PDA

View Full Version : Please can we have Fw 190 A4 at 42 late ATA!



mynameisroland
08-23-2005, 05:21 AM
Just browsed through the list for the projected add on and noted there will be the addition of a boosted P47D.

Can we please also have the Fw 190 A4 boosted up to Summer 42 levels? I think we currently have the A4 at 1.35 ATA which is the derated version for reliablility ect and also for use on the Eastern front. However after summer 42 it was rated at 1.42 ATA which is the version that most definitely fought against the RAF and for the latter half of the war. The speed for the A4 we have just now is just 400mph at 20053 ft the A4 is widely credited in almost all sources as having a 413/414 mph top speed. In game this is only attainable in the A5.

Likewise the boost settings for the A5 and A6 are first half 43, sources tout a level speed for the A6 as 421 Mph at 20053 ft something which is unatainable also.

Can we have maybe the Fw 190 A4 (Late42) and A5/A6 (Late43) models introduced? No graphical changes neccessary and they were not even new models in new life just regular stock fighters cleared for realistically higher boost settings.

This would be a realistic addition to the game which would benefit map makers and campaign makers immensely and It would also mirror the introduction of boosted allied types which flew in far fewer numbers (P47D moddeled to P47M, Mustang III ect).

Hristo_
08-23-2005, 05:23 AM
Correct speed for the Fw 190D-9 would also be nice.

MEGILE
08-23-2005, 05:27 AM
Strongly agree.
Or atleast remove the bomb rack http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

IIRC it climbs like 1.42 ata, and cockpit dial shows 1.42 ata

mynameisroland
08-23-2005, 05:33 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
Strongly agree.
Or atleast remove the bomb rack http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

IIRC it climbs like 1.42 ata, and cockpiut dial shows 1.42 ata

Good points Megile http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It climbs like the 1.42 version only IF you use 100% prop pitch but at least we can still get results http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Level speed is 14mph or so out which is pretty critical if you consider you might end up fighting IX's and La5FN's moddeled to 44 spec.

Bomb racks are the bane of my life Im fed up of flying around in any late Anton looking like a ground pounder! It is only a graphical change on the A8 and A9 performance is unhindered by it. However you can select just a 2 x 20mm version of the Anton series without suffering the rack and when you have the rack on the earlier models your speed suffers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

mynameisroland
08-23-2005, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
Correct speed for the Fw 190D-9 would also be nice.

Boosted D9 to add balance against 45 La7 and Mustang III ect anybody? Our D9 44 is 20kmh too slow also where is its bomb rack option?

LStarosta
08-23-2005, 05:39 AM
You guys seem to be doing all right without em on WC.

MEGILE
08-23-2005, 05:41 AM
Yes its pretty silly to loose the outter cannons in the Antons, only to gain a big drag bomrack.

I know Faustnik has emailed oleg without success.

Bump for A4 A6 late without bombracks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

mynameisroland
08-23-2005, 05:56 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
You guys seem to be doing all right without em on WC.

Thats probabbly because of high speed handling Fw and Mustang / P47 are the only AC in game that can manuver well enough at 400mph plus to hit an opponent who does an evasive when you bounce him. Big difference is that when you hit you hit with Mr Mg 151 or Mr Mk 108 not with Mr Uber .50 cal http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mynameisroland
08-23-2005, 06:01 AM
Just to put it in ot context Fw 190 A4 at 1.35 ATA = 648 kmh at 6000m

The Fw 190 A3/4 that all the hullabaloo was about from the RAF went 669.06 kmh at 6000m

Thats faster than a contemporary Spit IX and 30 mph faster than the Vb

lrrp22
08-23-2005, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
Correct speed for the Fw 190D-9 would also be nice.

Boosted D9 to add balance against 45 La7 and Mustang III ect anybody? Our D9 44 is 20kmh too slow also where is its bomb rack option? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Is it?

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/fw190/fw190d9test.html


.

p1ngu666
08-23-2005, 09:34 AM
at certain heights its too slow lrrp22. key heights its ok tho
a6 late would be my choice of 190A series http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

CUJO_1970
08-23-2005, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by lrrp22:

Is it?

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/fw190/fw190d9test.html






Not if you want to draw a blanket conclusion based on the incomplete information on that site.

faustnik
08-23-2005, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
Yes its pretty silly to loose the outter cannons in the Antons, only to gain a big drag bomrack.

I know Faustnik has emailed oleg without success.

Bump for A4 A6 late without bombracks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Yeah, I have received a polite "no" three times on the subject. A fully rated A4 would be a great addition. It isn't even an A4 late as recent info posted by Crumpp has confirmed. What we have now is a derrated A4 limited to 1.32ata@2400rpm. The fully rated A3/A4 ran at the same times at 1.42ata@2700rpm. A fully rated A4 without outer guns would be a very fast and maneuverable fighter.

Not that the versions we have now aren't great fighters. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

faustnik
08-23-2005, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:

a6 late would be my choice of 190A series http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

P1ng,

Crumpp gave me data for the A5/A6 at 1.65 ata. It is very fast and in the light fighter version (no outer guns, one radio removed) would be the fastest and best climbing Fw190A.

Even if we don't get new Fw190 versions, it looks like the patch will let Fw190 pilots have more fun flying "red" with the P-47 late and the Tempest. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

lrrp22
08-23-2005, 10:45 AM
It is what it is, Cujo: well-documented testing of actual Fw 190D-9's. I'll take that over idealized performance estimates any day.




Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:

Is it?

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/fw190/fw190d9test.html






Not if you want to draw a blanket conclusion based on the incomplete information on that site. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ploughman
08-23-2005, 10:53 AM
Level speed is 14mph or so out which is pretty critical if you consider you might end up fighting IX's and La5FN's moddeled to 44 spec.

Doesn't look like there's going to be a 25 lb boosted Spit anytime soon.

faustnik
08-23-2005, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Level speed is 14mph or so out which is pretty critical if you consider you might end up fighting IX's and La5FN's moddeled to 44 spec.

Doesn't look like there's going to be a 25 lb boosted Spit anytime soon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mustang IIIs, P-38 L Lates, and now P-47D Lates make every mph of speed very important to the Dora.

I can't believe that the Spit IXe +25 won't happen with all the other 150 octane Allied a/c we are getting.

ploughman
08-23-2005, 11:00 AM
I can't believe that the Spit IXe +25 won't happen with all the other 150 octane Allied a/c we are getting.


Tell me about it. Still, the Tempest interior looks magnificent.

Ankanor
08-23-2005, 11:24 AM
Does it have a relieve tube? After you are out of ammo, you'll piss the krauts to death. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Though you'll have to win "The pub" flash game before you can do that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

lrrp22
08-23-2005, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
at certain heights its too slow lrrp22. key heights its ok tho
a6 late would be my choice of 190A series http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Plng,

I think the information uncovered by Lutz Naudet sheds new light on a lot of the figures that have been taken for granted. For instance, the D-9_44 in game gets 605 kph at sea level while the tested D-9 (210002) at the 1944 'increased emergency' power rating of 1900 PS reached 578 kph without the ETC 504. That test may or may not be slightly conservative, but certainly not to the tune of 25-30 kph.


Having said that, I'm all for a 1.65 ata A-5/6 isf that was an operational boost.

lrrp22
08-23-2005, 11:48 AM
Faust,

Does Oleg have the 1.65 ata info? I think we would stand a pretty good chance of getting an A-6_Late if you gave him the documentation.




Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:

a6 late would be my choice of 190A series http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

P1ng,

Crumpp gave me data for the A5/A6 at 1.65 ata. It is very fast and in the light fighter version (no outer guns, one radio removed) would be the fastest and best climbing Fw190A.

Even if we don't get new Fw190 versions, it looks like the patch will let Fw190 pilots have more fun flying "red" with the P-47 late and the Tempest. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

faustnik
08-23-2005, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by lrrp22:

Having said that, I'm all for a 1.65 ata A-5/6 isf that was an operational boost.

Actually, looking back through the data, the A5/6 was limied to 1.58ata under 1000 meters. it would be a very late, after June '44, rebuild with a full 1.65ata.

I'm sure if enough unit records are checked evidence of use of 1.65 ata by the geschwaders (probably Jg26 as they loved to tweak BMWs) will be found from fairly early dates. I don't see how Oleg could include that in the sim though.

The light fighter versions were very common and would be faster, climb highers, have better roll and better turn according to many I have discussed it with. Oleg is of the opinion that the differences were only in the nature of 5% and not worth the effort. Oleg's opinion is the one that counts, so, we will have to defer to his judgement.

EDIT: you lrrp, I sent the A5 at 1.58ata data a while ago. I'll PM it to you.

lrrp22
08-23-2005, 12:21 PM
Thanks for the data, Faust!

Weren't A-6's still very prevelant around the time 1.58/1.65 ata was authorized?

When Oleg says a 5% increase, is he referring to the light fighter variant's improvement? A 5% increase in climb, acceleration and turn would be nice. Speed gains due to the lighter weight would be substantially less significant (unless the 5% increase refers to increased boost).

p1ngu666
08-23-2005, 12:58 PM
5% can be a big difference comparitivly

so, a6 late (44) pure fighter version, higher boost, 2 cannons removed and other stuff, and no bombrack

mini dora http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kwiatos
08-23-2005, 01:07 PM
A-4 with 1.42 ata would be good idea. Actually A-4 in Pf is underpower and i feel it accelerate like bus.
I think that the main problem with Fw190 in Pf is too weak acceleration. Maby someone have good reliable info about Fw190 acceleration in RL? As i read should be not worse then Spitfire acceleration and surly much better in dive acceleration. In level flight Fw190 in PF accelerate very poor expecially A-4.

CUJO_1970
08-23-2005, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
It is what it is, Cujo: well-documented testing of actual Fw 190D-9's. I'll take that over idealized performance estimates any day.




Yes Irp, it's a well documented test of three airframes out of about 700 - the October 1944 tests being done on the early Jumo 213 with well-known supercharger issues.

And who said anything about "idealized performance estimates" Irp?

Nobody but you.

faustnik
08-23-2005, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
Thanks for the data, Faust!

Weren't A-6's still very prevelant around the time 1.58/1.65 ata was authorized?

When Oleg says a 5% increase, is he referring to the light fighter variant's improvement? A 5% increase in climb, acceleration and turn would be nice. Speed gains due to the lighter weight would be substantially less significant (unless the 5% increase refers to increased boost).

Well, from what I gather after asking a lot of question on a lot of forums, the jabo versions received erh¶hte notleistung cooling for 1.58ata under 3000 feet in Fall '43. The fighter versions were cleared for 1.65 erh¶hte notleistung in Spring '44. The A6 was still very common through Summer '44. The production lines however, would have been switching to the A8 at that time.

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

The more I look at the Fw190A4 boost levels the more questions I have. Crumpp, who knows more about the BMW801D than anyone else I have come across, posted this about "derating":

In June 1942 is when C3 Fuel recieved the alkane ratio adjustment. Niether BMW or Focke Wulf had a blanket "derating".

Please invest some time and learn exactly what "derating" means. It is an engine management tool. All airforces derate motors on a variety of levels. Everything from service wide to individual motors.

The most common reason motors get derated is to burn inferior grade aviation fuel.

All BMW 801's, just like any motor, were "derated" during their first 5 hours of operation as a break in period. Some BMW801D2's were derated at the Geschwader level on an individual basis.

As of June 1942, JG2 was operating 8 derated FW190s with 21 hours of maintenance free operation. JG 26 had no "derated" motors and was operating normal motors with up to 61 hours of maintenance free operation. That comes from the minutes of a meeting with Focke Wulf, Bremen engineers and Geschwader personnel.

There was have also been posts on other forums by knowledgeable persons stating that exhaust modification to the BMW801D exhaust plating that allowed the motors to always be run at full rating in June '42.

The wierd part is that the main production run of the Fw190A4 was mid-late '42. So, almost all of the Fw190A4s should be outside the window of possible "derating". Crumpp informed me that all BMW801Ds were derated for a 5 hour break-in period. Perhaps this instruction is the cause of the confusion?

faustnik
08-23-2005, 01:41 PM
P.S.: Can you tell Mynameisroland has posted about one of my favorite subjects here? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I've been trying to figure out the ratings of the 1942 BMW801 for a long time now. It's amazing how confusing it can get.

CUJO_1970
08-23-2005, 01:41 PM
The fact is, a great deal of Luftwaffe records information was destroyed by the Germans before the end of the war.

What we have now is not complete and never will be, unfortunately.


But we do have information that Focke-Wulfs were built from the factory as light fighter versions, not simply converted in the field.


A 5% increase in performance is huge, a 400mph aircraft is now capable of 420mph. A plane that climbs at 3750 now climbs at nearly 4,000.

A plane that rolls 150 deg/sec now rolls nearly 160 deg/sec.

Those are big increases, not small insignificant ones.

Kwiatos
08-23-2005, 01:53 PM
What with Fw190 acceleration in game? Is like should be? Or is much to weak? Have any good info about it?

CUJO_1970
08-23-2005, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
As of June 1942, JG2 was operating 8 derated FW190s with 21 hours of maintenance free operation. JG 26 had no "derated" motors and was operating normal motors with up to 61 hours of maintenance free operation. That comes from the minutes of a meeting with Focke Wulf, Bremen engineers and Geschwader personnel.[/i]

There was have also been posts on other forums by knowledgeable persons stating that exhaust modification to the BMW801D exhaust plating that allowed the motors to always be run at full rating in June '42.




AFAIK, plating the exhaust was not the only thing that occured.

The cooling "gills" were also redesigned, enlarged, and made adjustible from the cockpit on the fighter varients.

The exhaust I think was also re-routed and redesigned at the bottom row of cylinders in the rear row - as those were the ones that would run the hottest in the early A-series.

I'll have to check, but I think they were changed from the flat "oval" shaped stacks to enlarged round stacks.

Most of my stuff is still packed away from moving though...

Maybe Crummp can shed some light.

These pipes didn't exhaust out the "gill" area, but took a more direct route under the cowling.


Caldwell talks about this in his JG/26 book and it seems it was a pretty easy fix that could be done at the geshwader feild shops.

CUJO_1970
08-23-2005, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
What with Fw190 acceleration in game? Is like should be? Or is much to weak? Have any good info about it?


I have calculations done by gshaw, I'll have to dig them up.

I think they were Dora and late A-series though.

CUJO_1970
08-23-2005, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
All BMW 801's, just like any motor, were "derated" during their first 5 hours of operation as a break in period.


