PDA

View Full Version : Adding FW190 with fighter engine config for historical west missions



quiet_man
02-25-2006, 12:45 PM
the previous "anton" thread first got out of hands then moved to GD. But I think the point was valid and I hope people can learn.

I have to admid I'm no expert for 190 history, but what I understood from previous thread was that Jabos had engine setup for more power at low alt and low speed to carry heavy bomb loads.

so for historical west missions, which happen often at med. to high alt. (like attacking or escorting bombers) fighter versions (mostly for 190A4 and 190A5) are missing.

If someone can provide data about the use of fighter 190 at the east front, it might be helpfull.

If the above is wrong, please correct me. <span class="ev_code_RED">But this is NO discussion about the performance of the current 190 we have in game.</span>

Also I understand that fighter 190 won't perform different on DF servers or eastern missions, were fighting happens mostly low.

quiet_man

KG26_Alpha
02-25-2006, 12:53 PM
http://www.vectorsite.net/avfw190.html#m1

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190.html (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/%7Epettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190.html)

Have fun reading

RegRag1977
02-25-2006, 01:45 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Where are you Faustnik, we need your help around here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif!

faustnik
02-25-2006, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by RegRag1977:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Where are you Faustnik, we need your help around here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif!

I'm right here! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

The main thing we were discussing in the other thread was the power (rpm & boost) of the Fw190A4. Some people feel that some Fw190A4 jabos were limited to 1.32ata@2400rpm. This seems to be the version that we have in the sim. The Fw190A4s used as fighters ran at 1.42ata@2700rpm which gave them excellent speed, over 400mph, and excellent climb rates, up to 4000fpm.

Please visit the Fw190 Consortium link found in my sig for more answers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

In particular these threads:

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...ile=viewtopic&t=7952 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=7952)

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...ile=viewtopic&t=8430 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=8430)

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...ile=viewtopic&t=8160 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=8160)

Viper2005_
02-25-2006, 02:40 PM
I think a key issue in need of debate is the ability or otherwise of the pitch change mechanism of the Fw-190 to maintain rpm at low speed.

At present it seems to me that the Fw-190A in particular loses out in slow flight because even if you ask for 100% rpm (I hate the term 100% prop pitch since it's an awful misnomer) you won't get it below about 300 km/h.

This has a very pronounced impact upon the power output of the engine and thus the Fw-190's ability to dogfight.

I don't know if its accurate or not, which is why I haven't complained about it.

(I do know that the Mustang suffers from an inability to maintain rpm at low boost, which means that you can't fly an approach by the book; but at least if you give it full power you'll get full revs.)

faustnik
02-25-2006, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
I think a key issue in need of debate is the ability or otherwise of the pitch change mechanism of the Fw-190 to maintain rpm at low speed.

At present it seems to me that the Fw-190A in particular loses out in slow flight because even if you ask for 100% rpm (I hate the term 100% prop pitch since it's an awful misnomer) you won't get it below about 300 km/h.

Yes! The slow spool-up of the Fw190 makes for poor acceleration. All I have heard reading about the plane was that it accelerated very well. Definitely worth asking questions and looking into. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

JG7_Rall
02-25-2006, 04:17 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Ratsack
02-25-2006, 10:09 PM
Yeah, the revs do seem to be more dependent up airspeed than manifold pressure, which seems a bit odd.

With respect to acceleration, I've read some conflicting reports about the early Fw190As. The Brit tests of Faber's A-3 mention its good acceleration, even up to 1943 when it was clearly superior in this respect to the P47C against which they tested it.

On the other hand there is the comparative test done in Dec 1941 with a Fw190A-1/2 and a Bf109F-4. The way Gollob wrote up the report, the F-4 was the clear winner above 1,000 m. Given that this early A-1/2 (probably an A-1 retrofitted to A-2 standard) would be powered by a BMW801C motor, its acceleration performance is probably roughly comparable to the de-rated 1.32 ATA A-4 we have in the game.

Ratsack

Viper2005_
02-26-2006, 09:15 AM
I think that the fine stop on the prop is simply too coarse. This could probably be changed quite easily. It would buy us at least 100 bhp at low speed (probably more like 300 bhp in slow flight), which would make all the difference in combat.

BUT, I don't have any historical data as to what rpm was available at what speed, so I can do no more than to hand this over to the Fw-190 experts.

I think that if historical data can be produced then a strong campaign could be launched. The performance improvement would really be massive, since it would allow greater aggression to be employed in combat.

mynameisroland
02-27-2006, 05:11 AM
Are we not just banging our heads against a wall here? Oh and thanks a lot p1ngu for getting the last thread moved from ORR to General. Is there a way we can stop people from ruining threads - Ivan ?

and out of interest how many people have 2MB or greater connections around here?

Viper2005_
02-27-2006, 06:16 AM
2 Mb connection here.

mynameisroland
02-27-2006, 08:00 AM
my 20k sig must have been causing a few problems because Ive had to resize it. Who has trouble loading up a 20k sig ??

Kettenhunde
02-27-2006, 07:53 PM
On the other hand there is the comparative test done in Dec 1941 with a Fw190A-1/2 and a Bf109F-4. The way Gollob wrote up the report, the F-4 was the clear winner above 1,000 m. Given that this early A-1/2 (probably an A-1 retrofitted to A-2 standard) would be powered by a BMW801C motor, its acceleration performance is probably roughly comparable to the de-rated 1.32 ATA A-4 we have in the game.


Different propellers, Kommandoger¤t, and different power production in effect a different plane. It's like comparing a Spitfire Mk I to a Spitfire Mk IX.

All the best,

Crumpp

Irish_JG26
02-27-2006, 09:18 PM
S~

I have found that I can squeeze out a bit more speed at all altitudes from the various Anton type 190's by using manual prop pitch. The 190's EMS still prevents the plan from over-revving the engine in a dive (like the 109 will do), so it is more forgiving than the 109.

Still, I cannot help but cringe when a Spitfire V, VIII or even IX is able to reverse on a high speed 190, after a H2H pass and go to guns in a matter of 20-40 seconds or less. While it is true that most of the 190's are faster than a Spit IX at say 5000m, their relatively poor accelleration (compared to the Spit or LA5) means that they take much longer to reach their slightly higher speeds. Throw in the fact that they bleed energy like a stock hog when any significant change of direction is required and one can see that the Spits will eat your lunch if you try to turn with them at all.

