Replace 190a8 with a9!

[Butcher]

"Your books quote has truth to it Guppy"

To me Guppy's book sounded like typical History Channel type pseudotechincal BS.

The FW190 was as much a "bomber interceptor" as P-38 was a "bomber". However, 190 was much better for the job than 109 and under overwhelming pressure from escort fighters it combined the best characteristics of weapon effect, speed and survivability to intercept bombers at that situation. Even the A8 got its fair share of fighter kills and from armament point of view carrying the extra outboard cannons, which were handy against bombers, did not hamper it in dogfight too much.

If we consider which fighter in US ordinance would have been best bomber interceptor in similar setting the answer is pretty clear: P-47. Radial engine, speed, armament. Although there would have been pressure to upgrade the armament to four 20mms if it faced such task.

Now would that meant that is was a "bomber interceptor" or merely a fighter that was best for the job at hand?

-C+

I would consider the 190 tied for the Jack of all trades as a Fighter - in comparison to the P-47 Jug - both which I consider the best fighters in WW2 for this reason - no other fighter was able to adapt to changing roles throughout the war as both were.

Lets look at a comparison:
P-47C was an interceptor - able to fly extremely high and fast
P-47D-25 was modified to add range, a bomb load and different drop tank options
P-47D-40 - with the P-51 taking over completely as the Escort fighter, the D40 was adapted for a heavy ground attack fighter
P-47M - a high speed sprint model
P-47N - a LONG range escort fighter

Fw-190a3 - air superiority fighter
Fw-190a5 - upgrade of the A3
Fw-190a8 - Bomber interceptor
Fw-190F - Ground attack model, since the Ju-87 became obsolete the need for a close support role
Fw-190G - Built in parallel with the 190F, centerline MG's and outboard 20mms removed
Fw-190d9 - interceptor

If you look at how each aircraft is redefined and modified, not many aircraft were done like this.
Certainly the P-51D was not adapted for ground attack, thus why it stayed a Long range escort fighter rather then modified for ground attack operations - when the P-47 and P-38 were best suited for it.

The adaption of roles is what I consider "the best fighter".

[save]

Fw190a8 flew, after the invasion 1944, primary in the role of air superiority fighter.
In the autumn of 1944 bombers where considered secondary targets, as the fighter-bombers imposed a bigger threat to Wehrmacht ground forces. (source jg26 war diarys volume2)

[Babalonian]

Anything earlier than the A-4 would mean a new 3D model because of the shorter nose. Engine overheating issues were not solved until the A-4 which introduced a slightly longer nose.

Bino, to strengthen a wing can be synonymous with lightening it. Making sure that the stressed parts of the wing are strong enough to take the required loads while lightening the structure wherever possible.


"A designer knows that he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

- Antoine de St-Exupery

That would be my point, one of the pre-A4s with the cowl extension/rework.  Would have the weaker powerplant and if it had WEP at all it would probabley be the worst of any german fighter modeled in the game.

I think its maneuverability and diference in CG would be better than our A-5, but it won't be better overall than the A-5 in terms of endurance or even durability/engine-reliability.... just my speculation.

[Babalonian]

You keep mentioning this "uparmoring" over and over again while you aren't able to produce any proof that there is any on AH's 190A-8. There certainly is more proof available that the armor what the 190A-8 had in standard fighter config.


Could you explain what this particular "AH term" means?

Your first quote is quite confusing in the English language, no offence intended, but please rephrase.  I'll try to attempt to respond to it accuratley:

Proof is in the E6B, the weight is right there.  Otherwise and beyond that, only HiTech or employees of HTCs have access or knowledge to accurate aplications/modeling/presence of armor and toughness values of individual AH airframe components or AH aircraft as a whole.  What you ask to proove is impossible of anyone short of those with this access, and neither you or me have any authority or influence over the resource/attention given it.  From what I see, what is available, and what is demonstrated through actual use of the aircraft in AH - I will claim that it's there.  Want proof to validate or dismiss my claim, contact HTCs.

What is your proof of a "standard 190A-8 fighter" configuration?  I'll go ahead and skip ahead to why I'm so confused by this particular comment - from all I've dug through, there is none, so please show me, I am very eager.

What we do have are earlier pre 190A-8/R2s,R8s (A7s definetley, I think even some A6s but will need to verify) in standard production fighter configurations then getting the standard upgrade packages (field kits/power eggs) to bring them up-to-date or futher in-line with current standards.  Then we have these new/later production standards/vareints/line of A8s were geared for creating the latest/later bomber-interceptors.  These are the ones that had that reinforced armor in the wings, compared to the ones that didn't...... perhaps to best get to my point at how prevolant I think this clearly was - How many new A-8s were produced from sept/oct of '44 until the end, and how many total A-8s were there?  Where is any example to be found of the 700 a7s produced from the end of '43 to the spring of '44 after that time (April '44)?  So what the heck are those 190s flying in April'44-Sept'45, or weren't there any at all durign this time?...


