PDA

View Full Version : FW190 A8 weight



Tvrdi
07-05-2004, 07:57 AM
A8 is only around 150 kg heavier than A4 and is a ultimate staller...stalls way to easily than any other FW190...what is the problem here? and in the sim it seams that the G6 is heavier than it should be...as someone told me when ur flying in g6 in Fb ur flying in f brick http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

weight of La7 on example, is simmilar to the weight of G6...P51 from 44 was much heavier than any bf109....look how they act in the game lol

comments pls....

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/gnomisa-KroatienLegionJG1.jpg

Tvrdi
07-05-2004, 07:57 AM
A8 is only around 150 kg heavier than A4 and is a ultimate staller...stalls way to easily than any other FW190...what is the problem here? and in the sim it seams that the G6 is heavier than it should be...as someone told me when ur flying in g6 in Fb ur flying in f brick http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

weight of La7 on example, is simmilar to the weight of G6...P51 from 44 was much heavier than any bf109....look how they act in the game lol

comments pls....

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/gnomisa-KroatienLegionJG1.jpg

dadada1
07-05-2004, 10:41 AM
I don't believe comparing weights can tell the whole story. There's wing loading and aerodynamics also to take into account when comparing it with the Lagg. If you just look at aircrft on paper then your missing some vital ingredient. On paper the P 39 should have been a world beater, but the reality was it is an also ran. 109s were renowned for heavy elevator forces, this is not just the testimony of one pilot such as Capt Eric Brown, but many who flew if in tests and combat.

Maybe because this is a sim certain things have to be exaggerated in order for it to feel like we expect them to. We dont have the benefit of feeling the plane shudder, bank, roll and pitch, and they are essential elements of feeling how a plane handles. At best we have force feedback, a poor substite for our senses. I'm sure that if some exaggeration wasn't there all planes would feel the same as they are starting to now. I personally hope these characteristics are left in in order to keep the game believable, even if it is not strictly accurate.

Magister__Ludi
07-05-2004, 12:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tvrdi:
A8 is only around 150 kg heavier than A4 and is a ultimate staller...stalls way to easily than any other FW190...what is the problem here? and in the sim it seams that the G6 is heavier than it should be...as someone told me when ur flying in g6 in Fb ur flying in f brick http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

weight of La7 on example, is simmilar to the weight of G6...P51 from 44 was much heavier than any bf109....look how they act in the game lol

comments pls....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Weight alone doesn't tell much.

On the other hand the difference between A5 and A8 was basically the rear fuselage fuel tank, which didn't affect much the stability, certainly not to the amount P-51D was affected (A8 stability problems are not mentioned anywhere, compared to Mustang where the manual is filled with warnings and different procedures in case the fuselage tank is not empty).

Fw-190 never had the touchy elevators Oleg insists it had. Kurt Tank himself decribes the plane as very difficult to spin. Only the pilots that transitioned from light wingloaded aircraft were surprised that when Fw-190 was stalled on a wing it snaped, but this is characteristic to all heavy wingloaded aircraft (in '42 was surprising though), there is no reason for which Fw-190A/D should snap harder than P-51D or P-47D for example.

But touchy elevators are one thing and snap stalls are another. ALL pilots that flew Fw-190 praised the harmonious controls, which basically means that the elevators had normal travel, not the ridiculous short travel they have now. Also short stick travel is not wing loading related since in reality Spitfire HAD short travel elevators (which are misteriously missing in AEP model).

Fw-190 should have the same handling with P-51D, anything worse is not acceptable.

Magister__Ludi
07-05-2004, 12:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dadada1:
109s were renowned for heavy elevator forces, this is not just the testimony of one pilot such as Capt Eric Brown, but many who flew if in tests and combat.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bf-109 and Mustang had heavier elevator forces in cruise only, because they had small control surfaces (they needed larger control surfaces deflection to make the same maneuver a fighter fitted with large control surfaces did with less deflection). However, as speed increases the stick forces are increasing linearly for planes with small control surfaces (like Bf-109, Mustang and Fw-190) and exponentially for planes with large control surfaces (like Yaks, Laggs).

This is why early war fighters fitted with large elevators had very low dive speed limits: because controls could not be moved at those speeds (and not because the airframe could not take the pull out stress from even higher speeds - though this was a factor too).

