PDA

View Full Version : To all 190 drivers: are you pleased with the A9?



PapaFly
08-06-2004, 05:35 AM
Cuz im not, and i fly exclusively 190. The A9 is a big disappointment to me: slow acceleration, poor climb, and the handling is really bad compared to the Doras and the A8. Actually I'm surprised that only few people post about this plane.

I have a nice setup for testing acceleration, maybe Robban/Kwiatos could give it a go, cuz i dont have time.

Make a crimea mission (12oclock, summer, blah blah blah), place the plane on one of the concrete runways, hit the brake and let the engine rev to max, release brakes and accelerate. Then u watch the track and compare the location at which plane reaches, say 200kph.
I compared the A5 acceleration in man and auto pitch with this setting, finding that it's absolutely equal btw. 0-200kph. No time to test above.

Can we also have some technical data comparing the A9 with A8 and D9 models? Main points are powerloading and wingloading. The 190A9 just feels like a bomb-laden a8, thats pathetic.

Has anyone noticed the handling difference between A8 and A9? Check it out, the A8 is considerably more nimble, you feel it immediately.

Has anyone checked overheating times in latest patch? I flew it in low level online combat on full wep, 110%power, open rad without ever overheating.

I tell you honestly i think the A9 is badly porked, and I think its about time to have this changed.

~Salut~

PapaFly
08-06-2004, 05:35 AM
Cuz im not, and i fly exclusively 190. The A9 is a big disappointment to me: slow acceleration, poor climb, and the handling is really bad compared to the Doras and the A8. Actually I'm surprised that only few people post about this plane.

I have a nice setup for testing acceleration, maybe Robban/Kwiatos could give it a go, cuz i dont have time.

Make a crimea mission (12oclock, summer, blah blah blah), place the plane on one of the concrete runways, hit the brake and let the engine rev to max, release brakes and accelerate. Then u watch the track and compare the location at which plane reaches, say 200kph.
I compared the A5 acceleration in man and auto pitch with this setting, finding that it's absolutely equal btw. 0-200kph. No time to test above.

Can we also have some technical data comparing the A9 with A8 and D9 models? Main points are powerloading and wingloading. The 190A9 just feels like a bomb-laden a8, thats pathetic.

Has anyone noticed the handling difference between A8 and A9? Check it out, the A8 is considerably more nimble, you feel it immediately.

Has anyone checked overheating times in latest patch? I flew it in low level online combat on full wep, 110%power, open rad without ever overheating.

I tell you honestly i think the A9 is badly porked, and I think its about time to have this changed.

~Salut~

KG26_Alpha
08-06-2004, 06:07 AM
Oleg stated at the start of IL2 Stumovik release way back then that his favourite planes are the FW190's.

I would like to see him make alot of the other planes his "favourite" too.

Axis really have only 2 fighter planes the Fw 190 and Bf 109. the Fw190 is not usually the preffered choice of fighter jocks on axis side due to muzzle flash and restricted views leaving just the Bf109 as the main choice of fighter, so it makes for limited chioce of fighter selection and with the performances never being realised it kinda makes you wonder if the axis will ever get a competent and complete set of fighters for IL2.

I have over 500 hand made missions since IL2 Sturmovik and the Fw 190 has had to be attended to in every patch regarding adjusting waypoints to allow them to "catch up" with the rest of the mission, that in its self speaks volumes for me as to its demise since the begining not to mention the handing in the air and on the ground. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

IMHO

http://www.freewebs.com/kg26/

jurinko
08-06-2004, 06:51 AM
I think Fw 190s sux. I fly them very often and can get many kills, but only by hit and run tactics from high altitude attacks against unaware enemies. It should be superb dogfighter, but it is a piece of iron instead which is lost as soon as it doesn´t have 2km advantage. Yes and the forward view does sux also.

---------------------
Letka_13/Liptow @ HL

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
08-06-2004, 07:13 AM
*getting popcorn*

*taking a nice seat and sunglasses*

*preparing for a flamewar*

btw:
jest A9 sux, jes A8 sux too, A5 and A6 rule the skins in there Times. (maybe not against a spit IX, but it depends)

http://home.arcor.de/sebastianleitiger/FB/Screens/Fw%20190A-4guns.JPG (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=185103665)

NorrisMcWhirter
08-06-2004, 07:21 AM
Hi,

Not sure about the 190 being a 'dogfighter' but I agree that it seems to fall far short of it's supposed reputation.

I actually thought the A9 climbed a little better than before and it's fast enough to get you out of trouble a lot of the time. Snap stalls and loss of E are as bad as they have ever been.

Maybe it's a dog because of that fricken bomb rack that is permanently attached?

One thing is for sure - when you get kills in a 190A8/A9, you certainly have had to work for it.

Cheers,
Norris

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

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

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

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

'Bugs? What bugs?'
'AAA steals online kills, crash landing if good landing but out of fuel, muzzle flashes, kill given for planes that have landed OK, AI steals offline kills, gauges not working, Spitfire never overheats, FW190 view, P63 damage model, weird collision modelling...'
'Yeah, but look on the bright side - at least the 0.50s are fixed!'
Moral: $$$ + whining = anything is possible

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
08-06-2004, 07:24 AM
in a 1:1 situation against MOST planes of it's time it's simply dead.

Once an enemy comes to your six -> RUN !

Rollrate is high but compared to other planes nothing of real advantage

Muzzle flashes block a lot
the Bar does the rest.

I must say that I prefer the A9 over the A8 at any time. Of course it's more snappy but it feels faster and better accelrating.

But if we have to sum it up I quote Jurinko.

Hit and run. Nothing else.
I could quote various engagements where I had to run from a 1943 Spitfire which caught me in dives etc. Being outturned by p47s at 380 - 420 kph etc.

I wouldn't reduce it to the a9 however. I think the whole family of FWs is somewhat underperforming... (*diplomatic_mode enabled).