Yes, this is true for any high-perfomance engine.

It's easy to find references for R-2800's being "slow-timed" for several hours before being introduced into combat.

CUJO_1970
08-23-2005, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Crumpp informed me that all BMW801Ds were derated for a 5 hour break-in period. Perhaps this instruction is the cause of the confusion?


That, as well as the need to burn up existing fuel stocks? Maybe the alkaline adjustment took time to fully implement.

p1ngu666
08-23-2005, 02:36 PM
the engines may need more running in time when they got more powerful, also its possible they switched from running the engines on a dyno for x hours, to a quick test then onto the plane and does most running in then, as u can use the plane at the same time, thus reducing fuel consumption, u could save 200litres or more i guess doing that.

lrrp22
08-23-2005, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
It is what it is, Cujo: well-documented testing of actual Fw 190D-9's. I'll take that over idealized performance estimates any day.




Yes Irp, it's a well documented test of three airframes out of about 700 - the October 1944 tests being done on the early Jumo 213 with well-known supercharger issues.

And who said anything about "idealized performance estimates" Irp?

Nobody but you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The numbers usually considered as representative on these boards are based on the performance numbers shown at Bryan Bury's 'Jaghund' site- those are almost certainly based on best-case estimates, and may be based on the non-service 1900 PS basis engine. The numbers for 210002 and 210003 are far more representative of service aircraft than are the other numbers.

I think most would agree that the aircraft in this game, from all sides, should be based on testing of representative service examples, when that data is available.

Grey_Mouser67
08-23-2005, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
Strongly agree.
Or atleast remove the bomb rack http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

IIRC it climbs like 1.42 ata, and cockpiut dial shows 1.42 ata

Good points Megile http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It climbs like the 1.42 version only IF you use 100% prop pitch but at least we can still get results http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Level speed is 14mph or so out which is pretty critical if you consider you might end up fighting IX's and La5FN's moddeled to 44 spec.

Bomb racks are the bane of my life Im fed up of flying around in any late Anton looking like a ground pounder! It is only a graphical change on the A8 and A9 performance is unhindered by it. However you can select just a 2 x 20mm version of the Anton series without suffering the rack and when you have the rack on the earlier models your speed suffers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oh now come on Boehmer...I fly where you fly and I know you are not going to meet any Spit MkIX's or La-5FN's with the current map making strategy in place!

But seriously, the A-4 could be named an A-3 and is fairly well modelled. I think it would be great to have a boosted version, but I think some other changes are in order too...fix the Spit MkV 41 top speed and give us a Spit MkV 43 model that features a Merlin 60...and what we really need to combat that Fw is a round ruddered Spit Mk IX that was in service August or September of 42...there is a gap and I think a boosted FwA4 will create a big gap there in terms of good match ups...unless some map makers are willing to move a Mk IXc into the the hole...but it is classified a 43 aircraft so I don't see that happening on good historical servers.

\It would also be helpful to have some Early P-38's to match up, but they need to be modelled with proper elevator authority and speed...and that isn't going to happen

There is no perfect plane in this game...I think the Fw's are amongst the best modelled aircraft as is and I'd like to see the 1.42 ata along with a few other changes for the positive too! I wonder what it would take to round off the rudder of the current Mk IX and give us the early version?

p1ngu666
08-23-2005, 05:40 PM
the early version had a different engine, that was the main difference http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

mynameisroland
08-24-2005, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
Correct speed for the Fw 190D-9 would also be nice.

Boosted D9 to add balance against 45 La7 and Mustang III ect anybody? Our D9 44 is 20kmh too slow also where is its bomb rack option? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Is it?

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/fw190/fw190d9test.html


. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

MMM , yes

mynameisroland
08-24-2005, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
Strongly agree.
Or atleast remove the bomb rack http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

IIRC it climbs like 1.42 ata, and cockpiut dial shows 1.42 ata

Good points Megile http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It climbs like the 1.42 version only IF you use 100% prop pitch but at least we can still get results http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Level speed is 14mph or so out which is pretty critical if you consider you might end up fighting IX's and La5FN's moddeled to 44 spec.

Bomb racks are the bane of my life Im fed up of flying around in any late Anton looking like a ground pounder! It is only a graphical change on the A8 and A9 performance is unhindered by it. However you can select just a 2 x 20mm version of the Anton series without suffering the rack and when you have the rack on the earlier models your speed suffers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oh now come on Boehmer...I fly where you fly and I know you are not going to meet any Spit MkIX's or La-5FN's with the current map making strategy in place!

But seriously, the A-4 could be named an A-3 and is fairly well modelled. I think it would be great to have a boosted version, but I think some other changes are in order too...fix the Spit MkV 41 top speed and give us a Spit MkV 43 model that features a Merlin 60...and what we really need to combat that Fw is a round ruddered Spit Mk IX that was in service August or September of 42...there is a gap and I think a boosted FwA4 will create a big gap there in terms of good match ups...unless some map makers are willing to move a Mk IXc into the the hole...but it is classified a 43 aircraft so I don't see that happening on good historical servers.

\It would also be helpful to have some Early P-38's to match up, but they need to be modelled with proper elevator authority and speed...and that isn't going to happen

There is no perfect plane in this game...I think the Fw's are amongst the best modelled aircraft as is and I'd like to see the 1.42 ata along with a few other changes for the positive too! I wonder what it would take to round off the rudder of the current Mk IX and give us the early version? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol Mouser http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You also know that I dont need an Uber A4 to get kills! But I do feel strongly that if we have AC like Mustang III and P47D-M rated ??? Then the correct Fw ratings from summer 42 onwards would be a good start. This isnt a UFO these were bread and butter Fw's fighting everday against the USAAF and RAF.

I agree with you on every point red Spit and P38 yet have reservations on Fw http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, the Fw A4 outclasses the Vb on every count and that is at 1.32 ATA levels. Unfortunately it is not modelled to A3 levels as the A3 was also rated (in service) at higher levels than this A4 we have in game.

The Fw 190 A4 with 1.42 ATA boost would give it the advantage that it historically had against its contemporaries. Remember the A4 probably was the zenith of the whole series in terms of outclassing contemporary oposition. Yet in FB it is one of the poorest performers vs its contemporaries.

I want the Fw to gain its boost increase as it has its work cut out against the La 5F and P39 N let alone the Lagg 3 (35series) I have never read in any account of FW pilot history of it having a hard time against these AC and thats bearing in mind that the Fw A4 flew in the same performance envelope as both of these AC and thouroughly outclassed them across the board with the exception of turn radius.

There are no perfect AC in game or in reality yet in 41/42 the Fw came pretty close to perfection in its given timescale its only handicaps being very early overheating probs and performance over 25000ft. The A4 we have is anything but perfect!

cheers!

Boe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

MEGILE
08-24-2005, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:

a6 late would be my choice of 190A series http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

P1ng,

Crumpp gave me data for the A5/A6 at 1.65 ata. It is very fast and in the light fighter version (no outer guns, one radio removed) would be the fastest and best climbing Fw190A.

Even if we don't get new Fw190 versions, it looks like the patch will let Fw190 pilots have more fun flying "red" with the P-47 late and the Tempest. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally agree p1ngu... A6 at higher boost would be my 1944+ choice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
Having said that A6 is still competitive now in 44.. but lacks the speed edge. Feels like flying a SpitIXe vs Doras and K4s.