I apologise, I threw some stinky bait out on a line with the reference to the Finn Brew... but since it hooked you, might as well reel it in - An "AH Finnish Brewster" is as it sat on a runway in Finnland during roughly the late-summer of 1945 - as opposed to one de-crated on a Finnish Dock, or any example to be found prior to a date of or after the end of all hostilities.  I want an "AH Finnish A8" too.    Clear? 

(And to be honestly clear - just because it happened with ONE ac in AH, doesn't justify expecting it to happen for other ac, including the 190.  I like the AH Finn Brew, but I was trolling you, so unless there is some further point we both would rather persue over it, Ill drop it.)


And AGAIN, I'll reitterate, nothing is criticly off or wrong with our A-8 - I just wish we had one that wasn't such a dog, and they did exist, just not in any standard or production varient, and thus they're probabley just better to be left out... as cool as an A-6 with 6/4/2x20mm, no cowl guns, and the powerplant of an A-9 would be - it's also breaking at least every other rule HTCs has for including an ac in the game.


Edit:  I'm no english major either.

[Wmaker]

My bad. Yeah the last sentence of mine doesn't make sense. More of a brain fart than language issue though. I keep doing more and more of those type of "typos/grammar errors." Getting worrisome.

What I meant to say in the last sentence is:  There certainly is more proof available that the armor what the 190A-8 has in AH is what the real thing had in standard fighter config.

In other words, the weight matches this chart when it comes to the 4x20mm config:


There is a small discrepancy in the weight for 2x20mm config. for example but nothing that would indicate the presence of any extra armor from standard.

[Krusty]

Lets look at a comparison:
P-47C was an interceptor - able to fly extremely high and fast
P-47D-25 was modified to add range, a bomb load and different drop tank options
P-47D-40 - with the P-51 taking over completely as the Escort fighter, the D40 was adapted for a heavy ground attack fighter
P-47M - a high speed sprint model
P-47N - a LONG range escort fighter

Fw-190a3 - air superiority fighter
Fw-190a5 - upgrade of the A3
Fw-190a8 - Bomber interceptor
Fw-190F - Ground attack model, since the Ju-87 became obsolete the need for a close support role
Fw-190G - Built in parallel with the 190F, centerline MG's and outboard 20mms removed
Fw-190d9 - interceptor

This is a seriously flawed and wholly inaccurate description of all the types listed.

[Butcher]

This is a seriously flawed and wholly inaccurate description of all the types listed.

It was a cut down description Krusty - if you bothered to read the beginning "I would consider the 190 tied for the Jack of all trades as a Fighter - in comparison to the P-47 Jug - both which I consider the best fighters in WW2 for this reason"

My opinion, now off my nuts.

[Wmaker]

I apologise, I threw some stinky bait out on a line with the reference to the Finn Brew... but since it hooked you, might as well reel it in - An "AH Finnish Brewster" is as it sat on a runway in Finnland during roughly the late-summer of 1945 - as opposed to one de-crated on a Finnish Dock, or any example to be found prior to a date of or after the end of all hostilities.  I want an "AH Finnish A8" too.    Clear? 

(And to be honestly clear - just because it happened with ONE ac in AH, doesn't justify expecting it to happen for other ac, including the 190.  I like the AH Finn Brew, but I was trolling you, so unless there is some further point we both would rather persue over it, Ill drop it.)

There is nothing particular that has "happened" for Brewster in AH that's different from other ACs. There was nothing different in the flight performance of a Brewster in 1939 compared to 1945 except the fact that they were totally war weary by 1945 and it was a small miracle that they were kept flying so long without proper spare part supply. I kind of doubt you'd want an 190A-8 which has seen so much combat that it's about worn out.

[Guppy35]

"Your books quote has truth to it Guppy"

To me Guppy's book sounded like typical History Channel type pseudotechincal BS.

The FW190 was as much a "bomber interceptor" as P-38 was a "bomber". However, 190 was much better for the job than 109 and under overwhelming pressure from escort fighters it combined the best characteristics of weapon effect, speed and survivability to intercept bombers at that situation. Even the A8 got its fair share of fighter kills and from armament point of view carrying the extra outboard cannons, which were handy against bombers, did not hamper it in dogfight too much.

If we consider which fighter in US ordinance would have been best bomber interceptor in similar setting the answer is pretty clear: P-47. Radial engine, speed, armament. Although there would have been pressure to upgrade the armament to four 20mms if it faced such task.

Now would that meant that is was a "bomber interceptor" or merely a fighter that was best for the job at hand?