US Navy tests at Patuxant River, MD test flight center in 1944 compared an battle worn Fw190A5 (without WEP cause the mix tank was empty) to both the F4U Corsair and later indirectly to the P51 Mustang. Below 24,000 ft the 190 was both faster and climbed better than both of these (best in breed) USA aircraft. Both of the USA AC were noted to be better in level turns than the 190. They even ran it against a stripped down, high performance version of the Corsair. It was a humbling result for the Navy lads.

Irish

Viper2005_
02-28-2006, 04:55 AM
Here is the report to which you refer. It is worth noting that the Fw-190A5/u4 tested was... a jabo.

Care must be taken with the interpretation of the results as it was not operated in an authentic configuration.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index1.html

Kettenhunde
02-28-2006, 05:21 AM
It is worth noting that the Fw-190A5/u4 tested was... a jabo.


The FW-190A5/U4 is a photoreconnaissance variant.

The main "technical mistakes" IMHO made by the USN in that test appear to be:

1. Ailerons out of adjustment. The Luftwaffe had trouble keeping the sensitive ailerons on the FW-190 adjusted. It is obvious from the distinct symptoms displayed in the USN test that the ailerons were not properly adjusted after the wing was repaired.

2. Engine difficulties. The engine had obvious difficulties in producing it's rated power using natural petroleum Avgas. New mixture regulations, spark plugs, and formulation for C3 would have altered the settings and required a new bench test investigation.

Here is what the RAE response to this test's claim of equal roll rate performance:

http://img37.imagevenue.com/loc20/th_29103_FW190_roll_rate_vs_Corsair.JPG (http://img37.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc20&image=29103_FW190_roll_rate_vs_Corsair.JPG)


BMW and Focke Wulf had 6 different engine set ups for the Focke Wulf 190 variants. Each was unique and tuned for the aircraft's mission.
http://img125.imagevenue.com/loc33/th_29108_different_motors.jpg (http://img125.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc33&image=29108_different_motors.jpg)


Care must be taken with the interpretation of the results as it was not operated in an authentic configuration.

Absolutely correct. Foreign testing of captured equipment during wartime is a good indicator of "at least" performance not "top" or absolute" performance.

All the best,

Crumpp

WWMaxGunz
02-28-2006, 06:54 AM
I see about Jabo power set to low alt and low speed for carrying heavy bombs.
How much power for low alt, low speed? Please, a break! Think prop difference, they were
made and set for best thrust at different speed ranges. What were the prop differences?
Were there differences in the Kommandogerat?

WWMaxGunz
02-28-2006, 07:03 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

Absolutely correct. Foreign testing of captured equipment during wartime is a good indicator of "at least" performance not "top" or absolute" performance.

All the best,

Crumpp

You can say that? When a brand new FW is landed cleanly and surrendered, there won't be any
in worse shape in German hands?

It is partly chance. That captured plane has chance to be the best as the worse, it is no
marker that "all remaining uncaptured are at least this good". That's like some kid game
rule just as defining the plane by captures is. Making points over maybes... stick to cards.

After capture though, there is no guarantee it will not be fouled by the new owners or what
is broken not fixed properly and none that it will be either.

Kettenhunde
02-28-2006, 07:57 AM
When a brand new FW is landed cleanly and surrendered, there won't be any
in worse shape in German hands?

Unfortunately for the RAE, Faber did not land with a storage tank of C3 or a trained Luftwaffe maintenance crew.

That being said, the RAE tactical trials of WNr. 313 ailerons do not appear out of adjustment unlike the USN test. Power production was clearly the problem they experienced with WNr 313. Not only from the anecdotal evidence of the rough running engine but the fact the RAE had the motor bench tested and engine set up procedures estabilished using German Siemens plugs.

The RAE knew power production was a problem during trials.

All the best,

Crumpp

Viper2005_
02-28-2006, 10:02 AM
I said that the aircraft tested was a jabo because the report states:


The Fw-190A5/U4 tested had been employed by the Germans as a converted fighter bomber, and was not the standard fighter version of the Fw-190.

Quite what that means in the light of the what you say about u4 being a recce mod I don't know; I fly the Fw-190 a lot in game, but I know far less about it than Allied types.

Kettenhunde
02-28-2006, 05:14 PM
Quite what that means in the light of the what you say about u4 being a recce mod I don't know;

It speaks volumes about the USN's familiarity with the Focke Wulf variants, their design changes, and maintenance particulars of the aircraft.

Read the last paragraph of BMW's instructions for the use of their engines in the FW-190A, F, and G series.

"With these 6 engines......"

All the best,

Crumpp

luftluuver
02-28-2006, 05:23 PM
Where did this USN 190 come from?

Kettenhunde
02-28-2006, 07:57 PM
WNr 160057 does not appear on any WerkNummer listings for FW-190A5 variants.

http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/werkn.htm

An educated guess would be the aircraft came from Sicily as it does not show up on any of the capture lists from the ETO or North Africa prior to the invasion of Italy.

All the best,

Crumpp

Ratsack
02-28-2006, 08:10 PM
Long post warning.

I€m trying to understand the various boost levels and emergency boost systems for the Fw190A, and I€ve written up my understanding of the historical variants in abbreviated form below. I€d appreciate it if the Focke-Wulf experts out there could expand or correct where they can. The object is to get a quick and dirty summary in one place, as a reference if nothing else. All informed input welcome. Naturally, I also make some suggestions at the end. Comment or argument is welcome there, too.

Fw190A-1 & A-2
Introduced into service June 1941, these planes were powered by variants of the BMW801C engine, and had problems with overheating that were solved by the introduction of ventilation slots on the A-2 series. Top speed was about 390 mph. I don€t have data on the induced compression for these engines, but internal compression was 1:1.65.

Fw190A-3
Introduced in February 1942, it was powered by the BMW801D motor, which could run at 1.42 ATA induced compression, and internal compression was increased to 1:1.75. In this configuration, the plane had a top speed on the order of 415 mph at about 20,000 ft. The new engine required C3 fuel to run at these compressions.

Some Fw190A-3s had BMW801Ds that were €˜de-rated€ to a maximum induced compression of 1.32 ATA, Faber€s being one such example. This seems to have been done to avoid knocking observed in some engines when running at the higher boost level (experts?).

Fw190A-4
Introduced June / July 1942, the A-4 was powered by the BMW801D-2 motor, rated to run at 1.42 ATA induced compression. Essentially the same motor as that in the A-3, except that the D-2 version in the A-4 was designed to accept a power boost system that was apparently never introduced. Many sources claim the boost system in question was the MW50, but this appears to be a widespread error.

