FW-190 A-8CLARIFICATION,FIX,DISPUTE

[Guppy35]

I'm sticking to my guns on this - The best solution is the hardest one to implement, I think, and that is we need more late-war model 190-A series aircraft variants in the game, at some point or another, to more accurately represent the set and the wide multitude of varieties that were produced.  For comparison - Look how many '44-'45 models of P-47s we have in this game for example, and the wide variety that series was produced in during that time.

Oh, and btw, the 190-A8 we have in the game is very accurately modeled, however it is one of the heaviest production variants they produced, yet in AH it is supposed to represent a very broad spectrum of late-war-era A-models that were produced after the A-5.

+1 for any 190 love from HTCs.

Only if I can have my Spit XII, and LFIX with full span Univeral Wings, a clipped LFVc and a Seafire LFIII...oh and a Beaufighter and P38H

[Stoney]

I'm sticking to my guns on this - The best solution is the hardest one to implement, I think, and that is we need more late-war model 190-A series aircraft variants in the game, at some point or another, to more accurately represent the set and the wide multitude of varieties that were produced.  For comparison - Look how many '44-'45 models of P-47s we have in this game for example, and the wide variety that series was produced in during that time.

Oh, and btw, the 190-A8 we have in the game is very accurately modeled, however it is one of the heaviest production variants they produced, yet in AH it is supposed to represent a very broad spectrum of late-war-era A-models that were produced after the A-5.

+1 for any 190 love from HTCs.

There are some pretty drastic changes in performance between those Jug models, so its not like they're duplicate copies of the same plane.  And, it was the most numerous U.S. fighter constructed during the war--a very significant airplane.  Now, I'm not a 190 afficianado, so maybe you can explain the differences to me between the 190A8 and 190Awhatever.  But one thing that should be remembered is that you don't "have" to load that A8 down with all the cannons in order for it to be very effective.  When I flew the 190, I'd strip it down to just the 2x20mm package and that was plenty of firepower for anti-fighter work, and made it light enough to be pretty competitive with the U.S. late-war monsters.

[gyrene81]

there was a change in the wings between the a6 and the a8 due to what was i found was described as "weight creep". the increased fuel capacity, added armor and weapons, made the a8 heavier than its predecessors and they made some changes to the wings. i'll have to find the reference again but, i believe the a8 wings were made thinner and longer than those on the earlier "a models". the mounts for the wing guns were moved as well.

looks like war ministry test data to me (just from the format of the power settings table.) in that case why in the world would they want to use "US gallons"? 

btw the clue is right there in the pdf

why would the german war ministry use u.k. gallons? by the way, the original german text doesn't have any reference to gallons.

[perdue3]

I think we can now draw a safe conclusion for this thread. Due to the information that has been contributed to this thread, we can draw the following conclusions:

1. FW190A8s are an overweight pig that is good for nothing but flying straight and HOing.
2. The FW190A8 should be able to turn and burn with the rest of the planeset, despite having an ugly wing planeform and wing load.
3. All Luftwaffe planes are severely undermodeled because HTC hates the Luftwaffe and the community boasts a heavy bias towards Allied aircraft therefore all Allied planes are automatically better (despite the fact that the Luftwaffe planeset already has the only jets, largest gun loadouts of any plane, fastest mid/low alt bomber, best 109 for climb rates, and just about every other superior classification out there)

These conclusions leave but one glaring issue left to be discussed. If the current German planeset has the best of the best of aircraft available, then is it really the people who fly Luftwaffe planes that suck?

HAHA. Good laugh before work. You sir, are an idiot.

[Plazus]

HAHA. Good laugh before work. You sir, are an idiot.

Glad I could bring a smile to your face.

I want to see plazuz  vs pervert duel....

I think it would be a fun duel. However, pervert being himself, I think he may spend most of the time looking under my skirt. In this case, I better make sure I wear my panties.

[Ardy123]

However, pervert being himself, I think he may spend most of the time looking under my skirt. In this case, I better make sure I wear my panties.

got camel toe?

[alpini13]

yes we need a 190a8 remodel with either a weight or boost correction,or how about add the fw190-16/ g model or the 190a9

[Plazus]

keep the posts coming guys. i am still wondering if it is a weight issue or a performance of engine issue...or both....either way,it would be nice to see a more correct 190-a8 model

Sure. It would be nice if anybody in this thread could post a legitimate and concrete source of information suggesting that HTC should make revisions the flight model. Otherwise we will just have to stick with the usual whines about how Luftwaffe planes are nerfed all to hell.

got camel toe?

