Can we fix the 190A5?

[Saurdaukar]

Thanks.

[LLogann]

A Muppet making such a silly post.........  Now that is interesting.

Why you ask?  Give it a few more replies........

But in a nutshell, for those of us who don't fly that particular FW, what on earth is wrong with it?

[Anaxogoras]

It's about 10mph too slow at sea level?

[waystin2]

Fix what Mazz?  Please assume that all readers are ignorant when forming your wish...



(waiting for aw & banshee...LOL)

[Anaxogoras]

This posting tactic is known as "proof by omission."

[Cajunn]

I been flying it so if there is something wrong with it please tell me now before I ask it to move in.......

[Karnak]

Fix?  As in "Fix" the cat?   

[BnZs]

What? I would have figured all of you people had already read my aside about the 190A5's performance in Die Hard's "More Ponies" thread. Since this is apparently not the case...

I do not desire a Fw unrealistically modeled to be a "t'n'b" aircraft or what have you.


A-5 with extra boost, A-6, A-9, all would be desirable. BUT, how about simply having an A-5 that performs to specification?

(Image removed from quote.)

The SLOWEST level deck speed quoted for an A5 from the reports compiled at wwiiaircraftperformance.org is 348mph, the others give 351-352. Our 190A5 tops out at 340mph on the deck, 4mph slower than a SpitXVI *without* a center-line rack. Also, I did a quick comparison at DokGonzo's, and our 190A5 is basically out-accelerated by the P-51D at low alt.

EDIT: Sorry Die Hard, I'll start a new thread for anymore 190 talk.

The OP is not silly. The 190As are far from "uber-planes" anyway, why is the A-5 further handicapped by being 10-12mph too slow on the deck? I know it looks like we have enough 190 variants already, but all of them except the D9 are basically targets in LW and arguably even MW in terms of performance. The only explanation I think of for our slow A-5 is that it might be a "hybrid" with the A-4 in terms of performance, our A-8 seems to be a heavily armored buff-hunter with limited potential as any sort of fighter. There is no A-6 to add an earlier variant that had quad MG 151s, there is no A-9 to represent the pinnacle of performance achieved by radial-engined 190s. As I say, it makes no sense to me to treat an aircraft that is never going to be an "uber-fighter" anyway as the red-headed stepchild in terms of modeling.

[FYB]

Depends, did you say please? Are you qualified to say the 109A-5 has a failure, i mean, malfunction in it? Sir, can you explain why you're being rude? Is your throat drying up? Are you a male or female? Can you please restrain your hands from someones throat, including mine?

Warning: Taking these questions has a risk of, heartache and heart failure, headache, blood pressure may rise, stupid 'o' meter will scale above a 15, and you may consider killing the innocent FYB.

If these questions cause death, i mean, risks, please contact your reaper, i mean, doctor and talk to him about your death, i mean, pain.
No further questions.

-FYB

[BnZs]

Our 190 "A-5" performance seems to fall in line with that the 190 A-3. Indeed, it does appear the 190 A-5 is a victim of "hybridization".

[Karnak]

All hybridization must die!  Make the Fw190A-5 perform like an Fw190A-5 and add the Fw190A-3 as a separate, earlier Fw190.

[Anaxogoras]

Skuzzy will have an aneurism  over the new A-3 skin submissions.

[moot]

Down with hybridization!

[waystin2]

Now that I understand, I agree.  Please fix the A-5.

[Saurdaukar]

This posting tactic is known as "proof by omission."