Each time I pick a Stang, SPit or even a BF109 I am amazed how virtually careless you can enjoy some dogfights and how SIMPLE it is to see whether you will win or not....

But I like the challenge... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


A5 and A6 feel good. I second the quotes of Blacksheep. The A4 is one slow brick which is easy to overheat.

But hey we are all luftwhiners anyway right ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
*stealing the Popcorn from Blacksheep

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

NorrisMcWhirter
08-06-2004, 07:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But hey we are all luftwhiners anyway right ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh yah. We all practice devil worship to make our evil axis planes so much more uber.

Cheers,
Norris

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

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

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

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

'Bugs? What bugs?'
'AAA steals online kills, crash landing if good landing but out of fuel, muzzle flashes, kill given for planes that have landed OK, AI steals offline kills, gauges not working, Spitfire never overheats, FW190 view, P63 damage model, weird collision modelling...'
'Yeah, but look on the bright side - at least the 0.50s are fixed!'
Moral: $$$ + whining = anything is possible

xanty
08-06-2004, 07:59 AM
Maybe if people would fly alos earlier set-ups and missions than '44, it would show more...

As said before, in '42-43 is a nice killer. And the axis has a few nice complements on '41/42 like the IAR series, the Fiats, and the soon to come (i hope) P-36. Also, 109s are quite good up to 43... But the LW was not a winner in 44 or 45. Why can't people see this?

http://www.silence.plus.com/xanty/stuff/fb_sig.jpg

BlackStar2000
08-06-2004, 08:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But hey we are all luftwhiners anyway right ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh yah. We all practice devil worship to make our evil axis planes so much more uber.

Cheers,
Norris

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

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

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

: You've seen them... :
http://www.chavscum.co.uk

'Bugs? What bugs?'
'AAA steals online kills, crash landing if good landing but out of fuel, muzzle flashes, kill given for planes that have landed OK, AI steals offline kills, gauges not working, Spitfire never overheats, FW190 view, P63 damage model, weird collision modelling...'
'Yeah, but look on the bright side - at least the 0.50s are fixed!'
Moral: $$$ + whining = anything is possible<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Brother Norris and dont forget your Black coat because this saturday we will play on some EVIL Luft Plane AGAINS THIS ALLIED NOOOOOOOBS

Oh btw Oleg plz fix 190 is should climb better, right now all russian is better than Luft in all years of war in game, the Bf109 F2 ammo is a joke!

Matz0r
08-06-2004, 08:49 AM
IMO the A9 is worst of the FW190A models, I'd rank them: A6, A5, A8, A4, A9.

A9 was a rare bird grab an A8 or a D9 instead http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.pfy.nu/tmp/fw3.jpg

PapaFly
08-06-2004, 09:03 AM
Yeah guys, most of us seem to have the same opinion on the 190 series, i fly them cuz i love them, and i ALWAYS prefer them compared to the 109s. I fly much safer, getting killed once in a while, but scoring steadily. I'm a dedicated boom and zoom guy, any red caught with lower energy in a 1on1 is dead, just a matter of time. 90% of the cases when i get killed at greatergreen is in missions not featuring 190s.

Still...how come that the A9, which should be a supreme performer, is screwed up so badly??? Cant be the bomb rack, the A8 also has it attached and handles much better.

We need data guys, no data no change...
We need performance charts and flying tests. Anyone planing to test the acceleration? Climb speed?

quiet_man
08-06-2004, 09:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Oh yah. We all practice devil worship to make our evil axis planes so much more uber.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
ok

I fly FB quiet seldom now and when I take the Ki84, thinking I'm in a 190

Beside the technical data, the one point where Oleg failed is the joy that pilots had to fly the 190 (and that was agreed from enemy pilots trying it)

In FB it is one off the planes that put the most strain on the pilot. And thats for sure not right, wathever data.

Regards,
quiet_man

bazzaah2
08-06-2004, 09:35 AM
what papafly said.

data or convincing evidence that a9 does not do what it says on the tin. RLM test? How far off is it from those data? etc etc

else, you'll just be accused of having a whinefest or be told to learn how to fly, lol.

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

Crashing online as :FI:SpinyNorman

Normally Spiny Norman was wont to be about
twelve feet from snout to tail, but when Dinsdale was depressed Norman could be
anything up to eight hundred yards long.

quiet_man
08-06-2004, 09:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xanty:
Maybe if people would fly alos earlier set-ups and missions than '44, it would show more...

As said before, in '42-43 is a nice killer. And the axis has a few nice complements on '41/42 like the IAR series, the Fiats, and the soon to come (i hope) P-36. Also, 109s are quite good up to 43... But the LW was not a winner in 44 or 45. Why can't people see this?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"We couldn't see them, but when we reached our target Berlin I saw one bomber of the following flight going down then another and another in rapid succession, then I knew that they were out there, as the flak could never kill planes that fast, but luckily our flight wasn't attacked"

quote from an interview with an B17 rear gunner about an raid against Berlin in 1945
~1000 US planes, B17 escorted by some hundred mustangs against 55 Luftwaffe planes (most FW190)

Regards,
quiet_man

faustnik
08-06-2004, 10:14 AM
The 190s in FB possesses a combination on speed, roll rate and firepower than makes it a devastating a/c in the hands of an experienced team. Of this there is no doubt. This holds true even into 1945 with A8s or A9s. I see it week after week.

One on one, against anything but the P-47, you can't use T & B dogfighting tactics with it.

*********************

I have heard that the A9's low altitude performance is dictated by its prop, which it designed for higher altitudes. Since the A9 used different props in the field, the same prop as the A8 was the most common, it would be great to have that version also. As modeled currently, the A9 does not seem to benefit from its 2400hp.

