PDA

View Full Version : FW190D9 1900PS



Bewolf
08-04-2007, 10:10 AM
Now I was stumbling over this book, FW190 "Long Nose" by Dietmar Hermann. In there he descirbes the 190D9 from November 44 on as having 1900 PS instead of the till then 1750. This was implemented as it became clear the MW50 system of the D9 wouldn't come available until 45.

Some fotos of the pages here:


(I do not think copyright issues are a problem here, as this is a non commercial issue, but one never knows, so I will delete those pics after 24 hours)


Now, in game we stay with the 1750 PS. As the Mustang, the Thunderbold, the Spitfire all got their boosted late war versions, what about the D9?

Oh, and as we are at it. Why the hell are there so many server using the derated russian front A4 Version in 42 scenarious, even though Oleg himself stated the A5 is a more correct represensation of that aircraft?

Bewolf
08-04-2007, 10:10 AM
Now I was stumbling over this book, FW190 "Long Nose" by Dietmar Hermann. In there he descirbes the 190D9 from November 44 on as having 1900 PS instead of the till then 1750. This was implemented as it became clear the MW50 system of the D9 wouldn't come available until 45.

Some fotos of the pages here:


(I do not think copyright issues are a problem here, as this is a non commercial issue, but one never knows, so I will delete those pics after 24 hours)


Now, in game we stay with the 1750 PS. As the Mustang, the Thunderbold, the Spitfire all got their boosted late war versions, what about the D9?

Oh, and as we are at it. Why the hell are there so many server using the derated russian front A4 Version in 42 scenarious, even though Oleg himself stated the A5 is a more correct represensation of that aircraft?

mynameisroland
08-04-2007, 10:42 AM
Bewolf according to this chart on Spitfire performance .com our Fw 190 achieves the sea level speed of a MW50 equipped D9 with gaps sealed 378 mph and has an altitude performance exceeding any chart I have seen hitting around 451 mph at 5,500m altitude.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190d9test.html

It seems like the Fw 190 D9 44 we have in game has the best blend of RL D9 performance characteristics.

ICDP
08-04-2007, 10:53 AM
I can confirm Rolands findings. I did a number of tests on the Fw190D9 a while back and it is getting around 450mph at 5500m. The only area it is slower than RL is around 3000m where it is around 20mph too slow IIRC.

I would like to see a late war fully boosted P51D, currently only early-mid 1944 versions of the P51D are in the game.

mynameisroland
08-04-2007, 11:01 AM
I'd like to see a late war Tempest V currently the version we have is an early 1944 version - whose contemporary opponents are Fw 190 A8s and not D9s.

Bewolf
08-04-2007, 11:27 AM
Oh, a 11 lbs Tempest is definately needed, no doubt about that.

mynameisroland
08-04-2007, 11:37 AM
In an ideal world late 44 early 45 IL2 planeset would include boosted to 72/75 HG ? P 51 D, the current Bf 109 K4 and Fw 190 D9 44 and an 11lb Sabre II B Tempest and a Spitfire XIV.

I also dont understand why the Fw 190 D9 has such wierd performance. You could shave 20mph off of its speed at 5500m and make it go 20mph at 2000m and you would have a much better match !? This has been know for years now but it never gets attention from Maddox.

Bewolf
08-04-2007, 12:06 PM
We already have the Mustang III, which is a pretty evil machine, only lacking a third pair of machine guns. I understand the urge for a real boosted D Version, though.
We also have a P47D boosted up to nearly M specs and a boosted Lightning. We have a SpitIX 25lbs which is impressive, to say the least. I'd rather see a XIV then this oddity. We already talked about the Tempest. Not to talk about that new Yak 3. I do not think the reds have much left to be desired in choice of planes and overall performance, the british beeing an exception if taken out of the allied context. Aside the Tempest a 44 Mossie would be a much bigger treat then any more late war boosted allied fighter, imho.

Odd behaviour in plane performance unluckily is more of a norm then an exception in this sim. Especially the MW50 45 Dora is by far not what it should be. The MW50 system got it quite a bit more power even taken the weight increase into account, which is not really reflected in this sim.