The Fw190A-4 we have in the game is one that, according to its performance, is de-rated to 1.32 ATA. The gauges in the cockpit, however, show that it€s running at 1.42 ATA. There is some debate about whether A-4s were de-rated in this manner, but it would seem that with the reformulation of C3 fuel in the second half of 1942, the rough-running issues were finally resolved. There does not, therefore, seem to be an historically valid performance-related reason to have the A-4 de-rated.

Fw190A-5
Introduced at the very beginning of 1943, the A-5 used the same engine as the A-4 (D-2), and ran at 1.42 ATA. The €˜normal€ Fw190A-5 we have in the game runs at 1.42 ATA when the boost system is activated. The A-5 featured a longer engine mount that lengthened the fuselage, and had an all up weight roughly 250 kg higher than the A-4 because of extra fittings to accept a wider range of factory and field conversion kits.

It seems to me €" and I€d appreciate the input of the Focke-Wulf experts here €" that the normal Fw190A-5 we have in the game should achieve its current level of performance without the boost system engaged. That is to say, it should run at 1.42 ATA without engaging the WEP. As it€s currently modelled, it achieves 1.42 ATA only with WEP engaged.

Some time in 1943 (dates, anybody?), a boost system using C3 injection was introduced, enabling the D-2 engine to run at 1.65 ATA at low altitudes. This plane is represented in the game, as the Fw190A-5 1.65 ata. This system was primarily a low altitude booster for jabos to better allow them to escape.

Sometime in late 1943 / early 1944 (dates, anybody?), a new boost system for fighter versions was introduced. This new boost system worked on similar principles to the jabo system, but was geared differently, allowing a maximum of 1.58 ATA in the low altitude gear, and a max of 1.65 ATA at full throttle altitude for the high alt gear. This plane is not represented in the game.

Fw190A-6
Introduced in mid-1943, this thing was essentially the same as the A-5, except for the new wing. I€ve noticed that the A-6 in the game seems to be about 10 kph faster than the A-5, but I€m happy to write that off as experimental error. My comments above about the 1.58 / 1.65 ATA version of the A-5 apply equally to the A-6.

Fw190A-8
This one I don€t know a lot about. My reading on this version tells me very little with any degree of certainty. Apart from the obvious stuff (MG131 fuselage guns, extra fuel tank, mandatory ETC rack, repositioned to allow for movement of CG with extra tank), this version is a bit confusing. Introduced in early 1944, the A-8 seems to have used a number of different versions of the BMW801 during its production life. All the engine versions seem to have used one of the boost systems, and again there is the frequently-repeated error that the MW50 was in widespread use. In a nutshell, I don€t know enough about this one to comment with any degree of confidence. Experts?


In conclusion, I think that the Fw190As in the game should be altered to include the following versions:

Fw190A-4 at 1.42
This could be done by giving the existing A-4 model the power characteristics of the existing A-5. That is to say, it should run at 1.42 and not have any boost system. This should be the stock, 1942 model of the A-4 in the game. It should out perform the A-5 and A-6 that we currently have in the game by a small margin (slightly lower all up weight and different CoG).

Fw190A-5 at 1.42
This is already in the game, but it should achieve this performance without pressing the €˜W€ key. Essentially, it should retain its current performance, but work without erhorte notleistung. This should become the standard 1943 model of the Fw190A-5. Note that the performance of this version would be slightly INFERIOR to the new A-4 suggested above.

Fw190A-6 at 1.42
As above for the A-5.

Fw190A-6 at 1.58 and 1.65
This should be the version of the Fw190A-6 equipped with the erhorte notleistung system for fighters, introduced sometime in late 1943 / early 1944. Call it a 1944 plane, but it should have performance superior to the A-5 and A-6 we currently have in the game.


Comments, corrections or ideas?

Cheers,
Ratsack

mandrill7
02-28-2006, 09:41 PM
Slightly o/t: I'm working on a Summer 1943 Campaign for JG Schlageter on the Kanalfront. My 2 OOB's for Schlageter are for Dec '42 showing FW190-A4's and Dec '43 showing A6's.

Does anybody know if Schlageter was ever given A5's? And when the changeovers between the various types took place?

A.K.Davis
02-28-2006, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by mandrill7:
Slightly o/t: I'm working on a Summer 1943 Campaign for JG Schlageter on the Kanalfront. My 2 OOB's for Schlageter are for Dec '42 showing FW190-A4's and Dec '43 showing A6's.

Does anybody know if Schlageter was ever given A5's? And when the changeovers between the various types took place?

I'm not sure which units in particular you are looking for, but I./SKG10, for example, operated the following types between April '43 and December '43:

Fw 190A-4
Fw 190A-4 trop
Fw 190A-4/U8
Fw 190A-5
Fw 190A-5/U8
Fw 190A-6
Fw 190G-3

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/schlacht/bschlacht.htm

Codex1971
03-01-2006, 04:14 AM
Don't know if this will confuse or clarify the issue...

"The History of German Aviation: Kurt Tank-Focke Wulf's Designer and Test Pilot" ISBN:0764306448

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a362/CodexAssassin/PICT0002_1.jpg

csThor
03-01-2006, 04:37 AM
Originally posted by mandrill7:
Slightly o/t: I'm working on a Summer 1943 Campaign for JG Schlageter on the Kanalfront. My 2 OOB's for Schlageter are for Dec '42 showing FW190-A4's and Dec '43 showing A6's.

Does anybody know if Schlageter was ever given A5's? And when the changeovers between the various types took place?

http://www.ww2.dk/air/jagd/jg26.htm

Scroll down to the bottom of the page and check Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen for Stab, I. and II./JG 26 ... They did get A-5s around February/March 1943.

Kettenhunde
03-01-2006, 06:17 AM
Pretty good summary, Ratsack. You know your Focke Wulf History.

Couple of small points:


Introduced in February 1942, it was powered by the BMW801D motor,

The FW-190A3 was powered by the BMW801D2 not the BMW801D motor. No operational variant used the BMW801D.


Fw190A-4

Difference from the FW-190A3 is the radio. You can tell by looking at the antenna if it is an FW-190A4 or not.


and had an all up weight roughly 250 kg higher than the A-4 because of extra fittings to accept a wider range of factory and field conversion kits.

Actually comparing Type II Jadg-einsatz's shows a weight increase of 56Kg's for the FW-190A5. There is no such thing as a Type I Jagd-einsatz for the FW-190A5.


Sometime in late 1943 / early 1944 (dates, anybody?), a new boost system for fighter versions was introduced. This new boost system worked on similar principles to the jabo system, but was geared differently, allowing a maximum of 1.58 ATA in the low altitude gear, and a max of 1.65 ATA at full throttle altitude for the high alt gear. This plane is not represented in the game.