Like all Fw190As its climb rate seems low relative to its oponents. I know Oleg had provided an explaination for this in the past but, it just does not match any Western historical data that I can find.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

BlackStar2000
08-06-2004, 10:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
The 190s in FB possesses a combination on speed, roll rate and firepower than makes it a devastating a/c in the hands of an experienced team. Of this there is no doubt. This holds true even into 1945 with A8s or A9s. I see it week after week.

One on one, against anything but the P-47, you can't use T & B dogfighting tactics with it.

*********************

I have heard that the A9's low altitude performance is dictated by its prop, which it designed for higher altitudes. Since the A9 used different props in the field, the same prop as the A8 was the most common, it would be great to have that version also. As modeled currently, the A9 does not seem to benefit from its 2400hp.

Like _all Fw190As_ its climb rate seems low _relative_ to its oponents. I know Oleg had provided an explaination for this in the past but, it just does not match any Western historical data that I can find.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
_http://www.7jg77.com is recruiting_
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Should be nice, now that we know that this spitIX version was choosed to have a very powerfull engine, why not choose some very nice german planes too????

JAS_Gripen
08-06-2004, 10:57 AM
Slightly off-tangent:

A quick question to veteran 190A drivers: do you use the same stick settings for other planes too?

I find that settings that are perfect for a good ride in the 109 result in an impossibly sensitive 190A.

JG7_Rall
08-06-2004, 12:20 PM
I used to fly the D9 all the time online, but mostly fly the A9 now.

Is the A8 really that much better? I'll have to try it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I think that you have to stick to hit and run tactics, if anyone gets on your six, you can easily scissors them and shoot them when they overshoot. As for dogfighting, I like to get seperation and make them break off or a friendly can shoot em up. I think the A9 is like most other planes in the sense that you have to stick to its strengths and avoid its weaknesses, this is more true however in a 190 than any other plane IMO. (mabye the jug too)

Climb rate should maybe be better or others should be lowered, I'm not sure. I also think the E bleed is rather harsh esp. in the climb and zoom climb.

"Son, never ask a man if he is a fighter pilot. If he is, he'll let you know. If he isn't, don't embarrass him."
Badges!? We don't needs no stinkin' badges!

Korolov
08-06-2004, 12:55 PM
1. Bring Fw-190 to 5500m. (best performing altitude)
2. Look for targets below you.
3. Dive on said target.
4. Make sure you're going 700kmh or faster as you pass the target!
5. Fire all guns at point blank range at said target.
6. Target should be dead - if not, pull into a gentle zoom climb.
7. Regain altitude or climb until you are at least 2000m higher than your target.
8. Level out and regain speed of at least 300kmh IAS.
9. Repeat attack run.
10. Problem solved.

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

p1ngu666
08-06-2004, 12:57 PM
hm, last time i flew a late a9 vs a8 ( a while ago) a9 was way better
fw190 is a team plane, u haveto use it as a team and then its devisating, be sure http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
a9 is very fast at SL i think, be performance drops quickly

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

VW-IceFire
08-06-2004, 01:02 PM
I dislike the A-9...but I find the A-8 to be a bit easier to move around in the sky and the A-5 and A-6 are where all Luftwaffe fighter pilots should be looking.

The A-9 especially speaks to me as a bomber interceptor.

Or take the Dora. Dora's were available around the same time as the A-9.

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

crazyivan1970
08-06-2004, 01:07 PM
p1 you are making too much sense http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif and that is not allowed. Word team is truly forgotten. Funny thing that applies to all planes. You know what else is forgotten... where and how people fly. With icons and external views or open pit for that matter...where everything is predictable and noticed, true strength of some planes is faded away. Why? Because opponent knows you are coming... or...opponent knows where you went. Team tactics and element of suprise, that`s the key. And not only for 190 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Even free hunters flew in pairs...probably for a good reason. As Korolov stated above, that`s the way 190 or most of LW AC should be flown...and that`s how it was flown 60 years ago. Just my 02c.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/band.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

PapaFly
08-06-2004, 01:45 PM
Blah blah blah blah, dont u guys read what i want???? You all talk about tactics, hell i dont need tactics i hav'em, I told ya i only fly 190, i kill at will, i hang around for hours on fullreal servers (greatergreen, vfc, virtualpilots...),without getting killed, thats not my prob. Then i have u guys telling me i must not turnfight. People never ever see me turnfight online...most of the times when they see me its already pretty late and about time to die.
Helllllllllll this gets me really angry.

I GET ALONG PRETTY WELL IN A 190, believe me. Its just that the A9 is porked, thats all dammit. Its just not right, its sluggish as hell, acceleration, climb and zoom are porked...it even rolls slower than other A series. I have the strong impression that even the comparatively underpowered A8 has a better zoomclimb. The D9 zoomclimb is spectacular compared to A9.

ALL I NEED IS DATA; FACTS. I would do the tests by myself, but i simply dont have the time.
Stop talking about tactics.
S!

faustnik
08-06-2004, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PapaFly:

ALL I NEED IS DATA; FACTS. I would do the tests by myself, but i simply dont have the time.compared to A9.
Stop talking about tactics.
S!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't get upset. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Here's a chart:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/page154chart.jpg

Happy?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

BSS_Vidar
08-06-2004, 02:06 PM
Sigh. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif
You have supremicy at flat-run speeds, Climb capability, roll rate, G availability, and can dive away from anything in the Plane set without scredding flight controls or even a wing... Yet you still want more.

Pacific Fighters comes out when?... Novemeber? ****! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif Another month to wait and get out of this..."game" If not longer. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

BSS_Vidar

faustnik
08-06-2004, 02:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
Sigh. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif
You have supremicy at flat-run speeds, ****Climb capability***, ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

jugent
08-06-2004, 02:48 PM
A correction; Oleg wrote that the Fw was his favorite plane to model.
You can model a plane in many ways. The faulty Revi sight the field of view of the cockpit etc etc, and the humble way the arguments aginst this was met.