A6 and A8 for teh win http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

faustnik
08-24-2005, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Megile:

Totally agree p1ngu... A6 at higher boost would be my 1944+ choice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
Having said that A6 is still competitive now in 44.. but lacks the speed edge. Feels like flying a SpitIXe vs Doras and K4s.

A6 and A8 for teh win http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

The problem with asking for the A6 Late is that there is not a whole lot of specific documentation for it. It probably existed, but, was a rebuild, not a production line aircraft. The Fw190A4 running 1.42ata@2700rpm in the light fighter configuration was a major production variant. In fact, this was probably one of the most common fighter versions of the Fw190, it's hard to understand why we dont have it.

This Fw190A4 fully rated verison would be faster and much more maneuverable than the A5/A6 we have now. It had the same amount of power and was significantly lighter.

The Fw190A4 we have in the sim is definately running at 1.32ata@2400rpm power levels. It accelerates and climbs poorly and level speed is far below the 1.42ata@2700rpm level. Of course dive speed and zoom climb are fine, that's what makes it so deadly, well, that and a lot of 20mm cannon. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif For the Spitfire pilots that are scared of a fully rated Fw190A4, 1C could still retain the version we have know. Servers could limit the planeset for playability over history if they wanted.

mynameisroland
08-24-2005, 02:48 PM
I think 1.42 is only fair as it was the version regularly encountered and widely respected. The Fw A4 we have in comparison is castrated. 1.42 ATA Would be of enormous benefit to mission builders. Its introduction would rememdy an omission (deliberate?) that has been noticable for a long time.

Kuna15
08-24-2005, 02:54 PM
<LI>mynameisroland:

Please can we have Fw 190 A4 at 42 late ATA!

Why? Because <span class="ev_code_PINK">LATE</span> is fashion in FB these days. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

mynameisroland
08-24-2005, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by Kuna15:
<LI>mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Please can we have Fw 190 A4 at 42 late ATA!

Why? Because <span class="ev_code_PINK">LATE</span> is fashion in FB these days. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hear you Kuna , but 1942/43 isnt really late is it ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Boemher
(p.s good flying with you today)

p1ngu666
08-24-2005, 04:37 PM
its late for a ww1 sim http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

also given that our vb is too slow, then 190 a4late would just be utterly dominate

be fun for 15mins perhaps, but then u would get bored of being shot down or being hero of teh luftwaffles http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

so what would be better aircraft
a4 with full power, no rack and outer gun removed, or a5/6 same spec?

think they removed outer cannons for some of the fighters to lighten them?

faustnik
08-24-2005, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
think they removed outer cannons for some of the fighters to lighten them?

They removed the outer cannons or the planes were produced without them. They also removed one of the radios, the fug25, in the light fighter version.

I agree that an Fw190A4 at full rating would own a SpitVb, but, we have the Spit LF Vbs which are very capable and of course the Spit IXs, Spit VIIIs, La5s, Yak 1Bs, P-51Bs, P-38Js.

(BTW: has anyone speed tested the Spit Vb in 4.01?)

Anyway, I'll take either one, any addition to the Fw190 lineup would be great! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

p1ngu666
08-24-2005, 05:38 PM
be nice match with p51mkIII, fast, but not omg oops ive destroyed half the world with a 1second burst from my quad cannons of mass face destroying death.

suffiecent armament http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Kuna15
08-24-2005, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kuna15:
<LI>mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Please can we have Fw 190 A4 at 42 late ATA!

Why? Because <span class="ev_code_PINK">LATE</span> is fashion in FB these days. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hear you Kuna , but 1942/43 isnt really late is it ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Boemher
(p.s good flying with you today) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

rgr that thanks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Of course that would be interesting to have but it seems that we will not get much more (rather none) of conventional Luftwaffe fighters.(Focke D series, Bf-109F-4 loadouts, MG151/20 nose loadout for late war Messerschmitts etc.)

And by mentioning LATE term I ment that regardless of period; we can see inflation of the boosted LATE versions of already existing aircrafts in game. I am BTW looking foward to any new fighter regardless of operator, as long as it have at least some kind of historical background.

So I don't see any problem with FW-190A boosted a bit. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

faustnik
08-24-2005, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:

suffiecent armament http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

That's for sure! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Here's a pic of an A4 light fighter version fighting on the Eastern Front in '44.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/A4in44.jpg

Kuna15
08-24-2005, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:

a6 late would be my choice of 190A series http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

P1ng,

Crumpp gave me data for the A5/A6 at 1.65 ata. It is very fast and in the light fighter version (no outer guns, one radio removed) would be the fastest and best climbing Fw190A.

Even if we don't get new Fw190 versions, it looks like the patch will let Fw190 pilots have more fun flying "red" with the P-47 late and the Tempest. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally agree p1ngu... A6 at higher boost would be my 1944+ choice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
Having said that A6 is still competitive now in 44.. but lacks the speed edge. Feels like flying a SpitIXe vs Doras and K4s.

A6 and A8 for teh win http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are the differences between A6 and A7? A7 could be a really nice bird considering how good the A6 is in game, even in late war enviroment.

LuftWulf190
08-24-2005, 06:15 PM
Well, as far as the Fw-190A-4 dominating the Spitfire Mk.V, it should. As any one who has read about the Shrike should know that it dominated the Spitfire untill the Mk.IX came in to being. Granted I agree the Spitfire Mk.V should still be able to turn tighter then a Fw-190, but the Fw-190 should be able to out manuver it, IE faster climb, though not as fast as a Bf-109, it should have a high rate of rool and be able to dive faster.


As far as I know the main differences between the A-6 and A-7 are that the A-7 used 13mm machine guns rather then the 7.92mm machine guns and that the Revi 16B gun sight replaced the Revi C12/D. Also the cowling latches were revised.

The information given on the Fw-190A-7 was taken from "Fw-190 in Action" by Squadron/Signal Publications.

It would be interesting to see an uprated A-4 but I doubt we will see it.

p1ngu666
08-24-2005, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by Kuna15:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:

a6 late would be my choice of 190A series http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

P1ng,

Crumpp gave me data for the A5/A6 at 1.65 ata. It is very fast and in the light fighter version (no outer guns, one radio removed) would be the fastest and best climbing Fw190A.

Even if we don't get new Fw190 versions, it looks like the patch will let Fw190 pilots have more fun flying "red" with the P-47 late and the Tempest. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally agree p1ngu... A6 at higher boost would be my 1944+ choice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
Having said that A6 is still competitive now in 44.. but lacks the speed edge. Feels like flying a SpitIXe vs Doras and K4s.

A6 and A8 for teh win http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are the differences between A6 and A7? A7 could be a really nice bird considering how good the A6 is in game, even in late war enviroment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

a7 is same as a6, or a8 i forget. just had different radio.

could have a7 as the light fighter, i surpose?

LeadSpitter_
08-24-2005, 06:23 PM
I would like to see the bombrack removed, same for the p47d27

faustnik
08-24-2005, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
I would like to see the bombrack removed, same for the p47d27

Especially the new "Late" model.

CUJO_1970
08-24-2005, 07:41 PM
The FW190A-7 would be a great addition to the late 1943 and early 1944 planeset.

The lack of a properly modelled Fw190A-4 at 1.42 ata as well as the light fighter varients is a real shame.

The lack of historic loadout options for the FW190s is a real shame as well.