It was serialized on all BMW801's in July 1944. It is doubtful that it saw large scale use before that as it required some engine modifications including different pistons. Looking at T3 (BMW's Focke Wulf fighter engine production team) normal timelines it takes around 6 months to build up a large enough reserve for operational adoption. IMHO it is unlikely many FW-190A6's used Erh¶hte Notleistung. Although the older airframes were certainly capable of recieving an F66 or F600 Power egg according to the Baugruppenliste.

I will go over the FW-190A8's later if you would like.

Your summary for the game looks correct with the exception of the FW-190A6 use of Erh¶hte Notleistung.

All the best,

Crumpp

mandrill7
03-01-2006, 06:35 AM
Danke viel, csThor!

Okay, I'm dumb and no Wuerger-Experte. So....

If I substitute an A5 for my current A4 for a Summer '43 Kanalfront campaign, should the A5 be the newly-added (4.04m) uprated version???

luftluuver
03-01-2006, 06:37 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
WNr 160057 does not appear on any WerkNummer listings for FW-190A5 variants.

http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/werkn.htm

An educated guess would be the aircraft came from Sicily as it does not show up on any of the capture lists from the ETO or North Africa prior to the invasion of Italy.

All the best,

Crumpp
A couple of 190s were captured at Gerbini Sicily in 1943. Photos show no outboard cannon. The photo is too small to read the WNr. No wing racks but they have the centreline rack. II. and IV./SKG10 were based at Gerbini til July 1943. They flew Fw190A-5/U8s.

Ratsack
03-01-2006, 06:43 AM
Thanks for that, Crump. I knew the A-4 had a different radio and antenae, but I suppose I've read about the supposedly different engine in the A-4 soooo many times that I had it in my head that it was different to the A-3. Just goes to show, if you repeat an untruth often enough...

I didn't realise the erhoete notleistung system was introduced so late. That suggests to me that the A-8 should have rather better performance than the A-5 / A-6 versions, particularly if it's not carrying MK108s or some other anchor. My (subjective) impressions of it in the game are that it's a bit of a bus. I'll have to do some tests...

Thanks again for your comments. I would like to hear something in detail about the A-8 when you are able, too.

cheers,
Ratsack

Kettenhunde
03-01-2006, 08:03 AM
They flew Fw190A-5/U8s.

EB-104 was one of these aircraft. WNr 160057 was an Aufklarer and was built under a seperate contract from the A, F, and G series. Technically the F and G series did not exist until after the FW-190A5 as all were Umrustsatz factory builds that were redesignated.


That suggests to me that the A-8 should have rather better performance than the A-5 / A-6 versions, particularly if it's not carrying MK108s or some other anchor.

It is significantly faster using Erh¶hte Notleistung. It also was more manuverable.

All the best,

Crumpp

faustnik
03-01-2006, 09:50 AM
Crumpp,

Is there any evidence of how common C3-Einspritzung was in Jabo versions and when it was used? Oleg has introduced an Fw190A5 version with this system into the sim and we are still trying to figure out the correct historical context for it.

(If you would rather discuss this on the FW190 Consortium Board, I can start a thread there.)

Thanks!

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-01-2006, 10:17 AM
Crumpp - you have mentioned about 6 different engine settings for Anton. Could you tell us please what were these settings, and what these were used for?

Kettenhunde
03-01-2006, 06:55 PM
Is there any evidence of how common C3-Einspritzung was in Jabo versions and when it was used?

I will discuss it more detail on your forum thread but it was used from October 1943 on bombenflugzeugen and Schlachtflugzeugen. The low level daylight raids of England became a real problem for the RAF to intercept due to the speeds the FW-190 ground attack variants could fly at tree top level.


Crumpp - you have mentioned about 6 different engine settings for Anton. Could you tell us please what were these settings, and what these were used for?

It is 6 different base engine set ups. This means propeller, Komandoger¤t settings, ignition system, spark plugs, baffling, etc..

For example, some have pressurized ignition systems while others do not or sealed cowling.

The power eggs were tuned for the aircrafts mission.

There are actually more than six power eggs but this particular document only discusses the F64, F66, F600, F602, F69, and F613 for base motors.

The Austauschteile-Liste FW-190A, F, u. G also lists the F62, F65, and F618. It also tells what parts where unique and which were interchangable. For example the F65 came with the 6.5mm Armoured ring with 5 attachment points. It could use any of the other 5 types of armoured rings however. The F62 came with a BMW801C2 base motor but could also have a BMW801D2 base motor as well and could use the 55 liter or the 58 liter oil tank ring.

I have about about 20 pages of parts listings and several hundred pages of BMW801 Ersatzteilliste so it is beyond the scope of these forums to describe all the differences in detail. Suffice to the say the base motors were different.

All the best,

Crumpp

Jaws2002
03-01-2006, 08:02 PM
Thx Crump.
There is so much to learn from your posts. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

luftluuver
03-02-2006, 03:09 AM
The F62 came with a BMW801C2 base motor but could also have a BMW801D2 base motor as well and could use the 55 liter or the 58 liter oil tank ring.
If a JG ordered 10 F62s, it could get a mix of C2 and D2 motors, some with 55l and some with 58l oil tanks on either of the motors.

Kettenhunde
03-02-2006, 07:30 AM
If a JG ordered 10 F62s, it could get a mix of C2 and D2 motors, some with 55l and some with 58l oil tanks on either of the motors.

It's is not quite the chaos it seems.


The Austauschteile-Liste FW-190A, F, u. G also lists the F62, F65, and F618. It also tells what parts where unique and which were interchangable.

The FW-190A2 used the F62 Triebwerk. Once production of BMW801C2 motors ceased your F62 Triebwerk used a BMW801D2 base motor.

The Triebwerks all came with a base set up. However the report shows maintenance personnel which parts are interchangeable and which are not.

Sorry if my wording cause confusion.


Thx Crump.

Your very welcome. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

All the best,

Crumpp

luftluuver
03-02-2006, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
The low level daylight raids of England became a real problem for the RAF to intercept due to the speeds the FW-190 ground attack variants could fly at tree top level.

More likely because they snuck in under the radar coverage. A 500kg bomb cost ~30mph in top speed which would give it the same speed or slightly slower than the Spit V, depending on what engine the Spit had.

lbhskier37
03-02-2006, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
The low level daylight raids of England became a real problem for the RAF to intercept due to the speeds the FW-190 ground attack variants could fly at tree top level.

