Whats the stats of a FW190-A5?

[gatt]

Referring to the other monster-thread about the C.202 performance would be interesting to learn why there is so much difference between RAE tests, Luftwaffe manuals, personal accounts and what we usually see in WB and AH arenas.

I'd like to see the technical reasons why the 190A-4/5 is usually such a dog against Spitfire V and IX, even up to 20,000ft.

My comments about (virtual) Spitfire V-IX performance were a bit ironic and polemic. Jekyll, really, I'd like to see anything of what I've red in tons of tech books and bios about the 190A-5. I'm afraid she will be a copy of the WB's one. So, thats why I wrote something like: "forget to cope with Spit IX, unless you catch one of them unaware".

ironic mode on
Were all guys at RAE drunk? Were chief LW and RA test pilots drunk? Were JG2 and JG26 all supermen during 1942-43 engagements over the channel? Were the MW50 and GM-1 two magic-boxes?
ironic mode off

I'm still in best-loved armchair waiting', go on guys ...  

[hblair]

 

In technical terms, mind you. I expect to see the equations by the end of class

ROFLMAO.

Nice to see us luftwabbles have someone who will stand up to the #'s slinging fd-ski.  

Your turn fd-ski.  

------------------
hblair,
<===< The ASSASSINS >===>
 
"Knocking the training wheels off of spitsters for a good long while"

[This message has been edited by hblair (edited 04-29-2000).]

[JMW]

Exactly why does the FW190 A5 perform more poorly then the A8 at alt 20K +. Can someone give me the technical reason? What difference between the two aircraft makes them perform so different?


JMW

[Jekyll]

 

I'd like to see the technical reasons why the 190A-4/5 is usually such a dog against Spitfire V and IX, even up to 20,000ft.

Mate, if the real 190A-4 performed as badly in climb, zoom etc against the Spit V as it does in WB, just why was late 1941/early 1942 such a dark time for the RAF?  Why was the Spit V so comprehensively outclassed by the 190 when in AH all the 190 can do against the V is run?

You simply cannot derive all of an aircraft's flight characteristics (at least for the purposes of an online sim) from books which may have been produced years after the fact.

Here's another example.  The P47 Thunderbolt.  I've just finished reading Robert S. Johnson's 'Thunderbolt', in which he talks about the performance difference after the paddle blade propellers were installed in January 1944.

Now, you may have read about Johnson's mock combat against a Spit IX in his P47C.  The Spit could easily outclimb him in an extended climb, but Johnson used his roll rate, dive and zoom performance to win the fight.

Well, he had another mock fight against a Spit IX AFTER the paddle blade modification to the P47.  

The result?

The Jug was able to climb away from the Spit IX with ease.  In Johnson's words, "Never again would a Me-109 or Fw-190 be able to outclimb my thunderbolt".  In the opinion of the engineers, the paddle blade props were worth at least an additional 1,000hp.

But we've never seen THAT kind of Jug in WB, have we?

Or John Godfrey's turnfight in a P51-B against a long nose 190 (presumably a D9).  Fairly equal in turning ability, the 190 was able to get an advantage through its superior vertical performance.

Try that in a WB arena, or in AH for that sake, and you'll get your a#$e handed to you in quick time.

Pilot accounts - test pilot accounts ... hmmm maybe they all had hypoxia from too much time at 30,000 feet  

But the performance, particularly vertical performance, of some late war aircraft as simulated in the past has always seemed a bit screwy to me!

[danish]

One problem with these discussions on these boards is that apart from a small group - wells and funked comes to mind - numbers are thrown around more or less according to hidden agendas.Another caracteristica is the outcry for first hand numbers (often formulated in a way that makes it impossible anyway - just to be sure) when actual combat\flight experience are mentioned.

Long time ago, in another thread on another board I pointed out that some of the creators of this and other close related games have open admitted that when it comes to FM's the given numbers (true or false) only will carry you that far.After that it is
your perception as a FM coder that carry the rest: how you expect that FM to perform in vivo.Your historical bias so to speak.This will be blended with your wish to make a commercial succesfull game: playability.

Anyways to get your historical bias as correct as possible you *have* to listen to the anecdotes.And you have to be *very* choosy.But just as it is possible to use trustworthy witnesses in a 60 year old murder case, it is possible to find those trustworthy anecdotes.