JG53Harti
08-05-2007, 12:34 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

horseback
08-05-2007, 01:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We also have a P47D boosted up to nearly M specs and a boosted Lightning. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'd leave the 'boosted' Lightning out of the discussion if I were you. That Lightning is still a bit short of normal capabilities for the real life P-38J, and suffers from bogus compressability effects.

Otherwise, I agree that if you can document a 'boosted' Dora, it should be implemented --along with its natural enemies, the Spitfire XIV and the eleven lb Tempest, both of which have been documented to death.

Personally, I think that it's never too early to start lobbying for the inclusion of your favorite late-war ETO fighter in Storm of War: Ragnorak.

cheers

horseback

JG52Karaya-X
08-05-2007, 02:10 PM
Yes the FW190D9 '44 is modelled quite optimistic regarding its level flight speeds at most altitudes, thats why I always substitute it with the '45 MW50 version in any of my offline campaigns/missions. The latter is a tad heavier due to the extra weight of the MW50 tank but has a more realistic performance envelope IMHO...

I wonder why the '44 version doesnt get exchanged by the '45 model on most online full real servers, would certainly stop those "omg fW190d iS t3h ubEr!!11!1!!" calls

Speaking of balancing "tit for tat", this should a quite good and balanced planeset:

Blue:
Bf109G6AS/10/14
FW190A9/F8/D9Late

Red:
P38L_Late
P47D27
P51C/D-20 (the C for performance purists)
Spitfire Mk.IXe
Tempest Mk.V

Should be quite enjoyable no!?

HuninMunin
08-05-2007, 03:57 PM
Not if you will be flying one of those 109s http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

HellToupee
08-05-2007, 06:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
Now I was stumbling over this book, FW190 "Long Nose" by Dietmar Hermann. In there he descirbes the 190D9 from November 44 on as having 1900 PS instead of the till then 1750. This was implemented as it became clear the MW50 system of the D9 wouldn't come available until 45.

Some fotos of the pages here:


(I do not think copyright issues are a problem here, as this is a non commercial issue, but one never knows, so I will delete those pics after 24 hours)


Now, in game we stay with the 1750 PS. As the Mustang, the Thunderbold, the Spitfire all got their boosted late war versions, what about the D9?

Oh, and as we are at it. Why the hell are there so many server using the derated russian front A4 Version in 42 scenarious, even though Oleg himself stated the A5 is a more correct represensation of that aircraft? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

d9 44s power is modeled more like 2200ps

mynameisroland
08-06-2007, 04:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
Yes the FW190D9 '44 is modelled quite optimistic regarding its level flight speeds at most altitudes, thats why I always substitute it with the '45 MW50 version in any of my offline campaigns/missions. The latter is a tad heavier due to the extra weight of the MW50 tank but has a more realistic performance envelope IMHO...

I wonder why the '44 version doesnt get exchanged by the '45 model on most online full real servers, would certainly stop those "omg fW190d iS t3h ubEr!!11!1!!" calls

Speaking of balancing "tit for tat", this should a quite good and balanced planeset:

Blue:
Bf109G6AS/10/14
FW190A9/F8/D9Late

Red:
P38L_Late
P47D27
P51C/D-20 (the C for performance purists)
Spitfire Mk.IXe
Tempest Mk.V

Should be quite enjoyable no!? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Karaya I agree with you totally here and have often said the same thing regarding plane balance on the servers where I fly.

Problem is its still an artificial balance because the Fw 190 D9 shouldnt be able to runaway late war at low altitude. With the D9 Late's flat out speed it can.

This is why a Mustang III or ideally a Tempest V 11lb is needed.

If you do a map which has planes of the same month in 1944 say June or so it looks like this:

Blue:
Bf 109 G6/G6AS/G14
Fw 190 A6/A8/F8

Red:
P38 L
P47D27
P51C/D
Spitfire IX C
Tempest Mk.V

I really wouldnt want to be flying the Bf 109 on this map.


