PDA

View Full Version : Fw 190A-9 climbrate too low?



robban75
01-16-2004, 10:52 AM
It appears to me that a plane with a 2300hp engine should climb much faster than this. Especially with the more efficient VDM 9 propeller. It's got the same weight as the D-9 yet it has a climbrate 1300ft/min less. Does it make sense? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

A-9

1000m - 0:55
2000m - 1:50
3000m - 2:53
4000m - 3:52
5000m - 4:51

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

robban75
01-16-2004, 10:52 AM
It appears to me that a plane with a 2300hp engine should climb much faster than this. Especially with the more efficient VDM 9 propeller. It's got the same weight as the D-9 yet it has a climbrate 1300ft/min less. Does it make sense? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

A-9

1000m - 0:55
2000m - 1:50
3000m - 2:53
4000m - 3:52
5000m - 4:51

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

IKNO
01-16-2004, 12:45 PM
No and neither does the fact it cannot reach it's posted level speed of 580 KPH. But hey, "we is wrong." Or we need to "STFU and learn how to fly." And with all the VVS/US anti-190 whining, (they roll too fast, their DM is unrealistic, or GR142 ASTRO's fav, "the elevators are overmodelled") be prepared for a lot of hate mail.

Anyone who has flown the 190 Antons, especially the later models, knows what challenge it is to keep them in the air, let alone fight with them.

I wouldn't waste too much time on this issue, you're never going to get 1C to change the A9's performance to reflect historical reality.

But yes it does seems sluggish for the plane's powerloading.

MiloMorai
01-16-2004, 02:21 PM
Bury says 4.92 min in C&C for the D-9.(average of 4km and 6km times)

Oleg says 4.45 min in C&C for the A-9.

The A-9 climbs slightly faster.

robban75
01-16-2004, 04:23 PM
There was a flyoff between a D-9 and an A-9, were they compared acceleration turning and climbing. It showed that the D-9 was slightly better than the A-9.
In FB it's simply outclassed.

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

kyrule2
01-16-2004, 07:49 PM
I said it in another post but I'll say it again. The A-9's power went from 1,700hp to 2,000hp unboosted and was fitted with a high efficiency propeller designed specifically to improve climb-rate. Those are significant changes but the A-9 in FB seems to climb the same as the A-5 despite these differences. Even going by object viewer the A-9 should climb much better, but it doesn't. As Robban said it is left in the dust compared to D-9 and that's not right either. I'm wondering what exactly the high efficiency prop is doing? The A-9 has gotten worse with each of the last few patches due to over-whining though nobody could state any specific area. People don't know about the A-9 and how good it was because it trickled into production and looked identical to A-8. Like I said, the added 300hp and high-efficiency prop are big changes and should improve it significantly.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

GR142_Astro
01-16-2004, 10:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IKNO:
A bunch of words.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Leave me out of this. Anyone here will tell you that the 190 discussions here have been civil and hopefully productive in the end.

We don't need you turning this into yet another flame-out thread that Oleg and Co. will simply ignore.

kyrule2
01-19-2004, 01:20 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

Skalgrim
01-19-2004, 02:06 AM
initialclimb is to weak



eric brown a8 test:

initialclimb 17,5m/sec with 1700ps (wep) without erh√¬∂hten ladedruck

a9 has only 18,5m/sec in game,

only 1m/sec better initial climb as a8 with 600ps more power and more effectively propeller seem wrong

probable 21-22m/sec is more right, with similar power/weigh ratio like doras

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Mon January 19 2004 at 01:35 AM.]

JG26Red
01-19-2004, 03:01 PM
I wish A9 was better too.. personally, i really dont seem too much diff between it and the A5... speed and climb are rather close imo... but oh well, i dont cry, i just shot 30mm all over the place.. lol

RedDeth
01-19-2004, 05:11 PM
a9 went from a holy terror to a low level inferior plane in one patch. i dont know if its correct or not but it is pretty useless now

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying. http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509034.jpg

kyrule2
01-20-2004, 12:58 AM
RedDeth, I agree (though I don't feel it is useless). Like I said in another post I fly the 190A-9 ALOT, and as soon as I took it for a spin after installing 1.21 I knew things had changed. It handles more sluggishly now (which I can live with) and it's climbing ability is gone (which I can't accept). Not sure why they did this but I can tell you it's wrong. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

Skalgrim
01-20-2004, 02:41 AM
a8 and a9 had absolute same initialclimb,

that is not possible,

becausse better power/weigh ratio and the more effectively propeller from the a9

seem oleg has a9 add more weigh for better balance, that easy way for the programmer to get better balance,

perhaps oleg give option for the server remove mk108, so is a9 less danger

and give her again the same initial climb like dora

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Tue January 20 2004 at 02:24 AM.]

Jaws2002
01-20-2004, 09:36 AM
I think they porked it for game balance. I don't see other reason. Many people were complaining that it was too widely used.
I don't think was any technical reason they've cut the climb rate.
But I think this action affected the A-4 more then any of them. Fw-190 A4 is the worst climber in 1942. Mig 3U is better, P-39 too, La-5 and G-2 can spin circles around it in the way up. even the P-40 feels lighter.
I find it strange that the Antons are the only fighters that you HAVE TO use the runway to take off.

MiloMorai
01-20-2004, 10:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jaws2002:
I think they porked it for game balance. I don't see other reason. Many people were complaining that it was too widely used.
I don't think was any technical reason they've cut the climb rate.
But I think this action affected the A-4 more then any of them. Fw-190 A4 is the worst climber in 1942. Mig 3U is better, P-39 too, La-5 and G-2 can spin circles around it in the way up. even the P-40 feels lighter.
I find it strange that the Antons are the only fighters that you HAVE TO use the runway to take off.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who gives a sweet tinker's darn for game balance especially in the farcical online DFs. That is just so much cow manure.

If it is for game balance, so much for the sim labelling for Il-2/FB.



Long live the Horse Clans.

IKNO
01-20-2004, 01:41 PM
The reason for the A9's anemic climbrate and top speed is simple as it is obvious.

After 1.5 years of bogus 190 modelling most VVS boys actually thought they were aces. Conversely, 190 pilots perservered and got really good, handicaps and all.

So when Oleg finally gave us something decent, something remotely historically accurate, we started tapping that VVS a##.

They whined, he accomodated. And the A9 suffered as with it's speed, durability and firepower, it was lethal, and consequently, the target of most attacks. (See any GR142 ASTRO post from the last 6 months.)

Be very interesting to see the same dynamic unfolds with the TA 152.

lbhskier37
01-20-2004, 02:32 PM
Think IKNO may have a point here http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig2.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

FW190fan
01-20-2004, 02:50 PM
Initial climb-rate is important in a sim like FB, which is dominated by low-altitude engagrments.

Does anyone have an original referance to an A-9 climb chart?

We know A-8 climb times, and obviously an A-9 with 3-400 more horsepower and a wider blade prop should climb better, provided weights are similar.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
01-20-2004, 02:59 PM
Fascinating:: Using a basic "robban" climb test procedure on the Kursk map, I obtained the following altitudes in one minute.

Warm engine one minute.

Radiator OPEN.

Hit MW50 then 110% throttle.