It doesnt matter what you write and say, you cant argue with "facts" like
-We didnt change anything but....
You can have 100 hours of experience that contradicts, it doesnt change a thing.

Some examples;

To the question; dont AI-pilots get black out,

The answer was they dont fly so that they get black out.
My human pilot blackout before it stalls when I try to make this butterfly in a hurricane manouvere, like the AI pilots does.

Make a comparison;
To the question from a reporter asked in 1976 about the infliction of all sailors in Murmansk,
The official answer was "There is no fleet in Murmansk"

To argue and think that you will get a correct answer, is like playing poker and when you have three queens and want to look at you oponents cards and he says I have three aces and you are not allowed to look in his cards, you must belive his words, you wont see his cards.
How about a poker-eavening, or russian roulette.

I will put the cartridges in the revolver for you and I will put the cartridges in revolver for me, and you are not allowed to check the numbers at any option

Hoarmurath
08-06-2004, 03:05 PM
Fw190A8

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/190a8c1.jpg


http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sigus.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

robban75
08-06-2004, 03:07 PM
This sim favours turn fighters pure and simple. Fighters like the P-51, Fw 190, and P-47 simply aren't able to perform aswell as they could in real life. I have a MUCH higher survival rate in a Rata when I fly online and offline.

The Fw 190A-9 in FB/AEP suffers even more as it doesn't have the correct climbing ability. According to real life, comparisons between the A-9 and D-9 shows a remarkable resemblance. On a whole the D-9 was slightly better. In FB however there's a huge gap.


Below is a climbtest with the A-9 in AEP 2.04

Crimea, 100% fuel, full power and WEP, weapons default, Auto proppitch, climb speed 280km/h TAS.

Time in minutes and seconds, aswell as m/sec.

1000m - 49 - 20.46
2000m - 1:44 - 18.18
3000m - 2:47 - 15.87
4000m - 3:47 - 16.66
5000m - 4:47 - 16.66
6000m - 5:57 - 14.28
6500m - engine toast

As a comparison, here's a climbtest with the La-7, same procedure as above.

1000m - 35 - 28.57
2000m - 1:16 - 24.39
3000m - 2:05 - 20.40
4000m - 2:56 - 19.60
5000m - 3:48 - 19.23
6000m - 4:43 - 18.18

As you can see, the A-9 is totally outstripped at all altitudes(as is the D-9).

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

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

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

gates123
08-06-2004, 04:00 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by robban75:
This sim favours turn fighters pure and simple. Fighters like the P-51, Fw 190, and P-47 simply aren't able to perform aswell as they could in real life.



I disagree, the game favors pilots who have the patience to use their crates the way they were intended to fly. If you don't have the patience to get up to 4-5k in a A-9 and keep a hardeck of lets say 2k then you will eventually get shot down by a turnfighter and blame it on Oleg. Energy fighting takes patience so if you lack that in life then you won't succeed in a 190/jug. Oh and also try using manual prop pitch in a 190, if you don't then you have no reason to complain about preformance cuz your not flying it to its potential.

http://www.fightingcolors.com/custompagestuff/b17visibility72.jpg
Did anyone see that or was it just me?

OldMan____
08-06-2004, 04:08 PM
don't know how can someone prefer the A8.. i prefer even an EMIL or 190 A4 before an A8.. !!! A9 is not as good as it should.. but I feel it better than A8

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

lbhskier37
08-06-2004, 04:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
and can dive away from anything in the Plane set without scredding flight controls or even a wing... Yet you still want more.

Pacific Fighters comes out when?... Novemeber? ****! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif Another month to wait and get out of this..."game" If not longer. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

BSS_Vidar<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you don't like it now, who is keeping you here? And when have you been able to outdive anything in a 190? Everything accelerates in a dive the same, true a spit will lose his wings before you, but not if he dives with you and shoots yours off firsthttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
08-06-2004, 04:21 PM
funny thing is the Zoomclimb from Vmax in Level flight.

Example (Crimea, 100% fuel, full power and WEP, weapons default, Auto proppitch, closed radiator)

go down at SL.
accelerate the Plane as Fast as it will get.

the Dora45 will reach about 613kph (TRUE airspeed)
the A9 will accelerate to about 598-600kph (TAS)

now pull the plane into a 30? (degree) Climb, center the joystick and wait for the nose of the plane to drop.

Result:
the D945 will make about 1600m
the A9 will get to 1300m!!! thats ****

for comparison:
the A6 will go 580 on the deck.
and pull up to 1260m.

WTF!

some numbers(WEP!)

Powerloading A6 = 2,2 kg / hp
Powerloading A9 = 1,9 kg / hp

&gt;&gt; conclusion: the A9 had ~15% better Powerloading when using WEP.

"Climb":
A6 = 1260m
A9 = 1300m

&gt;&gt; result: the A9 has only a 3% better Zoomclimb than A6 (remember the A9 tested was about 20kph faster at the beginning of the test!!)

i mean 15% better Powerloading (already WITh the outer Cannons!!) and only 3% better Climb, wtf ?

(BTW outer Cannons slow each FW down by 10kph in Topspeed, that's why i'd like to remove them and retain a ****ing damn fast fighter (imagine an A6 doing 590 on the Deck...halleluja)

http://home.arcor.de/sebastianleitiger/FB/Screens/Fw%20190A-4guns.JPG (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=185103665)

LBR_Rommel
08-06-2004, 04:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
1. Bring Fw-190 to 5500m. (best performing altitude)
2. Look for targets below you.
3. Dive on said target.
4. Make sure you're going 700kmh or faster as you pass the target!
5. Fire all guns at point blank range at said target.
6. Target should be dead - if not, pull into a gentle zoom climb.
7. Regain altitude or climb until you are at least 2000m higher than your target.
8. Level out and regain speed of at least 300kmh IAS.
9. Repeat attack run.
10. Problem solved.

