PDA

View Full Version : Interesting statement in the Fw190A-8 manual



XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:20 AM
"emergency power unit" (MW50 or fuel)

low supercharger pressure increase: 1.42 > 1.58ata

high supercharger pressure increase: 1.42 > 1.65ata

horizontal speed increased by ~22kph (low setting)

horizontal speed increased by ~25kph (high setting)


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

Message Edited on 09/20/0301:22AM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:20 AM
"emergency power unit" (MW50 or fuel)

low supercharger pressure increase: 1.42 > 1.58ata

high supercharger pressure increase: 1.42 > 1.65ata

horizontal speed increased by ~22kph (low setting)

horizontal speed increased by ~25kph (high setting)


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

Message Edited on 09/20/0301:22AM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:23 AM
how is that interesting?


well my name was spelled wrong

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:40 AM
Because Mr. Maddox claims the Fw 190A8 had no MW50 booster.

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I/JG1 Oesau (http://jg1-oesau.org) is recruiting. Join us!

Stab.I/JG1Death at HL, Maj_Death at Ubi.com

At the start of WW2 the German army lacked experienced anti-aircraft gunners. The average gunner was so bad that the USSR decided to help them out. They did it by forcing some of their pilots to fly I-153 flak magnets. These planes were slow but very sturdy. This allowed German anti-aircraft gunners to get a large amount of target practice on a relatively small number of planes. Thanks to the Soviets help, by the end of the war the German anti-aircraft gunners were amoung the best in the world.</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:47 AM
That appears suprisingly accurate. It doesn't have MW50.

In FB the values are as follows:

100%: 1.3 ATA
110%: 1.4 ATA
110%+WEP: 1.6 ATA

The speed increase is about 25km/h with WEP enabled.

Kudos for the dev team getting this right.



On the negative side, I just noticed the FW-190A8s top WEP speed at sea level is 525km/h in FB. It's supposed to be 580km/h.

I think you know what this means...


http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/olegalsahaaf.jpg

[I]The FW-190 never was able to go 580km/h at sea level. It is just nazi propeganda that is into modern history books. Some say that the IL-2 website shows this absurd top speed in the plane list. I will say once, this number is NOT POSTED on the IL-2 website. The braking effect of the propeller prevents this speed. Even you can understand this?


Message Edited on 09/20/0312:17AM by StG77_Fennec

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 07:33 AM
too funny


http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 01:16 PM
StG77_Fennec wrote:

-
- In FB the values are as follows:
-
- 100%: 1.3 ATA
- 110%: 1.4 ATA
- 110%+WEP: 1.6 ATA
-
-

engine speeds

1.32ata > 2300rpm > 85% throttle
1.42ata > 2700rpm > 100% throttle
1.58/1.85ata > 2700rpm > 100% throttle


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 01:29 PM
You know I wish there was some Germans on the Dev team working closley with Oleg.....

I think things would be alot differant.....

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1063229517.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 05:46 PM
yup then we would have perfect fw-190 view, and Lavochins would have terrible gunsight view /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:05 PM
I'd like to comment on this issue but don't have time to look up the specific info I need to right now.

Suffice it to say, most info we get published on the A-8 is the vanilla 1700-1800hp 801D2, 408mph stuff.


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:21 PM
How are specs for the MW50 equipped version relevant to the standard Fw 190A-8 without MW50?

Member of A-20 Havoc whiners. Over two thousand nine hundred A-20s delivered to the USSR, be sure!

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:52 PM
Here was a review I wrote about some issues with the A8 back on 9/14/03:

I'm still a bit confused by the engine modeling of this beast. Short story is that it doesn't match the charts it is supposedly modeled too, but there are both pluses and minuses with net being somewhat negative. It does give one an idea of some of the engine management issues and how bugs have been handled in the past to present.

1. Back in IL-2 the FW-190A8 model was changed to supposedly match the 1944 test charts (English translation of the chart was circulating at the time.) In reality, the changes only matched full boost performance, all other throttle settings were noticeably well below charted values.
2. There was another problem with matching the raw chart...the test charts were without the ETC 501 ventral bombracks installed. According to the chart, at sea level the ETC 501 removed 12 km/hr from the top speed.
3. People noted the A8 was a pig in IL2 (not FB). I thought that it was just its extra weight effecting its turning. But after testing back in IL-2 I learned that it had large straightline speed problems at all throttle settings except WEP. The speed shot through the roof with WEP, but it was slow at full throttle without. That didn't match the charts that supposedly provided the model basis. It was turned in as a bug, but not ever changed as best I can recall.

