of the other aircraft, you are pontificating on a subject you know absolutly jack about. For 5 years I've been listening to this crap, I've had enough,go play with your airplane models and leave the flight model building to the crew.
This is rather harsh I know, but when people get this blind, ya gotta hit 'em with a 2X4
------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"
-
Jekyll, you are confusing me even more here. Please stop the sarcasm and make a rational argument. I truly don't see what you are getting at.
Did you even bother to read my last post? Just because one set of flight test data disagrees with Eric Brown, it doesn't mean Brown is wrong.
Also check out the other Spitfire Mk. V climb figures on the link I gave you. You might notice that some are a bit lower than the ones you used.
Also note that the lines on the USAAF climb chart are approximations. The actual data points are given by the circles and triangles on the chart. You'll note they deviate somewhat from the lines. Flight testing is not an exact science.
Do you have a good summary of the AFDU report from which Brown always quotes? Or are you just reading a book which quotes Brown quoting the report?
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 05-02-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Jekyll:
So the only possible conclusion is that the RAF in 1941 were a bunch of whiners, who already had an aircraft clearly superior to the 190 in climb. Accordingly, Eric Brown, who flew both the 1943 model Spit IX and the 190A3/A4 and A5, must clearly have been either delusional or unable to read an altimeter and stopwatch.
You obviously don't know much about ACM.
Speed means you can engage and disengage at will. That makes climb irrelevant.
Why ? You take 30 190's and climb them to 30k. You start a shallow high speed dive on bombers. You make one pass and then extend for 30 miles. THEN you climb back to the perch.
If climb was so important why is it that 51's and 47's did so well against 109s ?
Speed is life.
------------------
Bartlomiej Rajewski
aka. Wing Commander fd-ski
Northolt Wing
1st Polish Fighter Wing
303 (Polish) Squadron "Kosciuszko" RAF
308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF
315 (Polish) Squadron "City of Deblin" RAF
Turning 109s and 190s into scrap metal since 1998
Northolt Wing Headquarters (http://www.raf303.org/northolt/)
-
Hi guys! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif),
I'm a huge fan of the 190 and spend alot of cash on info for it like Funked stated.Here goes the rational,non-emotional argument. The basics. The A-5 should weigh approximately 700Lbs less than A-8. (figures vary from source to source but these are pretty good)It should be about 7mph faster than a-8 at best altitude. Sources and charts vary from 20,700 to 18,500 for that fastest alt? The A-8 should climb to 26,300ft in 12.5 min. the A-8 should do it in 14.4. The A-5 ceiling should be 2000ft more at 34,000. The A-5 should have 2/3 the range of the A-8(~A-5 435miles/~A-8 658miles). For these Spit verses 190 arguments we should use Eric Brown of the RAF. He fought against the 190 in the Spit and flew most of the versions often.He fought a good German pilot in a 190 with his Spit 9 over France to a tie. Neither he nor the German could gain an advantage after at least ten minutes of Manuevering. He was a test pilot. No one else has flown more plane types than him.(487) He holds the world record.He is British and not biased to the 190.He compared the A-4 to the the Spit 9. He states the roll rate, lack of re-triming and superb control harmony as the best features of the 190. "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." "...(190A-4) I ascertained
that the service ceiling was around 35,000 ft. So it matched the Spitfire Mk9 almost mile per hour and foot per foot of ceiling." "In climbing little difference was found between the Spit 9 up to 23,000 Ft., above which altitude the climb of 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 Fw 190 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 the dive. In the dive, the 190 could leave the Spit 9 without difficulty and there was no gainsaying that in so far as manoeuverability was concerned, the German fighter was markedly the superior of the two in all save the tight turn- the Spit could not follow in aileron turns and reversals at high speeds and the worst heights for the its pilot to engage the Fw190 in combat were between 18k and 22k and at alts below 3000ft." Brown rated these planes as equals. They both had there advantages and disadvantages. The 190 had a fast initial turn rate if you pulled briskly on the stick for a short turn and let off it held its speed great. If you continue pulling it bled speed quickly as stated above. Brown stated "It is not easy to establish a winner between these two, and indeed I have vacillated so much on the choice that I feel compelled to give them equal rank, though that has meant swallowing my national pride. If the Spitfire had had the German fighter's rate of roll, I could have declared it a winner and eased my conscience." You can't argue with that. In AH we dont have to worry about the Spit's pitch,engine mix, or having to re-trim like the real world. An untrimmed plane is tougher to fly and (slower) these controls had to be adjusted constantly in the Spit (adding to the pilots work load). The 190 had a brainbox to handle these chores and needed little trimming which was a great advantage in combat.See you in the skys. Too much typing for me. I'd rather be flying a Spit in AH right now, than arguing on the message boards. That's saying alot! I'm an FW-190 fan big time! Lets fly more and type less. There aren't enough targets when people are here typing.I wouldn't want an AH or WB without a 190 or Spit. Peace brothers (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Berserkr
-
RAM, that quote is from Tony Johnson's book, "Dancing in the Sky".
