PDA

View Full Version : FW 190 a-8 ot a-9 what you prefer and why



jessi1
04-13-2005, 11:31 AM
Do you prefer(online)a-8 or the a-9,mg151s or mk108s,and convergence used for cannons(108s) long convergence or short(500 or more like 150?) please tell me why, thanks all. Love to hear info on this, really helps out. Thanks in advance.

faustnik
04-13-2005, 11:34 AM
The A9 is faster. I prefer that model armed with Mg151 agaisnt fighters and Mk108 only if intercepting bombers.

The A9 under 3000m is really fast compared to just about everything except the P-51D.

Vipez-
04-13-2005, 11:45 AM
well, difference is rather small, at sealevel a-9 is only about 10 kmh faster than A-8.. A-9 certainly does not feel like a plane with 2200 hp, or having much more efficient prop (better climb rate..) I do not remember which patch ruined the A-9's climb rate, but now it is undermodelled..

In game physical differences between A-8 and A-9 do not exist, however i Would love to see a realistic A-9 with larger brown canopy, and bigger prop, and with MW-50 injection http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Btw I think A-9 also had more armor in the oil tank (increase from A-8 from 6 to A-9's 10 mm. )

tigertalon
04-13-2005, 12:20 PM
A9 is superior to A8 in all respects IMO. It has better climb and is faster, it even outpaces D9 in a sustained run (rad full open, Erhoehte Noetleistung and you will not overheat) on the deck.

It also has no bomb-bug like previous versions (not sure about A8...) when your speed was not the same after you dropped the bomb.

Mostly I use 4xMg151/20, convergence for inner primary weapons set to 1000m (reason is that bulets fly much more flat in your sight, convergence is not only horisontal, also vertical, thus easier to aim), and for outer to 150 m. At long distances I use only inner weapons, and blast away with all only on close distances.

Fehler
04-13-2005, 10:07 PM
I like the A-8 better myself because it accelerates slightly faster than the A-9 under 3500M. It is slower on the top end, but in a dogfight with Apits, acceleration is more important.

The A-9 (Which used to be a great plane to fly) feels like a 747 now.

Oh, and I dont use noob cannon unless bomber hunting, then I use the gondolas instead.

Hristos
04-13-2005, 11:03 PM
The logic suggests A-9 to be a better plane than A-8 in every single aspect:

- powerloading
- speed (powerloading)
- armor protection
- dive speed (powerloading)
- climb (powerloading)
- acceleration (powerloading)
- speed retention in turns (powerloading)

Other parameters, like wingloading, armament, roll rate or endurance should be the same.

Of course, this is just by comparing numbers. If any of these planes are affected by a bug or similar, the points stated above become meaningless.

I haven't flown A-8 in quite a while, since it is not available on the server where I usually fly.

For A-8 to have better acceleration than A-9 sounds pretty unbelieveable: A-9 has considerably more power, more efficient prop and drag is virtually identical. Any difference in favor of the A-8 would mean poor modeling, IMHO.

When flying the 190A, I don't use MK108s anymore. Too much difference in ballistics. I like quad MG151/20 and two MG131s, which are far more ballistically closer, meaning higher chance that all six will hit a maneuvering target. Convergence of 500m is what I found to work fine, but I haven't tested higher settings.

I expect to have more potent Mausers with the new patch, which will bring more people out of MK108s realm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mynameisroland
04-14-2005, 08:54 AM
I will never take a Fw A8 if there is the option of an A9. It beats it hands down in every attribute. As Hristos outlined earlier.

If the A9 is available I reccommend you try the D9 as this normally appears on the same maps. I flew Fw 190's for a year before I came to appreciate the D9, now that I have I cant chose any other plane over it when it is available. Look around the forums for other Fw threads and read up on the D9 it gives you such a performance advantage over most rival planes that it is a joy to fly. But it is not a noob plane because you have to understand how to fly it for it to work.

robban75
04-14-2005, 10:58 AM
Currently the A-8 outclimbs the A-9 from ground up to 5000m, at least.

NorrisMcWhirter
04-14-2005, 11:08 AM
I would take the A9 normally for the reasons already suggested. Also, the A8 appeared to suffer from a poor fuel consumption "bug-ette" in the past.

I've warmed to the '44 D9 over the last 12 months even though it's armament is too inconsistent. Hopefully, 4.0 will rectify this and turn it (and the other 190s) into the respected aircraft and give some justification to being named 'butcher birds'

Cheers,
Norris

Hunde_3.JG51
04-14-2005, 11:36 AM
Actually the name "Butcher Bird" did not apply directly to the FW-190 IIRC. The FW-190 was unofficially named "Shrike", and the nickname for the Shrike was butcher bird because of the way it impaled or ate it's victims (again IIRC).

I prefer the A-9 because of its superior speed, which allows you to escape easier down low if need be. The A-8 has to go to manual pitch to out-run a P-51D, and that is only by 3km/h. The A-9 is about 6km/h faster than the P-51D at SL on auto, and is about 11km/h faster on manual. The A-9 is faster overall, and faster is better.

I have also taken a shine to the FW-190D as of late. I have always flown it, but not consistently. If 4.0 makes changes to 151/20 then it will be incredible, it is already very good.

I use 500m convergence. I find I am more accurate with this setting, and as I have stated before 500m and higher convergence gives you more spread, or a bigger hitbox when firing. This is good for the 190 because it has cannon armament, on planes like the P-51, P-47, etc., I use 150m convergence.