I'm thinking more along the lines of moose knuckle.

[gyrene81]

Sure. It would be nice if anybody in this thread could post a legitimate and concrete source of information suggesting that HTC should make revisions the flight model. Otherwise we will just have to stick with the usual whines about how Luftwaffe planes are nerfed all to hell.

you mean like pilot handbooks, test flight data and technical manuals? ok, now that i have some, any suggestion on how to compare the specs used by htc to the documentation i have?

it's probably nothing more than a matter of differences in air density between maps.   

[Babalonian]

Only if I can have my Spit XII, and LFIX with full span Univeral Wings, a clipped LFVc and a Seafire LFIII...oh and a Beaufighter and P38H

I will gladly join your wholehearted crusade, if you could please and so kindly spare the time to supply me with a list of in-game spitfires and their associated war production time frames/periods. 

The A-5 in-game represents ~ an 8-month production period of the A-series 190 aircraft.  Our current A-8 in-game, while based on a later production variant, can be taken to represent the entire A-series from after that A-5, which from last A-5 produced in June '43 would be ~23-months of various production models and variants rolled into one ( - the heaviest laden!                - ) A-model variant in-game.

How many more variants should there be?  Well, similarly Guppy we'd both like to see every variant and model of our favorite aircraft in-game, so I can't unbiasedly make any recommendation there, but more (see: all of them) would be good.

There are some pretty drastic changes in performance between those Jug models, so its not like they're duplicate copies of the same plane.  And, it was the most numerous U.S. fighter constructed during the war--a very significant airplane.  Now, I'm not a 190 afficianado, so maybe you can explain the differences to me between the 190A8 and 190Awhatever.  But one thing that should be remembered is that you don't "have" to load that A8 down with all the cannons in order for it to be very effective.  When I flew the 190, I'd strip it down to just the 2x20mm package and that was plenty of firepower for anti-fighter work, and made it light enough to be pretty competitive with the U.S. late-war monsters.

Agreed, there are some pretty drastic differences between each variant of Jug and the large representation is needed, but similarly there were also in the 190A-series.  Over 6,500 A-8 series airframes were produced, alone, over a 14-month period of time (and I think from ~7 different factories).  I can't really make an accurate comparison, but ballpark would be taking every D-model jug and forcing a break-down of all their various differences into only two variants available in-game (and choosing to model the later model based off the heaviest production variant produced... as the base model).

As for your recommendation, it is true and makes a notable impact to performance in-game, however, and again, the A-8 model we have in-game is simply not cutting it by merely mixing up the armament packages because it is the heaviest possible base model.  It is based off the heaviest, strongest-armamaent, high-altitude, armored-flying-bathtub bomber-intercepter of a production model.  GREAT for buff hunting and killing, horrible for lightening up to represent the exceptionally competitive fighter-intercpeter that it was also quite capable of.

yes we need a 190a8 remodel with either a weight or boost correction,or how about add the fw190-16/ g model or the 190a9

See, there's your problem, nothing needs to be corrected, it's all quite accurately modeled, it's just unfortunately one of the heaviest A-series production models that HTC chose to accurately model.


In my own fantasy world, where I own my own flight simulation company and HT is the janitor (just kidding!), probably would be 4-5 different A-series 190s in the game, 2-3 alone being A-8 variants.

[gyrene81]

excellent information babalonian. but, the a8 in game is a high altitude variant?  i thought it was modeled with the mw50 and not the gm-1 system.

[Guppy35]

LFIX was the most produced version of the Spit IX of which there were 5600 + built between 42 and 45. About 80 percent of Spit IX production were LFIX. The Russians got over 1100 LFIX.  It's the one with the Merlin 66.  We have the earlier FIX with the Merlin 61.

Spit XII is a long time history project.  Only 100 built serving from February 43-September 44.  Highest scoring 11 Group Spit squadron in the fall of 43 was 91 which was a Spit XII squadron.  Built specifically to counter low altitude 190 hit and run raiders on the south coast of England  but used over France effectively.