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

S!

Korolov thank you very much, in all of those years flying Oleg master piece of rewriting history iv never saw that so simple...

Btw Theres only a small probelm with your obvious theory

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
7. Regain altitude or climb until you are at least 2000m higher than your target.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That dont work cause Fw climb SUX !!!
Dont work with B109 because this stupid freezing elevators

Major LBR=Rommel

http://www.luftwaffebrasil.com
http://www.luftwaffebrasil.hpg.ig.com.br/rommel_ban.jpg

Korolov
08-06-2004, 04:58 PM
Yes it does work. I've used it multiple times before. The Fw-190s are quite capable zoom climbers, especially when you have such a massive energy reserve. When you reach the 5000m mark, the Fw-190A-8 (or A-9 for that matter) will climb pretty damn well and get a good boost of power.

Standard climbing, you won't squeeze much more than 15m/s out of it at combat power. You can make the jump to 20m/s with boost + full open radiator, but this only lasts roughly 5 to 10 minutes.

PapaFly - the A-9 is NOT porked. If it were, everybody would be flying A-8s instead. The A-9 offers enough over the A-8 to make it sufficiently better. Not that it matters anyways; you should be flying a A-8 afterall, since it was the most mass produced version of the Fw-190.

Take a chill pill. And learn a little modesty, too.

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
08-06-2004, 08:10 PM
Ok, I fly the 190A almost exclusively, and moreover I fly the A-9 more than any other plane and have for a long time. I think I am as qualified as anyone to provide input here, so here is my take.

The A-9 is better than the A-8, it performs slightly better, enough to make a difference. Both handle well at high speeds and that is what is important but the A-9 gives you a little more speed. The A-8 may handle a little better but the 190 thrives on raw performance. The A-9 can out-run and escape the P-51 at SL for example, the A-8 cannot.

-Stick to hit & run tactics, plain and simple and use team-mates. Avoid 1 vs.1 fights if you don't have the advantage. Don't be afraid to run, slower planes will often give up and turn around, now you are the pursuer. Stalk your opponents, don't fly at them hell bent on glory. Get high, 5,500m is magic for all 190's. See where everyone is flying on the server, and get higher. Spiral climb over home airfield before setting out to hunt, this also gives time to latch onto others setting out. Safety in numbers. Avoid flying at 2500-4500m, this is a weak spot for most 190's. Their performance increases very slowly until around 4,500 or 5,000m is reached where it rises very quickly. At 3,000m a Mustang is much faster (approx 50km/h IIRC) than you, at 5,500m you are faster than he is (much faster if in Dora).

-Dive is not really modelled in FB, and that hurts the 190, P-51, P-47 etc, and benefits Yak, Spitifre, etc.

-I don't think the FW-190, any of them, are really undermodelled. I think it is more of some other planes being overmodelled in certain areas, and the game engine not modelling certain aspects of flight that well(as mentioned above).

Again, not to toot my own horn but the last three times I was online (on Birds of Prey full-real) I have scored approx 30+ victories (all in the A-9) and was downed twice (by the same guy when I was careless/undisciplined/stupid, for some reason I still think I can out-dive a Spitfire, I need to stop reading so much http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). I usually don't keep track but I just happened to notice. I only mention this for all who say the FW-190A-9 sucks. It doesn't. Put me in a 109 and I would likely stink up the server so bad you would need a nose-pin.

Faustnik, Rall, Korolov, etc. all nailed it and you would do well to heed what they say. Also, here are my 190A tips for any who are interested.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=493109104&r=402100304#402100304

There are some issues with FB and the FW-190, but it is still a VERY effective aircraft if used correctly. It does however require patience and discipline and is not for the Tom Cruise hero types. For some it can be boring to fly if flown correctly, but extremely lethal as well.

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

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

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Fri August 06 2004 at 07:42 PM.]

Patditlepat
08-06-2004, 09:55 PM
I fly very often with the Fw 190, mainly with early models.
I advise the novices pilots on Fw to fly early versions in first, which have a smooth handling compared to the late Antons and Doras.

Except the front vision and the damage model, I don't have problem with it. Damage model is the big trouble with the Fw 190 A-4/A-5/A-6/A-8, since AEP 2.0: they are REALLY vulnerable to SMG fire (tested with .303 Brit and 7.62 Russian), even from the deadly 6 O'clock: 1 or 2 bursts of 2 seconds with 2 SMG, at less than 300m, and your Fw 190 burn... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif entirely http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif...
It doesn't happened against Yak and LaGG-3 families which can take very more punishment from SMG, altough supposed to be less armoured than the all metal Kurt Tank's fighter....
190 vulnerability + 109 unprecisely coded DM (maybe the oldest DM in the game... Never updated... the famous "oiled widow" symptom since Il-2 Sturmovik....)= Conspiration against Luftwaffe. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/smileys-gun2.gif

Korolov
08-06-2004, 10:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
I only mention this for all who say the FW-190A-9 sucks. It doesn't. Put me in a 109 and I would likely stink up the server so bad you would need a nose-pin.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

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

Me too.

Bf-109 = Suckatude

Fw-190 = God

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

jagdmailer
08-06-2004, 11:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Fw190A8

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/190a8c1.jpg


http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3
56Kers are strongly advised to _NOT_ click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hoarmurath,

What I do not understand is that the ATA conversion in PSI on this chart seems quite off. (Also, A-8 was able to run at 1.65 ATA for 10 min on B4 and unlimited at 1.42 ATA.
With C3, the A-8 could run at 1.65 ATA-9.55 PSI) for as long as required.)

For instance, 1.42 ATA should be 6.174 PSI, not 20.2 PSI ! The "planned" summer 1945 boost for the DB605D engine was going to be 2.3 ATA which is just under 20 PSI (19.11 PSI) - and which is the max boost that the C3 fuel would allow for.