Takeoff (no flap), gear UP, and at 280km/hr pull up off ~50m altitude (sloppy test could be lower). As I don't have my stopwatch, maintain 280km/hr for one minute by cockpit clock (I once tested Bf109K4 clock and it missed lost one (1) second in a non~time~accelerated eight hour test, conducted during sleep). Cockpit clock should not be an issue in comparing A8 and A9 against each other, unless their clocks work differently. That could be a problem.

For worst case, assume clock measurements innacurate by about ~5 seconds. Hard to look down and zoom in. Real watch is needed.

Fw190-A8:: 1250m/1250m/1250m

Fw19-A9:: 1200m/1300m/1250m

Average 21 m/s identical climb rates.

I don't usually fly Fw190 but do you Fw190 Jocks notice any other FM differences in the A8 and A9? Maybe they are the same airplane in the FB now.

IKNO:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So when Oleg finally gave us something decent, something remotely historically accurate, we started tapping that VVS a##.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> robban, if you want any FM credibility on a webboard, you should be the first to deal with these types of posts. They make you look not worth listening to.

(but the numbers are always worth listening to http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )


Climb test mission file----------------------


[MAIN]
MAP Kursk/load.ini
TIME 12.0
CloudType 1
CloudHeight 1500.0
player g0100
army 2
playerNum 0
[Wing]
g0100
[g0100]
Planes 1
Skill 1
numberOn0 0
Class air.FW_190A8
Fuel 50
weapons default
[g0100_Way]
TAKEOFF 137825.66 77273.65 0 0
NORMFLY 9948.19 77977.20 500.00 300.00
[NStationary]

[Bridge]
[House]

robban, I got slightly different numbers than you. Did I do something wrong? Cockpit clock perhaps? Thanks.

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a [B]moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.

kyrule2
01-20-2004, 03:07 PM
Jaws, I think the A-4 still feels decent down low but if you start going higher it coughs, gags, and drags its butt around like it was towing a trailer. It's max speed should be achieved at around 5,500-6,000m, but at that height it still comes up fairly short of it's indicated speed (648km/h, which is too low IMHO, and too low according to most other data). It feels very lethargic and uncomfortable at medium altitudes and up. At high altitudes I certainly understand, but not at medium altitude where it should be strong.

Funny thing is, the good 'ole BS....I mean La-5 standard ('42) reaches its max speed at 6,000m no problem at all and feels quite good, and without overheating! I invite anybody to take a FW-190A-4 and an La-5 standard ('42) up to 5,000-6,000m and compare. I honestly believe that because the Soviets saw the 190 so much as a fighter/bomber (much more so than in West), that it affected the way the Soviets viewed the 190 overall, particularly as a fighter and this is reflected in FB. Much the same way Oleg seems to view the P-47.

Glad to see so many agree the 190A-9 took a big hit in 1.21.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

FW190fan
01-20-2004, 03:10 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Hit MW50 then 110% throttle.


This is probably not the best way to test.

FWIW:

German climb tests AFAIK were not done by engaging boost and leaving the throttle wide open.

They were typically done with radiators partially opened, while using "steig, kampfleistung" (climb and combat power) - not emergency power.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

gates123
01-20-2004, 03:18 PM
Maybe I missed it but no one mentioned unlocking the prop pitch to 100. I've noticed that the 190 preformance is much better with prop pitch unlocked and boost on regardless if rad is closed or not. Has anyone tested that?

kyrule2
01-20-2004, 03:25 PM
Lexx, A-8 and A-9 should not even be close to the same in climb rate, something is off. A-9 had 300 more hp and had high efficiency prop designed to improve cimb-rate specifically. Just look in object viewer to see how much better it should be.

As for the A-8 and A-9 being the same, they certainly feel similar but are slightly different. The A-9 is a little faster at all altitudes, but the A-8 handles better. The A-8 handles better than the A-9 but not quite as good as the A-5 (which I don't have a problem with though the A-8 and A-9 should be very similar). I noticed the drop in A-9's climb rate immediately after 1.21, as it seemed to climb like an A-8. Like I said, I can live with "the bar" and the heavy feeling of the 190's, but a drastic hit in climb-rate is huge. More importantly, its wrong.

As a note, I have always wondered why the 190A needs SO much more runway than other planes to take off. It practically grunts as it lumbers off the runway while other planes lifted off long ago. Not sure why this is either.

Gates, Robban said in his test in another thread that manual prop-pitch didn't help climb, though it does help with max speed.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

FW190fan
01-20-2004, 03:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kyrule2:

I honestly believe that because the Soviets saw the 190 so much as a fighter/bomber (much more so than in West), that it affected the way the Soviets viewed the 190 overall, particularly as a fighter and this is reflected in FB. Much the same way Oleg seems to view the P-47.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The insatiable demand for FW190s on the western front meant that there were never more than about 180-190 Focke-Wulfs on the eastern front at any one time, and usually less than that.

I have a copy of an OKL directive where the FW190 was to replace the Ju-87 Stuka as the primary ground assault aircraft for the Luftwaffe.

I don't think I have ever read a positive evaluation of any Focke-Wulf from any Russian source anywhere ever. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Anyway, we can all rest assured http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif that guys like those in the Nowotny Schwarm(over 500 kills between them), Otto Kittel, Albin Wolfe, Albert Druschel et.al. all lied about their scores on the eastern front while flying FW190s. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
01-20-2004, 03:38 PM
Fw190Fan:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>German climb tests AFAIK were not done by engaging boost and leaving the throttle wide open.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, that worried me, and would explain the high climb numbers I got relative to robban if he did not Boost at 110% throttle. Thanks for the reminder.

The big problem is that the way I did it with Boost and 110% throttle is probably how we use our planes over the FB when possible. What throttle setting is equivalent to historically correct? From trying to reading SkyChimp's throttle thesis, which I never understood, the FB throttle settings may be a catch-all way of approximating engine control, smoothing them over all aircraft in the FB. I dunno. Historical CEM is way out of my league. I am good with numbers though. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Until we really know how FB code works, the most reliable comparative testing is maxing out everything for each airplane. However this could bring in the overheat Question as a possible limiting factor in performance.

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.

gates123
01-20-2004, 03:52 PM
Well I sure seem to climb faster with prop pitch at 100 as to prop pitch auto. From what I heard prop pitch auto is like flying at prop pitch 50 all the time and that would explain to me the lackluster preformance that people complain about. I for one enjoy the 190 A-8/9 but I have to admit the 108 wingpods are just too nasty. Kudos to Oleg, the plane might not climb with historic accuracy but it can compete with any plane in FB when put in the hands of the right pilot.

kyrule2
01-20-2004, 09:11 PM
Gates, while I agree that the 190A-8 and A-9 can be effective in the right hands, I can't give any kudos. I would gladly trade my Mk-108's for the better representation FM we had a couple of patches ago (before all of the whining started). This thread is to combat what the A-9 was whined into, which is almost the same as an A-8. Its wrong.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

ElfunkoI
01-20-2004, 11:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Fw190Fan:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>German climb tests AFAIK were not done by engaging boost and leaving the throttle wide open.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, that worried me, and would explain the high climb numbers I got relative to robban if he did not Boost at 110% throttle. Thanks for the reminder.