More likely because they snuck in under the radar coverage. A 500kg bomb cost ~30mph in top speed which would give it the same speed or slightly slower than the Spit V, depending on what engine the Spit had. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's top speed though, if the FWs are coming in at near top speed and the Spits are running around at the slower cruising speed they have no chance of catching. Its the same reason the Mossie was untouchable, there were planes that could catch it, but thier cruise speed was so high it kept them safe.

Kettenhunde
03-02-2006, 08:38 AM
More likely because they snuck in under the radar coverage. A 500kg bomb cost ~30mph in top speed which would give it the same speed or slightly slower than the Spit V, depending on what engine the Spit had.


Actually I was refering too after they dropped their bombs.

OldMan____
03-02-2006, 08:58 AM
I think is important to remember tha FW improved in last path FM changes. So that these "changes" are not so critical anymore.

I think the A4 is the real issue.

But i hope that for BOB we have some improvments on general.

I think many planes would bennefit If the engine itself supported the concept of a given plane being able to be equiped with different engines (or engine ratings). Thta would diminish the number of FW, Spitfires and other planes, making easier to support and mantain them, while still allowing for a high level of options.

luftluuver
03-02-2006, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Actually I was refering too after they dropped their bombs. Then the Brit a/c weren't intercepting but chasing. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ratsack
03-04-2006, 07:22 AM
So, the variant that is missing is the 1.42 ATA A-4, and the A-5 and A-6 in the game should reach their current maximum performance (1.42)without the 'w' key.

That really just leaves the A-8 to discuss, and that one seems to reach its max boost levels of 1.58 / 1.65 ATA...on the cockpit gauges, anyway. I suppose the question is, does its performance reflect that higher boost, or is another nerfed gauge like the A-4s?

Ratsack

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-04-2006, 10:42 AM
Sorry, Ratsack, but power settings are the smallest problem, the biggest is true jager setting i mean kommandogerat... but if u would read about 1500-100-900 posts u would knew that:P

Ratsack
03-04-2006, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
Sorry, Ratsack, but power settings are the smallest problem, the biggest is true jager setting i mean kommandogerat... but if u would read about 1500-100-900 posts u would knew that:P

Well, there's been a lot of talk about 'jaeger' kommandogerrat settings, but nothing definitive has been presented. To get this 'jaeger' argument up, you'll need more than volume of posts.

Crump has demonstrated that there are multiple settings (at least 6). Good.

Now somebody (probably Crump, bless him) will have to demonstrate that one of those settings is a 'jaeger' setting. This hasn't been done.

Next, somebody else will have to demonstrate what the expected performance of such a beast should be. This will require data from a good, reputable test, and will have to be of a version represented in the game. This hasn't been done yet either. And before you jump on me about the A-4, what's been shown there is in relation to 1.42 ATA boost, not the control system.

Next somebody else will have to show that the corresponding version in the game (assuming there IS good test data for one of the versions in the game) does not meet the performance demonstrated in the test.

That's the argument that has to be made. I don't see it yet. So, in the meantime I'm asking fairly simple questions about a particular variant - the most numerous, by the way - that many people have described as having handling properties like a well-shaped brick. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif I, for one, would like to get the the bottom of it.

cheers,
Ratsack

EDIT
I don't mean to minimise the control problems. Clearly there is an issue with getting high revs at low speed. However, the problem remains whether the plane's in auto or manual pitch, so it's not really a kommandogerrat problem...leaving aside for the moment that you would never go 'manual' in a real Fw190A except in an emergency.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-05-2006, 12:41 AM
Ratsack, read british reports, and u will know that they tested jagerhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I dont have documentation, I know that Faustnik sent a lot of that to Oleg, I dont know exact kommandogerat setting, but Crumpp said, that kommandogerat was set for jabo and jager missions, well I trust Crumpphttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I will copy a Russian report from another thread, and I will give a question : Could it be jabo version, or russian planes were so uber that FW190 for them had poor acceleration, poor vertical maneuverabilty and others? Or maybe it was propaganda, so russian pilots would engage FW190? Look at this report and u will notice that FW190 that we have ingame acts exactly like this, only without good horizontal maneuverabilty.

RUSSIAN COMBAT EXPERIENCES WITH THE FW-190

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

In all probability the Germans have used their FW-190s on the Russian front to a much lesser extent than elsewhere, and the standards of air combat on that front very likely differ from those over Western Europe and in the Mediterranean.

The following translation of an article which appeared in the "Red Fleet" compares some of the tactics used by the German and Russian fighter planes (FW-190 and La-5). It should be pointed out that these observations apply particularly to the Russian front and are not necessarily in line with experiences in other European theaters. This translation is published without evaluation or comment, purely for its informational value in presenting Russian opinion concerning the FW-190, as printed in the "Red Fleet."


The FW-190 first appeared on the Soviet-German front at the end of 1942. This is the first high-speed German fighter with an air-cooled engine. In comparison with the Me-109 and its modernized versions, the Me-109F and the Me-109G, the FW-190 is of a higher quality.

The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight. The FW-190 has a large supply of ammunition, with 15 seconds of cannon fire, and 50 seconds of constant machine-gun fire. For this reason the gunners are not economical with their ammunition, and often open up the so-called "frightening fire". The pilots have good visibility laterally, forward, upward and rearward. A fairly good horizontal maneuver permits the FW-190 to turn at low speed without falling into a tail spin. An armored ring on the front part of the engine provides the pilot with reliable protection; for this reason, the FW-190's quite often make frontal attacks. In this way they differ from the Me-109s.

One shortcoming of the FW-190 is its weight. The lightest model of this plane weighs 3,500 kgs. (7,700 lbs), while the average weight is from 3,800 (8,360 lbs) to 3,900 kgs. (8,580 lbs). Since the FW-190 is so heavy and does not have a high-altitude engine, pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers. Another weak point in the FW-190 is the poor visibility downward, both forward and rearward. The FW-190 is seriously handicapped in still another way; there is no armor around the gas tanks, which are situated under the pilot's seat and behind it. From below, the pilot is not protected in any way; from behind, the only protection is the ordinary seat-back with 15-mm of armor. Even bullets from our large caliber machine guns penetrate this armor, to say nothing of cannon.

The main problem confronting our fliers is that of forcing the Germans to fight from positions advantageous to us.