If I remember right (dont have the book in front of me), the "guardian angle" reminds him to use flaps, which he does and promply gains the advantage.
Daff
------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
-
Funked:
About once every year I get this urge to cut through all the smoke, agendas and hype around these games ;=)
Im sorry I let it out on you, cause I know that basically we agree on most ;=)
All I really want to do is to play.And maybe to dream a little.
Salute.
__________
Fd-ski
"If climb was so important why is it that 51's and 47's did so well against 109s ?"
Dont be silly fd-ski, I know you can do better than that ,=)
_______________
danish
[This message has been edited by danish (edited 05-02-2000).]
-
Danish no problem, please read what I said about your post above. I agree with you 100%. Well maybe 95%. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Sifter - you are quoting two different write ups in the same sense.
Last portion refers to comparison between Spitfire 14 and 190D9. Much different from Spit 9 and 190Ax match up.
Danish - after flying hurricanes vs 109's and spit 5 vs 190, i'll take speed over climb anyday.
Sometimes you waffels tend to forget how nice it is to be able to disengage at will.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
Bartlomiej Rajewski
aka. Wing Commander fd-ski
Northolt Wing
1st Polish Fighter Wing
303 (Polish) Squadron "Kosciuszko" RAF
308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF
315 (Polish) Squadron "City of Deblin" RAF
Turning 109s and 190s into scrap metal since 1998
Northolt Wing Headquarters (http://www.raf303.org/northolt/)
-
Hehe, sorry for the sarcasm funked. Nothing personal, I assure you (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Do you have a good summary of the AFDU report from which Brown always quotes? Or are you just reading a book which quotes Brown quoting the report?
AFAIK, the article written by Eric Brown, is a summary of his test results piloting the 109, 190, Spitfire and P51 over the period of the war. It is really quite an interesting read, confirming the best/worst qualities of these aircraft and comparing them in matters such as speed, climb, dive, zoom etc etc etc.
And fd-ski, glad to see you back in this thread, even though you failed to add anything intelligent to the argument (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Any time, any place fd (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Jekyll
-
Originally posted by Jekyll:
And fd-ski, glad to see you back in this thread, even though you failed to add anything intelligent to the argument (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Any time, any place fd (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Jekyll
I returned sunday nigth to continue rational argument just to find that Funked already posted all the technical data, just to get all that "i know better cause i read Brown" crap from you.
Aside from spinning people up, you have no interest in actual history. You have to make up for your own ACM insecurity by demending adventages which real plane didn't have. Sad, but true.
Duels in the sky was one of my first books on the subject as well. I was fascinated by Brown's writing, but after 4 years in flight sims, i've aquired a large library of book on the sunject, and it seems to me that Mr. Brown anecdotes are at best that, anecdotes. Not techincal or scientific.