Late 1944 British RR V-12s engines could run 25 PSI, but that was with a lower compression ratio and 150 octane av gas.

Jagd

Hoarmurath
08-06-2004, 11:40 PM
Are you sure that how you perform when flying a given plane is an accurate indication of the accuracy of its FM?

Your accomplishments with a plane are completely anecdotal, and as such, can be useful to get a general figure, but are worth nothing as facts.

If you are convinced the plane perform correctly, get the data from ingame, and compare with RL data.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sigus.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BSS_Vidar
08-06-2004, 11:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lbhskier37:
If you don't like it now, who is keeping you here?

CFS2 is the only thing to go back to, soooo. This is what I fly... for now.

And when have you been able to outdive anything in a 190?

I don't fly that thing, so I'm the one that gets out dived.


Everything accelerates in a dive the same, true a spit will lose his wings before you, but not if he dives with you and shoots yours off firsthttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Incorrect. Each plane accelerates differenlty. Weight is the largest factor.

I tried to follow a 190 into a dive with a Yak-9. He easily pulled away from me while my ailerons ripped off and my elevator shredded.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BSS_Vidar

Hoarmurath
08-06-2004, 11:54 PM
one ATA is equal to 14.696 psi

so, 1.42 ATA is equal to 20.86 psi

CQFD

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sigus.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WUAF_Co_Hero
08-07-2004, 12:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
The 190s in FB possesses a combination on speed, roll rate and firepower than makes it a devastating a/c in the hands of an experienced team. Of this there is no doubt. This holds true even into 1945 with A8s or A9s. I see it week after week.

One on one, against anything but the P-47, you can't use T & B dogfighting tactics with it.

*********************

I have heard that the A9's low altitude performance is dictated by its prop, which it designed for higher altitudes. Since the A9 used different props in the field, the same prop as the A8 was the most common, it would be great to have that version also. As modeled currently, the A9 does not seem to benefit from its 2400hp.

Like _all Fw190As_ its climb rate seems low _relative_ to its oponents. I know Oleg had provided an explaination for this in the past but, it just does not match any Western historical data that I can find.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
_http://www.7jg77.com is recruiting_
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Truely spoken. However, though the jug and the FW are agreeably the two worst turnfighters (for fighters), the jug CAN low-speed turn a FW, so I'd be cautious about engaging in DF's w/ them regardless.

Build a man a fire, keep him warm for a day...

Set a man on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life.

jagdmailer
08-07-2004, 12:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
one ATA is equal to 14.696 psi

so, 1.42 ATA is equal to 20.86 psi

CQFD

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3
56Kers are strongly advised to _NOT_ click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand 1 atmosphere is equal to about 14.7 PSI, but AFAIK, the formula to convert ATA to PSI is the following:

(ATA -1) X 14.7 = PSI

Also, I doubt they were running over 20 PSI of boost with the BMW801D without MW50, even if they were running staight C3, which they were not.

Like I said, the DB605 was "just" cleared for 1.98 ATA which is 14.5 PSI while running on C3 96 octane + MW50 in Jan/Feb 1945.

The RAF tried to run their Spits with Griffon 65 at 25 PSI boost on 150 octane fuel in summer 1944 and had to back down to 21 PSI after main bearing failures. Further more, 130 octane fuel was limited to 18 PSI.

So I do not know who made or edited those charts but I think the PSI conversions at least are flawed.

Also again, AFIAK, Fw 190A-8 was allowed 1.65 ATA with C3 "as long as needed" & 1.65 ATA for 10 minutes with B4 and 1.42 unlimited.

Cheers,

jagd

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
08-07-2004, 01:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
one ATA is equal to 14.696 psi

so, 1.42 ATA is equal to 20.86 psi

CQFD

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3
56Kers are strongly advised to _NOT_ click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand 1 atmosphere is equal to about 14.7 PSI, but AFAIK, the formula to convert ATA to PSI is the following:

(ATA -1) X 14.7 = PSI

Also, I doubt they were running over 20 PSI of boost with the BMW801D without MW50, even if they were running staight C3, which they were not.

Like I said, the DB605 was "just" cleared for 1.98 ATA which is 14.5 PSI while running on C3 96 octane + MW50 in Jan/Feb 1945.

The RAF tried to run their Spits with Griffon 65 at 25 PSI boost on 150 octane fuel in summer 1944 and had to back down to 21 PSI after main bearing failures. Further more, 130 octane fuel was limited to 18 PSI.

So I do not know who made or edited those charts but I think the PSI conversions at least are flawed.

Also again, AFIAK, Fw 190A-8 was allowed 1.65 ATA with C3 "as long as needed" & 1.65 ATA for 10 minutes with B4 and 1.42 unlimited.

Cheers,

jagd<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FW190A HAD to be run on C3 fuel.

http://home.arcor.de/sebastianleitiger/FB/Screens/Fw%20190A-4guns.JPG (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=185103665)

WWMaxGunz
08-07-2004, 01:55 AM
Perhaps you made a typo there JM.

14.7 x 1.98 = 14.5??? How about 29.106?

14.696 is probably more exact than 14.7?

1.65 ATA comes out to 24.2484 PSI
1.42 ATA comes out to 20.868... PSI which is still pretty good and more than 18.

I can guess who was making engines to higher tolerances.


Neal

robban75
08-07-2004, 03:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gates123:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by robban75:
This sim favours turn fighters pure and simple. Fighters like the P-51, Fw 190, and P-47 simply aren't able to perform aswell as they could in real life.



I disagree, the game favors pilots who have the patience to use their crates the way they were intended to fly. If you don't have the patience to get up to 4-5k in a A-9 and keep a hardeck of lets say 2k then you will eventually get shot down by a turnfighter and blame it on Oleg. Energy fighting takes patience so if you lack that in life then you won't succeed in a 190/jug. Oh and also try using manual prop pitch in a 190, if you don't then you have no reason to complain about preformance cuz your not flying it to its potential.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Missing the big picture are we?