-C+

So why did they add cannons to the Spitfire?  Why did they add armor plate?  There's nothing wrong with what the kid's book said.  The point was clear.  As the job of the 190 evolved it took on more armor, heavier weaponry and weight.   As with any fighter evolution it became more weight compensated with by more horsepower.  That didn't make the plane more agile.  If you are going to fly aerobatics you'd want a Spit I.  that doesn't make it a better combat plane.  You'd want a Spit 21 with all the  brute force and 4 20mms. 

What is it exactly this 190A8 is supposed to do that it doesn't? 

What would the 'perfect' A8 offer that the A5 doesn't? 

To me the 'perfect' Spitfire for AH would be the Spitfire LFIX with the Universal wing, and Merlin 66.  We don't have it, even though it was the most produced Spitfire IX variant.  No extra weight from hard points.  No extra weight from the additional fuel tanks as in the VIII.  And it did most of the fighting for the RAF over France from 43-45.

We don't have it.

Is that essentially what folks want?  They want their vision of the 'perfect' A8 that will do what they want it to?

[killnu]

Thats what I want Dan.

[Karnak]

Thats what I want Dan.

That is understandable, but is it justifiable?  Which Fw190A-8 best fills that hole in AH?

Using Dan's Spitfire IX reference, the Spitfire F.Mk IX with the universal wing and a Merlin 61 from July of 1942 best fills a gap.  The Spitfire Mk VIII fills the 1943 gap, the Spitfire Mk XVI fills the 1944/45 gap and together the Mk VIII and Mk XVI can be used in place of Dan's "perfect" Spitfire LF.Mk IX with the universal wing.  The only really significant gap in the Spitfire lineup in AH is the lack of the Seafire L.Mk III.

So, using the Spitfire's lineup as a reference of what good coverage looks like:
1940: Spitfire Mk Ia
1941: Spitfire Mk Vb
1942: Seafire Mk IIc
1942: Spitfire Mk IX
1943: Spitfire Mk VIII
1944/45: Spitfire Mk XVI
1944/45: Spitfire Mk XIV

What lineup of Fw190s would provide the best coverage of the timeline in a similar fashion?

[Krusty]

What I meant to say in the last sentence is:  There certainly is more proof available that the armor what the 190A-8 has in AH is what the real thing had in standard fighter config.

In other words, the weight matches this chart when it comes to the 4x20mm config:
(Image removed from quote.)

This is incorrect. You have cherry picked what is probably the one and ONLY reference that states 4400kg, ignoring dozens of others from 1943 through 1945 that list 4300kg for a fully loaded 190A8 (standard with 4x 20mm and aux tank filled), to back you up. I notice that while pretending to break things down it neglects to break down the amount of armor loaded out on that particular airframe.

I've posted tons of it before. For some reason wwiiaircraftperformance.org is down, but I noted what the links said because I know people don't always click them to read them. I don't seem to have saved them locally or I'd have re-uped them.

From the ill-fated thorsim thread:

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

from 2009:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,258131.0.html

From 2008 (ignore the trolls):
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,228970.0.html

Just as reference...

Note the dates are day-month-year, not the typical US standard of month-day-year.

In short, 4300kg was the standard loaded weight all the way to the end of the war, for a Fw190A8 standard production model with 4x20mm loadout and full aux tank.

[Guppy35]

Thats what I want Dan.

Josh I watched you not long ago, eating people up in an A8.  You seemed to handle it just fine

What doesn't it do that it should?

[Wmaker]

This is incorrect. You have cherry picked what is probably the one and ONLY reference that states 4400kg,

I'm not "cherry picking" anything. There certainly isn't anything incorrect about it, as far as I know the data comes straight from Focke-Wulf.  I'm just saying to which data the AH weight is most likely based on. I've seen different weights as well but nothing substantially different.

The weights you posted are weights at which the planes were tested with. It doesn't necessarily mean that's the full take of weight of certain configuration. I find a weight table like the one I posted a much more reliable source on what was the actual all up weight than a single weight reference in a performance chart.

Yes, it has all been discussed before, long before you registered on this board actually. As far as I know lot of the data on the Mike Williams' site had not surfaced yet when HTC produced the 190A-8 to the sim. That weight table is from a translated Focke-Wulf manual/document which Italian AH flier Gatt got hold of, scanned and sent to HTC. Climb and speed performance of the A-8 in AH also match the data found on that particular document.

Rather pompous of you Krusty to come here and tell us that a weight table which comes from Focke-Wulf is "incorrect". Hilariously priceless in fact.

[33Vortex]

That would be my point, one of the pre-A4s with the cowl extension/rework.  Would have the weaker powerplant and if it had WEP at all it would probabley be the worst of any german fighter modeled in the game.

I think its maneuverability and diference in CG would be better than our A-5, but it won't be better overall than the A-5 in terms of endurance or even durability/engine-reliability.... just my speculation.

And yet, the early 190 slaughtered spits and turned inside the contemporary 109s. I do not have hard evidence, but that's what the pilots said.