Seafire III was the primary Seafire version in WW2 with over half of all Seafire production, a bit over 1000 planes produced 43-45

Spit LFV was an updated Spitfire V with an engine rated for lower alt performance.  It was a result of the 190 domination of the Spitfire FVb when it was first introduced.  The LF V closed the gap somewhat but not all the way.  Still in combat in mid 44.

Beaufighter.  In combat from 40-45  Production of over 5000.  Multi role ground attack, torpedo bomber, fighter etc.

P-38H, last of the small intake 38s.  Just because

I understand the 190 fans wish.  All those different versions of the 190.  Looking at just the Spit IX, there are 32 different variations on just the IX.  I count 39 for the Spitfire V.  

Somehow HTC has to cover a lot of variants effectively but in moderation

[CAP1]

I'm not sure about it's speed characteristics, but you can know for sure that it's very incorrect. P47 pilots would claim that the Thunderbolt's only advantage over the FW 190 was it's roll rate. Isn't that the exact opposite of AH2? I'd take any of the Thunderbolts vs any of the FW's anytime in AH2, but in life that was near suicide. The fact of the matter is, the FW190 could out-turn the P47. It was the 190's fight to lose anywhere but on the deck and then it was 50:50.

I love the Jug, I feel I should say that, but I like the 190 too and I don't comprehend why to make the airplane inaccurate to a point where it's the exact opposite of what the real pilots claim. Is this a simulator or an arcade game?

Having said that, it should be known that the 109 is also inaccurate. Hans-Joachim Marseille(who Gunther Rall would call 'the best') would achieve kills with high deflection shooting with the 109's flaps. And no, not at 180 MPH true, more about 300.

It's already a fine aircraft, but it's sadly incorrect.

Wanna see what the planes were really like? What Buff hunting was really like and I think, if this is the right video, how maneuverable the 190 was, you can see a 190 A7 out-turning a p47 at the end and giving it a solid burst. The Jug's toughness is under-modeled in AH2, particularly it's R2800 engine. Also, if this is the right video, you get to see a p38 turn(who Robin Olds would say, you get a decent pilot in it, you can whip anything down low).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZOb0vx9y9I

 having talked with a ww2 vet that used to be in our r/c club(he had flown 47's, then 51's), that had the opportunity to fly a couple different versions of the 109, and the 190 after the war.......right from his mouth........the 190's he flew were every bit the match for anything we had in the sky. he also said that he was thankful that there weren't better pilots still flying for the luftwaffe by the time they started using the later models.

[Stoney]

having talked with a ww2 vet that used to be in our r/c club(he had flown 47's, then 51's), that had the opportunity to fly a couple different versions of the 109, and the 190 after the war.......right from his mouth........the 190's he flew were every bit the match for anything we had in the sky. he also said that he was thankful that there weren't better pilots still flying for the luftwaffe by the time they started using the later models.

While I respect his experience, what exactly does "every bit the match for anything we had in the sky" mean in quantitative terms?  Not much really, except that he thought they were competitive airframes.  The qualitative comparison is context only.  When we talk about modelling in-game, it doesn't help HTC get turn rates or roll rates that match real-world performance.  I always go back to Robert Johnson's exclamation that once he got the paddle-blade prop on his Jug, he could out climb a Spitfire.  I don't think he was deliberately making it up--just that his perception was that he could.  WW has spoken of this before.  We should appreciate their experience for what it is--context.  Unless they were a test pilot, and flew controlled flight tests to compare the aircraft, and had data from those tests, it really doesn't give us anything to make a quantitative comparison...

[CAP1]

While I respect his experience, what exactly does "every bit the match for anything we had in the sky" mean in quantitative terms?  Not much really, except that he thought they were competitive airframes.  The qualitative comparison is context only.  When we talk about modelling in-game, it doesn't help HTC get turn rates or roll rates that match real-world performance.  I always go back to Robert Johnson's exclamation that once he got the paddle-blade prop on his Jug, he could out climb a Spitfire.  I don't think he was deliberately making it up--just that his perception was that he could.  WW has spoken of this before.  We should appreciate their experience for what it is--context.  Unless they were a test pilot, and flew controlled flight tests to compare the aircraft, and had data from those tests, it really doesn't give us anything to make a quantitative comparison...

what it meant to him, was that he was thankful that the luftwaffe didn't have any good pilots left to fly those things.