The big problem is that the way I did it with Boost and 110% throttle is probably how we use our planes over the FB when possible. What throttle setting is equivalent to historically correct? From trying to reading SkyChimp's throttle thesis, which I never understood, the FB throttle settings may be a catch-all way of approximating engine control, smoothing them over all aircraft in the FB. I dunno. Historical CEM is way out of my league. I am good with numbers though. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Until we really know how FB code works, the most reliable comparative testing is maxing out everything for each airplane. However this could bring in the overheat Question as a possible limiting factor in performance.

__________________
_RUSSIAN_ lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
_Stanly is a _moron_, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex._<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All you need to know is manifold pressure and RPM for historical combat power. Then recreate that in game for a test. The stuff is probably listed in the 190-A9 manual (if anyone has it). And thats all my own opinion and guesswork. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEXX_Luthor
01-20-2004, 11:53 PM
ElfunkoI:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>All you need to know is manifold pressure and RPM for historical combat power. Then recreate that in game for a test. The stuff is probably listed in the 190-A9 manual (if anyone has it). And thats all my own opinion and guesswork. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But who is going to read or purchase a real Fw190 manual? And if I recall parts of SkyChimp's throttle thesis, the manifolds don't work over the FB anyway, at least for some planes.

So we are stuck testing at Max everything and start comparing with other FB planes instead of with data charts. And if I know the FB simmer, we throw away the manual and fly Max in the dogfight servers anyway. I dunno. I am waiting for the Biplane Servers over the FB before I go onwhine.

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.

bazzaah2
01-21-2004, 04:38 AM
just a bump.

If the A9 has been dumbed down a bit to keep some people happy then that is wrong (as it wd be for any). Would be good to see some genuine numbers posted so that we can be confident of incorrect modelling.

Wasn't that whole game balance thing shown to be a load of BS and substantial misrepresentation of what Oleg had said?

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_05.gif

Crashing online as :FI:SpinyNorman

MiloMorai
01-21-2004, 04:47 AM
TO & Emergency = 1.42ata/2700rpm
Climb & Combat = 1.32ata/2400rpm
max endurance cruise = 1.20/2300rpm

Since German test were done in C&C you now have what boost and rpm to use.

From an A-8 performance graph in a very cheap($$$) Fw190A-8 aircraft handbook.



Long live the Horse Clans.

CHDT
01-21-2004, 03:36 PM
"
But who is going to read or purchase a real Fw190 manual?"

I've access to a A-8 manual and I will make some scans.

Cheers,

LEXX_Luthor
01-21-2004, 07:43 PM
Sounds good, but no thanks. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif With Boost + 110% the A8 and A9 sea level climbrates are still seen to be identical.

Manuals are thrown away in the dogfight servers.

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.

FW190fan
01-21-2004, 08:26 PM
Willaume posted over at LEMB that German tests he has show the FW190A-8 using "erhote notleistung"(C3 injection) gave the following:

1750HP @1.42 ata. jumps to 2100HP @1.65 ata.

This gave a sea-level speed of 363mph for a FW190A-8 with the outer wing cannons installed and the back seat tank installed. It weighed in at 4360kg.

The FW190A-9 tested with TH and TS powerplants and the broader prop was faster and had a higher critical altitude than the FW190A-8.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

kyrule2
01-21-2004, 08:35 PM
Seems like our timing on this issue is bad, they just released a new patch which means another patch won't likely be seen for some time. I haven't got any real impression of the 190's in 1.22 but, I doubt there will be any difference.

Hope this gets looked at eventually, the A-8 and A-9 shouldn't be the same, especially where climb is concerned.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

FW190fan
01-21-2004, 08:44 PM
I believe the A-9 should have a climb rate similar to or possibly even better than the Dora up to about 2,000m ~6500ft.

Above that height the Dora should have the advantage. They should both outclimb the FW190A-8.(similar weights, better props, more HP)

It's only logical.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

kyrule2
01-23-2004, 11:06 PM
I agree, its only logical.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

kyrule2
01-30-2004, 12:05 AM
^

Last time. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

Bremspropeller
01-30-2004, 06:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As a note, I have always wondered why the 190A needs SO much more runway than other planes to take off. It practically grunts as it lumbers off the runway while other planes lifted off long ago. Not sure why this is either.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In RL, the A-2 needed about 70 metres more to lift off than the 109F.
! BUT ! it accelerated faster and reached that point much quicker than the 109 - so when the 109 lift off, the 190 was already in the air and had an advantage of ~200m towards the 109.

I also wonder, why the 190 accelerates that weird at low speeds. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

Huckebein_FW
01-30-2004, 07:18 AM
Yes Fw-190fan, A9 should have the same climb rate with D9 (with MW50). A8 with 2050PS had an initial climb of 17.5 m/s compared to Dora's initial climb of 18 m/s at 1900PS (no MW50). Therefore A9 at 2350PS should have the same climb with Dora at 2250PS. They were basically the same aircraft, only the engine was different, making Dora a little bit more aerodynamic - but not enough to notice it in climb or turn - the difference would have been felt only by a higher max speed.

Also compared to A8, A9 featured an enlarged supercharger, giving to BMW801 at least the same high alt performance with Jumo213A (which wasn't really impressive).

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

ElfunkoI
01-30-2004, 07:23 AM
Its stories like that ^ that leave you hoping one day that would be possible. Maybe another sim?

Skalgrim
01-30-2004, 08:22 AM
a8 initialclimb 17,5m/sec is with 1,42 ata 1750ps (wep)

as eric brown had a8 test, had he with indication 1700ps 17,5m/sec reached

with 2050ps climb she certain better as 17,5m/sec

Huckebein_FW
01-30-2004, 06:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skalgrim:
a8 initialclimb 17,5m/sec is with 1,42 ata 1750ps (wep)

as eric brown had a8 test, had he with indication 1700ps 17,5m/sec reached

with 2050ps climb she certain better as 17,5m/sec<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Skalgrim,

I'd like to believe this but german test showed 17.5 m/s for 2050PS (sea level, loaded weight).

I don't know at which weight E. Brown tested the aircraft. It might have been lighter. Also it is impossible to make a performance assesment using only the standard cockpit instruments.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

Skalgrim
02-04-2004, 07:05 AM
17,5m/sec with 1,42ata is perhaps to much for a8 with 4250kg, but for a4/a5 with 4000kg more realitic,

perhaps had eric brown the a8 without bombrack and without outer cannon test, so has she similar weigh like a4/a5



eric brown climb test for a4:

16m/sec with 1,3ata 1560ps

german climb test for a4:

15,5m/sec with 1,3ata

with 1750ps , 12% more power is 17,5m/sec possible for a4/a5

a8 16,5m/sec with 6% more weigh

1560ps 1,3 ata to 1,6ata 2050ps are 31% more power

with 31% more power climb she probable 20,5-21m/sec


a5 with 1,65ata has same power/weigh ratio like dora with mw50 and dora has 22m/sec initialclimb,

so seem 20,5-21m/sec possible

and 1m/sec less for a8, because 6% more weigh

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Wed February 04 2004 at 07:34 AM.]