One such person have to be E. Brown (not surprisingly for those aforementioned people with their agendas E. Brown is just another pilot, well even less as he didnt see much combat).

Think about Jekyll's quote once more:
"The Forts brought shoals of Fw190s back with them, and a real melee ensued until, suddenly, I found myself apparently alone at 26,000 feet with just one of the 190s slightly above me and ahead. He zoomed up and into a half-roll before diving toward me, and I immediately went into a max-G turn at full power, knowing he would try to follow me around the first third of my turn with his excess speed before trying to break away. However, if I could pull tightly enough, I might tempt him to overstretch himself and spin off the flick stall. I would then follow him comfortably and nail him. But this pilot was no beginner, and he knew just when to half-roll out and dive away, even though he had not taken a shot. From his dive, he zoom-climbed above me again, while I eased my turning circle and was not tempted to follow him vertically. Two similar impasses followed before we both realised we had reached a stalemate and, as if by common consent, we went our separate ways."

For those of you who know the brand W's A4 these maneuvers in this altitude is a shere impossibility.Even though I'm looking forward to the A5 I wouldnt expect anything just marginally close either - just think about the AH move-and-you-loose-E concept.

Its ok though: just accept that this is a game with a historical paint, not vise versa.

Personally I feel fine with that.

danish


[This message has been edited by danish (edited 04-29-2000).]

[juzz]

JMW: There is no technical reason, because it's impossible that the Fw 190A-5 can perform worse than the 1000lbs+ heavier Fw 190A-8.

[Nashwan]

 

Now, you may have read about Johnson's mock combat against a Spit IX in his P47C. The Spit could easily outclimb him in an extended climb, but Johnson used his roll rate, dive and zoom performance to win the fight.

Well, he had another mock fight against a Spit IX AFTER the paddle blade modification to the P47.

The result?

The Jug was able to climb away from the Spit IX with ease. In Johnson's words, "Never again would a Me-109 or Fw-190 be able to outclimb my thunderbolt". In the opinion of the engineers, the paddle blade props were worth at least an additional 1,000hp

The paddle bladed prop added 400ft/min to the Jug's climb rate. As far as I can make out, that gives it an initial climb of 3600ft/min. The Spit IX had a climb rate of between 4200 and 4700ft/min by 1944.
I don't know what Spit he conducted this climbing test against, but it must have been a very old, very tired 1942 version.

------------------

Spit dweeb and proud of it.

[This message has been edited by Nashwan (edited 04-29-2000).]

[RAM]

first, we had this conversation before...true, fdski?  

Ok, lets keep the faith on HTC, and Pyro. Lets see if he models a true Fw190A5 or a heavy truck shaped as a Fw190. Lets see if he models a nimble, fast, versatile and maneouverable fighter or a heavy, fast, one-misson-only (buff hunting), cow-moving-like interceptor.

Fw190A5 was a diamond in 1943. Like it or not, RAF people...Fw190 made RAF pilots eat their hats during all 1942-43 period over the channel. It had a great E_keeping, a impressive acceleration, and (YES!), equal climrate, or better, than SpitIX until 20K.

NOW! Dont hide that SUPERIOR qualities behind the fact that they were used in furballs. Luftwaffe doctrine was that of a teamwork, thats why Fw190s were used that way. A5 was an EXCELLENT FIGHTER...FIGHTER, not interceptor.

A couple of nights ago, Zigrat and I made some tests on Fw190A8 vs SpitIX. He was low and quite fast, and I came from above. I found INCREDIBLE that with gentle pulls, and always remaining on the vertical, after the THIRD PASS I had to run away or die (I came back and died, of course   ). THIS WAS NOT TRUTH ON WWII!!!! Fw190A8 was heavy and had poor climbrate, but still it could zoom away greatly and keep E up in vertical maneouvers.
HERE THAT IS NOT TRUE!!!!!

I,by myself, really hope that Pyro will model Fw190A5 as it was, the best fighter in the world in 1943, and a VERY dangerous opponent in 1944. I keep my faith in it modelled right, because if it is another flying brick as Fw190A8, that cant beat a SpitIX in its life, then I'd better start playing again Falcon 4.0.


------------------
Ram, out

Fw190D9? Ta152H1? The truth is out there
JG2 "Richthofen"

 

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 04-29-2000).]

[fd ski]

Oh, this is gonna be fun  

Excuse me at this time, i gotta split from the house for few hours but later tonight i'll post some stuff.