The FW-190's eagerly make frontal attacks. Their methods of conducting fire in such cases is quite stereotyped. To begin with the Germans open fire with long-range ammunition from the horizontal cannons at a distance of 1,000 meters (3,200 feet). At 500 or 400 meters (1,000 or 1,300 feet) the FW-190 opens fire from all guns. Since the planes approach each other at an extremely great speed during frontal attacks one should never, under any circumstances, turn from the given course. Fire should be opened at a distance of 700 or 800 meters, (2,300 or 2,600 feet). Practice has shown that in frontal attacks both planes are so damaged that, in the majority of cases, they are compelled to drop out of the battle. Therefore, frontal attacks with FW-190's may be made only when the battle happens to be over our territory. Frontal engagements over enemy territory, or even more so in the enemy rear, should be avoided.

If a frontal attack of an FW-190 should fail the pilot usually attempts to change the attacks into a turning engagement. Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed. Our Lavochkin-5 may freely take up the challenge, if the pilot uses the elevator tabs correctly. By using your foot to hold the plane from falling into a tail spin you can turn the La-5 at an exceedingly low speed, thus keeping the FW from getting on your tail.

When fighting the La-5, the FW risks a vertical maneuver only at high speed. For example, let us assume that the first frontal attack of an FW failed. The plane then goes on ahead and prepares for a second frontal attack. If it fails a second time, the pilot turns sharply to the side and goes into a steep dive. On coming out of the dive, he picks up speed in horizontal flight and engages the opposing plane in a vertical maneuver.

Vertical-maneuver fighting with the FW-190 is usually of short duration since our planes have a better rate of climb than the German planes, and because the Germans are unable to withstand tense battles of any length.

The winner in present air battles must have an advantage in altitude. This is especially true with regard to the FW-190. "Once a comrade of mine and I engaged two FW-190's at a height of 3,500 meters (10,850 ft). After three energetic attacks we succeeded in chasing the two FW-190's down to 1,500 meters (4,650 ft). All the while we kept our advantage in height. As usual the German tried, out of an inverted turn, to get away and below, but I got one in my sight and shot it down. After that we immediately went up to 3,700 meters (11,470 ft) and met another group of FW-190's as they were attacking one of our Pe-2 bombers. We made use of our advantage in height and by vertical attacks succeeded in chasing the Germans away and also shot one down."

When following a diving FW you should never dive below the other enemy planes. When two planes dive the one following the leader should come out of the dive in such a way as to be at an advantage over the leading plane in height and speed. In this way the tail of the leading plane will be protected; at the same time, the second plane will also be able to open up direct fire against the enemy.

In fighting the FW-190 our La-5 should force the Germans to fight by using the vertical maneuver. This may be achieved by constantly making vertical attacks. The first climb of the FW is usually good, the second worse, and the third altogether poor. This may be explained by the fact that the FW's great weight does not permit it to gather speed quickly in the vertical maneuver. After two or three persistent attacks by our fighters the FWs completely lose their advantage in height and in speed, and inevitably find themselves below. And because of this, they are sure to drop out of the battle into a straight dive (sometimes up to 90 degrees) with the idea of gaining height on the side, and then of coming in again from the side of the sun with an advantage in speed and height. At times it happens that the FW, after diving, does not gain altitude, but attempts to drop out of the battle altogether in low flight. However, the FW-190 is never able to come out of a dive below 300 or 250 meters (930 ft or 795 ft). Coming out of a dive, made from 1,500 meters (4,650 ft) and at an angle of 40 to 45 degrees, the FW-190 falls an extra 200 meters (620 ft).

A shortcoming of the FW-190 is its poor climbing ability. When climbing in order to get an altitude advantage over the enemy, there is a moment when the FW-190 "hangs" in the air. It is then convenient to fire. Therefore, when following a FW-190 in a dive, you should bring your plane out of the dive slightly before the FW comes out of it, in order to catch up with him on the vertical plane. In other words, when the FW comes out of the dive you should bring your plane out in such a way as to have an advantage over the enemy in height. If this can be achieved, the FW-190 becomes a fine target when it "hangs". Direct fire should be opened up at a short distance, 50 to 100 meters (150 to 300 ft). It should also be remembered that the weakest spots of the FW-190 are below and behind--the gasoline tanks and the pilot's legs, which are not protected.

Throughout the whole engagement with a FW-190, it is necessary to maintain the highest speed possible. The Lavochkin-5 will then have, when necessary, a good vertical maneuver, and consequently, the possibility of getting away from an enemy attack or on the contrary, of attacking. It should further be kept in mind that the La-5 and the FW-190 in outward appearance resemble each other very much; therefore, careful observation is of great importance. We may emphasize once more: never let an enemy plane gain an altitude advantage over you and you will win the fight.

Ratsack
03-05-2006, 02:59 AM
Rest assured, I've read the tests. You seem to think I don't understand the difference between a jabo and a jaeger. I do, and I understand the point of the thread.

My point is that if we want the 'jaeger' version of the Fw190A in the game, the argument I've laid out above will have to be made. I know that an argument of this sort has been made in relation to the 1.42 ATA A-4. To my knowledge this has not yet been done with the 'jaeger' control settings.

Part of the argument will rest on a comparison of the performance of the in-game Fw190As with their historical counterparts. It is this I am alluding to in my posts above.

I've recently seen the results of some rough speed testing of the A-8, and it seems to be rather too slow. In fact, it's slower than the A-5/A-6 at most altitudes, even though it's running at 1.58/1.65 ATA. I'm therefore throwing it out there to see if anyone has:

1. done any speed tests on the Fw190A-8; and
2. any data on the top speeds of a stock A-8 like we are meant to have in the game.

If the data is there, this comparison will form part of an argument that can persuade Oleg. Without it, this is all so much hot air. No number of reports with subjective advice will do the job.

cheers,
Ratsack

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-05-2006, 04:15 AM
Crumpp, do u have any documentation about jager/jabo settings, that we could send to Oleg, as a proof?

Kettenhunde
03-05-2006, 07:29 AM
Crumpp, do u have any documentation about jager/jabo settings, that we could send to Oleg, as a proof?

Sure I will email Oleg a report or two for you guys.

All the best,

Crumpp

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-05-2006, 08:55 AM
Big THANKS Crumpp http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

P.S. It would be nice, if u would share answer of Oleg to ushttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kettenhunde
03-05-2006, 12:10 PM
It would be nice, if u would share answer of Oleg to us


Sure, provided he even answers. Stupid question....

What's Oleg's email address??

All the best,

Crumpp

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-05-2006, 12:28 PM
I guess its PF@1c.ru , right Faustnik?

quiet_man
03-06-2006, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It would be nice, if u would share answer of Oleg to us


Sure, provided he even answers. Stupid question....