JG26Red
02-04-2004, 09:15 AM
A9 just feels like a slug.. last night on slammins server i felt like a turtle while the other guys where flying circles around me.... the plane just feels awuful...

Gunner_361st
02-04-2004, 09:47 AM
Bump. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

It'd be comforting to know for sure that airplanes in the patches are not tweaked for balance. I seriously doubt Maddox + Crew would intentionally do that, considering that their priority has been historical accuracy.

On a lighter note, I took the Fw190 F-8 out for a spin last night. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I took 700 KG of bombs and attacked/destroyed a bridge in Hungary, was great. A bunch of Mustangs were trying to chase me down, but I managed to scissor out of the fire of the ones who had energy and then floored it, and was able to outrun them on the deck and get home. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I think I'm finally getting used to the Butcherbird's sensitive controls now. I haven't flown the A9 since the new patch, I hope it or any other plane has not been toned down because of whining. I don't think Oleg would do that anyway. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Anyone else eager for the expansion? I can't wait for the multi-engine planes like the Me-110, P-38 and so on.

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

faustnik
02-04-2004, 10:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:
A9 just feels like a slug.. last night on slammins server i felt like a turtle while the other guys where flying circles around me.... the plane just feels awuful...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Red,

The 190A9 is far from a slug. You must be doing something wrong.

Gunner,

Yes, I'm very excited about the P-38 and the BF110. They should be very interesting a/c to fly.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

JG26Red
02-04-2004, 01:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:
A9 just feels like a slug.. last night on slammins server i felt like a turtle while the other guys where flying circles around me.... the plane just feels awuful...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Red,

The 190A9 is far from a slug. You must be doing something wrong.

Gunner,

Yes, I'm very excited about the P-38 and the BF110. They should be very interesting a/c to fly.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
http://www.7jg77.com

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i dunno, i gas it up, take off and it takes for ever to climb even at 250kph, then get up to alt, 3-5k, which in DF servers is a bit above action, and dive and stuff and it just feels really heavy and very slow acceleration etc... meaning, a slug...

kyrule2
02-04-2004, 03:20 PM
Gunner, glad you are enjoying the F-8. However, if you out-ran the Mustangs they were doing something wrong. The P-51 is faster than the F-8 at all altitudes, with the P-51 reaching 577km/h at sea-level.

To others,

The main thing that is wrong with the A-9 is the climb, it was really hacked last patch, and that is why it feels sluggish. The handling also became more heavy/sensitive, but I can live with that. Speed seems fine. Just fix the climb please....and give all 190's a complex DM.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

Zen--
02-04-2004, 06:20 PM
Side note, I've outrun many mustangs and La7's when flying the F8, radiator closed and 100% manual pitch naturally. The plane is interestingly fast at sea level...somewhat off perhaps?

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

kyrule2
02-04-2004, 07:39 PM
Hmmm interesting. Will test tonight.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

kyrule2
02-05-2004, 12:59 AM
100% prop pitch, radiator closed, 50% fuel, Default armament (no bombs, etc.);

I get 568km/h at sea level for F-8, not enough to out-run Mustang at 577km/h.

I may be wrong but this is what I got.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

Zen--
02-05-2004, 09:53 AM
I'm guessing then the appearance of the F8 being faster must be the normal fog of war during engagements or perhaps a slight E advantage at the outset of the chase.

I can routinely get 550kph indicated on the speedbar at SL and this is enough to outrun most of the Mustang jocks I meet...did it last night again in fact.

I'm betting that while I am 100% manual, radiator closed and less than 25% fuel (typically I have been flying for some time when I get bounced naturally), the pursuers are most likely not closing the Rad or aren't holding as steady a flight path for example.


Thanks for testing Kyrule...I didn't seriously think something was wrong, but thought I'd mention the relative ease that I've had. For me the turning point was closing the radiator...it took me a long long time to let go of the perhaps irrational fear of damaging my engine but once I did I find that in a jam most of the FW's will really get up and go. It had simply been a no-no to close the radiator for me in the past, but these days I am more free wheeling I guess, especially considering the close in fighting I do with the Dora.


I'll put this down to relative experience with the plane types in question and try not to point out my technique to the mustangs when they are chasing me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


TY

S!!

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

Fillmore
02-05-2004, 11:20 AM
"take off and it takes for ever to climb even at 250kph"

way too slow. Should be climbing no less than 280IAS.

The thing I like most about the FWs is that they maintain a very good climbrate at high airpseeds. Sure the 109s will outclimb you at 280IAS, but see who climbs better at 500IAS.

Zen--
02-05-2004, 04:02 PM
I dunno about the Antons, but the D9 is like a scalded a$$ monkey at 280kph...it has a simply phenomenal climb rate and I personally believe the only thing to outclimb it is the K4 and probably the Ki84.

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

kyrule2
02-19-2004, 03:12 PM
Bump in light of Robbans recent climb test.

Oleg, please take the time to examine the FW-190A-9's climb-rate. I believe it is way too low since 1.21 patch.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/

robban75
02-19-2004, 03:31 PM
Link to the climbcharts thread! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=131105732

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

ZG77_Nagual
02-19-2004, 05:41 PM
Last night I was dinkin around offline in my usual configuration - vs 4 ace whatevers (yak 3s in this case) with 25 percent fuel - me with 50. I agree about the dora by the way - my new fav. Anyway - I got into an a5 by accident - when I thought I was in an a9 and was amazed at the agility - really nice and a good blind test. No prob with the yaks. For grins I tried an F8 - which I've not tried since the patch - quite comparable to the a5 really, interesting.

BaneTheEvilOne
02-19-2004, 07:13 PM
My frends stoped flying online because of this jerking with FM, and vvs ufo stuff, i still fly sometimes but that is rare now. It is ok with d-9 on servers with p51, p39 and p47, on other servers i simply disconect.
Allied plane list loks like this:
5 yak3, 5 la7, after hard days job and good sex, that is not something to enjoy with slugish a9 at night. Cann't wait for ta152 and do335. I miss my frends company, we flew together since Janes ww2 fighters.

ZG77_Nagual
02-19-2004, 07:22 PM
I have a blast online, bane - usually in a 190 or a p39 - no problem with yaks, las, kis - depending of course on the pilot. They really arent' ufos

Kwiatos
02-20-2004, 03:20 AM
Some spec of climbrate different planes:

FW 190A-3
Engine:
BMW 801D 14 cylinder radial, 1,760 hp. at 3,000 r.p.m. at 18,000 ft.
Max speed:
395 m.p.h. at 17,000 ft.; 390 m.p.h. at 20,000 ft.
Best climb:
3,280 ft./min. at 17,500 ft.
Climb to:
16,500 ft., 4.75 min.; 18,000 ft., 6.25 min.

Later in 1942 the A-4 model came along. This model had a methanol-water injection system for the engine which boosted power for a 10 minute period on demand, and substantially improved performance at the lower altitudes. A new radio was also fitted. Other A-4 models included a night fighter version, and a ground attack version. There was also an extended range version with racks under the wings and fuselage for drop tanks or munitions

The 1943 version was the FW 190A-5. The main change was to move the engine 6 inches foreword in order to allow more flexibility for under wing stores. The primary variants of the A-5 included air superiority, bomber destroyer, and ground attack versions. War emergency horsepower was up to 2,050 in the 801D engine.