I've been flying the 190 since the dawn of IL2. I think I've learned by now how to use it to an advantage. The problem is that this "advantage" is an illusion. Turnfighters like the La-7, Yak-3, Spitfire and so on can be used just as effectively in the BnZ role. We can't use the 190 as effective in the TnB role as these fighters. Obvioulsly because the 190 has a higher wingloading. However the game engine only modelles the weakness of high wingloading not its strengths. This means that we are robbed of the 190's superb dive acceleration and zoom climb.

If you will do some testing you'll see that ALL planes have the same dive acceleration, whereas fighters with good power to weight ratio have the better zoom characteristics.

This means that a Yak-3 will outturn the 190A-9(true), outclimb the 190A-9(not true), outzoom the 190A-9(not true), dive with the 190A-9(NOT true).

See my point? Whereas the 190 had several strengths in RL it is only allowed to have speed as its only strength in FB/AEP.

Read the text underneath my sig, and you'll see how well the Yak's matched up in a dive with the Fw 190.

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

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

PapaFly
08-07-2004, 03:40 AM
Here's a setup for comparing zoomclimb:
start somewhere around 2k-2.5k, dive to SL, gently pull up, make sure to be vertical BEFORE crate slows down to 500kph. Zoomclimt, keep crate vertical, until ya hang on the prop.
Review track, check how much alt it gained IN THE VERTICAL between 500kph-200kph-0kph. Compare to other 190, not to reds.

Korolov
08-07-2004, 05:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Are you sure that how you perform when flying a given plane is an accurate indication of the accuracy of its FM?

Your accomplishments with a plane are completely anecdotal, and as such, can be useful to get a general figure, but are worth nothing as facts.

If you are convinced the plane perform correctly, get the data from ingame, and compare with RL data.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Success with a type is all we have to guage a plane's performance, whether it's correct or not. The game is simply not complex enough to compare data from it with real life data. Therefore, we must either compare it with contemporary planes or guage it with the success of the type.

For example, we know that the Bf-109 had immense amounts of torque, and took a strong leg to keep the nose straight with the runway. That is not modeled in the game and it is very easy to keep the nose of ANY plane down the runway.

PapaFly - how much fuel are you using? 100% or less? (so we can perform the test ourselves.)

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

OldMan____
08-07-2004, 08:20 AM
Puttin AI to fight AI is sometimes a good way of measuring.


Usually most my testes end with 190 victory over 109 from same year.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

jagdmailer
08-07-2004, 10:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Perhaps you made a typo there JM.

14.7 x 1.98 = 14.5??? How about 29.106?

14.696 is probably more exact than 14.7?

1.65 ATA comes out to 24.2484 PSI
1.42 ATA comes out to 20.868... PSI which is still pretty good and more than 18.

I can guess who was making engines to higher tolerances.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To confirm, Butch2k said that 2.3 ATA was about 20 PSI, hence the formula (ATA-1) X 14.7 = PSI

DB605 V-12 engines had compression rations 1 to 2 points higher than Merlins and were running on 87/96 octane + water injection. If the British had trouble running their 6.5 to 1 CR engines at 25 PSI with 150 octane, I do not see how the Germans could run higher compression engines on much less octane fuel at 29+ PSI !

Jagd

Hoarmurath
08-07-2004, 11:23 AM
jagd :

http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/pressure

why do you substract 1 ? 0 ATA should be equal to 0 PSI...

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sigus.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

hop2002
08-07-2004, 11:38 AM
1 ata = approx 14.7 psi

However, the British used relative pressure, and measured the pressure above 14.7 psi, the Germans used absolute pressure.

So, a German engine at 1 ata = 0 psi in British terms.

2 ata = 14.7 psi in British terms.

To convert to British measurements, you must remove 1 ata first. To convert British terms to German, you must first add 14.7 psi.

So, 1.42 ata = 6.2 lbs (approx) in British terms, 21 psi in US terms.

18 lbs in British terms = 2.22 ata (approx)

18 lbs in British terms = 32.7 psi in US terms, although the US usually measured in inches of mercury, not psi.

jagdmailer
08-07-2004, 11:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
jagd :

http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/pressure

why do you substract 1 ? 0 ATA should be equal to 0 PSI...

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3
56Kers are strongly advised to _NOT_ click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understant the reasonning behind 1 atmosphere ie. 1 ATM = 14.7 PSI so 1.98 = 29.1 PSI, but we should check with Butch again. As I said, I also doubt they were running the DB605ASC/DC at almost 30 PSI at 8.3/8.5 to 1 CR on poor quality 96 octane by the end of the war while Brits could barely run Merlins at 25 PSI with 6.5 ro 1 CR on 150 octane.


Jagd

JG7_Rall
08-07-2004, 12:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gates123:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by robban75:
This sim favours turn fighters pure and simple. Fighters like the P-51, Fw 190, and P-47 simply aren't able to perform aswell as they could in real life.



I disagree, the game favors pilots who have the patience to use their crates the way they were intended to fly. If you don't have the patience to get up to 4-5k in a A-9 and keep a hardeck of lets say 2k then you will eventually get shot down by a turnfighter and blame it on Oleg. Energy fighting takes patience so if you lack that in life then you won't succeed in a 190/jug. Oh and also try using manual prop pitch in a 190, if you don't then you have no reason to complain about preformance cuz your not flying it to its potential.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Missing the big picture are we?

I've been flying the 190 since the dawn of IL2. I think I've learned by now how to use it to an advantage. The problem is that this "advantage" is an illusion. Turnfighters like the La-7, Yak-3, Spitfire and so on can be used just as effectively in the BnZ role. We can't use the 190 as effective in the TnB role as these fighters. Obvioulsly because the 190 has a higher wingloading. However the game engine only modelles the weakness of high wingloading not its strengths. This means that we are robbed of the 190's superb dive acceleration and zoom climb.