So I revisited it now that we have working boost and rpm guages (a bug in IL2 that was never corrected in that sim.) Here are the results at sea level for the four different engine boost levels the Germans used for testing.
A. At sea level with full engine throttle and WEP, if you believe IL-2 compare it will hit 580. In FB testing it actually hits the 1944 chart value of 565 spot on (auto engine management). Corrected for the bomb rack the speed should be ~553. That is at 1.62 ata boost--not sure but I think it should be 1.58 ata at low level, 1.65 up high (could be the reverse.) Engine revs should be 2700 and they are about there. Looks pretty good but perhaps runs 12 km/hr too fast because of aforementioned bomb racks on the jabo config in the sim. Shortly after hitting 565 with 110%/WEP rad cooling kicks in and begins to slow the beast...fair enough. It might be off on the plus side, but it won't give a pilot much help for more than a few seconds with auto rad. You can't delete the bomb racks in the sim, so you can debate this one either way and still be on safe ground.
B. Tested at 110% throttle without WEP (extra supercharger boost level in this particular plane.) Chart says it should be 1.42 ata boost, 2700 rpm, 544 km/hr (532 with bomb rack). FB test gave 1.38 ata, 2700 rpm, 533 km/hr. Rad opens a minute or two after reaching speed. This is not too bad, would reflect the bomb rack nicely. Might be a little fast, but the overheating will minimize the usefulness of that.
C. Tested at 100% throttle without WEP. Chart says 1.32 ata, 2400 rpm, and 527 km/hr (~515 km/hr with bomb rack). In the sim I get 1.32 ata and 2500 rpm, and only 493 km/hr. There is a pretty big gap that can't be explained by the ETC 501, and the engine is running higher rpm as well. This easily negates any extra speed in the first two high boost cases. This is the "combat" power setting.
D. Things get interesting when you set the throttle to put out 1.20 ata of boost which gives 2300 rpm. This is the "cruise" setting and should give a speed of 500 per the chart (488 with bomb rack). Takes between 84 and 85% throttle to get this and the rpm's are correct. The plane should be able to fly to its destination at this setting. I get about 479 km/hr in the sim. Rads don't seem to be opening or causing unexpected braking, although the temp is slowly drifting up...it can run quite awhile like this but will probably have to slow eventually.

Conclusion: The A8 modeling has improved since IL-2, but it still has some quirks. Top speed might be a little high, but it can't be sustained for more than a few seconds anyway. Speeds at combat power and below are a bit on the low side (particularly at the combat power setting where the difference is large).

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 11:24 PM
...."The FW190 pilot had hit me with a high-angle deflection shot that I had discounted as impossible"..
-R.A. "Bob" Hoover from his autobiography "Forever Flying"

Just spotted this in a signature on forums for another sim. Clearly it wasn't an FB 190 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Kernow
249 IAP

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 12:03 AM
Sory for being OT, but couls someone could gimme a link to a place to download the manual from? Thanks.

<center>"The show must go on..."<center>
<center>http://www.hobby.ro/roarmy/aviatia/greceanu%20tudor/1.jpg
A 'good' landing is one from which you can walk away. A 'great'
landing is one after which they can use the plane again<center>

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 04:07 AM
"(MW50 or fuel)"

notice the "or fuel" part. The current WEP is fuel sprayed into the supercharger which is what was used until MW50 became widely available (seems they went to 109s first).

"On the negative side, I just noticed the FW-190A8s top WEP speed at sea level is 525km/h in FB. It's supposed to be 580km/h."

No clue how you got such a low top speed at SL for the A8, ingame the A8s top speed at seal level is 590kph TAS (that's with prop pitch 100, auto pitch is 580 I think). Crimea map, wind off, radiator closed.

Maximum speed without overheating is 540kph (once again overrevving, with auto pitch it is more like 530).

I agree that the exact performance is not correct through the whole range (bit fast at top end, bit slow at lower throttle), but it is way better than it was before the patch, and I have every reason to believe that as time permits Maddox will get it better.

As far as the bombrack goes I am quite certain that the A8 and A9 FMs are without the rack, and thus you can carry a bomb and fly as though there was no rack after you drop it. I base this not so much on the speed data as the way it handles compared to an A4 or A5 with a bomb after dropping the bomb. With the A4 and A5 it is quite noticeable after you drop the bomb the effect the rack has when you turn hard, you can hear/feel it, while with the A8 A9 there is no such feeling.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 06:13 AM
D'oh, I forgot to close radiator.

But it is still strange that it goes faster with manual pitch. You'd think the auto pitch would provide the best speed.



Message Edited on 09/20/0311:20PM by StG77_Fennec

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 07:12 AM
Fillmore wrote:
- No clue how you got such a low top speed at SL for
- the A8, ingame the A8s top speed at seal level is
- 590kph TAS (that's with prop pitch 100, auto pitch
- is 580 I think). Crimea map, wind off, radiator
- closed.


That's porked, but then CEM has been porked from the beginning. No way it should be that fast. Chart shows 565 without the ETC-501 (and the A8 has the bombrack.) In reality, since we have the bombrack it should be 553.

They should have skipped CEM and focused on just getting the performance right. Now they have to solve a whole matrix of possibilities at the same time. Surprise, nothing matches up. Rather than enhancing the game, CEM detracts from it.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 09:58 AM
Red_Harvest wrote:
-
--
- They should have skipped CEM and focused on just
- getting the performance right. Now they have to
- solve a whole matrix of possibilities at the same
- time. Surprise, nothing matches up. Rather than
- enhancing the game, CEM detracts from it.
-
-

I tend to agree. Yet CEM was probably the biggest single thing I was looking forward to in FB. Right now it would seem simpler and better if 100% throttle gave you max power (non-WEP) and anything less would give the appropriate percent. WEP can then be added for those ac which need it. Radiator and overheating issues also seem to be causing trouble.

Whilst progress is being made, in retrospect, it looks like it would have been better to get the FMs nailed down first.

Kernow
249 IAP

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 11:13 AM
OMG, ROTFLMAO...