The FW 190A-8 of 1944 incorporated other improvements, including increased fuel capacity for longer range, and an improved power boost system to improve high altitude performance. Speed was 405 m.p.h. at best altitude. Best climb was down to 2,756 ft./min. at 16,100 ft.

This much altered fighter used the standard Focke-Wulf wings and tail plane with an extended rear fuselage and a longer and heavier Junkers Jumo 213 engine. This brought the top speed up to 436 m.p.h. in the D-9 model (best climb rate was up to 3,642 ft./min.), and 458.5 m.p.h. (at 38,080 ft!) in the D-12 model.

The 1,450 hp. Packard/Merlin engine (1,595 hp. war emergency rating) gave the P-51B-7 a top speed of 445 m.p.h. Best climb was 3,320 ft./min. at 10,000 ft. The new Mustang carried 4-.50 caliber MG (two per wing), and up to 1,000 lbs. of external stores. Its range was an astounding 2,200 miles with two 150 gal. drop tanks. Endurance with drop tanks was 8.7 hours

The North American P-51 D
Engine:
Packard/Merlin V-1650-7, 1,790 hp. at 11,500 ft.
Max speed:
443 m.p.h. at 25,000 ft., 438 m.p.h. at 30,000 ft.
Best climb:
3,320 ft./min. at 5,000 ft.
Climb to:
10,000 ft., 3.3 min; 20,000 ft., 7.5 min.

The main variant of the Spitfire Mk. IA was powered by the famous Rolls Royce V-12 Merlin II engine. This produced 1,230 hp and drove a two bladed wooden propeller, giving the early Spitfire a top level speed of about 360 mph, and a best climb rate of 2,530 ft./min. By the time of the battle of Britain, a three-bladed constant speed propeller, which markedly improved climb and acceleration, had been fitted.

In 1940 the Mk. II began to appear, replacing the Mk. I in early 1941. The Mk. II was powered by a 1,240 h.p. Merlin XII, which gave it a top speed almost identical to the Mk. I (354 mph at 17,550 ft), but a higher rate of climb (3,025 ft./min).

Later marks of Spitfire included the Mk. V of 1941, which for the first time introduced "clipped" wing tips to increase the roll rate. The Mk. V had a top speed of up to 374 mph. Best rate of climb was 2,900 ft./min. The Mk. V was produced in large numbers but was hard pressed by the improved Bf 109F and new FW 190A.

The Messerschmitt model that bore the brunt of the subsequent Battle of Britain was the Bf 109E. It started coming into service in 1939, and by 1940 was the first line Luftwaffe fighter. Power for the "E" model was the Daimler-Benz DB 601A, a supercharged, 12-cylinder inverted Vee engine with fuel injection. It developed 1,100 hp at 2,400 r.p.m. This was one of the finest engines of its time, and it gave the "E" a top speed of 354 m.p.h. and a best climb rate of 2,990 ft./min

The "F" model - Maneuverability was enhanced, and top speed was up to 382 m.p.h. at 17,000 ft. Best rate of climb was a sizzling (for the time) 3,640 ft/min. The "F" model was Gerd Barkhorn's favorite model. He is quoted as saying that it was lighter than other 109 variants, and could turn and climb "like hell."

The final Messerschmitt production variant was the "K," deliveries of which began in September of 1944. The "K" was powered by an 1,800 hp DB 605D engine (2000 hp with methanol-water injection) that gave it a top speed of 452 m.p.h. at 19,685 feet. Best climb rate was a sensational 4,820 ft./min.

The P-47B and C models were fine high altitude fighters. The P-47B had a top speed of 406 mph at 27,000 ft., an excellent rate of roll, and could dive like a stone. The Thunderbolt had great survivability; it could absorb a lot of punishment and still get home. The best climb rate was unimpressive, however, at only 1,650 ft./min at SL

The "universal wing," which could carry a variety of stores, was introduced with the P-47D-20-RE. A large four-bladed "paddle" propeller was also fitted. This, along with the water-injection R-2800-21 engine, which had a war emergency rating of 2,300 hp, markedly improved the maximum rate of climb, which was now up to 2,750 ft./min. at 5,000 ft.

The P-47D-25-RE and subsequent models had a cut down rear fuselage and a teardrop canopy, adapted from the British Typhoon fighter. Internal fuel capacity was also increased. The R-2800-59 engine had a war emergency rating of 2,535 hp. Climb rate was now up to 3,120 ft./min., and top speed was 426 mph at 30,000 ft. The Thunderbolt had basically reached full flower.

Short sepec:
German planes:

Fw190:
A-3 - Best climb: 3,280 ft./min. at 17,500 ft.
Climb to: 16,500 ft., 4.75 min.; 18,000 ft., 6.25 min
A-8 - Best climb was down to 2,756 ft./min. at 16,100 ft.
D-9 - best climb rate was up to 3,642 ft./min
Bf 109
E - best climb rate of 2,990 ft./min
F - Best rate of climb was a sizzling (for the time) 3,640 ft/min
K - Best climb rate was a sensational 4,820 ft./min.

Rest:
Spitfire Mk1A - best climb rate of 2,530 ft./min
Spit MkII - 3,025 ft./min
Spit MkV - Best rate of climb was 2,900 ft./min.

P-51 B7 - Best climb was 3,320 ft./min. at 10,000 ft.
P-51D - 3,320 ft./min. at 5,000 ft.
P-47B - The best climb rate was unimpressive, however, at only 1,650 ft./min at SL
P-47D-20-RE - 2,750 ft./min. at 5,000 ft.
The P-47D-25-RE - Climb rate was now up to 3,120 ft./min

And about Lagg3
I-301(prototype) - best climb rate 2800 ft./min
Lagg3 1 series- best climb rate 2400 ft./min
Lagg3 4 series - BEST CLIMB RATE 1930 ft./min

[This message was edited by Kwiatos on Fri February 20 2004 at 02:55 AM.]

[This message was edited by Kwiatos on Fri February 20 2004 at 03:00 AM.]

robban75
02-20-2004, 03:52 AM
Best climbrate for the MW50 equipped D-9 was 4331ft/min. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

BaneTheEvilOne
02-20-2004, 09:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
I have a blast online, bane - usually in a 190 or a p39 - no problem with yaks, las, kis - depending of course on the pilot. They really arent' ufos<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but only for online ace, other middle range players cannot beat VVS middle range aliens stuffed in ufos, that is the problem.

Willey
02-21-2004, 12:09 PM
Right now both A-8 and A-9 climb 18m/s max :indifferent:

That needs to be fixed. The A-8 should at least hit 20m/s, rather 21m/s (2050PS) and the A-9 made 23m/s (2300PS). The A-9 is better than the Dora because of a more efficient propeller.

Also, plz decide what you model in the A-5. Right now, it has engine controls that theoretically allow 2050PS (which means it should perform noticably better than A-8 in speed an climb), but it's performace matches 1780PS. So either fit the performace, or remove Sondernotleistung (Erh√¬∂hter Ladedruck).