If you will do some testing you'll see that ALL planes have the same dive acceleration, whereas fighters with good power to weight ratio have the better zoom characteristics.

This means that a Yak-3 will outturn the 190A-9(true), outclimb the 190A-9(not true), outzoom the 190A-9(not true), dive with the 190A-9(NOT true).

See my point? Whereas the 190 had several strengths in RL it is only allowed to have speed as its only strength in FB/AEP.

Read the text underneath my sig, and you'll see how well the Yak's matched up in a dive with the Fw 190.

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

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Couldn't have said it better myself http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r5388/fw190sig.jpg
"Son, never ask a man if he is a fighter pilot. If he is, he'll let you know. If he isn't, don't embarrass him."
Badges!? We don't needs no stinkin' badges!

jagdmailer
08-07-2004, 01:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
1 ata = approx 14.7 psi

However, the British used relative pressure, and measured the pressure above 14.7 psi, the Germans used absolute pressure.

So, a German engine at 1 ata = 0 psi in British terms.

2 ata = 14.7 psi in British terms.

To convert to British measurements, you must remove 1 ata first. To convert British terms to German, you must first add 14.7 psi.

So, 1.42 ata = 6.2 lbs (approx) in British terms, 21 psi in US terms.

18 lbs in British terms = 2.22 ata (approx)

18 lbs in British terms = 32.7 psi in US terms, although the US usually measured in inches of mercury, not psi.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK. This is obviously where my numbers come from. However, using this would also mean that late spitfire engines were boosted to about 42+ PSI (US) at 2.8 ATA !!!!

hop2002
08-07-2004, 01:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>OK. This is obviously where my numbers come from. However, using this would also mean that late spitfire engines were boosted to about 42+ PSI (US) at 2.8 ATA !!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Merlin went up to 25 lbs in British terms, which is 39.7 psi or 2.7 ata or 81" hg. A few were run at 28 lbs, which as you say is 42 psi, 2.8 ata, but 28 lbs was never common, unlike 25 lbs.

p1ngu666
08-07-2004, 02:39 PM
helped by the spits intercooler no doubt http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

i got a hooooge stack of stuff to take pics off, but part1 of the stanly ****** (spellin) story was on the merlin http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

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

WWMaxGunz
08-07-2004, 04:54 PM
Thanks much JM, Hop and of course Butch!

It's always good to know where the bases for measuring are.

The octane/compression thing really does put a light on it.
Of course water injection makes a chunk of difference too.

I remember when J.C.Whitney sold water injection kits for VW's
to increase fuel economy but now I wonder how that would have
done for power... would something like that be found on a
modified Porsche? Maybe no need on a Porsche.


Neal

p1ngu666
08-07-2004, 07:06 PM
well, iirec the water cools the mixture, reducing the chance of predetination, if ur wondering what predetination is anymore, its when the fuel/air explodes before its ment too

look at the cool diagrams here
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/engine.htm/printable
(prinatable so its all on 1 page http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif)

now imagine what happens if it explodes before its ment too, thats probably bad, and will get bad quickly.

stupendious power is possible tho, f1 cars in the 70s with turbos would reach 1500hp or so for qualifing.
on 1.5 litre engines.

dragsters tend to use masses of fuel. iirec dragster guy said, if u lined up the fuel in buckets, u couldnt kick them over faster than he was burning it.

btw, a tweaked p47 kickin out 3000hp+ would use around a litre of fuel a second.

ive got the fuel consumption figres for p47n engine in profile http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (was less than a litre .8/9 or so for 2800)

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

jagdmailer
08-07-2004, 08:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Thanks much JM, Hop and of course Butch!

It's always good to know where the bases for measuring are.

The octane/compression thing really does put a light on it.
Of course water injection makes a chunk of difference too.

I remember when J.C.Whitney sold water injection kits for VW's
to increase fuel economy but now I wonder how that would have
done for power... would something like that be found on a
modified Porsche? Maybe no need on a Porsche.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
original VW bug ?? LOL

Worked on many of those.

Your are welcome. Most of the info I gather from solid source such as Butch.

Cheers,

Jagd

WWMaxGunz
08-07-2004, 08:52 PM
I had a couple Type-3's. One with dual carbs, the other fuel injected.
Both were a lot faster than VW's should be according to a lot of people.
Same engine design as a 914 but lower tolerances and inferior metals
and bearings used. I'd put 4 people in the fuel injected and run uphill
at 65mph in 2nd, the sucker could crank some revs! Never lug a VW engine!


Neal

jagdmailer
08-07-2004, 08:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I had a couple Type-3's. One with dual carbs, the other fuel injected.
Both were a lot faster than VW's should be according to a lot of people.
Same engine design as a 914 but lower tolerances and inferior metals
and bearings used. I'd put 4 people in the fuel injected and run uphill
at 65mph in 2nd, the sucker could crank some revs! Never lug a VW engine!


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL.

Jagd

http://www.axiomdigital.com/jagd-db605-charts.jpg

http://www.axiomdigital.com/db605.htm

WWMaxGunz
08-07-2004, 08:59 PM
That fuel consumption is one of the big reasons why max engine power is not a
good way to compare planes, IMO. 8/10th litre/sec for 2 mins would tax the
range of a P-47 just a bit, huh? And the FW's with the smaller tanks, but at
least the walk home was shorter sometimes.


Neal

p1ngu666
08-08-2004, 07:50 AM
yep, fuel consumption for any wartime engine at WEP wont be good
if u at WEP, u just going for max power, higher fuel consumpution could be seen as a bonus, burn off the extra weight

p47N really had great range because it took tons of fuel. p51 was areodynamic, and had decent amount of fuel

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