OldMan____
08-24-2005, 07:44 PM
I just want FW190A4 A5 and A6 to GAIN performance when removing outer guns.. not reducing it! Otherwise just remove the " outer cannons removed" option because it is a joke! Who would remove guns to fly slower, less gunned and climb worse?

Also would like FW speed at 2k meters range to be revised (specially dora that is 2a3 kph too slow).

I don't mind if red gets P47 M,N or F4U-4 Just wanna correct behavior when removing guns on my FW.

OldMan____
08-24-2005, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kuna15:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:

a6 late would be my choice of 190A series http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

P1ng,

Crumpp gave me data for the A5/A6 at 1.65 ata. It is very fast and in the light fighter version (no outer guns, one radio removed) would be the fastest and best climbing Fw190A.

Even if we don't get new Fw190 versions, it looks like the patch will let Fw190 pilots have more fun flying "red" with the P-47 late and the Tempest. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally agree p1ngu... A6 at higher boost would be my 1944+ choice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
Having said that A6 is still competitive now in 44.. but lacks the speed edge. Feels like flying a SpitIXe vs Doras and K4s.

A6 and A8 for teh win http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are the differences between A6 and A7? A7 could be a really nice bird considering how good the A6 is in game, even in late war enviroment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

a7 is same as a6, or a8 i forget. just had different radio.

could have a7 as the light fighter, i surpose? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if I remind correctly.. A7 is A6 with 13 mm guns but no boost from A8 neither its extra fuel tank.

Kuna15
08-24-2005, 08:02 PM
Well if that is so (only different nose MGs) it would be piece of cake to put it in game.

But...

mynameisroland
08-24-2005, 08:21 PM
Pingu think that A6 boosted to 44 levels would drastically outperform 1.42 ATA Fw A4. It would be a real option instead of the D9 as it would be pushing 430 mph and would have superior roll rate and possible ROC than the D9. I think with boost the BMW 801D in 44 could pump out 2100 HP. If you put that in a lightened A6 you have a bloody_ effective medium to low altitude fighter.

mynameisroland
08-24-2005, 08:24 PM
Any new addition to the Fw family wuld be nice , imagine how much work it would be to introduce Fw with no visible model changes just give it the 5% performance increase that Oleg said it had but he wouldnt model because it would have a 'negligble' difference on performance.

5% increase is huge when we are talking 400 mph or 3500ft a min ROC as some one has already pointed out.

Its not like were asking for the world or even a D11/13 or Ta 153C

All Id like to see is Fw that performs historically.

faustnik
08-24-2005, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
I just want FW190A4 A5 and A6 to GAIN performance when removing outer guns.. not reducing it! Otherwise just remove the " outer cannons removed" option because it is a joke! Who would remove guns to fly slower, less gunned and climb worse?


It is kind of silly when you put it that way. I wonder what the original thought process was back in IL-2 days when the Fw190A4 was first modeled?

FritzGryphon
08-24-2005, 09:08 PM
It is kind of silly when you put it that way. I wonder what the original thought process was back in IL-2 days when the Fw190A4 was first modeled?


To model something, anything, so that blue doesn't have to fly 109 anymore http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

faustnik
08-24-2005, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:


When Oleg says a 5% increase, is he referring to the light fighter variant's improvement?

lrrp,

I can't find the ancient email from Oleg on the subject. I have no idea what he said 5% about, it could have been roll rate for all I remember.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Loosing 400lbs. of extra weight has to help though! Adding the extra guns would be like having a fat guys sit on each wing. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Panelboy
08-24-2005, 10:34 PM
A 5% increase in power output would not provide a 5% improvement in climb or top speed.

faustnik
08-24-2005, 10:49 PM
The power increase from 2400rpm to 2700rpm is from 1520hp to 1700hp.

mynameisroland
08-25-2005, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
The power increase from 2400rpm to 2700rpm is from 1520hp to 1700hp.

With reduction in outer guns this would translate to increased speed , roc and rate of roll

p1ngu666
08-25-2005, 11:54 AM
hm
ok, so what would u rather have, a6 2x20mm, 2x7.xmm guns
or a7 2x20mm, 2x13mm? guns

both have no bomb rack, no outer guns

jugent
08-25-2005, 12:53 PM
I find it hard to believe that any german fighter will became better in two of the tree most valuable functions of a fighter speed, climb, turn.
LW a/c are and will be underdog a/c in this game.

faustnik
08-25-2005, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by jugent:

LW a/c are and will be underdog a/c in this game.

What sim are you flying?

lrrp22
08-25-2005, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by jugent:
I find it hard to believe that any german fighter will became better in two of the tree most valuable functions of a fighter speed, climb, turn.
LW a/c are and will be underdog a/c in this game.


Compared to what? Have you flown a 109G/K lately?

.

Kuna15
08-25-2005, 01:11 PM
About rate of climb nothing with propeller climbs better than Messerschmitts. I have tested it... for instance K4 will leave everything behind in climb from deck to 5000m.

Generally speaking FW-190s are average climbers, but FW-190D and TA-152 are fairly good.

I certainly would not say that those are inferior planes. In fact Bf-109K-4 is, one on one, superior to every piston plane in 4.01m. FW-190 is on the other hand, poor in 1 v 1 dogfights, but when they are in teams they are awesome performers.

p1ngu666
08-25-2005, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Kuna15:
About rate of climb nothing with propeller climbs better than Messerschmitts. I have tested it... for instance K4 will leave everything behind in climb from deck to 5000m.

Generally speaking FW-190s are average climbers, but FW-190D and TA-152 are fairly good.

I certainly would not say that those are inferior planes. In fact Bf-109K-4 is, one on one, superior to every piston plane in 4.01m. FW-190 is on the other hand, poor in 1 v 1 dogfights, but when they are in teams they are awesome performers.

true true, FP K4 leaves real life k4 in the dust in a sustained climb http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

dont wish to drag this off topic tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

german aircraft are underdog in that germany lost, or maybe your a aussie? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LuftWulf190
08-26-2005, 12:10 AM
LW aircraft being second rate? Ah yeah...sure....


Now why was the Spitfire Mk.IX created kids? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

HeinzBar
08-26-2005, 07:43 AM
S!,
I've have always been an avid fan of the Anton series since it was released in the original IL2. Through the good times and the bad times, more of these btw, I've stood by my FW. When the A6 was released, it became my main ride and it continues to be my main ride. Even when it was in vogue to use the A9 w/ the 30mm options, I continued to plug away w/ my A6. Granted, it didn't have the instant kill factor that the 30mm had, it was still a fantastic fighter. Now, w/ the idea of a late model A6, I can only start to get a giddy feeling at the prospect that something like this may be added http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Of course I don't see a problem w/ this late model being added as that seems to be the latest thing, ie p38, and now, the p47. As for the removal of the outwings, well, it should be an option to begin with without the penality of the bombrack! It shouldn't be a have or have not variant. For me, one of the outstanding qualities of the A6 is the 4x151/20. The fearsome firepower of a 4x20mm armed FW is what makes it so attractive. I'd also like to see a correct R1 loadout for the A6 also. Currently, the R1 is a sc500 w/ the 4x151/20 installed. My understanding that the R1 package should be two, twin 151/20 pods used for bomber busting. I can see 5 books on my shelf that I know list the R1 as the dual pod option.

