190A5 vs 190A8

[jdbecks]

Now that's just a Luftwhine

   

[Krusty]

Yep, like I thought, about 100% error in your 500lbs figure for A-8...

Your initial reply didn't seem to indicate you thought my numbers were off, you sounded like you didn't think the A8 was overweight at all. I knew there were a lot of weight issues with AH's 190A/F models, and knew it was like flying around with a bomb onboard all the time. I just confused which number was wrong in this case. It was a smaller bomb, but still a lot.

The reason I asked was that during one of these A-8 weight discussions I went and checked the HTC home page's aircraft section's weight and it was 9481lbs to the pound. That was before the AH Wiki. I think we had the weights listed in the E6B at the time but I didn't feel the need to check in game. That info had been there from 1999 until the start of AH Wiki. I guess the weight has changed at some point. That first link's scan was scanned by Vermillion from a manual Gatt sent to him IIRC.

Similar case is with the A6M2. Before AH Wiki A6M2's weight was listed as 5313lbs in the home page's aircraft pages. An often quoted figure which might originate from Rene Francillon's Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War. The weight in AH is higher. Roughly 200lbs more IIRC.

If I recall there have been at least a handful of planes (half a dozen or so?) where the weights were called into question on the AH charts. I think that the concensus at the time was that the weights were not with full fuel, and it was hard to judge what state the aircraft was in while testing (which led to our having a weight readout in our E6B for diagnostic testing).

All of my 190A8 numbers posted above were taken from E6B, and then using math to figure out the weights of individual components.



P.S. Our outboard 30mm package weighs far too much, and our outboard 20mm package doesn't weigh enough, as compared to the real deal. Current bang-for-buck is the 4x20mm, until that is fixed.

[Ardy123]

So the general consensus is that the weight is off in AH? Does HiTeck or Pyro have anything to say about this?

[Baumer]

I'm not sure where this fit's in exactly but this is what I have for the A-8 weight's in various configurations.This is from T.2190A-8 issued (Sep/44). I'm not saying this is the end all document, it's always wise to compare sources.



In summary comparing the various gun packages in AH (from the E6B) to this I came up with the following ranges;

• 2 MG131's, 4 MG151's- in AH it's from -.2 under to +20 pounds over weight (this is the only configuration the AH weight falls within the range in the document)
• 2 MG131's, 2 MG151's- in AH  it's from +67 to +77 pounds over weight
• 2 MG131's, 2 MG151's, 2 MK 108's- in AH it's from +68.8 to +78.8 pounds over weight
• 2 MG131's, 2 MG151's, ETC 501 carrier, SC 500kg- in AH it's from +40.7 to +41.1 pounds over weight

Also doing a little more math,
The ETC 501 rack in game is 23.8 pounds to light.
The GP 500kg in game is 2.5 pounds to light.

BTW I wonder how it would handle with the /R-3 package? 

I hope that helps with the weight discussion.
 

[Krusty]

They probably are working on other things. One of them (Pyro?) chimed in on a thread about the ETC rack weight. They're probably aware that we've brought up the weight issues a number of times.

They probably have a "to do" list longer than the state of Texas is. I just wish this would move towards the top of it  

[Krusty]

According to milo (and he cites the source):

ammunition for 2 MG131 - 77kg/170lb for 950rds
ammunition for 2 MG151 - 110kg/243lb for 500rds
ammunition for 2 MG151 - 64kg/141lb for 280 rds

removal of 2 MG151 and ammo - 389lb

ref. 190A-8 Handbook, Tech Description #284

The 30mm MK108 weighed 58kg or 128lb.

Doing the math from the E6B, the empty weight of our in-game MG151/20s (outboard) is 93lbs per gun, and for the Mk108s is 194lbs per gun. That means for dry weight alone (after ammo is gone) you're 132 lbs over what it should be.

Also, have you tested the ETC 501 lately in-game? I never got around to it, but in the thread where Milo cited the weight of the rack and referenced it for HTC, he even said 60.7 kg, same as your sheet. Might be an oversight on HTC's part? Worth double checking and reporting.

P.S. Don't show translated sheets like that around here, it will start a 5-page flame war about falsifying data, as in one of the last threads it was done (insert old rolleyes here)

[Wmaker]

I'm not sure where this fit's in exactly but this is what I have for the A-8 weight's in various configurations.This is from T.2190A-8 issued (Sep/44). I'm not saying this is the end all document, it's always wise to compare sources.

(Image removed from quote.)

In summary comparing the various gun packages in AH (from the E6B) to this I came up with the following ranges;

• 2 MG131's, 4 MG151's- in AH it's from -.2 under to +20 pounds over weight (this is the only configuration the AH weight falls within the range in the document)
• 2 MG131's, 2 MG151's- in AH  it's from +67 to +77 pounds over weight
• 2 MG131's, 2 MG151's, 2 MK 108's- in AH it's from +68.8 to +78.8 pounds over weight
• 2 MG131's, 2 MG151's, ETC 501 carrier, SC 500kg- in AH it's from +40.7 to +41.1 pounds over weight

Also doing a little more math,
The ETC 501 rack in game is 23.8 pounds to light.
The GP 500kg in game is 2.5 pounds to light.

BTW I wonder how it would handle with the /R-3 package?  

I hope that helps with the weight discussion.
 

Thanks for that Baumer!

I probably haven't seen it before.

That's rather realiable source as it shows the weight breakdown.

[Krusty]

I'm not too sure "how reliable" it is. Even assuming AH's is modeled off this or another similar breakdown, some parts of it don't mesh. It doesn't match the empty weight of AHs plane even though the loaded weight appears to. On top of that at least half a dozen other flight tests and weight breakdowns list the A8 with 4x20mm cannon and an aux tank (fully loaded) as weighing 100kg less than that.

I tried looking at the breakdown to see where the 100kg discrepency might be, but I don't know where the difference lies. It lists "permanent accessories" "additional accessories" and "standard equipment" as having over 1300 pounds of weight, but does not say what is in there. Surely gunsights and other equipment, but why is the overall 100kg heavier?

Not to mention the fact that for the same amount of gallons, AH's internal fuel weighs 1014 pounds while the chart says 1102.4 pounds, almost 100 lbs heavier?

It does seem to be one of the charts (or similar to the charts) AH used to build the gun options, but the rest? Let's say it matches this loaded weight for the 4x20mm A-8, but for some reason the outboard 20mm package is too light(as shown). So why, if the outboard 20mm are too light in AH, why does it still meet this 4400kg loaded weight?



P.S. Ran across another one, different serial number, still in German, also listing 4x20mm loadout and 4300kg.
http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/8664/fw190a8cleansizedfl8.jpg

[Baumer]

That chart is a couple of pages further back in the pdf I have. The problem is, that set for 4 graphs lists the same weight regardless of the load out. Since that set of graphs has the 4 20mm's as the same weight as, 2 20mm's and 3 Mk 108's, that lead me to believe they were not reliable.

I have not done any empty weight testing, or verified the weight of the ammunition but it would be nice if it could be addressed. I know HTC all ready has a million thing on their "To Do" list.

[Krusty]

Just going to compile a little list of different tests and different airframes on different dates (including the untranslated version of the 2 images I linked earlier in this thread), all listing weights and loadouts for the test.

These are not meant to really debate what performance we have or should have, but are only used as examples of historic weights in wartime testing (battle loaded) airframes. Also note dates are day/month/year, NOT the normal month/day/year.

New links:
serial no.: 801-048
date: 13.11.1943
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-level-speed-13nov43.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm
Lists 4350kg for fully loaded 2x20/2x30

serial no. 801-051
date: 13.11.1943
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-climb-13nov43.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm
Lists 4350kg for fully loaded 2x20/2x30

serial no. 801-132
date: 25.10.1944
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-25oct44.jpg
Already previously listed, but translated chart:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-25oct44.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm

serial no. (A-8 not listed, ta152 comparison)
date: 3.1.1945
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-3jan45.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm.

serial no. (A-8 not listed, anothe rta152 comparison)
date: 12.1.1945
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-12jan45.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm

serial no. (A-8 not listed, compares multiple variants)
date: 1.10.1944
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/leistungsdaten-1-10-44.jpg
already previously listed, but translated chart:
http://www.vermin.net/fw190/translated-fwchart.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm

[save]

190a8r4  had nitrous oxide tank called GM-1 boost system

According to JG26 volume2, the system  increased the top speed by as much as 36 mph at altitudes above 8000 meters.

 GM-1 raised the fighter's critical altitude from 5500 to 6300 meters (18,000 to 20,700 feet) at which height its maximum speed was 656 km/h (408 mph).


/Save

[thorsim]

you do some forum searches and folks were talking about it back as early as 2001 or so.

They were talking about MW50 since 1999 

P.S. That's not even counting the hot debate about our A-5 being modeled off of a ballasted G-3 after its capture by allies.

the handling always seems to be more like the F5 in those USN tests than anything else, i always wanted to see the plane that had the RAF so nervous, what hitech has delivered so far sems to fall pretty short. 

[BnZs]

the handling always seems to be more like the F5 in those USN tests than anything else, i always wanted to see the plane that had the RAF so nervous, what hitech has delivered so far sems to fall pretty short.  

Against Hurris, Spit5s, P-40s, etc, our 190A5 is faster, accelerates better, climbs better, rolls better, and has lethal firepower, suffering only in turn rate and radius. A pack of experten in 190s flying against the planes the RAF had when the 190 first appeared will make it abundantly clear what the RAF was so nervous about.

EDIT: Which is not to say the 190A line couldn't use some of its more potent members added to help it retain relevance in the MW and LW...

[thorsim]

better is not dominant. 

Against Hurris, Spit5s, P-40s, etc, our 190A5 is faster, accelerates better, climbs better, rolls better, and has lethal firepower, suffering only in turn rate and radius. A pack of experten in 190s flying against the planes the RAF had when the 190 first appeared will make it abundantly clear what the RAF was so nervous about.

EDIT: Which is not to say the 190A line couldn't use some of its more potent members added to help it retain relevance in the MW and LW...

[Die Hard]

The 190A-5 completely dominates the Spit5. Completely and utterly.