BMW-801D-2 power:
1560PS - 1,32ata @2400rpm (Steig&Kampfleistung)
1780PS - 1,42ata @2700rpm (Start&Notleistung)
2050PS - 1,6ata @2800rpm (Sondernotleistung)

The A-4 has 1560PS now. Should be able to use 1780PS for a VERY short time (1min). It just heats more than the A-5, therefore it can't produce the same power as long as the A-5 can do.
A-5 has 1780PS right now, but with WEP button, it should have 2050PS.
A-8 has 2050PS.

Kwiatos
02-21-2004, 05:53 PM
A-8 should has worse climb rate than previous model - i dont saw any manual which said A-8 has better climb rate. In a few moment some people will be claim that A-8 has better climb rate that Bf K.

robban75
02-22-2004, 04:29 AM
Hmm, actually the D-9 had an intitial climbrate of 4429ft/min. 22.5m/sec x 60 = 1350m/min.

1ft = 0.3048m

1350 / 0.3048 = 4429ft/min. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Skalgrim
02-22-2004, 06:41 AM
manual was write before erh√¬∂hten ladedruck or mw50 come

a4/a5a/8 climb almost same with 1,3ata ,but a5 a8 have 1,65ata, that is difference,
insteat 1,3ata 1560ps from manual has she 2050ps, but that can you not read manual, those manual was write 42

oleg had this too say, manual is many time not right for the later plane

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
A-8 should has worse climb rate than previous model - i dont saw any manual which said A-8 has better climb rate. In a few moment some people will be claim that A-8 has better climb rate that Bf K.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MandMs
02-22-2004, 06:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skalgrim:

oleg had this too say, manual is many time not right for the later plane

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what did Oleg say about the P-47N?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



I eat the red ones last.

Kwiatos
02-22-2004, 07:09 AM
Fw190 A-3 to A-8 has the same engine BMW 801D-2 but A-3 had no bost, some A-4 has, A-5 and A-8 has too. See how diffrents are in take off weight: A-4 - 3989kg, A-5 -400kg, A-8 - 4250kg.

FW 190A-3
Engine:
BMW 801D 14 cylinder radial, 1,760 hp. at 3,000 r.p.m. at 18,000 ft.
Max speed:
395 m.p.h. at 17,000 ft.; 390 m.p.h. at 20,000 ft.
Best climb:
3,280 ft./min. at 17,500 ft.
Climb to:
16,500 ft., 4.75 min.; 18,000 ft., 6.25 min.


Later in 1942 the A-4 model came along. This model had a methanol-water injection system for the engine which boosted power for a 10 minute period on demand, and substantially improved performance at the lower altitudes. A new radio was also fitted. Other A-4 models included a night fighter version, and a ground attack version. There was also an extended range version with racks under the wings and fuselage for drop tanks or munitions

The 1943 version was the FW 190A-5. The main change was to move the engine 6 inches foreword in order to allow more flexibility for under wing stores. The primary variants of the A-5 included air superiority, bomber destroyer, and ground attack versions. War emergency horsepower was up to 2,050 in the 801D engine.

The FW 190A-8 of 1944 incorporated other improvements, including increased fuel capacity for longer range, and an improved power boost system to improve high altitude performance. Speed was 405 m.p.h. at best altitude. Best climb was down to 2,756 ft./min. at 16,100 ft.

MandMs
02-22-2004, 07:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Fw190 A-3 to A-8 has the same engine BMW 801D-2 but A-3 had no bost, some A-4 has, A-5 and A-8 has too. See how diffrents are in take off weight: A-4 - 3989kg, A-5 -400kg, A-8 - 4250kg.

FW 190A-3
Engine:
BMW 801D 14 cylinder radial, 1,760 hp. at 3,000 r.p.m. at 18,000 ft.
Max speed:
395 m.p.h. at 17,000 ft.; 390 m.p.h. at 20,000 ft.
Best climb:
3,280 ft./min. at 17,500 ft.
Climb to:
16,500 ft., 4.75 min.; 18,000 ft., 6.25 min.


Later in 1942 the A-4 model came along. This model had a methanol-water injection system for the engine which boosted power for a 10 minute period on demand, and substantially improved performance at the lower altitudes. A new radio was also fitted.

The 1943 version was the FW 190A-5. The main change was to move the engine 6 inches foreword in order to allow more flexibility for under wing stores. The primary variants of the A-5 included air superiority, bomber destroyer, and ground attack versions. War emergency horsepower was up to 2,050 in the 801D engine.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The A-4 did not have MW50.

No, the stretch on the A-5 was for a/c balance (CG) reasons because of the growing weight of equipement(mostly behind the pilot).



I eat the red ones last.

Skalgrim
02-22-2004, 07:37 AM
p47 in fb climb not bad, ok less as k4 and la-7, but almost same initialclimb as a8, but that seem not right. look of the powerloading

a8 had 2050ps.


american had test 44 a5 with and p47 in climb and have say a5 climb better

by climb has p47 overheat problem, but not the a5,

perhaps reason, that 190 could match spit9 climb under 6000m, many plane have overheat problem by climb

eric brown means a4 and spit9 climb almost same until 6000m.

a5 had not erh√¬∂hten ladedruck 1,65ata (2050ps) use by climb test, but 190a had use 44 1,65ata instead 1,42ata, that big difference.

erh√¬∂hten ladedruck could 190 10min use, means willaume, according to opinion from oleg a 190 expert, the difference is not small, 2050ps insteat 1750ps

p47n climb with her better powerlaoding certain better as p47 now,

but 190a9 is undermodel from climb, should climb same as dora, because same powerloading and her very effectively propeller



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Skalgrim:

oleg had this too say, manual is many time not right for the later plane

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what did Oleg say about the P-47N?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



I eat the red ones last.[/QUOTE

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Sun February 22 2004 at 07:14 AM.]

MandMs
02-22-2004, 07:40 AM
Not so nice things which were totally wrong were said about the P-47N.

Willey
02-22-2004, 08:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
A-8 should has worse climb rate than previous model - i dont saw any manual which said A-8 has better climb rate. In a few moment some people will be claim that A-8 has better climb rate that Bf K.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the A-8 has a worse climb than the A-5. But you have to keep in mind at which power setting they both climb. The A-8 is ~250kg heavier according to the numbers above. But it has 270HP more power which more than compensates for it.

I've got some diagrams (Rechlin tests) of A-5 and A-8. They are with full ammo and fuel.
I just post the values of SL at Dauerleistung (1,20ata, 2300rpm) | Steig&Kampfleistung (1,32ata, 2400rpm) | Start&Notleistung (1,42ata, 2700rpm) in km/h and m/s:

A-5:
Speed - 516 | 542 | 567
Climb - --- | 15,1 | ---

A-8:
Speed - 500 | 528 | 546
Climb - --- | 13,5 | 16,25

Now that source doesn't give ifo about how much the A-8 does with 1,6ata @ 2800rpm. Also the document states that the A-8 has a GM-1 boost installed. That thing adds quite some weight (is indicated 4300kg there). Plus it has no ETC installed. 300kg more... that's 2,56kg/PS (1560PS - Steig&Kampf) vs 2,76kg/PS. That's a 7,5% difference. 13,5m/s + 7,5% is 14,5m/s. Remove those gun bulges on the cowling and on the wings, and you could get another 0,5m/s out of it. There you are. For the speed, it's not that easy because of the drag. You need 4 times power to achieve 2 times speed. Therefor I take the square root of that 7,5% + 528 getting 547km/h. It's quite close. Makes sense to me.