The A4 should be historically modeled based on the data. The catch is, what ata should be used? I guess it goes back to the similar idea of the p38 late. Official documents indicate one thing, but the field personnel will improve AC to their best performance. So, if the max ata of the A4 should be at 2700, then make it so. Hmm, I guess this means we should take a look at the A5 while we're at it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anyhow, excellent thread so far. I hope it continues to be informative and flame free.

HB

Kuna15
08-26-2005, 08:19 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kuna15:
About rate of climb nothing with propeller climbs better than Messerschmitts. I have tested it... for instance K4 will leave everything behind in climb from deck to 5000m.

Generally speaking FW-190s are average climbers, but FW-190D and TA-152 are fairly good.

I certainly would not say that those are inferior planes. In fact Bf-109K-4 is, one on one, superior to every piston plane in 4.01m. FW-190 is on the other hand, poor in 1 v 1 dogfights, but when they are in teams they are awesome performers.

true true, FP K4 leaves real life k4 in the dust in a sustained climb http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

dont wish to drag this off topic tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

german aircraft are underdog in that germany lost, or maybe your a aussie? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mate I don't know what real aircraft should handle, my observations in that post are from game v4.01m.

I ain't Aussie, but I find them sympathetic people. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

faustnik
08-26-2005, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by HeinzBar:

The A4 should be historically modeled based on the data. The catch is, what ata should be used? I guess it goes back to the similar idea of the p38 late. Official documents indicate one thing, but the field personnel will improve AC to their best performance. So, if the max ata of the A4 should be at 2700, then make it so. Hmm, I guess this means we should take a look at the A5 while we're at it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


HB


Heinz,


The power ratings used on the BMW801D equipped Fw190A4 have been in question for some time. In looking at this subject in forum discussions, we have often looked at 1942 Fw190s in general. The most often cited example is the Fw190A3 captured by the RAF in June, 1942. Using this example might have been a mistake as the Fw190A4 was produced after this date.

The Fw190A4 entered production at the end of June 1942. I don't have the exact date but, numerous sources state either June or July 1942. Some books label pictures of Fw190s earlier in 1942 as A4s, but, this could be a mistake in dating or identification.
I have found reference to two possible changes for the BMW801D occuring at this time. The first one is plating of the exhaust system. This was a post on another forum by Philippe Willaume:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">the fully rated D2 had chromed exhaust from teh cylinders and the intake of teh exhaust pipe. (about mid 42)</span>

The other change was to the fuel formula. This was posted on this forum by Crumpp:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">In June 1942 is when C3 Fuel recieved the alkane ratio adjustment. Niether BMW or Focke Wulf had a blanket €œderating€.

The most common reason motors get derated is to burn inferior grade aviation fuel.
All BMW 801€s, just like any motor, were €œderated€ during their first 5 hours of operation as a break in period. Some BMW801D2€s were derated at the Geschwader level on an individual basis.
As of June 1942, JG2 was operating 8 derated FW190s with 21 hours of maintenance free operation. JG 26 had no €œderated€ motors and was operating normal motors with up to 61 hours of maintenance free operation. That comes from the minutes of a meeting with Focke Wulf, Bremen engineers and Geschwader personnel.
</span>

Both of these possible changes were instituted before, or just as, Fw190A4 production began. This indicates that fighter versions of the A4 mostly likely would have run at fully rated (1.42@2700rpm) emergency power???

Other possible reasons for derating might have been poor conditions on the Eastern front. Poor maintenance facilities, poor fuel qualites and just trying to extend engine life.

??????????

HeinzBar
08-26-2005, 10:24 AM
S! Faust,
All of the reasons seem to be legitimate and the possibilities are wide open. Perhaps, it would be best to have this 'late' model for use in the Western Front scenerios where the environment wasn't as brutal, maintenace and fuel of better quality, etc.

LOL, I love using the 'late' term now. I feel so in fashion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

HB

JtD
08-26-2005, 11:31 AM
The Forgotton Battles object viewer states that 1780 hp were possible for one minute in the A-4. This should give A-5 performance.

Apparently this is not modeled at all.

Sorry if it has been written here already (just did a quick read), but do documents on the 1.42ata say anything about duration?

The A-5 and A-6 models are late versions, though, 421mph@20000ft are almost exactly what I get when I fly up there.

fordfan25
08-26-2005, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
You guys seem to be doing all right without em on WC.

Thats probabbly because of high speed handling Fw and Mustang / P47 are the only AC in game that can manuver well enough at 400mph plus to hit an opponent who does an evasive when you bounce him. Big difference is that when you hit you hit with Mr Mg 151 or Mr Mk 108 not with Mr Uber .50 cal http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


"Mr Mg 151 or Mr Mk 108 not with Mr Uber .50 cal http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif" yea i know. mr 151 and his gayo lover mr mk 108 actully do damage.

faustnik
08-26-2005, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by JtD:


Sorry if it has been written here already (just did a quick read), but do documents on the 1.42ata say anything about duration?



It would be an emergency 3 minute rating.

JtD
08-26-2005, 01:32 PM
Thanks.

p1ngu666
08-26-2005, 01:49 PM
the supply and resupply, general conditions on the eastern front where really tough. remmber alot of germans froze in 41/42? they actully had winter clothing, it just never (apart from a few cases) got to the front. hitler chose to send ammunition http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

the way to get supplies where rail, road (mostly horse and cart for germans and russians) and by air. the germans also found that the roads where mostly bad, there maps horribly incorrect, different types of road, or no road, where there was ment tobe a town there was forest..

carguy_
08-26-2005, 05:23 PM
Go back and reread the Oleg thread guys.Bombracks aren`t modeled into FM!

mynameisroland
08-28-2005, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
Go back and reread the Oleg thread guys.Bombracks aren`t modeled into FM!

Bombracks on A8 and A9 arent modelled but on all of the earlier Fockes there is a performace hit. Try test flying them yoursefl and you will notice it immediately.

With regards to the A4 ATA I think the main problem stems from the Eatern front being deemed to be 'safer' to fly on and if limiting the ATA of the Fw on that front would ease maintenance while still providing a comfortable speed margin then why not. Remebmer the Fw was not actually fighting Russian AC like the Lagg 3 that were as fast as they are in game. They were fighting the much more common variety in RL the ones known by their own pilots as 'Ready varnished coffins'.

On the other hand on the Channel fron and the Med the A4 was fighting an Increasing amount of Spit Ix's , P38's and P47's so it would make sense not to derate you premier fighter against very competitive opposition. Was there not some info posted a whil back about there being a stop placed on some Fw's throttles to stop the pilot flying at full boost? It also said that many fighter pilots simply bypassed the stop by unscrewing it and allowing them to firewall their throttle.

OldMan____
08-28-2005, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
Go back and reread the Oleg thread guys.Bombracks aren`t modeled into FM!

There was performance penatly at 2.XX series.. was removed in 3.XX series (although we got not a single bit of extra performance by removing outer guns). And now in 4.XX series the performance hit is back.. and DOUBLED!!! Some FW loose more than 25 kph of speed at sea level!!!

