PDA

View Full Version : The FW-190A4 would appear to be too slow



MEGILE
02-10-2007, 06:25 PM
Presuming it were to run at 1.42 ATA ofcourse http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Where as the FW-190A5 would appear to be a suitable substitute.

However, would the blinkered masses ignore the "1943" next to FW-190A5?

And before you say it, because I know you will

Yes, I know the FW-190A4 is good in 1942. BUT apparently it's not quite good enough http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MEGILE
02-10-2007, 06:25 PM
Presuming it were to run at 1.42 ATA ofcourse http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Where as the FW-190A5 would appear to be a suitable substitute.

However, would the blinkered masses ignore the "1943" next to FW-190A5?

And before you say it, because I know you will

Yes, I know the FW-190A4 is good in 1942. BUT apparently it's not quite good enough http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LStarosta
02-10-2007, 07:26 PM
With Fw-190s you have to round up one model.

Stackhouse25th
02-10-2007, 07:39 PM
round up one model lol.

anarchy52
02-11-2007, 03:08 AM
Oleg himself stated that A5 should be used as a substitute for A4 running on full boost.

MEGILE
02-11-2007, 08:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
Oleg himself stated that A5 should be used as a substitute for A4 running on full boost. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, because he is a pragmatist.

But in my past experience, the FW-190A5s haven't received a warm welcome, especially against Spitfire MK V F and LF in a 1942 plane set.

thefruitbat
02-11-2007, 08:34 AM
<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 anarchy52:
Oleg himself stated that A5 should be used as a substitute for A4 running on full boost. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, because he is a pragmatist.

But in my past experience, the FW-190A5s haven't received a warm welcome, especially against Spitfire MK V F and LF in a 1942 plane set. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

about as warm welcome as the real 190a4's had as by said spits, yes/no?

cheers fruitbat

HuninMunin
02-11-2007, 08:42 AM
I think every reasonable creator of an online war or coops with emphasis on recreation of the real circumstances ( as far as possible with the means we have) should use the A-5 as a substitute for the A-4 in 1942.

Problem are the dogfight servers with focus on gameplay; they allready have a problem with the A-4 because it domitates 1942 servers with ease; given the blue side has some pilots worth their salt.

MEGILE
02-11-2007, 08:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:

about as warm welcome as the real 190a4's had as by said spits, yes/no?

cheers fruitbat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Problem are the dogfight servers with focus on gameplay; they allready have a problem with the A-4 because it domitates 1942 servers with ease; given the blue side has some pilots worth their salt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't say with ease, but yes it's pretty good. Regardless, this is irelevant. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

BM357_Sniper
02-11-2007, 08:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
I think every reasonable creator of an online war or coops with emphasis on recreation of the real circumstances ( as far as possible with the means we have) should use the A-5 as a substitute for the A-4 in 1942.

Problem are the dogfight servers with focus on gameplay; they allready have a problem with the A-4 because it domitates 1942 servers with ease; given the blue side has some pilots worth their salt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The main reason anyone is dominating is because the DM is too simple here. If we could actually damage internal parts with any weapon, but especially the .30 and .50's people wouldn't be flip flopping around like they had a new plane after being hit in wing spars and various other areas, under the skin. As it is now, people tend to use the big guns as an excuse to dominate and with this engine, it works. Hopefully that will change in BoB and people will RTB and not pull 5g turns with a plane that has a damaged wing ect.

MEGILE
02-11-2007, 08:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BM357_Sniper:


The main reason anyone is dominating is because the DM is too simple here. If we could actually damage internal parts with any weapon, but especially the .30 and .50's people wouldn't be flip flopping around like they had a new plane after being hit in wing spars and various other areas, under the skin. As it is now, people tend to use the big guns as an excuse to dominate and with this engine, it works. Hopefully that will change in BoB and people will RTB and not pull 5g turns with a plane that has a damaged wing ect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Disagree in that, this theory would apply equaly to all planes.

Similarly, Hispanos and Shvak have no trouble with the FW-190s.
.50s are less impressive, however there is little difficulty in giving a Focke Wulf something to cry about.
It simply requires a solid burst at convergence.

I digress however.

Manu-6S
02-11-2007, 09:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BM357_Sniper:
The main reason anyone is dominating is because the DM is too simple here. If we could actually damage internal parts with any weapon, but especially the .30 and .50's people wouldn't be flip flopping around like they had a new plane after being hit in wing spars and various other areas, under the skin. As it is now, people tend to use the big guns as an excuse to dominate and with this engine, it works. Hopefully that will change in BoB and people will RTB and not pull 5g turns with a plane that has a damaged wing ect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Strange... when I hit an FW190 with a little burst from 150m I make him smoke, and usually they lose some controls too.