But in the end its all about balance and having some planes missing while other planes are too good ect is what map makers have to deal with when deciding plane sets

HuninMunin
08-06-2007, 08:14 AM
You wouldn't fly the 109s anyway http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

MrMojok
08-06-2007, 06:46 PM
How is the book overall, Bewolf? I am a Dora fan but sources I can find would run me ~$50 USD. A bit steep unless this is really a wondrous tome.

JG52Karaya-X
08-07-2007, 01:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:

I really wouldnt want to be flying the Bf 109 on this map. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both the G6AS and the G14 are quite capable of holding their own at low-medium level (up to 6k). What they cannot outrun they can outturn and vice versa.

Bewolf
08-07-2007, 01:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
How is the book overall, Bewolf? I am a Dora fan but sources I can find would run me ~$50 USD. A bit steep unless this is really a wondrous tome. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The book gives some useful insights. I found it quite interesting. If you have that money to spend, go get it. Only if you don't have anything better to dow ith it, though.

JG53Harti
08-07-2007, 02:05 AM
I can recommend the book very much.

jermin122
08-07-2007, 04:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It seems like the Fw 190 D9 44 we have in game has the best blend of RL D9 performance characteristics.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, U turn! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif How did you make it?


http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/581...031031943#7031031943 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5811031943?r=7031031943#7031031943)

mynameisroland
08-07-2007, 05:08 AM
Congratulations you've found the search function! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Are you the thought police?

Dig up something from 2 years ago, what does that prove ? Nothing. Energy fighters have changed immensely from then (2005) to now (2007) as has the late war plane match up thanks to the introduction of the Tempest.

The Fw 190 D9 44 in game goes 451 mph at 5,500m while hitting high chart speed levels at sea level. The only area where it lacks is that it is 20 km/h slow at 2000m.

JG14_Josf
08-07-2007, 07:40 AM
Just curious,

Why is it that one plane is judged to be śright' when the speed is right (or almost right) and the climb rate and/or turn rate (sustained and instantaneous) is ignored?


A few things about top speed performance must be understood ľ as fact.

1. Did the śreal' data calculate the speed or test the speed
2. If the śreal' data calculated, then, what was the method of calculation (including any corrections for altitude density).
3. If the śreal' data was tests, then, how much time at full power did the test consume during the test.

Any unknowns can alter the result of the test and the range of error won't be known without knowing the variables that are unknown.

If I am not mistaken the tendency is to claim a plane to be "right"Ł if someone can manage to score with that plane. Having even a marginal speed advantage is better than having no advantage whatsoever and therefore the śrightness' of having a speed advantage is obvious. It is better than getting run down in all cases ľ all the time ľ diving, climbing, turning, or anything other than hit and run with a surprise bounce with accent on two out of three.

1. Surprise
2. Hit hard

Then there are these things:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Both the G6AS and the G14 are quite capable of holding their own at low-medium level (up to 6k). What they cannot outrun they can outturn and vice versa. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What can out run them doesn't have to turn. What can out turn them doesn't have to run.

Anyone can use any plane to an advantage with more teamwork or better tactics.

Confusing the game with the facts sure can be easy when the facts are missing.

When a plane is "right"Ł relative to another plane in history the historical documentation tests for relative performance and the people in history report this "rightness"Ł clearly.

Here is an example:

Spitfire 25 versus 109G-6 Early (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Dive
19.........Comparitive dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me.109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Energy fighting has improved in the game from the first patches to the current patch. A measure of how well a plane can śenergy fight' is acceleration in the dive (gaining energy) and deceleration in the climb (retaining energy).

Like this:

190A-3 versus Allied 1942 (http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/190_tests)

If there were tests done in reality between the Fw190D and the Fw190A9, then, it could be known how that jump in design managed to play out - in reality. Knowing how it plays out in the game is answered by all of us with an interest in finding out.

Many times these claims of how śreal' one plane is in the game are compared to how śreal' another plane is in history.

How real are these claims?

How real is it to compare a top speed test in the game conducted for an unknown amount of time at full power under unknown atmospheric conditions to an unknown calculation of top speed based upon further unknown time durations at full power and unknown atmospheric conditions?

Certainly a player in the game will learn sooner or later if his game piece can śleave' the other with ease ľ and if not ľ then not.