Tvrdi
07-05-2004, 01:19 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dadada1:
I don't believe comparing weights can tell the whole story. There's wing loading and aerodynamics also to take into account when comparing it with the Lagg.....

Im aware of that guys..but anyway i think if A4 is simmilar in construction to the A8 (and it is) why so big difference in behaviour....and bf109 is too big in the game...it was small plane as u know....what are u think, which plane u will notice first in the sky at the same distance in FB? LW or USAAF? LW silhuetes offcourse cause they are so big and cross looking http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/gnomisa-KroatienLegionJG1.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
07-05-2004, 01:40 PM
Tvrdi, I know what you are saying, I mentioned this awhile ago. The A-9 is even worse than the A-8 when compared to the A-4. The A-4 feels very light and maneuverable while the A-9 feels like a bus. This has always seemed pretty silly to me as the planes were alot more similar than different. The A-8 and A-9 weighed more overall but not that much. Dimensions were the same (though from A-5 on the nose was lengthened slightly to restore center of gravity because of additional equipment behind cockpit in rear fuesalage), wing was the same, controls/control surfaces the same, aerodynamics were pretty much the same (except for bulged cowling from A-7 on), etc. It just doesn't make sense for the A-8 and A-9 to handle so much worse than the A-4.

Then there is the matter of FW-190's suffering from radiator drag (one of my biggest complaints), but that is another story.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

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

VW-IceFire
07-05-2004, 01:54 PM
The 109 is too big in the game? This is the first I've seen it.

By eyeballing it I don't see anything wrong. Compaired to the Spitfire it looks just right...infact I had a freaky sort of moment one day when I was a third party in a roundabout chase between a 109F-4 and Spitfire Vb and it looked just like a scene from Battle of Britain or the first bit in Pearl Harbor. The shapes were unmistakable from this angle (the curved wings on the Spitfire and the angular 109F-4 with its smoothed wingtips and small tail sections).

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

HuninMunin
07-05-2004, 02:09 PM
Guess he means the 2nd LOD, the cowler-boxes (?) are huge and that makes the 109 look bigger.

Simon "Hunin" Phoenix

Oberst der Deutschen GoF Trolling Korps

Tvrdi
07-05-2004, 03:53 PM
Hunde, I think Fw190 is generally a c**p plane in FB..and in fact in WW2 it was a great plane as we all know,...about bf109 look...i thought at long distance LW planes are big icons much bigger than other (and cross looking)..other planes are much smaller at the same distance and no "cross looking" icon...so its easier to find LW plane at long distance...got it?

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/gnomisa-KroatienLegionJG1.jpg

p1ngu666
07-05-2004, 04:10 PM
i thought a8 was WAAAAY heavy and a9 lighter by abit?

must admit i like the early 190's
thought u could easy stall 190, was a evasive manover http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

jenikovtaw
07-05-2004, 08:35 PM
Fw190 is my fav LW and maybe overall plane, but its so impossible to do any kind of shots when someone is even an inch under you, gunsight is so low above the cowling, i find it very hard to aim with that plane.

Jumping someone from uptop in a lead pursuit is pointless because you lose sight of them way too easily, so thats my only complaint about this plane.

Other than that, I like it a lot.

http://www.theartofwarfare.net/ftp/graphics/sigs/EXT-jenikovtaw.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
07-05-2004, 09:47 PM
Just a couple of things Tvrdi. First, I guess you were talking to others about LW planes sight distance, though your last post starts with my name so it looks as though you are talking to me. It seems fairly obvious since I made no comment about it, but just wanted to clear that up.

Second, the FW-190 is my favorite plane and though it has some issues it certainly isn't a cr*p plane in FB. I have racked up large scores and do pretty well online and I fly the 190 exclusively when I can. It takes a long time to learn to fly the 190 well but it rewards those that do http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif.

Jenikovtaw, I guess it comes from flying the 190 constantly but I don't even notice "the bar" anymore. If I hop into another plane I may say "hey, this is nice being able to see lower" but it really doesn't effect my ability to use the 190. Ignorance is bliss I guess http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. If I flew alot of different planes it would be more noticeable I'm sure.