Conclusion: With the same power, A-8 is indeed worse, but it has more power than the A-5. With 2050PS, 1,6ata @ 2800rpm it has 2,10 kg/PS. The A-5 has 2,24kg/PS with 1780PS, 1,42ata @2700rpm. Logically, the A-8 is better then. Add the bulges and it's just a tad better. Add the ETC501, and it's probably worse again (like it'S now in FB).
Another problem is the modelling of the A-5 ingame. With FB, Oleg added Erh√¬∂hter Ladedruck in CEM (press W), but he didn't add the extra power. It flies liek it didn't have the WEP. With that WEP correctly modelled, the A-5 will be better than the A-8 if the A-8 is correct, too.

NorrisMcWhirter
02-23-2004, 10:14 AM
Hi,

Interesting thread.

I think the A9 is awesome as it is now; I'd really like to sample it as it was historically, if it has been, as you suggest, "porked".

It's a real shame if that kind of thing does actually happen - degrading the performance of aircraft based upon what amounts to a biased population's views.


Cheers,
Norris


================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam : http://cabinessence.cream.org/

More irreverence:
http://www.tvgohome.com/

Hunde_3.JG51
02-23-2004, 07:08 PM
Norris, all you have to do is look at Olegs own data in the object viewer to see how much climb was improved over other Antons. As it is now the A-9 climbs like other Antons which is definitely wrong. The A-9 was tested against Dora IRL and performance-wise they were similar, though the Dora handled better and was better up high. People don't seem to understand just how big an improvement the A-9 was. It got a significant 300-400hp increase with new engine and a high efficiency prop designed specifically for climb. That is pretty significant. Imagine the P-47 for example with 400 less hp and removal of its improved prop.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

ElfunkoI
02-23-2004, 10:00 PM
Fix the 190s and give us the Fw-190A6!

Bremspropeller
02-24-2004, 05:07 AM
Bump for:

A-9's climbrate

A-6

D-12

D-13

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

CHDT
02-24-2004, 06:26 AM
And improved performances and maniability when the outter cannons are put off.

Cheers,

PzKpfw
02-24-2004, 02:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skalgrim:


american had test 44 a5 with and p47 in climb and have say a5 climb better <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was true of the P-47 w/o water injection or paddle prop. After addition of paddle prop & WI the P-47 outclimed; the Fw 190A-5 upto 15000 ft.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
02-25-2004, 01:14 AM
BUMP !
Any chance this will come true ?

ElfunkoI
02-25-2004, 08:32 AM
So as it is does the game account for the wider prop? Or does it show same prop as other 190A's? Does it perform as the other 190A's props do when it comes to CEM? Like, same pitch used for 190A5 as 190A9?

Gunner_361st
02-25-2004, 09:29 AM
I've noticed looking at the A8 and the A9 in FB the A9's newer, larger, better propeller... Also read about the significant horsepower boost. If you guys are indeed right the A9 climbs no better than the A8, then something is probably ary. Haven't tested it myself though. Did you guys do multiple tests to make sure pilot mishandling probability is minimal? Also, do you know best climb speed of FW190? From what I understand, FW190 does everything at it's best with speed. I think you all should try to talk to Oleg about it, he's been posting more on here lately.

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

robban75
02-25-2004, 09:55 AM
In RL the best climbing speed for the entire Fw 190 family was 280km/h.

I think the degrading of the Fw 190A-9's climbing ability is a perhaps a simple error not made deliberatly, my guess it's corrected already, but then again it's just a guess from my side. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Bewolf
02-25-2004, 11:38 AM
S! for this fine and civilized discussion till now.

About the A9, whats written here so far seems to make sense. I have stopped using the A9 after the patch and always wondered about the cut in performace. All i ever read marked the A9 as the definitive A version Focke Wulf. Let's see what comes out of this thread.

Bewolf

Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Gwalker70
02-25-2004, 09:51 PM
well if I had my way the A9 would be taken out of the game.. I mean how fun is that.. those 30mm's and all its online game wrecker.. i would also fix that g0damn LA7 as well so it would balance out http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hunde_3.JG51
02-26-2004, 12:41 AM
The above post is the perfect example of what happened to the 190A-9, just multiply his post by 100 and spread it out over 30 threads and the current A-9 is the result.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Skalgrim
02-26-2004, 05:09 AM
look of the initialclimb, very important for fb

a9 18m/sec

dora 23m/sec

dora 27% better initialclimb, but not better powerloading sealevel

old patch had a9 same initialclimb like dora,

very Interesting, for me a prove, oleg had too means the a9 match initialclimb from the dora


but most had cry in the wonderwomen server, that the a9 is to strong,

therefore was a9 initialclimb make weaker, for better balance

when someone has problem with a9 in wonderwomen server, could he remove it from server,

but give a9 again same initialclimb like dora.

wonderwomen server is problem,

plane with good initialclimb and firepower and dive speed are the best plane there.

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Thu February 26 2004 at 04:41 AM.]

Hunde_3.JG51
02-26-2004, 11:26 AM
I agree Skalgrim, I think the fact that the A-9 used to climb like the Dora initially indicates that Oleg has the proper data (it is even in the object viewer), but he bent to all of the whines from people who don't know how big of an improvement the A-9 really was.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

CHDT
02-26-2004, 12:10 PM
And don't forget that the A-9's flew also without the outter cannons, with an improvment climb and turning characteristics.

Cheers,

PzKpfw
02-26-2004, 12:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CHDT:
And don't forget that the A-9's flew also without the outter cannons, with an improvment climb and turning characteristics.

Cheers,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny you should mention that CH. Lowe points out that manyFw 190A3-A5 were actualy produced w/o the 20mm MG FF.

For the most part we have always heard the MGFF were removed in the field, now we have data that the MGFF were ommited in factory production as well.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

Zen--
02-26-2004, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
I agree Skalgrim, I think the fact that the A-9 used to climb like the Dora initially indicates that Oleg has the proper data (it is even in the object viewer), but he bent to all of the whines from people who don't know how big of an improvement the A-9 really was.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


For what it's worth, while the intial climb for the A9 appeared correct back then, there was some form of climb bug that people exploited and perhaps thats why it was changed. I was routinely outclimbed while flying a Dora against A9's...by a large margin, on occaison while climbing at 260-80kph on max power, I was even overtaken and passed by A9's that started several thousand meters below me. No exaggeration.

I hope it gets fixed the right way...the climb rate in RL is not far off from the Dora all the way up high IIRC, so can it really be that hard to model correctly?

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

Hunde_3.JG51
02-26-2004, 03:31 PM
Zen, I never knew there was some cheat/exploit http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif. Actually I'm glad I didn't know and hopefully the A-9's climb can be fixed properly. I would rather have it undermodelled than unfairly used. If there is one thing I hate, it is a cheat/exploit.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Zen--
02-26-2004, 03:44 PM
I figured out one because of that, there was an overheat bug that would let you run on 103% Erhohte without ever overheating, but this other overclimb exploit really soured me on the Anton.