FW without outer guns should be 5 kph FASTER, roll better and climb better (quite significant difference.. about same as a full fuel load and an almost empty fuel load weight difference causes)

Christos_swc
08-28-2005, 10:59 AM
There's a definite penalty with those bombracks.
Climb is worse, acceleration, everything.
Just create a mission in the campaign builder and see what sort of speed you can reach at the end of the runway, time to 4000m etc.
Without the outer cannons but with the stupid bombrack the 190 is slower and less manouvrable than if it were heavier and it's there for all to see.
It's silly and it is frustrating.
Of course we can live with thefire power of the 4 20s , 190 will never be a dogfighter anyway.
By the way, both the German pilots and the Allies rated the 190 more than the 109, with the exception of 109 experienced pilots who prefered what they new best.
Allied pilots found in general 190s to be more troublesome to shoot down and more manouvrable.
I seem totally unable to exploit the 190s manouvrability in the game.
I can't seem to kill anything without a good E advantage.
Of course, fights took place in both vertical and horizontal and the 190 was excellent in dive and vertical climbing but,still, strange...

MEGILE
08-28-2005, 11:20 AM
A better performing Anton without the outter guns would be fantastic... two MG-151s are more than sufficient to down a SpitfireV/IX or P-38

Faustnik, what ATA is the A6 currently running at ingame? Sorry I missed it if it was mentioned here. Is this ATA a representaton of what A6s in the West would have been running at during 43/44?
Was there an official difference in boost between east and west , or wre they more field mods?

Im just wondering if there is a more Westernized version officialy cleared for high boost which we could ask Oleg for. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
I don't know how oleg feels with regards to common field mods though

Thanks.

faustnik
08-28-2005, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
Faustnik, what ATA is the A6 currently running at ingame? Sorry I missed it if it was mentioned here. Is this ATA a representaton of what A6s in the West would have been running at during 43/44?

The A5/A6 is running 1.42ata@2700rpm in 4.01 which is correct. In late'43 clearance was given for 1.65ata with EN cooling below 1000 meters. The increased boost was allowed for all altitudes in early '44.

There were no official "Western" or "Eastern" versions as far as I can tell.

p1ngu666
08-28-2005, 12:26 PM
so we deffo want the 44 version then

Kocur_
08-28-2005, 12:35 PM
From painting drawnings in some books and recently linked-to, in some thread list of losses of a Geschwader it looks like A6's were in service well into mid-1944 at least. Its obvious they didnt fly with original engines, but with those replaced with current production ones... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

mynameisroland
08-28-2005, 12:49 PM
These Fw's flew in their thousands in every theatre and unlike some other AC we have in game were not 45 AC only or speculative versions that maybe saw service.

I dont see why they cant be introduced there would be absoultely no graphical changes needed only the editing of their FM values. It seems more than justified when you copare it to other changes we have had.

faustnik
08-28-2005, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
so we deffo want the 44 version then

I'd rather have the "Western" Fw190A4. This would be the most common fighter version, with no outer cannons running 1.42ata@2700rpm.

The 1944 A6 late would be interesting but, would not be a common version. By the time that 1.65ata was the standard fighter emergency boost level, the A8 was the fighter coming off the production lines. So, if it is the choice between a rare late variant and the most common fighter version of 1942 thru 1943, I'll take the common version. Of course both would be cool. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

mynameisroland
08-28-2005, 01:18 PM
I second you Faustnik

A4 (western version) would actually be faster than the A8 any way at most altitudes and climb better too.

Kocur_
08-28-2005, 01:27 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Well, been nice talking, but sooner "we" get La-7R or MiG-13 than 1,42ata A4... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

MEGILE
08-28-2005, 01:32 PM
If Oleg can give us a P-38Late, Mustang III and P-47Late.. he could surely give us FW-190A4 "west" and FW-190A6 Late http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

OldMan____
08-28-2005, 01:56 PM
Again.. I would be plain happy if removing outer guns gave me a little bit increased speed, some better climb and roll ... not extremely reduced speed, somehow reduced climb and completely unaffected roll.


BTW.. an FW190A4 with 1.42 ATA at 2700 RPM doing 1780 hp would be THE fighter until 1944.

Also.. does anyone have exact data on how much weighted the outer canons + ammo and the cowling MG + ammo (both removed at the remove guns layout) ?

Kocur_
08-28-2005, 02:46 PM
MG FF.....28kg
60rds.....~10,32kg,
plus drum, mounting, charging and heating installation,
total.......say ~40kg x 2= 80kg, most probably more, unless they didnt remove all installations

MG17......12kg
400rds.....10kg
plus mounting, charging installation, ammo box......???
total.......say 22kg x 2= 44kg, most probably more, unless they didnt remove all installations.

So getting rid of MG FF's and MG17's would save about 125kg at least.

mynameisroland
08-28-2005, 04:24 PM
The real weight saving swould be found on removing the outer Mg 151 on the A6 model If I recall the cannon is a very heavy piece and has more rounds per gun than the Mgff

p1ngu666
08-28-2005, 06:33 PM
shouldnt the a8 be faster than a a4 @ its biggest rating?

mynameisroland
08-28-2005, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
shouldnt the a8 be faster than a a4 @ its biggest rating?

I dont think os I havent read a source or seen data that suggests so. If you think that an A3 or A4 was topping 414 mph at 20000ft and the A8 is widely credited with 408 mph. In game it is the same earlier Antons being faster than A8 up high (ignore the A4 runt we have http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

Down low the extra HP seems to give the A8 a better speed but I dont know if it falls of more up high or if its poorer aerodynamics and increased weight come in to play more.

The A3/4/5/6 were very clean AC with few bulges only the cannon magazine bulges being apparent. Boosted A4 would exagerate the speed and ROC superiority over the A8.

Pingu any word of the Mosquito yet?

Kocur_
08-28-2005, 10:54 PM
The real weight saving swould be found on removing the outer Mg 151 on the A6 model If I recall the cannon is a very heavy piece and has more rounds per gun than the Mgff
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif :
MG151/20.....42,5kg
125rds.......~25kg, with belt links
plus mounting, charging and heating installation, ammo box.....???
total.......say 67kg x 2= 134kg, and some kgs more if all instalations removed, no reason really to let them stay

Btw.:
MG131......17kg
400rds.....~30kg
plus mounting, charging installation, ammo box,
total.......say 47kg x 2= 94kg, and again somewhat more if remove instalations.

p1ngu666
08-29-2005, 07:18 AM
hm, if they kept the same supercharger, then only speed below critical altitude would improve, as above that the supercharger wouldnt be able to stuff enuff air into the engine to produce more power.

just looked at object viewer, and top speeds are close, but sea level speed theres a bigger difference.

so we is both right http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

II_JG1Schpam
08-29-2005, 12:02 PM
lrrp,

I must be doing something wrong then or maybe I'm misreading the gauges, but I can't get a D-9 with MW-50 to go over 585 kph at SL. But I have seen FW docs that say 606 kph with ETC504 at SL and 692 kph with ETC 504 at 5400m. Adjust for the extra drag of the ETC and those should be about 612 and 702, respectively.

I used the Crimea map, noon, clear weather. I turned the cockpit off to see the ASI there vice reading from a cockpit-on gauge. Is there something I am missing?

I have scans of the FW docs dated 11 May 1945 on speeds, if you'd like to see them. They are the ones that Bryan Bury used for the speed charts on his old website (seems to be dead http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif ). Also I have done some performance calcs and the speeds seem reasonable.