P1ngu666, the FW-190A-8 empty was about 700-900 pounds heavier than A-3 which is a decent amount, but not near enough to explain differences in handling that are seen in FB IMO. Especially when, as I said, the wing, dimensions, controls, etc. were pretty much the same. Also the A-8, and especially the A-9, had more power/boost available. They were very conscious of the center of gravity when some weight was added, this is why the nose was lengthened from A-5 on, and why ETC-501 bomb-rack was slighty re-located on A-8. I have read alot about the 190 but I have never seen any comments about later 190's handling any different/worse than early models, except in cases of ground attack models (F & G) mainly due to ordinence, or with bomber interception versions with more armor and armament.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

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

p1ngu666
07-06-2004, 02:08 AM
ok
but i still have this feeling a8 has extra armour or sumin IN fb ( i dunno why :\/ ), u know way more about fw190 than me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Tvrdi
07-06-2004, 06:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jenikovtaw:
Fw190 is my fav LW and maybe overall plane, but its so impossible to do any kind of shots when someone is even an inch under you, gunsight is so low above the cowling, i find it very hard to aim with that plane.

Jumping someone from uptop in a lead pursuit is pointless because you lose sight of them way too easily, so thats my only complaint about this plane.

Other than that, I like it a lot.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well thats another problem mentioned long ago in this forum....it seams that in FW190 ur sitting to low so gunsight is too high positioned...its hard to make any good deflection shots at positions wher your enemy is under your gunsight (u can only assume wher he is)..unless ur flying only or mostly the FW190 for motnhs - maybe then u can i Dont know http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I fly ME109 mostly..but if that pilot position in FW190 is really too low then it must be fixed....gunsight dropping is another issue not fixed in the patch (they said its fixed but its not)....

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/gnomisa-KroatienLegionJG1.jpg

JV44Rall
07-06-2004, 06:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Jenikovtaw, I guess it comes from flying the 190 constantly but I don't even notice "the bar" anymore. If I hop into another plane I may say "hey, this is nice being able to see lower" but it really doesn't effect my ability to use the 190.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've worked out a solution (kind of) to "the bar" issue.

If you remap the gunsight view (shift-F1) to a handy key, hitting the key shifts the top bar slightly and the left bar a significant amount.

If you have some way of writing and running an in-game macro, such as with a Nostromo keypad, you can create a macro that toggles between regular view and gunsight view as you hold down the shortcut key.

I imagine it's about the same as moving your head to the right and forward, then to the center of the canopy, and allows you to look "around" the bar.

Not the most elegant solution, http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif but short of going with the "Wonder Woman view," it's the only one I've been able to find.

http://www.jagdverband44.com/JV44Banner400x75.jpg

NN_EnigmuS
07-07-2004, 03:28 AM
i must agreed here

it's like The 109G6 at the beginning of IL2 and Fb,it was so bad in front Of G2 and now it is corrected and G6 fly quite well
perhaps we have sturmbock one in aep http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif(with 192kg more lol a8/r2)

so they must do the same for Fw190A8/9 in front Of FwA6,ive read this on a book:
-that under 3000m,fwa8 outturn and outmanouevered P51mustang
-between 3000and5000,it depend on pilot
-and upper the mustang is clearly superior

it must have a excelent initial acceleration in dive and in climb,and have excelent view at all azimuts lol

the first vibrations in dive comes at 860km/h,and it was said that you must only shoot with noise Mg when past this speed

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

Tvrdi
07-07-2004, 05:25 AM
yep, and look how A8 turns under 3000 m in FB AEP...stalls like no other plane in the game...I know Fw190 isnt a turner but it is obvious its too poor in FB...stalls way too easily..almost instantly

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/gnomisa-KroatienLegionJG1.jpg

JG69_Koenig
07-07-2004, 05:55 AM
Just a hunch, but maybe they modelled the A8 subversion that had tons of armor ("Rammj√¬§ger" A8), that would explain a lot of things.

http://www.idiotenkoenig.net/img/sig.jpg http://www.idiotenkoenig.net/img/timbre-dora.gif

NN_EnigmuS
07-07-2004, 08:34 AM
if someone had valid data to send to oleg he can lol

butch?kurfust?Magister?anyone?

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

Tvrdi
07-07-2004, 10:04 AM
Koenig..I doubt...A8 isnt more durable than any other FW..or Im wrong here?

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/gnomisa-KroatienLegionJG1.jpg