Remember when (1.11 I think) EVERYONE was flying the A9? I never noticed the issue down low but in a long sustained climb the plane had approximately 50% higher climb rate than the D9 and would leave you behind with ease all the way up to 11k.

Why anyone would want to use an exploit is beyond me, far greater satisfaction can be had from doing something the honest way. Much better for your soul too.

-Zen-

Skalgrim
02-27-2004, 06:11 AM
erh√¬∂hte ladedruck from a8 and a9 could be used 10min with automatic radiator,

it begins only to work with 110% and it was activated

how in 1.11, had never functioned, because with 103% became the boost not activated and certain not more power as with 110%

was funny mistake, but not funny for the plane that had fight against 190

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Fri February 27 2004 at 05:41 AM.]

MatuDa_
02-27-2004, 06:34 AM
I had a feeling something was wrong when I tried to outclimb p40-m (1942) with the a9, clean config, and the p40:s wouldn't drop. I rarely fly the a9 and the p40:s were AI veterans but still.. tried to maintain 270-300km/h and ran a slow turn all the time and the buggers just stayed with me from 2k to 5.5k

I know this doesn't prove anything (except that I cant fly the a9 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

MandMs
02-27-2004, 06:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MatuDa_:
I had a feeling something was wrong when I tried to outclimb p40-m (1942) with the a9, clean config, and the p40:s wouldn't drop. I rarely fly the a9 and the p40:s were AI veterans but still.. tried to maintain 270-300km/h and ran a slow turn all the time and the buggers just stayed with me from 2k to 5.5k

I know this doesn't prove anything (except that I cant fly the a9 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah. but they were AI. They have a totally different set of 'rules' they 'play' by.



I eat the red ones last.

ElfunkoI
02-27-2004, 07:27 AM
Not so much when it comes to "X climbs faster than Y". Then as X climbs, Y drops off due to gravity. Anyway, in a fight on the deck to a zoom climb they drop off. In a fight against a 109 they drop off.

Hunde_3.JG51
02-27-2004, 07:08 PM
MandMS, AI or not looking at Robban's charts and having experience in the 190 makes it fairly obvious that the A-9's climb was chopped and it is too low. It should easily out-climb planes like the P-40 and it doesn't, AI or not (AI's climb is not boosted that much if at all).

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Kwiatos
02-27-2004, 07:18 PM
Yea P-40 climb in Fb to good(7 min to 6000m instead 11 min), the same some vvs plane (Lagg3, La). Fw-190 is to weak in climb rate copmare it to other planes.

Saburo_0
02-27-2004, 10:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Zen, I never knew there was some cheat/exploit http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif. Actually I'm glad I didn't know and hopefully the A-9's climb can be fixed properly. I would rather have it undermodelled than unfairly used. If there is one thing I hate, it is a cheat/exploit.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes i believe Oleg caved in and adjusted some climb rates because peopel were not flying their planes the way they really were flown. I know i was never aware of the fact that some plnes never over-heated because I always try to take care of my engine & only use max power for a life or death situation.
it:s frustrating for those of us who just want realistic relative performance when people who GAME the sim come along & ruin all the effort that went into making it realistic.
IIRC the overblow climb of the current 109G2 is a result of whiners complaining they couldn]t get a good enough climb rate. As Oleg said there are more factors to how a plane handles than just easily measurable climb rates & top speeds. Many put too much emphasis on these.
I would like to see the A9 improved, but hate to see FB degenerate into a Who Whines the Loudest gets their way kinda thing. When mistakes are pointed out Oleg looks into them so we are very lucky & I am looking forward to the new DM for the 190s especially!!
Robban has a great attitude in the way he posts his test results & that is refreshing , whish everyone were like that.

Gunner_361st
02-27-2004, 10:56 PM
I've always been somewhat disappointed the way people exploit bugs in the flight and damage models of different aircraft in the successive patches... All the way back from Version 1.0..

The concrete, looping Hurricane..

The indestructable FW190 that never overheats..

and now, the super climbing Me109 G2.. In each of the versions, I go into dogfight servers with the new bugged aircraft in question and its half the planes on one side.

Hehe, I've seen G2's operating in late-war servers with K4's and G10's available. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Pretty funny, if you ask me. But hey.. I admire Oleg and Company for working out all these bugs.. Just saying I've always been disappointed in how so many people exploit it.

Captain Gunner of the 361st

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

Skalgrim
02-28-2004, 04:33 AM
i153, hurry, zero and p39n and p40 etc, fly too 44 server, perhaps overmodel?

those birds fly late server, because it is fun to defeat better plane with outdated plane,

withal g2 was use until early 44, at least eastfront



Gunner_361st:

-Hehe, I've seen G2's operating in late-war
- servers with K4's and G10's available. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
- Pretty funny, if you ask me.

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Sat February 28 2004 at 04:28 AM.]

Willey
02-28-2004, 08:16 AM
The G-2 turns better than a K-4. That's why it's on late servers. It's climb is correct. There's just one little error. '42 most G-2 just had "100%" power, 1300hp (1,3ata, 2600rpm), while our's uses full 1475hp (1,42ata, 2800rpm) of the DB-605A.

DangerForward
02-29-2004, 08:18 AM
Are there any versions of IL2Compare that show the reduction of A9 climb from a previous version? Version 2.2 and 2.3 seem the same for A8 versus A9. In it the A9 outclimbs the A8 well at 100%, but the difference is not that great at 110% for whatever reason.

DangerForward

Willey
02-29-2004, 11:30 AM
Il-2 Compare sais 23m/s... But I can't get more than 18m/s out of both A-8 and A-9. Maybe a CEM issue then.

Skalgrim
02-29-2004, 12:28 PM
Il-2 Compare calculate the climb with real weigh,

but some plane had get more weigh as real, because otherwise to strong like a9



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Willey:
Il-2 Compare sais 23m/s... But I can't get more than 18m/s out of both A-8 and A-9. Maybe a CEM issue then.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Sun February 29 2004 at 11:47 AM.]

Hunde_3.JG51
02-29-2004, 01:04 PM
.

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Mon March 01 2004 at 09:09 AM.]

Hunde_3.JG51
03-01-2004, 10:10 AM
Last time so Oleg can see what thread I am talking about.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Hunde_3.JG51
03-01-2004, 10:10 AM
dp.

ElfunkoI
03-01-2004, 07:47 PM
Sorry, I've been lagging. I gotta pay more obsessive compulsive attention to threads I deem worthy of first page status.

"A6?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Will be A6!"

ElfunkoI
03-02-2004, 07:40 AM
TOp

"A6?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Will be A6!"

Hunde_3.JG51
03-02-2004, 09:33 AM
Elfunko, Oleg already responded to this issue in sticky thread at top of page so you can let this thread die. Hopefully we can achieve the 22m/sec. in climb Oleg syas the A-9 can do in AEP (note he didn't state anything was changed, just that he can achieve these numbers and I'll take his word for it until I can try it myself).

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

ElfunkoI
03-02-2004, 10:34 PM
Ahhh, good to hear. This will be the last bump then, until a new thread and fight. :)

"A6?:):):) Will be A6!"