Kocur_
08-29-2005, 12:35 PM
Oh please post those scans! I like test data so much! Especially that 640kmh SLhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

lrrp22
08-29-2005, 01:22 PM
Schpamm,

Are you closing the radiator? IIRC, the D-9 spawns with the radiator set to position 2- I don't think it has auto radiator. I once posted an idiotic and pointless thread asking (not whining!) if the P-51 had lost 10-15 kph after one of the patches- you guessed it, I forgot to close the d@mn radiator!

Also, without rudder trim, you have to hold in some rudder to get that last 2-3 kph.

I would love to have those scans! Although, I do think they are best case estimates and not entirely realistic considering the extant test data that shows 595 kph @ SL without the ETC 504. 610 kph is exactly right for the D-9 with the engine gaps sealed and no ETC 504. 610 kph with ETC 504 seems more realisitc for a gap- sealed version with an airframe and engine of a production quality that may not have been attainable- or a calculation based on wind tunnel data. This is just an uninformed guess, and I could certainly be talking out my a$$, but I think that might be why Bryan Bury took down the site- he might be re-vamping it in light of Lutz's data. BTW, 11 May '45?

Now, I'm really not trying to **** the D-9- I just think that actual test data, preferably of production models, should be used in these discussions when that data is available, as it now is for the D-9 thanks to Lutz Naudet and others.

Just to make it clear: I am in no way asking that the D-9's in-game performance should be reduced. I think it should be left just as it is for a number of reasons. In fact, I'm thinking of posting a thread regarding the P-51D's speed at lower levels. We may already have a 72" Hg D-20-NA. Again, I'm not asking for a performance reduction, I'm just pointing out that I think the in-game P-51D is modeled to the absolute upper end of what could be expected at 67" Hg, or, the lower end of 72" Hg MP.


Oh yeah...<span class="ev_code_yellow">BUMP for the Fw 190A-4 at 1.42 ata!!</span>



Originally posted by II_JG1Schpam:
lrrp,

I must be doing something wrong then or maybe I'm misreading the gauges, but I can't get a D-9 with MW-50 to go over 585 kph at SL. But I have seen FW docs that say 606 kph with ETC504 at SL and 692 kph with ETC 504 at 5400m. Adjust for the extra drag of the ETC and those should be about 612 and 702, respectively.

I used the Crimea map, noon, clear weather. I turned the cockpit off to see the ASI there vice reading from a cockpit-on gauge. Is there something I am missing?

I have scans of the FW docs dated 11 May 1945 on speeds, if you'd like to see them. They are the ones that Bryan Bury used for the speed charts on his old website (seems to be dead http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif ). Also I have done some performance calcs and the speeds seem reasonable.

Kwiatos
08-29-2005, 02:05 PM
Yea BIG BUMP for A-4 with 1.42 ata !!!!!!! At now A-4 is too slow and have too weak acceleration to be like real Bucher Bird in 1942.
A-4 is the one of biggest debility plane in game when we comparing it to its time opponents.
Good idea is also Spitfire MK IX with Merlin 61 engine ( was slowier and worse climber then IX with Merlin 66 and 70 which we have in game)

vanjast
08-29-2005, 02:25 PM
Well after all this, I really think Oleg has toned down the FW190. I've been playing this game from day-1 and the FW190 has gone though big changes.

The other aircraft has probably had a lot of changes too, but most of my vflying is on the Me109 and more so, the FW190. So I'm probably only qualified to comment on these.

All these changes are probably due to relevant info being discovered and implemented, but I think the "performance ratios" between the various aircraft is good, and as usual it comes down to pilot knowledge and skill to outperform the others.

The 401 FM has definitely reduced the Yak3 AI (my testing ground) pilot invincibility-skill, which I see as a step forward.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

II_JG1Schpam
08-29-2005, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
Schpamm,

Are you closing the radiator? IIRC, the D-9 spawns with the radiator set to position 2- I don't think it has auto radiator. I once posted an idiotic and pointless thread asking (not whining!) if the P-51 had lost 10-15 kph after one of the patches- you guessed it, I forgot to close the d@mn radiator!


DOH! That was the trick. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif I feel a bit stupid.

Check your PMs.

p1ngu666
08-29-2005, 09:13 PM
havent heard anymore about mossie (i forgot to reply to that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif)

in dai's thread ive posted some info however http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

mynameisroland
08-30-2005, 07:23 AM
Just read about Oleg considering the Spitfire IX 25lb boost great news and I for one would love to see this AC in game.

Can someone PM Oleg reg the FW boost? The IX 25lb flew as a late war AC only and comparitivly few saw service compared to 1.42 Fw A4 or even the up boosted A5/6.

These are not late war uber Ac they are just normal inservice mid war aircraft!

faustnik
08-30-2005, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:

Can someone PM Oleg reg the FW boost? The IX 25lb flew as a late war AC only and comparitivly few saw service compared to 1.42 Fw A4

The +25 Spit IX was a very common aircraft from December '44.

Yes Mynameisroland, I have emailed Oleg about this at least three times since the FB beta, and gotten three polite "NO"s. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

I will try again. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

mynameisroland
08-31-2005, 04:56 AM
Hi Faustnik,

Have you spoken to Crump reg this topic? He seems to be a good source of obscure info on the Fw 190.
Perhaps if he could provide additional documentation it would help our cause?

About the Spit IX 25lb yes there were loads and I happy to see it being introduced ( being a Brit I feel we are most under represented in game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) It is however yet another late war AC and I have more personal interest of mid war AC. I think it would be unfortunate for the sim to appease the Late war bunch yet ignore important mid war versions of AC that were of more importance relitively speaking and saw years more actual combat than types that flew when the war was as good as one sided.

faustnik
08-31-2005, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Hi Faustnik,

Have you spoken to Crump reg this topic? He seems to be a good source of obscure info on the Fw 190.
Perhaps if he could provide additional documentation it would help our cause?

About the Spit IX 25lb yes there were loads and I happy to see it being introduced ( being a Brit I feel we are most under represented in game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) It is however yet another late war AC and I have more personal interest of mid war AC. I think it would be unfortunate for the sim to appease the Late war bunch yet ignore important mid war versions of AC that were of more importance relitively speaking and saw years more actual combat than types that flew when the war was as good as one sided.

Yes, I have discussed this with Crumpp and I think he will help get some stuff together. I'm not really sure how much of a question it really is though. I haven't found anyone to argue that fighter versions of the A4 were derated by late '42.

I know we have a lot already, but, more Spitfires would be great. Sometimes I fly them, but, more frequently I fight against them. There are some important versions missing that I would love to fight including the Spit IX +25, Spit Vb +9, Spit Vb +12 and a real big ommission is the Spit IX Merlin 61.

Kwiatos
08-31-2005, 11:59 AM
Faustnik maby try make topic in ORR about Fw190 A-4 1.4 ata.
I think many people will give their voice for add these plane to PF.

mynameisroland
08-31-2005, 05:07 PM
The Spit IX Merlin 61 would be a great addition for those who map build and like fighting on maps that have historic planesets. Laying in to the Spit IX Merlin 61 in 42/43 Fw's would be more indicative of what we have read the Spit IX Fw match up to be historically like.

faustnik
08-31-2005, 05:12 PM
So my wish list includes:

Fw190A4 Western Fighter 1942
Fw190F9 mit panzerblitz 1944
Spitfire Vb 1941 +9 boost
Spitfire IXb Merlin 61 1942
Spitfire IXe +25 boost 1944

I don't ask for much. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif