Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: J_A_B on September 06, 2002, 12:12:51 AM
-
from that "other" thread that has somewhat degenerated, as well as some other issues I've seen on this BBS from time to time"
FW-190A-5 possibly too slow at low altitude.
FW-190F-8 missing important loadouts that would improve parity in AvA setups (most notably 250 KG wing bombs).
Many aircraft have wrong trigger grouping, 190A's in particular are affected negatively
Mosquito not tough enough
Ta-152 too slow at altitude
P-47D (at least some of them) too slow at altitude
Ar-234 needs sight to work right
A-20G is missing its lower gun position
Ki-61 has wrong designation and fueltank and/or weapon loadout
Several planes have artwork problems, including Ki-67, F4F/fm2, Bf-110's
Bf-109G-10 doesn't match HTC charts; either change plane to match charts or change charts to match plane.
IL-2 could use extra loadouts
B-26 lacks torpedo option
EDIT (added): 109F4 and G2 should have 200 rounds of 20mm instead of 150
Feel free to add more :)
Does anybody feel like actually going out and trying to prove (one way or the other) these claims WITHOUT turning it into a pissing match? Some of them, particularly speed info, are rather simple to determine. Some have already been proven or are blantantly obvious (there is clearly a problem with the 234's bombsight and perk level).
For example, Karnak and I did extensive testing with the Mosquito, and while we couldn't determine the exact cause of the problem, we found plenty of evidence to suggest that HTC might want to take a closer look at the Mosquito's damage model (such as both engines being damaged by bullets only hitting 1 from below)
Complaining and infighting won't get anything changed, and I know that one thing you guys CAN agree on is you'd like to see the broken things fixed regardless of what paintjob is on what plane.
As for weapon loadout requests....it might be wise if you guys tried to settle upon 1 or 2 loadouts that you'd feel are most important to a particular airplane; HTC cannot be expected to add 10 different options to say the 190F-8 even if it had them. They might however be perfectly willing to add 1 or 2 options if there seems to be consistent demand for it.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Feel free to add more :)
We need a Japanese airborne torpedo.
Type 91 Mod 3 800kg Torpedo
and
Type 91 Mod 7 1055kg (1070kg) Torpedo
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61478
-
The ENY of 25 for the 190F-8.
-
Climb and accel of the Ta Jab forgot that too :D
-
Hurri D 40mm, want them to have a synchro option to make aiming easier.
from here (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55262)
-
Far as I can tell the A5 deck speed thing originated with this.
-
THANK YOU Gatso, stuff like this is what we need brought up. I know it's been posted before (I remember RAM's thread), but sometimes it helps to bring things back into the limelight.
Now, what is the deck speed of the current A-5 converted into metric?
Then that chart needs to be verified somehow.
J_A_B
-
Deck speed of 190A-5 with WEP is 339mph, or 542kph. Tested offline with 100% fuel.
-
The chart gatso posted has the Fw190A-5's deck speed at 352mph (567kph) and its top speed at 416mph (670kph), when converted to Imperial measurements.
-
Ok, so it's confirmed that the AH 190A-5 is slower than the charted 190A-5
So now the chart itself requires verification. What is the source, testing conditions, etc? Play devil's advocate, say to yourself "well how can I prove to HTC that the Germans didn't just pull this chart out of their arse".
Once the chart is "authenticated", the final step is to make a good case to HTC as to why this plane needs its performance adjusted as such (like the F4U-1D, it's quite possible that different 190A-5's had different levels of performance). What would the impact on AH be?
J_A_B
-
What do the three lines on the graph represent?
-
Hi Jab,
>Then that chart needs to be verified somehow.
I'm afraid the chart is misleading. It doesn't match the BMW801 engine charts, and according to my calculations is not realistic in its high low-level speeds.
My guess is that this chart was calculated by substituting the altitude-dependend engine thrust with a constant power figure. (This method was occasionally used in WW2 Germany for lack of exact data as well as to make quick slide-rule calculations possible.)
This substitution introduces two sources of error (assumption of constant top speed, assumption of constant thrust) that both yield higher than realistic low-level speeds.
There's a US test (F-TR-1102-ND) of a Fw 190A-5 available that achieved a deck speed of 340 mph at 1.42 ata and a maximum of 415 mph at 22000 ft. This chart matches the BMW801 power charts much better and probably can be considered accurate.
(I believe the German chart was prepared to demonstrate the effect of compressibility on speed indicator readings without much regard for accurate portrayal of actual aircraft performance.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
HoHun,
So you're saying that the AH Fw190A-5's deck speed is more accurate than this chart?
You're also saying that this chart is not based on flight tests, but rather on paper calculations?
-
Regarding the B-26 torpedo option, I don't think it should be added to AH. I know a guy who was an engineer for Martin during the war. He said they only converted about 12 of them to carry torpedos, and only about 6 of them made it to Midway in one piece. The rest were cracked up by the inexperienced pilots who ferried them out there from Maryland.
ra
-
Thanks for the information HoHun. This is the kind of stuff we need (as opposed to mud-slinging).
How fast does the AH 190A-5 go at 22,000 feet? Anybody feel like checking?
Can anybody post anything wich refutes HoHun's claim?
Ra--thanks for the infor regarding the B-26's torpedo option. Clearly it was, at best, an uncommon modification. So far such uncommon mods haven't normally been included in AH.
J_A_B
-
The Fw190A-5 in AH sustains (on WEP) a speed of 407mph at 22,009ft.
