Whats the stats of a FW190-A5?

[Jekyll]

Hehe, we've got them going now    

How about this quote.

"Inevitably, some 190s fell into Allied hands, and thereby lies a tale.  In 1943, Grumman test pilots flew a 'short nose' Fw 190A in England.  Tremendously impressed, they returned to Long Island and related the tale to Leroy Grumman, sauing, "Boss, if we put an R-2800 on that airframe, we'll have a world-beater".

The boss listened; the engineers got busy, and the guys and gals on the shop floor began to cut metal.  In August 1944, the F8F-1 Bearcat tucked its wheels into the well for the first time, proving that in aviation, as in all things, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."

 

BTW no wing bomb racks on the A-8.

There were on the A8/R2  

 

LOL! Not a whole lot of Spitfire Mk. IX, Typhoon, Tempest, P-47 or P-51 drivers thought it was a "terror plane".

The dead ones sure did.


[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 04-30-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 04-30-2000).]

[RAM]

And to add to the F8F story...loook at the Hawker Fury...hummm-...emmm...errrr...

Seems quite a Fw190 isnt it?...

oh, must be my imagination

[Citabria]

yeah and the a6m zero looks like the 190 too lol

judging book by cover are we?

[funked]

Jekyll:
Fw 190A-8/R2 did not have wing bomb racks.  I don't know what you are talking about.

RAM:
"YOu are forgettign that german aircraft industry was YEARS over allied..."

Pure fantasy.  The truth is clear now - you are delusional.

If you really think that is true, you do not know much about history or engineering.

Don't accuse me of "ignoring" things.  I'm quite aware of what occured in the war.

I'm not defending the flight models in this game as they exist.  All I'm doing here is answering questions about the Fw 190 to the best of my ability.

If you don't like my answers, then do some research and find better information.

One thing you might consider is that real-life combat was determined by many different factors than in our game.  Having the best co-alt co-speed dueling plane meant bloody little in real life.  Look at what happened to the poor Japanese.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 04-30-2000).]

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by Citabria:
yeah and the a6m zero looks like the 190 too lol

The only resemblance I see between Zero and Fw190 is the radial engine...you might need glasses  

[ra]

Of course we all know that the 190 was derived from Howard Hughes' pre-war racer.  

Say, if the A-5 was 500 to 1000 lbs lighter than an A-8, we should be able to simulate the A-5's flight characteristics by flying an A-8 very lightly loaded.  Take an A-8 with 25% fuel, 2x20mm loadout, and sit on the runway and fire the guns till they're empty.  That should put you right at about the takeoff weight of a A-5 shouldn't it?  It handles like a dream.  

I've managed to kill Spit IX's and Niki's 1 v 1 with an A-8 on fumes, the A-5 should be able to do the same with maybe 50% fuel.  I don't think the Luftwaffles will have anything to complain about.

ra

[wells]

Thanks Jekyll,

The A5 in the USAF tests that Funked has was a converted G model (ground attack) and if ANY Fw-190 would have had MW50, it would be a ground attack model as nothing could catch it down low, except for the Typhoon when it came out.  The maximum boost for the engine was about 41" where the engine produced 1700 hp.  One could only imagine what 2000 hp would do for that plane!

[funked]

Ra - That's what I'm talking about.  Now imagine an A-5 on fumes.  

[StSanta]

The way I see it, the next 190 that is introduced better be more than a little different than the existing one - otherwise there'd be no point in introducing it.

Now, if there's not a big difference between A5 and A8, maybe we should wait for a D9 instead?

--
StSanta
II/JG2

[Hristo]

 

Originally posted by wells:
Thanks Jekyll,

The A5 in the USAF tests that Funked has was a converted G model (ground attack) and if ANY Fw-190 would have had MW50, it would be a ground attack model as nothing could catch it down low, except for the Typhoon when it came out.  The maximum boost for the engine was about 41" where the engine produced 1700 hp.  One could only imagine what 2000 hp would do for that plane!

Can we have it, please ?  

[Nashwan]

I do wish you Luftwobbles would get your chronology straight. When you're saying how good the Luftwaffe was then RAF planes were introduced much earlier than in real life, when you're frightened of them and trying to keep them out of the arena they were introduced much later.
48 RAF squadrons took part in the Dieppe operation. 3 squadrons of Typhoons, a small number of Spit IXs, and the rest a mix of Spit Vs, Hurricane IIs and asorted other types.
RAM, you said YOu are forgettign that german aircraft industry was YEARS over allied. If this is the case, why are we told that the Spit 14, introduced into service at the begining of 44, is such an Uber Plane it will totally unbalance the game.

[LLv34 Nattulv]

Ppl!! ppl lets stay on friendly terms!  

Saying just Spitfire IX is just as if you wrote Bf109G .... there is variying performance among the diffrent submarks on the Spitfire IX as well as it was the case with the Bf109G-series. As we know there is quite a bit differance between a G-2 and a G-10 performancevise.

Spitfire IXA aka F.IX, anno 1942-43 (Re-engined Spit V )
with a Merlin 61 will have a very close contender in a FW190A-4/5 in everything but pure turningcirlcle.

Spitfire IXB aka LF IX anno mid 43 (introduction to 1 Wing) have a radicaly improved performance over the "old" Spitfire IXA because of its new Merlin 66 engine it willl have an distinct edge over the FW190A-4/5 in most areas exepet rollrate were the FW190 still is superior.

( The A and B designations was used by the units since they got the new planes befor it had gotten its offical designation LF IX)

Spitfire XIV entered service in very beginning of 1944 yes but "only" as a V1 chaser. In october 1944 the allies had overrun the last of the V1 ramps and RAF reassigned the mark XIV's as its peremier airsuperiority fighter while most of the IX's were used in the fighter-bomber role.

As a note I cant decide what plane i like most of many of the ww2 aircrafts.   Love them all (almost...   )

------------------
Nattulv
2.Lentueen Päällikkö
Lentolaivue 34

[This message has been edited by LLv34 Nattulv (edited 04-30-2000).]

[danish]

Nashwan:
The reason for me to write in this thread is not because I want to hype the 190 more than reality can carry.

Its because I see repeated gabs between chosen lab-like anecdotes (incidens where parameters are reasonally well described and simple), comparison testflights - and what I see in these games\sims.Further the most important (wellknown) comparison testflight is vs. Spit IX.

Im not trying to bash the spit - Im just using it as a parameter to compare.And yes: bring in the XIV ;=)

danish

[danish]

Funked:

"In any case, it is simply not possible to convert stories and reputations into flight models"

-if you can code, yes it is.

;=)

danish

[funked]

Danish, I make my living partially by simulating things.  I've yet to see a modeling package that accepts anectdotes as input.