Plane A has 1000lb more weight and about same engine power and drag as plane B. It will not climb faster then plane B, no matter how much you might wish it too.
Look up Jochen's post. It takes SKILL to fly planes effectivelly, not whining. So you're on a wrong path.
------------------
Bartlomiej Rajewski
aka. Wing Commander fd-ski
Northolt Wing
1st Polish Fighter Wing
303 (Polish) Squadron "Kosciuszko" RAF
308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF
315 (Polish) Squadron "City of Deblin" RAF
Turning 109s and 190s into scrap metal since 1998
Northolt Wing Headquarters (http://www.raf303.org/northolt/)
-
jeez... The wife beating LW sissies are even more rabid and delusional here than they are on Argos.. MW 50 on A4's LOL! Slow, short ranged, low alt 190 "one of the best fighters of WWII" LOL! Well, I might give em that one after all..... What fighter in WWII hasn't been named "one of the best fighters of WWII" by some book somwhere?
lazs
-
Fairey Fulmar
-
Photo of Fw 190A-5 just in!
(http://www.totavia.com/imagearchive/aviapix/PostWW2/Fighters/US-VietnamEra/F104-Starfighter/MK-F1044.JPG)
-
Yes,
Two different books same source. The comparison holds true for both the A-4/Spit9, D-9/Spit14.In different parts of the book he refers to both match ups specifically and in general as being equal as far as a choice for combat.
AS for the F8-f Bearcat:Barrett Tillman-Barrett Tillman "....He is best known for his operational histories of U.S. Navy Aircraft, but has authored four novels as well. As the first author to write 100 articles for the Tailhook Associations magazine, The Hook, he was recently awarded the group's Lifetime Acheivement Award."
Tillman: "Inevitably, some 190's fell into Allied hands, and thereby lies a tale. In 1943, Grumman test pilots flew a "short-nose" Fw 190A in England. Tremendously impressed,they returned to Long Island and related the tale to Leroy Grumman, saying, 'Boss if we put an R-2800 on that airframe, we'll have a world-beater.'
The boss listened; the engineers got busy, and the guys and gals on the shop floor began to cut metal. In August 1944, the F8F-1 Bearcat tucked its wheels into the well for the first time, proving that in aviation, as in all things, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
That same year, Douglas engineers wrestled with the prototype AD Skyraider's high-cruise harmonics problem. But they learned that the 190's forward-mounted horizontal stabilizer contributed to its smooth ride; consequently, El Segundo changed the Skyraiders empennage, solved the problem and produced one of the greatest attack aircraft in history." The Hawker Fury? I don't have any more time to type! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Berserkr
[This message has been edited by SIFTER (edited 05-03-2000).]
-
That's my boy! you tell em sifter!
.....Udie pulls his seat closer, grabs a handfull of popcorn and stuffs it in his mouth.......
a5 a5 a5 a5 a5 a5 a5 a5 a5 a5 a5 a5 a5 a5 a5
all shall perish from the ride I cherish (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Udie
-
Originally posted by SIFTER:
Yes,
The comparison holds true for both the A-4/Spit9, D-9/Spit14.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzztt wrong answer.
Fw 190D9 has more in common with spitfire 14 and P51 then it does with Fw 190A4.
Just a closer look at above 20k performance shows that clearly...
Then we look at engines... armament.. range...
------------------
Bartlomiej Rajewski
aka. Wing Commander fd-ski
Northolt Wing
1st Polish Fighter Wing
303 (Polish) Squadron "Kosciuszko" RAF
308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF
315 (Polish) Squadron "City of Deblin" RAF
Turning 109s and 190s into scrap metal since 1998
Northolt Wing Headquarters (http://www.raf303.org/northolt/)
-
Hey lazs.. you flying AH now? I suppose the 4 cannon Hog just had to be an attraction for you (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Then again, its equally likely you got banned from AGW (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Well, IMO, AH 190A8 is anything but an incompetent fighter. Being a dedicated 190A8 pilot I can say that you can survive with it where you surelly be dead with a Spit. Yep, 190A8 is a nothing above 20k, but bringing the combat below 15k is an easy task.
Talking about AH spit IX vs 190A8, the Spit has nothing to do against the 190, most of the combats will end with a draw or with the Spit dead. The real and only enemy for the 190A8 is just the P51D (and, perhaps, the 109G10 in some situations), not the Spit.
Talking about the real thing, ok, IMO 190A8 in AH is just a "bit" undermodeled, perhaps related just to weight/power ratio.
Anyway, when talking about real life encounters, we must not forget one important factor: the fuel load, and this data is not detailed in those encounters. A 30% fuel loaded 190A8 surelly can outturn a 100% fuel loaded P51D even using flaps.
Sometimes, in this game I get jumped by Spits (probably 50%-75% fuel loaded) when returning to base with <20% fuel and they get outturned over'n over by my 190. Obviously that doesn't mean the 190 turns better than the Spit, this is true here and in RL.
-
Oh Man, this is great! You guys have really been going at it on this one.
Hey Udie, pass that popcorn bag over this way, will ya?
-
pZZZZZZTTT,
Your reading it wrong Fdski? It reads the F W 190A and Spit 9 are considered equals by Eric Brown.Up to 23k or so.I have a nagging wife who keeps me from writing every detail:0 Whack! sorry honey I didn't mean that.
And seperation.............
And. The F W 190 D-9 and the Spit 14 are considered equals for combat by Captain Brown.I'm not comparing the 190's and spits with eachother. Whack! Alright honey I'm getting off right now! So to speak (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Believe me I know the 190A doesn't compare to the D-9. I know it everytime I try to chase a P-51 who is running away.
More butter with that popcorn Udie? Usher ! Usher! This man's molesting me! Berserkr
-
How many combat kills did Capt. Brown have again?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Nine get in or get out spit bashing is not a observer sport!
Didnt capt brown shoot down the Red Baron?
I would rather hear his opinion on Fokkers then fock wulfs....
-
The Fokker is undermodeled!
-
Pass some popcorn, getting hungry here at work.
-
Udie stated in an previous post that he outturned an spit in the current AH 190 on the deck and came out as the vinner.
Does that mean that the current 190 in AH out turns the spit? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
<ducks and runs>
------------------
AH : Maniac
WB : -nr-1-
(http://www.rsaf.org/osf/images/osf_inga.gif)
http://www.rsaf.org/osf/ (http://www.rsaf.org/osf/)
-
Yes the 190 is overmodeled! LOL!
If historical anectdotes have problems with contradictions, think about AH anectdotes! MY GOD! ROFL
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 05-04-2000).]
-
dem fokkers in dem fokee wullfffs are tufff.
(old joke related to me from my father-in-law P-51 driver ETO, 3 kills, P-80 driver Korea, shot down by flak, RF-101 driver Vietnam, unarmed and unafraid. Someday I will tell you the stories of the flying telephone poles.
------------------
Milo
"A MiG on your 6 is better than no MiG at all"
II/JG2 "Richthofen" (http://www.busprod.com/weazel2/)
-
jekyl... Didn't get banned.... Didn't have a pouty snit fit and leave either tho... Like the cannon Hog but both hooly and I find we can get higher kill sorties with the D model.
Eric Brown asside.... How can an allmost 9000 lb A4 or 5 with it's wussy little 14 cylinder radial that barely wheezes out 1700 hp, climb with a Spit 5 much less a 9? I have never seen a figure of over 3600fpm (the highest) climb for a 190A... Most give about 3400 fpm with climb rate dropping off dramatically after about 5k... The inferior and outdated LW superchargers just compound the problem past 20k.
The 190A has 5.0lbs per hp with a fuel load of 140 gallons (8500 lbs and 1700 hp)
The Corsair 1D with 140 gallons of fuel produces 5.0 lbs per hp. (11300 lbs and 2250 hp.)..
So.... The Corsair with 140 gallons of fuel should outclimb a Spit 9 too?
The D9? Sure! Make sure you add the latter P47's and -4 Hog and Spit 14 etc. at the same time tho. But then of course you would run into the old "to RPS or not to RPS" bugaboo...
Face it... In early '42 the 190A was a fantastic aircraft but by early '43 it was not only matched but beginning to get more than a little long in the tooth. On the Russian front 190 pilots were told not to engage Russian fighters.
Oh... anyone care to guess why the A5 was lengthened over the A4? Hint.... It's one reason why the LW thot rear view mirors were useless.
lazs
[This message has been edited by lazs (edited 05-04-2000).]
-
Originally posted by lazs:
On the Russian front 190 pilots were told not to engage Russian fighters.
Oh yes...F and G 190s were told not to go with russian fighters...why? because they were Jabos (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Heh...some history, man...some history
-
How many combat kills did Capt. Brown have again?
How many REAL Fw190A-3s, A-4s, A-5s, D-9's, Me 262s, Spitfire Vs, Spitfire IXs, Spitfire XIV's, P-51Bs, P-51D,s and Me109Gs have YOU flown funked?
Just couldn't resist (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
lazs : the fighters they were told to avoid was Yaks with no oilcooler under the nose, ie Yak-3 (and mayby Yak-9U?)
Maximum climb for a FW190A i have seen is 4100 ft/m. But if its true i dont know. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Anyway it had good zoom climb and was faster then the Spitfire V.
Once the Spitfire LF IX got into service (mid 43) the FW190A was starting to lag behind performancewise. Befor that it had equal performance to the Spitfire IX and better then the Spitfire V. (exept of course turning circle)
RAF pilots reported the FW's doing Upward charlies alongside their Spitfire V formations and the RAF could not do a thing to stop it. Imagine what that does to moral in a unit.
[This message has been edited by LLv34 Nattulv (edited 05-05-2000).]
-
Ok that's it!!!!!!!!!!!
I go away for a bathroom brake and when I get back SOMEBODY ATE MY POPCORN!!!!!!!!!!
Who the heck was it? Funked was it you? Give it back please. PLEASE give it back!
Ok I'll appologise for sneaking up on you in my 190A8 and shooting you down from 250 yrds behind your dead 6.
(VBG)
now can I have my popcorn back pls?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Udie
-
Udie you can have your popcorn back when I'm "done" with it. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Lazs, I have a document from Wright Field indicating 4000 fpm maximum, so neener neener neener. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many combat kills did Capt. Brown have again?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, this brings up an interesting point. There's varying degrees of reliability for 'anecdotal' evidence.
What do you consider the more reliable as to an aircraft's performance?
Combat reports, where we know nothing about relative energy states, speeds, or whether the enemy aircraft was already damaged?
Flight test reports (a la Eric Brown) which compare the various qualities of the aircraft?
I know which I would regardd as more reliable, and for that reason it makes no damn difference to me whether Brown shot down 500 aircraft, or none at all (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
I agree Jekyll, the more that is known about the condition of the aircraft, the more I believe a pilot's report.
The problem is that even the pilots in tightly controlled tests frequently disagreed in their qualitative (subjective) findings.
Heck the variation in quantitative (numbers) findings is amazing.
-
So funked.... Shouldn't a Hog 1D with 140 gallons of fuel climb 4000 fpm then?
Course If you go down to 70 gallons of fuel for the 190A4/5 and Hog you get....4.8 lbs per hp for the Hog and 4.8 lbs per hp for the 190.
lazs
-
An F4U-1D with that amount of fuel should climb somewhere between 2000 and 4000 fpm at sea level using water injection.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 05-06-2000).]