What's Oleg's email address??

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the question was if you could post the answer from Oleg here in the forum (if you get one)

Regards,
quiet_man

faustnik
03-06-2006, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
I guess its PF@1c.ru , right Faustnik?

Yeah, that should work. I you send it to me, I can forward it.

BigKahuna_GS
03-07-2006, 12:07 AM
S!
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________
Irish_JG26 Posted Mon February 27 2006 20:18
US Navy tests at Patuxant River, MD test flight center in 1944 compared an battle worn Fw190A5 (without WEP cause the mix tank was empty) to both the F4U Corsair and later indirectly to the P51 Mustang. Below 24,000 ft the 190 was both faster and climbed better than both of these (best in breed) USA aircraft. Both of the USA AC were noted to be better in level turns than the 190. They even ran it against a stripped down, high performance version of the Corsair. It was a humbling result for the Navy lads.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________



Better re-read the report mate.

It is never perfect trying to compare the enemys aircraft performance to that of your own front line fighters with captured aircraft but is the best they can do sometimes. Both the Corsair and 190 are excellent aircraft and have thier advantages and disadvantages.

Please note the speeds from 15,000ft and down. The Corsair was as much as 30mph faster.

An 11,988lb Corsair hardly sounds stripped. Also the Corsair was running too lean and had the wrong propeller which would effect speed and climb rate. The Fw-190A5/u4 tested was in good shape, converted to fighter configuration weight/specs-no racks and re-painted.

The 190 was in better shape than you guys give credit for. While they didnt have german field techs there to wring out every bit of performance niether was the Corsair configured properly (wrong prop/running too lean). Also an earlier model 43' F4U-1A was hitting 435mph at 18,000ft with only a 5" MAP increase in over-boosting and with the right propeller.

Check here:
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/id104.htm


Here is the weights and specs :

http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/id94.htm
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/id94.htm

http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/id93.htm
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/id93.htm

Kettenhunde
03-07-2006, 03:46 PM
Performance comparisions are rather silly, IMHO. I will not be responding to this one beyond this.

Why are they stupid and a waste of time?

1. Atmosphere was not even standard in the 1940's! Check out the NACA for the effect of Reynolds number on performance.

2. Corrections are calculated and speed measurements have their own set of inherent errors.

3. Variations in drag within the same airframe can be quite substantial.

Many factors effect aircraft performance and without a plethora of more detailed information intelligent analysis just cannot be made.

All aircraft performance is a percentage range over a guarantee average. So if you were going to compare, these guaranteed numbers would be the best place to start. A single flight test can lead to an erroneous conclusion.

Here is what the USN said the F4U-1 was capable of in March 1944 in service condition. Accompanying this document is Focke Wulf's report to the RLM on FW-190A5 fighter variant performance. The Rechlin figures are corrected to combat weight while the Focke Wulf figures are corrected to 4000Kg.



http://img139.imagevenue.com/loc24/th_71117_RAF_test_flight_standards.jpg (http://img139.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=71117_RAF_test_flight_standards.jpg)http://img104.imagevenue.com/loc24/th_71124_FW190APerformance.jpg (http://img104.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=71124_FW190APerformance.jpg)http://img20.imagevenue.com/loc24/th_71131_Corsair_Performance_Mar_44.jpg (http://img20.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=71131_Corsair_Performance_Mar_44.jpg)http://img111.imagevenue.com/loc24/th_71140_Drag_variations.jpg (http://img111.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=71140_Drag_variations.jpg)



All the best,

Crumpp

mynameisroland
03-08-2006, 04:03 AM
From those charts you posted Kettenhunde I dont see how people can claim the F4 in question could be 30mph faster below 15,000ft maybe 9 mph faster at 0m but at higher altitudes didn the USN report not reveal that the Fw 190 was superior in speed ?

Kettenhunde
03-08-2006, 05:49 AM
From those charts you posted Kettenhunde I dont see how people can claim the F4 in question could be 30mph faster below 15,000ft maybe 9 mph faster at 0m but at higher altitudes didn the USN report not reveal that the Fw 190 was superior in speed ?

Considering the fact the BMW801 was experiencing power production problems I have no doubt that in that test, the FW-190 was 30mph slower than the F4U.

Aircraft performance being a percentage range we can see that in the USN Test the FW-190 was 4.7% pessimistic and well outside Focke Wulf 3% guarantee.

Consider the fact the 30mph number being measured on instruments with a 1-2% error. Add in a Corsair that is 1-2% optimistic and very quickly you have the 30mph faster figure.

All the best,

Crumpp

BigKahuna_GS
03-08-2006, 06:31 PM
S!



Kettenhunde Posted Wed March 08 2006 04:49
quote: Consider the fact the 30mph number being measured on instruments with a 1-2% error. Add in a Corsair that is 1-2% optimistic and very quickly you have the 30mph faster figure.


I am trying to figure out how a Corsair could be 1-2% optimistic when it flew the entire test with the wrong propeller effecting both speed and climb rate along with the engine running on the too lean side.

A simple 5% boost in MAP was well within the range of 100/130 grade fuel and a 1942/43 F4U-1 was going pretty dang fast 435mph at 18,000ft. The non-boosted F4U-1A hit 430mph at 20,000ft.

Ketthunde--you posted the wrong chart for the F4U---it is a F4U-1D
and you also have to be careful because much of the speed testing the US Navy did was with wing/bomb racks and sometimes drop tanks.

The V-max sea level speed for the F4U-1D was 366mph TAS --a war time beat up Corsair. Note the section under "Clean Condition". Over-boosted it was even faster.

http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/19728170.jpg

http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/19728170.jpg

Ratsack
03-09-2006, 04:13 AM
Why on Earth was this thread moved to GD?

Ratsack

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-09-2006, 12:27 PM
yeah...

Kettenhunde
03-10-2006, 04:18 PM
I am trying to figure out how a Corsair could be 1-2% optimistic when it flew the entire test with the wrong propeller effecting both speed and climb rate along with the engine running on the too lean side.

I highly doubt they put the wrong propeller on it. More likely it was an experimental propeller.

It was factory installed and used the 6525-21 blade.


Ketthunde--you posted the wrong chart for the F4U---it is a F4U-1D

I sure did and thank you for pointing that out.

However the speeds of the two aircraft are within 3.8% in service condition and the F4U-1D using Water injection. They are close enough to see that the USN reports conclusions of an 8% speed difference at 200 feet are not correct.

They simply do not apply for a service condition FW-190A5 fighter not using a boost system.

