Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Elysian on July 02, 2002, 05:03:34 AM
-
Tests were conducted offline with fuel burn set to lowest -- .001. All planes were launched with DT and 50% fuel and taken to between 4020-4050 ft. Aircraft were slowed to about 180~, DT was dropped and acceleration was timed with a digital stopwatch from 200-300 mph (TAS I believe, the red marker). The planes were then slowed back to 180~ and the tests were repeated using WEP.
I adjusted the head position in to the speedometer and then zoomed in as much as possible, starting the time when the indicator passed the middle of the 200 mph tick and stopping as it passed the middle of the 300 mph tick. Hundredths of a second were rounded up or down to the nearest whole second. Full ammo on all planes.
4k 200-300mph 50% fuel 190 accel data in order from fastest to slowest:
190D-9 2x20mm/2x13mm : 43s / 30s WEP
190A-5 2x20mm/2x7.9mm : 43s / 34s WEP
190A-5 4x20mm/2x7.9mm : 45s / 36s WEP
190A-8 2x20mm/2x13mm : 52s / 41s WEP
190A-8 4x20mm/2x13mm : 54s / 43s WEP
190A-8 2x20/2x30/2x13mm : 56s / 44s WEP
This data matches up with data I took on most AH planes a few months ago at 1k/5k/9k. A8 is a dog when it comes to level accel (yeah I know, excellent dive and roll though ), with all guns it has the same time as a F4U-1 at this alt, and with minimum guns it has a hair better accel than a F4U-D.
Also, even with a slower top speed the A5 kicks some butt, and the WEP on the D9 is insane, on the level of a Typhoons time (with WEP) and about 1-2 seconds slower than a LA7.
Anyone know why our A8 is such a dog? Weighed down with armor for buff hunting? I know very little about WW II aircraft compared with a lot of the guys on this BBS, but didn't the A8 have a good deal more horsepower than the A5?
-
A-8 carries more fuel than A-5 (not by much though). D-9 has a MW tank instead of AUX fuel tank on A-8.
MG131s are heavier on A-8 than MG17s of A-5. Cowl bulges cause slightly more drag.
It is also heavier in internal equipment.
But you are right, this should be compensated by the increase i horsepower of the A-8 over A-5. On the deck only though, AFAIK. At higher alts A-8 has no power advantage. Or am I wrong ?
-
The problem with the A8 is that AH Always has the aux-tank build into it.
Many real WW2 A8 didnt have this tank. It was an optional installation and as 300 liter droptanks were easier to hang under and proved far greater full capacity the aux-tank was not fitted to very many operational A8s.
What i would really be interested in is the comparison between FW190s and other planes.
-
Elysian, you have an even more easier test directly related to acceleration where stop watch is not needed: substained climb rate.
Naudet, to compare it with other planes, HTC charts are enough.
-
The A5 is great, the A8 is for people who really want a challenge.
-
IMO, it is the other way around. In an overcrowded arena I'd rather have more speed than turn.
If you hit with A-8, you don't have to come back for another pass. In A-5, you just might need to repeat it.
-
What Naudet and HRISTO said.
Although the performance of the a5 (level acceleration) is better,
I prefer the 190a8 above the a5 too. I fight differently in it although I need no more alt for doing so (hardly ever go above 15k in a8). I fly it allot (force myself to do so) to learn from it end get the best out of it.
For defensive operations in high dense enemy area's (when seriously outnumbered) I still prefer the D9 though. Quick in (10-15k) kill a couple and out again.
For a 1v1 with a P51D I do prefer the d9 especially in high E fights, the other 190's are simply no match for the p51 if it keeps it's E up.
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
Elysian, you have an even more easier test directly related to acceleration where stop watch is not needed: substained climb rate.
Naudet, to compare it with other planes, HTC charts are enough.
Only difference is these tests cover a range of speed, not just default climb speed. Top speed and acceleration curves come into play. I have a very limited understanding of aerodynamics, so I'm sure there are factors involved (wing efficiency across different speeds?) that I'm not aware of. Personally, this type of info has proved itself valuable to me in ACM etc..
Anyways, wanted to present some fresh data (even if somewhat redundant) for discussion rather than "look at the charts".
Thanks for the responses all , didn't know any of that stuff about the A8 :).
BTW Naudet -- I have info like this on a lot of AH planes; across multiple altitude bands and speed ranges. Tell me what planes you are interested in and I'll see if I have data and post it :).
-
Id much rather fight a P51 in a A5 than a D9, Dora's a fat pig. :)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Id much rather fight a P51 in a A5 than a D9, Dora's a fat pig. :)
Mainly at hi speeds, still dont know why :(
-
P51D is untouchable co-alt co E for 190a5 (if P51 flown correct). Dora can catch the P51D if it gets low, and can put up a good E fight against the P51 up to 20k.
-
Originally posted by Elysian
Also, even with a slower top speed the A5 kicks some butt,
190A-5 is faster than 190A-8.
Or at least it should be. Focke Wulf documents show top speeds of 665-670kmh(190A-5) and 654kmh(190A-8).
-
Elysian, as already mentioned, in RL the AUX tank behind the pilot was optional. IMHO, it should also be optional in AH. Not only that, but the A-8 is more heavily armoured and armed than the A-5. The cowl bulges also add a little drag, though not by a huge amount. What does add more serious drag is the A-8's ETC 501 belly rack. Unfortunately most A-8s (at least most that I have seen documented) carried the ETC 501. It was a poor design, especially when compared to the ETC 504. Simply put, it was much larger than it needed to be and contributed a lot of parasitic drag.
Besides seeing the option of removing the AUX tank in AH, I'd personally also like to see the option of replacing it with a GM1 tank. I've searced far and wide for evidence of how many A-8s used GM1 nitrous oxide injection but have been unable to get accurate data. What I do know is that it was used by only a minority of Anton-8s, but that it probably amounted to several hundred aircraft - certainly more than enough for it to be considered as a combat option in a sim.
We've all seen the graphs contained in the Fw 190A-8 pilot manual that have been scanned & promulgated on the web, and there is data for the A-8 using GM1. Using NO2, performance above 26,000 ft was markedly increased. Although it certainly didn't put the A-8 in the same class as the G-10 or K-4 , it did make interception of US heavies somewhat easier as it gave the A-8 which was "breathless" at high alt a bit of extra puff.
I can't imagine many players would want to be flying the A-8 >25,000 ft in the MA anyway, but it could certainly be useful in historical scenarios, and IMHO it should be there as an option, much like DTs or weapon configurations.
-
Since you guys got the facts covered concerning this issue I only got some pictures to contibute. Most likely you have probably seen many of these photos.
:cool:
-
Oh and the main guns...
-
ya, zat iz var ze winsheeld vasha...
-
are u sure yu know what your doing ...
-
Rumble time :mad: :confused: :mad: :D
-
waiting to be straffed...
-
;)
-
senna most of those pictures are not A8s. :)
-
As Hristo said the A8 is faster on the deck than the A5 - that, and the fact that it is a "pig" saved my life many times! Seems I die in an A5 much quicklier cause I am always under the impression it's a Zeke after coming from the A8 :)
I fly A8 whenever I can (maybe not for close base defense) and it's truly a pilots plane - it does not live up to the stories I read and it's surely outclassed by most AH planes but nothing beats the Wuerger in attitude!
Watch for the blazing quadruple cannons!
-
A small technicality GR. We are working on it.
:p