PDA

View Full Version : MG151/20 vs Mk108 A/C performance



JG7_Rall
08-07-2004, 12:47 AM
S!

If you choose the 108's on, lets say, a Fw 190 A9 instead of the 20mm's, is there a negative impact on the performance? Does the 108 weigh more than the 20mm, and if so, is it enough to effect the planes performance?

Thanks,

Hutch

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!

JG7_Rall
08-07-2004, 12:47 AM
S!

If you choose the 108's on, lets say, a Fw 190 A9 instead of the 20mm's, is there a negative impact on the performance? Does the 108 weigh more than the 20mm, and if so, is it enough to effect the planes performance?

Thanks,

Hutch

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!

JG7_Rall
08-07-2004, 12:48 AM
Also does the lighter yet larger ammo load of the 20mm balance out with the heavier yet smaller ammo load of the 108?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.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!

3.JG51_Stecher
08-07-2004, 01:41 AM
Under Oleg's test conditions, here is what I got.

Fw 190A-9 maximum sea level speeds.

Default armament - 598 km/h TAS

Outer MG 151/20 replaced with MK 108 - 598 km/h TAS

Empty loadout - 599 km/h TAS

I don't know if empty means just no ammo, or weapons are removed as well, but it makes a negligable difference of +1km/h. And whether the MG 151/20 or MK 108 is in the outer cannon position makes no difference at all.

http://flygirl.dnsalias.com:8080/jg51/190sig.jpg


3./Jagdgeschwader 51
3./JG51_Stecher
www.jg51.com (http://www.jg51.com)

F19_Ob
08-07-2004, 03:28 AM
It has almost no effect at all on the 109.
The 30mm cannon weighed 26 kilos more than the 20mm so that didnt effect anything.

Shooting with the 30mm feels very different than 20mm. The sound,vibration and the jolting affects the feeling. U also need to pull more lead to hit so u loose speed slightly in the aiming process. Other than that , the performance is the same. (tested it a few years)
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


---------------------------------------------------
Fw 190 on the otherhand was almost to heavy already so maybe it would have affected.....havent tested it after aep but earlier it flipped easier with the cannons (in FB)

Fehler
08-07-2004, 05:35 AM
Since both weapons have similar weight, level speed and turn would be about the same.

In the A-6, I can attest that both speed and turn are increased when the outer 151/20's are removed. I noticed that the bomb rack is retained in this configuration, but I think it is a graphical thing, and does not affect performance.

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

3.JG51_Stecher
08-07-2004, 07:47 AM
I'm afraid not. With default loadout the A-6 reaches 580 km/h TAS @ sea level. With outer MG 151/20 removed (adding the ETC-501 bomb rack) it drops to 565 km/h TAS.

http://flygirl.dnsalias.com:8080/jg51/190sig.jpg


3./Jagdgeschwader 51
3./JG51_Stecher
www.jg51.com (http://www.jg51.com)

3.JG51_Stecher
08-07-2004, 08:07 AM
If you actually take a bomb, even if only a centerline one, it adds on the small ETC-50 racks under the wings. AFTER dropping your payload, they A-6 can only get to 539 km/h TAS @ sea level. That's a big hit for those little ETC-50s that you weren't even using in the first place.

http://flygirl.dnsalias.com:8080/jg51/190sig.jpg


3./Jagdgeschwader 51
3./JG51_Stecher
www.jg51.com (http://www.jg51.com)

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
08-07-2004, 09:07 AM
damn Outer Cannons are dragging the Top-speed by 10kph, remove them and the FW would get a nice boost, but if u do in Game u'll hava an additional ETC504, this thing drags the performance quite a lot.