-
Of course captain browns observations are suspect. They may be the best most honest numbers we will ever get but they are still suspect.
Were the british planes he compared against made by slaves then captured, flown by yahoos to test the absolute structural limit of the planes for 3 years and then oh by the way lets kick start this thing and see how it compares against this new tuned spit IX.? No they were new and tuned and serviced by RollsRoyce mechanics I bet. Did they invite the DB team to the
meet?
They may be the best numbers we have. And we owe a debt to Capt Brown for collecting them, but we really have to look at the source.( I am sure Pyro does)
This might all be bull...I havent read his book.....
-
Hehee, getting clever in your old age eh ya ol gigolo?
lazs
-
The A-5 was lengthened to fix a CG problem that would arise when they fitted bigger guns to the plane. What's that got to do with mirrors?
Can anyone tell me what rpm/boost settings the British would use for climb tests?
-
I ducked out of this thread several days ago when I saw it going technical. I confess, I am not knowledgeable on the specific performance of any WWII fighter aircraft. I just know the general stuff. I would tend to believe whatever someone like funked says about the FW190. I know that he was Luftwaffe over in WB's and seems to have read a lot on the plane.
Having said all that, I hope the 190A5 doesn't get overmodeled. I will fly it no matter how much a b*tch it is. I also like 109's. I've been flying them since the first night of Aces High open beta. Even back in the days when everybody squeaked about them being undermodeled.
All this competition between the RAF's and LW's can add to the fun in an Historical Arena here,(hopefully coming soon) but too much of it is gonna turn this into the toejamhole that AGW is right now. These Aces High boards have been pretty tame ever since the game came out, except for the occasional crackhead that gets slammed.
Some of you need to look at how guys like funked handles himself on these things and learn to be just a little bit more tactful IMO.
...and no, funked I don't want your Bud Light. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
hblair,
<===<The ASSASSINS>===> (http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/rowgue/index.html)
The_ASSASSINS@egroups.com
(http://heathblair.tripod.com/spitflame2.JPG)
[This message has been edited by hblair (edited 05-07-2000).]
-
Juzz,
On Merlins, the max climbing (1 hour limit) is +12/2850 rpm. Combat setting (5 minutes) is anywhere from +15 (Merlin 45/61) to +18 (Merlin 45M/63/66 etc) at 3000 rpm. Maximum continuous is +7/2650 rpm.
-
Actually, many thanks to funked for a heap of great data he sent me privately.
One thing though. In my ignorance I always assumed that we had a 190A8 equipped with MW50.
Funked has, however, enlightened me that the AH A8 may well be the 'Sturmbock' version - heaps of armour, no MW50.
Which probably explains why it climbs like a brick, has relatively poor acceleration, and bleeds so badly in anything other than a 1g turn.
Oh well, back to my P-51 it seems (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
A5 has bigger guns than A4? The motor mounts were lengthened on the A5 to reduce some of the engine vibration.
lazs
-
Lazs, there's a few more factors to climb than HP and weight (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
(The words "drag" and "lift" comes to mind)
Daff
------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
-
Lazs, my understanding is that the engine was moved forward to keep the CG from moving too far aft. The Jerries were experimenting with all kinds of internal and external armament on the 190, which tended to move the CG aft. The longer nose not only moved the unloaded CG forward, it allowed them to locate the centerline stores rack further forward.
The AFDU said the engine on their A-3 ran roughly. Other than that I don't find any mention of engine vibration problems. Most of the problems I have read about are cooling issues on the A-1 and A-2, which caused quite a few engine fires.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 05-08-2000).]
-
Grinsell says "the 190A5 differed from the A4 only in that it included lengthened engine mounts to provide increased strength and reduced vibration".... You may be correct about the addition stores thing but the original poster claimed that it was for heavier guns.... Lengthened cowl would make the cowl guns weight even worse on the cg.
lazs
-
The big change between the A-5 and A-4 was to make the airframe more adaptable for field conversion kits.