------------------
Bartlomiej Rajewski
aka. Wing Commander fd-ski
Northolt Wing
1st Polish Fighter Wing
303 (Polish) Squadron "Kosciuszko" RAF
308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF
315 (Polish) Squadron "City of Deblin" RAF

Turning 109s and 190s into scrap metal since 1998

Northolt Wing Headquarters

[funked]

Guys:

These two planes are equal except for one thing:  The Spitfire is 1000 lb lighter.

It also has a bigger wing.  As a result the Spitfire climbs better and turns better.  More lift, less weight, nearly the same power.

To back this up:
I don't have test figures for the turn rate.
But I do have test figures for speed and climb.

Check out these links:

Excerpts from Fw 190A-5 Manual

Several Sets of Spitfire Mk. IX Test Data

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 04-29-2000).]

[funked]

IMHO If they model the planes right, the Spit. Mk. IX will still win in a Co-E merge with pilots of equal skill.

But the Fw 190A-5 will be a very difficult opponent if it has the initial advantage over the Spit. Mk. IX.

And if the Fw 190A-5 doesn't like the fight, he should be able to dive away and exploit his low-altitude speed advantage.



[This message has been edited by funked (edited 04-29-2000).]

[Jekyll]

err Funked.

If I'm reading P76 correctly, that means that the initial climb rate for the A5 is somewhere between 3,200 and 4,000 feet per minute.  Unfortunately the charts are pretty hard to read.

The 190A-8 modelled in Aces High has the following climb rate.

0-5k    Average 3000 ft/min
5k-10k  Average 2255 ft/min
10k-15k Average 2083 ft/min
15k-20k Average 1973 ft/min

Now if we take the middle of the two climb lines on P76, the A5 should have roughly the following climb rate.

0-5k    Average 3600 ft/min
5k-10k  Average 3000 ft/min
10k-15k Average 2800 ft/min
15k-20k Average 2800 ft/min

Yep, that'll do quite nicely thanks    

Oh and nashwan, if you've ever flown WB you'll know that the initial climb rate on the P47D is nothing like 3600fpm.  There's a lot of Jug drivers in "the other sim" who only dream of a climb rate like that    But I suspect that the paddle bladed prop was even more effective in the zoom and in high AOA maneuvers.  Johnson also wrote of being bounced by a 190 at ground level and racking the Jug around into a steep climbing turn up to 8000feet, where the 190 stalled out.  Maybe the paddle prop also allowed the Jug to 'hang' on its prop a lot better than before?

Either way, that sure aint the Jug I used to fly in brand W.


------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron http://www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'

[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 04-29-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 04-29-2000).]

[funked]

To read the charts, use the right click and zoom feature of IE.

[Jekyll]

One other question.  My references state that the 190A-4 was the first version to be equipped with the BMW801D-2 radial engine.  It was an 14 cylinder radial capable of delivering 2100hp (1567 -kW) with MW50 injection.  The aircraft carried enough MW50 for 40 minutes use, although it was restricted to a maximum of 10 continuous minutes use.

Now if that is the case, the power loading for the 190A-4 and Spit IX should be something like:

Fw190A-4    8000/2100 = 3.80 lb/hp
Spitfire IX 7500/1720 = 4.36 lb/hp

So wouldn't this give the 190 a significant acceleration/zoom advantage over the Spit IX?

And if so, what the hell kind of engine is HTC using in the 190A-8?  

Two thousand, one hundred horsepower.  More than the P47 or F4U Corsair, in an airframe half the weight of the P47 and around 4,000lb lighter than the F4U.

Think about it guys.  Something seriusly wrong somewhere methinks.

------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
http://www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'

[funked]

The MW 50 system was not used on production 190's until the A-8.  Even then it is unclear whether it was used on more than a handful of planes.

Also, when you say it had more power than the Corsair or Thunderbolt, you need to compare apples to apples.  Those aircraft had water-methanol injection too.  

Using the water-injected R-2800-8W, the F4U-1A, -1C, -1D were good for 2,135 hp up to 12,400 feet.  R-2800-18W (F4U-4) was good for 2,380 hp at Sea Level.  

The P-47D was good for 2,300 hp up to 27,000 feet (R-2800-21 and -63) or 2,600 hp up to 25,000 feet (R-2800-59).