Test method:
1. Take off in an Fw190A-5 with 75% fuel, no MG/FF cannon and no stores.
2. Use .wind command to quickly climb to 28,000ft.
3. Neutralize the wind and dive to 22,000ft, arriving at 22,000ft with a speed of ~500mph.
4. Start film.
5. Use autolevel to maintain altitude and proper trim.
6. When dial indicates 425mph, engage WEP.
7. Fly on autolevel until WEP expires, then end filming.
8. View film to get a precise readout of the speed rather than rely on the crude analog dial (which appeared to indicate 402mph).
RESULTS:
The speed gradually declined from 425mph and after 3 minutes and 10 seconds settled on 407mph, where it remained fro the remaining 7 minutes of WEP.
-
There's 6 curves on that chart. 3 power settings with two curves for each power setting. Of the two curves for each power setting, the leftmost ones are more accurate because they include a compressibility adjustment (see the little equations in fine print). So top speed would be 656 km/h (408 mph) at about 6250 m (20505 ft).
-
I dont think the speed of the P-47D's are that far off really. The D11 shows 426 on the money in this film. This basically mirrors what Bodie says for the D25. I tested the D30, and as expected it is slower. It will run around 420. Both tests were at 25K, no wind, full of fuel, and light ammo load. Published numbers range from 426 to 428 TAS. Consider that those were likely taken from very "clean AC", AH'es numbers arent far off at all.
Both tests, I climbed to 28K, dove to 25 with wep on and recorded the film when it settled.
-
And I agree with HoHun that the chart in this thread is probably based on calculations rather than flight tests. The charts in F-TR-1102-ND include the flight test data points which don't have the beautiful smooth appearance of calculated or curve-fitted data.
-
190 speeds
-
Thanks for the work Karnak. And thanks for the chart Heinkel, although the good information on that chart pertains more to the A4 and A3 (note the source of the line for the A5).
Does anyone have the engine power diagrams for the 190A-5 available? It seems that the BMW's performance is what the issue with the A-5 boils down to. If indeed it performs as HoHun says, than the AH 190A-5 is correct as it is.
Thanks for the P-47 trials AMMO.....does the P-47 speed up a bit if you were to do that at a little higher altitude?
I recall there being a website with speed and climb info for the 109G-10 as it performs in AH; would it be possible for somebody to use that information and create a new graph to submit to HTC to replace the current, incorrect one? That IMO seems an easier (and quicker) fix than to simply wait for a change to the 109 FM, and both sets of numbers are doubtlessly right for *some* of the G-10's which saw action. Perhaps this could also be done for the Ta-152
Of course such a measure is a temporary, band-aid at best since what both aircraft really need is a FM revision, but we as players have no direct control over that :)
Actually, with regards to the 109G-10, IMO the best solution would be to re-model the G-10 as the earlier ones perfomed (4600 FPM 426 MPH) and then add a 109K-4 as a high-performance (4800 fpm 452 mph) version. The G-10 doesn't handle the speed as well anyhow. Doing that would also fill a gap that we have currently in 109 performance.
J_A_B
-
190A-5 had BMW 801D
-
whops...pic is gonna come out bad. I could send it to you if you want, it's a 1.1 meg BMP.
-
I don't currently have a functional E-mail addy, and I'm not technically inclined enough to be able to intrepret it very well anyhow. There are however a number of guys on this forum who can do exactly that, and they might be interested in that chart. Where did you pull that from BTW?
J_A_B
-
I think I saw that in one of my books about aircraft engines (which I dont have atm, will get you a name asap), but that specific scan of that chart I think I found on this BBS someheres in one of the 190A-5 threads
-
heinkel upload the chart to the squad web space and link it.
just make a seperate folder and put the image there .
-
ok lets see if this works...
(http://3-jg2.com/FW/bmw.bmp)
-
BTW: I have the United States evaluation report of a captured 109F. It lists it as being able to carry 500 rounds in each 7mm, and 200 rounds in the hub 20mm. Incase anyone wants to see it.....
-
109F - more ammo plzz :)
-
Actaully, I just found this on my PC. The A-5 carried the BMW801D-2. The chart above is for the 801D in general. This hcart is specifically for the 801D-2
(http://www.3-jg2.com/fw/bmw801d2.jpg)
-
What a productive thread :) anyone have the ta-152 graphs while we're at it.
And although I'm not an expert I'm sure someone mentioned the C.202/205 carrying bombs. Not been mentioned yet.
Gatso
BTW, if you want anything testing I'm lucky to have 3 PC's on a LAN all capable of running AH, I can do aircraft/aircraft comparisons pretty easily using H2H LAN. Just shout.
-
The 202 could carry 320 Kg of bombs, the variant was called the 202CB, as for the 152:
-
I think I have more about the 152 in one of my books...i'll get it scanned
-
Bombs and stuff.
Not at the top of the list I know but thought I'd add a link to this (http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/bombs.html) before I go to bed. I have few sites for allied/russian bombs but no where near as comprehensive. I have nothing for Japanese stuff other than the torp data thats been posted by other people.
Sure I read something about this in HT's interview with sabre at this years con. ie modeling ord accurately rather than generically.
Gatso
-
Hi Karnak,
>So you're saying that the AH Fw190A-5's deck speed is more accurate than this chart?
Yes, the value posted in this thread is very close to the one achieved in the US test.
>You're also saying that this chart is not based on flight tests, but rather on paper calculations?
Yes - at least that's what I suspect, though I can't prove it.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Ok, now who can make sense out of thos eengine charts?
J_A_B