@Stecher_3.-JG51 :
it is the Samt to the A4/5/6, when u use an Ax/Ux loadout the topseed of A5/6 will drop to the level of an A4/Ux !! (WITH WEP!, without slower)

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)

Mental-Patient
08-07-2004, 09:13 AM
~S~ I asked the same question at my squad site the other day and was given this link check out the mk108 and 151/20 it gives you all the stats as you can see the 108 is heavier, but its not clear if the 151/20 had more ammunition bringing the weight up to that of the 108 http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/MG%20151

[This message was edited by Mental-Patient on Sat August 07 2004 at 08:27 AM.]

[This message was edited by Mental-Patient on Sat August 07 2004 at 08:52 AM.]

IL2-chuter
08-07-2004, 09:47 AM
I think the biggest hit would be in initial roll performance. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif Actually, in the game, I haven't noticed a great deal of differance between initial and sustained roll. The worst should probably be the P-38 but . . . http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Hey, it's Saturday . . . http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

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

"I fly only Full Real in Il2 Forgotten Battles." -Mark Donohue

Maj_Death
08-07-2004, 01:06 PM
You all are making one big error about the bombrack, the bombrack takes away at most 5km/h. The problem is you arn't just taking the bombrack, you are actually choosing Fw-190F's when you pick a "U/*". These feature reduced armament, more armour and the bombrack of course. It is the extra armor that kills performance. If you take an Fw-190A6/R1 with an SC500, you will not be able to tell the difference between it and a clean fighter A6 once you drop your bomb. This extends to both the A4 and A5 as well. If you take a U varient, you get sucky performance. If you take an R varient then you get clean fighter performance once you drop your bomb or drop tank. The A8 and A9 do not have U subvarients of them so this is not an issue with them.

In short, the A6U/17 is to the A6 as the F8 is to the A8.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spelling mistakes left in intentionally to annoy tttiger.

Maj_Death here, I/JG1_Death at HL

I build COOPs and DF maps. If you would like some of them you can get them atmy COOP page (http://www14.brinkster.com/triggerhappy770/default.htm)

I/JG1 Oesau is recruiting axis pilots who prefer to fly maximum realism. We accept both veterans and rookies. We fly in VEF2, VWF and may join other online wars in the future. I am currently the acting CO, if you are interested in joining please PM me here or page me in HL.
http://www.bestanimations.com/Humans/Skulls/Skull-06.gif

Bull_dog_
08-07-2004, 01:11 PM
Things I've read indicate that the A-8 bomber killer(Strurmvogel or something) version in real life was a much heavier and less nimble aircraft...but I got the impression that it was due more to increased pilot armor protection rather than the wing cannons...I have no idea about the A-9. The sturmvogel was not a dogfighter and was at a serious disadvantage when trying to fight single engined fighters.

In the sim, what little speed testing I've done indicates that weapons selection, fuel levels and that sort of thing have little to no effect on the top speed but parasitic drag due to bomb racks, gun pods, radiator settings can have a big effect.

3.JG51_Stecher
08-07-2004, 06:50 PM
You might be partially correct Maj_Death. Not all /Us add armor though. The A-6 without outer cannons is a U3 (might this be labelled incorrectly?), adding the ventral rack. It's speed is 565 km/h TAS. Take the R1 and drop the bomb, so it's just got the rack. It achieves the exact same speed. Clean, the A-6 gets up to 580 km/h TAS. So the ETC-501 alone is responsible for -15 km/h. It is possible that the other /Us add armor though. Visually the only difference with them is that they add the small wing racks. But their speed drops all the way down to 539 km/h TAS. That's a further loss of 26 km/h. As I said earlier, that sounds like a lot for just the ETC-50s. So maybe those are also carrying extra armor. BTW, did you hear this from somewhere, or just taking a logical guess?

http://flygirl.dnsalias.com:8080/jg51/190sig.jpg


3./Jagdgeschwader 51
3./JG51_Stecher
www.jg51.com (http://www.jg51.com)

Maj_Death
08-07-2004, 07:20 PM
Heard about the armor somewhere a while back, don't remember where. In any case I have tested it in the past and the bombrack has no significant effect on performance. That may have changed in 2.04 however, I have not tested it yet in this version. I also havn't tested the A6 very extensively so it could just be a problem with the A6. Both the A5 and A4 had very slight performance decrease in the R subvarients prior to 2.04.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spelling mistakes left in intentionally to annoy tttiger.

Maj_Death here, I/JG1_Death at HL

I build COOPs and DF maps. If you would like some of them you can get them atmy COOP page (http://www14.brinkster.com/triggerhappy770/default.htm)

I/JG1 Oesau is recruiting axis pilots who prefer to fly maximum realism. We accept both veterans and rookies. We fly in VEF2, VWF and may join other online wars in the future. I am currently the acting CO, if you are interested in joining please PM me here or page me in HL.
http://www.bestanimations.com/Humans/Skulls/Skull-06.gif

[This message was edited by Maj_Death on Sat August 07 2004 at 09:20 PM.]

3.JG51_Stecher
08-07-2004, 07:55 PM
Here is what I get with 2.04

Fw 190A-4 @ sea level
Clean - 556 km/h TAS
U1:w/ETC-501 - 543 km/h TAS
U3:w/ETC-501 - 543 km/h TAS
R1:w/ETC-501 - 543 km/h TAS

Fw 190A-5/6 @ sea level
Clean - 580 km/h TAS
U3:w/ETC-501 - 565 km/h TAS
U3:w/ETC-501 and ETC-50 - 539 km/h TAS
U17:w/ETC-501 and ETC-50 - 539 km/h TAS
R1:w/ETC-501 - 565 km/h TAS

http://flygirl.dnsalias.com:8080/jg51/190sig.jpg


3./Jagdgeschwader 51
3./JG51_Stecher
www.jg51.com (http://www.jg51.com)

OldMan____
08-09-2004, 07:23 AM
Question:
Why the hell the A9 and A8 ALWAYS have the bomb rack?


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

thompet03
08-09-2004, 09:29 AM
I realy believe that there is no reason.. that bug was told oleg many times but it looks like its to much work...

Hunde_3.JG51
08-09-2004, 12:48 PM
Oldman and thompet, to be fair the ETC-501 bomb-rack was standard equipment on the A-8 and A-9. You will rarely find pictures or references to these variants without one. Having them removed would not really be historically accurate IMO, kind of like masses of P-51B/C's in 1943, or Mustangs taking off with 25% fuel http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

That is why IRL I love the A-6, it had the refinements of earlier models and was the last FW-190A that was often produced as a pure interceptor. Even the wheel covers were usually retained to improve aerodynamics even after removing them became common practice.

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

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

Bremspropeller
08-09-2004, 03:25 PM
JG26's 190s did not have the ETC501 - instead they used a rack called "Erla Aufh√¬§ngung" to hang the 300l. tank below their a/c.

It was MUCH lighter and produced considerably less drag.


http://www.wildlife-art-paintings.co.uk/picture-pictures/peregrine-falcon/peregrine-falcon_detail.jpg

http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

WTE_Galway
08-09-2004, 05:38 PM
The historical situation of the A8's pretty much all having bomb racks, even in interceptor roles, seems to have been a side-effect of Hitler and the Luftwaffe's obsession with turning everything into a Jabo (albiet with no range in most cases because of limited fuel, the result of another odd policy decision)

But the luftwaffe was not the only one nobbling its planes for policy reasons .. look up what the P39 could have been if the USAAC had not got there hands on it and had left it alone.

Here is a pretty picture of MG151/20 vs Mk108 and Mk103 munitions:


http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SgDrAlEXSIh3BKw19!arygqA5dMWLcwm4J7gALgcRNNV!o!rv oZ53hcr1hlEz!KpdyAVSU7iwVl5zZTNzzF8F1yIfAmWrTKSFJq OPKex1RCIqgcKxgsW9w/aircraftrounds.jpg