All the best,

Crumpp

BigKahuna_GS
03-13-2006, 04:23 AM
S!



Kettemunde-I highly doubt they put the wrong propeller on it. More likely it was an experimental propeller.

It was factory installed and used the 6525-21 blade.


Read the last page of the report----wrong propeller & the engine ran too lean on the Corsair.

Kettenhunde
03-13-2006, 05:28 PM
Read the last page of the report----wrong propeller

No wrong assumption.

It was a factory installed standard propeller. A more efficient propeller was in the works that used the same blades as the Hellcat propeller.
http://img133.imagevenue.com/loc190/th_94943_corsair_prop.jpg (http://img133.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc190&image=94943_corsair_prop.jpg)

It's not uncommon for aircraft to be upgraded with more efficient propellers. The FW-190A had six different props during it's lifecycle.

All the best,

Crumpp

luftluuver
03-14-2006, 06:33 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Read the last page of the report----wrong propeller

No wrong assumption.

It was a factory installed standard propeller. A more efficient propeller was in the works that used the same blades as the Hellcat propeller.
http://img133.imagevenue.com/loc190/th_94943_corsair_prop.jpg (http://img133.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc190&image=94943_corsair_prop.jpg)

It's not uncommon for aircraft to be upgraded with more efficient propellers. The FW-190A had six different props during it's lifecycle.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What, no admission that the Corsair was running too lean? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

The Hellcat blades were being installed at Mod Centres at the time of the testing. In other words, the Corsair was not tested in the mode it would see combat at.

Ratsack
03-14-2006, 08:04 AM
The key point in all of this is that the Fw190A they tested was a jabo, not a fighter. All that was done to it to make it representative of a fighter version was to ballast it to a similar weight.

Not only was it a jabo rather than a fighter, it wasn't even running to jabo specifications. Note that they couldn't adjust the engine to reach its service ceiling, losing all power at 33,000 ft. Note the rough running, probably attributable to the incorrect fuel. Crump has alluded to probable issues with aileron adjustment.

These issues of poor aileron and engine tuning would have had an impact on performance that was far greater than that of the relatively minor issues with the F4U. Where they were relatively familiar with the F4U and were in a position to service and tune it correctly (even if they apparently didn't http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif), the Fw190 was a foreign beasty they were trying to understand.

I think some caution is needed in drawing conclusions from this test.

Ratsack

Jumoschwanz
03-14-2006, 10:27 AM
What I think is interesting, is like in any data you can read about the 190A-4, the A-4 had methanol boost in the original IL-2 sim, just like the A-5 has now. I think this was discontinued when Forgotten Battles came out. So it WAS a definite decision, based on what I don't know, by Oleg and crew to change this.
I don't remember any explanation ever being offered for this change.

ANd as always, I will bear witness to the FW190s lack of acceleration in this sim. While it's top speed might be in the ballpark, the plane takes so long to get to it that it makes it useless most of the time.

As you can easily read anyhwhere, it was the earlier versions of the 190, before the a-4 with the weaker engine that gave the SpitV such fits, and in this sim the 190A-4 does not outclass the SpitV by any large margin, the only area being in top speed, but as stated earlier, if you do not already have this speed advantage before you engage, then you are a dead duck.

I hope there is some historical basis for the poor FW190 performance in this sim, because if there is not any, then it won't look too good for Oleg and crew.

Jumoschwanz

Aymar_Mauri
03-15-2006, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
What I think is interesting, is like in any data you can read about the 190A-4, the A-4 had methanol boost in the original IL-2 sim, just like the A-5 has now. I think this was discontinued when Forgotten Battles came out. So it WAS a definite decision, based on what I don't know, by Oleg and crew to change this.
I don't remember any explanation ever being offered for this change.

And as always, I will bear witness to the FW190s lack of acceleration in this sim. While it's top speed might be in the ballpark, the plane takes so long to get to it that it makes it useless most of the time.

As you can easily read anyhwhere, it was the earlier versions of the 190, before the a-4 with the weaker engine that gave the SpitV such fits, and in this sim the 190A-4 does not outclass the SpitV by any large margin, the only area being in top speed, but as stated earlier, if you do not already have this speed advantage before you engage, then you are a dead duck.

I hope there is some historical basis for the poor FW190 performance in this sim, because if there is not any, then it won't look too good for Oleg and crew.

Jumoschwanz There isn't and the derating is intentional...

RegRag1977
03-16-2006, 03:10 AM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
What I think is interesting, is like in any data you can read about the 190A-4, the A-4 had methanol boost in the original IL-2 sim, just like the A-5 has now. I think this was discontinued when Forgotten Battles came out. So it WAS a definite decision, based on what I don't know, by Oleg and crew to change this.
I don't remember any explanation ever being offered for this change.

And as always, I will bear witness to the FW190s lack of acceleration in this sim. While it's top speed might be in the ballpark, the plane takes so long to get to it that it makes it useless most of the time.

As you can easily read anyhwhere, it was the earlier versions of the 190, before the a-4 with the weaker engine that gave the SpitV such fits, and in this sim the 190A-4 does not outclass the SpitV by any large margin, the only area being in top speed, but as stated earlier, if you do not already have this speed advantage before you engage, then you are a dead duck.

I hope there is some historical basis for the poor FW190 performance in this sim, because if there is not any, then it won't look too good for Oleg and crew.

Jumoschwanz There isn't and the derating is intentional... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whaow http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

That statement sounds so true http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

PS But for what reasons do you think it's intentional?

Regards http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

RegRag1977
03-16-2006, 03:19 AM
If the Fw 190 will be in BOB like it is in IL2 series that we have now, we will have a good laugh i guess...

Like it is now its not the beast that EASILY outclassed SpitV...
So will the Focke Wulf be modelled with the same documentation than in IL2 series?

If yes, it will go against all historical reports...
If no, we can wonder what new documentation will be discovered by 1C in the very few weeks before BOB release (i mean a documentation that we cannot have now), to make it, in the end, so different from the one we have now...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gifMaybe it has something to do with LW vs VVS comparison: when no russian A/C to compare with the Fw190 performance: Fw190 will be allowed to get it's real performance, at least, i pray for that and thanks god, BOB won't be programmed by a British Team of patriots...

but maybe i'm wrong...

RegRag1977
03-16-2006, 03:47 AM
And despite all that, what is amazing, is that IL2 series still IS THE BEST WW2 SIM till now...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Kettenhunde
03-17-2006, 05:48 PM
What, no admission that the Corsair was running too lean?


I thought it was common sense and already covered. The document is posted for all to read.

All the best,

Crumpp