Juzz,
I have pictures of Luftwaffe aircraft with rearview mirrors. That "no mirrors" for the Luftwaffe is a myth. The Do335 had both sides of its canopy bulged out. What for? The rear view mirrors that were put in there. They could be adjusted from the inside, too. This is one damn long thread! Udie's popcorn should be getting stale by now. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Berserkr
-
Yep the 335 had mirrors so did a lot of the early 109's and some guys put em on their personal 190's. Never said they didn't have em... Said they thot they were useless. Vibration was a big factor and there was no really good place to mount them inside in a 109. Also, unlike the allies, they didn't seem to understand rubber mounting. The Corsair had 3 mirrors and the canopy was "bulged" out on the sides for the side ones.
Daff... Hehee yeah, I know, just pulling the chain on the "MW 50 makes em climb like a titan" crowd. The Hog has more lift than the 190 BTW (more drag too). Still... At the SAME HP/lb level the two planes should climb very closely. My guess is that the 190 would climb slightly better at low alts and the Hog would gain the advantage at mid and high alts.
lazs
-
German pilots on the russian front where told not to engage russian fighters.
Should have been lots of courtmartials for all those guys shooting down 15-20 of them a month in the......A5..... then.
What did Jg2 fly in Africa to get 134-20(recolection) kill to death against the Brits and SAAF and the Americans in 1943..
those long in the tooth 190s again..
They had more pilots lost to landing accidents then to the enemy.
Oh ya know we can start taking about how it was all tactics..and coordination....The allies hadnt learned how to fly in 4 years of war apperently. I think that it will be interesting to see the A5.. And then its natural enemy and anitithisis the the P47D and the Yak 9.
-
See Rule #10
-
This is undoubtedly, the Mother of all Necros...
-
You've got a point there, Pongo. :noid
i love that little cat picture
-
This is undoubtedly, the Mother of all Necros...
And the point was?
Someone beat you earlier in the week bumping a post from '99. Try harder.
wrongway
-
And the point was?
Someone beat you earlier in the week bumping a post from '99. Try harder.
wrongway
You realize that Stoney was not the one who bumped this thread, right?
At least, I would hope so :rolleyes:
-
I want this please:
(http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/1459/fw190a545.jpg) (http://img121.imageshack.us/i/fw190a545.jpg/)
IN
-
I want this please:
(http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/1459/fw190a545.jpg) (http://img121.imageshack.us/i/fw190a545.jpg/)
IN
+1
and IN
-
(http://i807.photobucket.com/albums/yy355/greencurrycamo/InBeforeTheLock-1.gif)
-
I want this please:
(http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/1459/fw190a545.jpg) (http://img121.imageshack.us/i/fw190a545.jpg/)
IN
:O +1!!!! It's my sworn duty to remember all Ze Luftvhines that came before, lest we forget to fix ze problems vith our beloved A8. After all, when somebody mentioned that the Brew wasn't quite uber enough, t'was fixed fairly quickly. Obviously I know our founders have their hands full at the moment, (awesome new terrain & stuff) just keeping the tradition of Vhining alive and well!
-
INcredible this would be brought back INstead of starting a newer thread
-
You realize that Stoney was not the one who bumped this thread, right?
At least, I would hope so :rolleyes:
oops
:bolt:
wrongway
-
oops
:bolt:
wrongway
:rofl :rofl
IN! :bolt:
-
oops
:bolt:
wrongway
:rofl :aok
-
.
-
Wow from 99. DefINately an oldie post.
IN and :bolt:
<S> Oz
-
You've got a point there, Pongo. :noid
Idiot.
-
Uh-oh, Meatwad just cut loose a direct INsult. That one's probably goINg to get flagged.
-
i cant wait for the day that i post in a thread that years later gets a necro bump :D
-
So old it is not applicable at all. STEELE, you need to pay attention to the dates of the posts you are responding to.