Some days ago I flamed an undamaged Anton with a 0.3s burst from 50m flying an P47, and when your Anton is damaged you can't pull 3G turn without stalling.

Returning on topic, the only server with A5 in 42 I've found is sturmovik.de... nice server.

HellToupee
02-11-2007, 09:45 AM
that depends on ones definition of little burst

MEGILE
02-11-2007, 09:46 AM
More than none, less than alot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Manu-6S
02-11-2007, 09:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
that depends on ones definition of little burst </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From 1 to 2 seconds I guess...

SeaFireLIV
02-11-2007, 10:13 AM
Got chart? I sent my AsCLoC chart to the historic German foundation a year ago.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

MEGILE
02-11-2007, 10:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Got chart?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure I do.. Oleg too. Hence why he suggests using the A5 in place of the A4

thefruitbat
02-11-2007, 10:21 AM
did oleg say what 190 to use in 43? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

cheers fruitbat

Jaws2002
02-11-2007, 10:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Got chart? I sent my AsCLoC chart to the historic German foundation a year ago.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">LOL!!!</span>

You did your homework alright. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

FritzGryphon
02-11-2007, 04:05 PM
It's the pilot, not the plane.

FW pilots are just better than most. Don't force them to fly Spits, they will own even more. If they even get to 25lbs it's all over people!

tigertalon
02-11-2007, 04:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
It's the pilot, not the plane.

FW pilots are just better than most. Don't force them to fly Spits, they will own even more. If they even get to 25lbs it's all over people! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to agree. I laugh my pants wet when I try a Ki-43_I (rather than Ki-84) versus SpitVIIIs, and all most pilots know how to do is turn turn turn. Same story with taking a B239 versus La5FN or even La7. All they do is turn. Versus a brewster. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Xiolablu3
02-11-2007, 06:48 PM
UKded2 has a CHannel 42 map with

FW190A4/Me109F4 vs SPitfire Vb

As these are 1941 Spits, then its replacing the FW190A3 1941.

Problem is its very very hard for the Spitfires. Finding people to go red can sometimes be a problem. The Mosquito is there but with its low break up speed, its not a good B&Zer despite its great speed.

fighter_966
02-11-2007, 09:00 PM
Well no wonder... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif everybody always talks about turning here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif they cant it seems fly straight.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

HellToupee
02-12-2007, 01:58 AM
so much fuss on the a4 being derated no one noticed spit v seems to have the speed of a mk1 spitfire :P

Kurfurst__
02-12-2007, 03:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
Presuming it were to run at 1.42 ATA ofcourse http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Where as the FW-190A5 would appear to be a suitable substitute.

However, would the blinkered masses ignore the "1943" next to FW-190A5?

And before you say it, because I know you will

Yes, I know the FW-190A4 is good in 1942. BUT apparently it's not quite good enough http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dunno, that's assuming the FW 190A was cleared for 1.42ata. Perhaps it was, but I haven't seen any documentation underlying this. What we know is that the BMW 801D was limited to 1.32ata in June 1942.

Personally I have nothing against the current solution: The '1942 FW 190A-4' representing the FW 190As before the clearance of 1.42ata, the '1943 FW 190A-5' representing those FW 190As, inc. the A-4 after the clearance of 1.42ata for the BMW 801D. It has the same performance.

The whole '1.42ata A-4 FTW' stuff seems to me an in-bred 'issue' born within this forum.

MEGILE
02-12-2007, 06:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

The whole '1.42ata A-4 FTW' stuff seems to me an in-bred 'issue' born within this forum. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fortunately Oleg disagrees 100%

alert_1
02-12-2007, 06:26 AM
I really wonder why Oleg isnt wiling model A4 to its full potential - it's 60s work at most. but let's not forget about A8 - underpower as well, real A8 had 2050hp...

Irish_Rogues
02-12-2007, 07:02 AM
<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 Kurfurst__:

The whole '1.42ata A-4 FTW' stuff seems to me an in-bred 'issue' born within this forum. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fortunately Oleg disagrees 100% </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Kettenhunde
02-12-2007, 07:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Personally I have nothing against the current solution: The '1942 FW 190A-4' representing the FW 190As before the clearance of 1.42ata, the '1943 FW 190A-5' representing those FW 190As, inc. the A-4 after the clearance of 1.42ata for the BMW 801D. It has the same performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Problem is that if you go by Luftwaffe documents and instructions used to operate the aircraft, the "de-rating" only exists in new aircraft during the break in period, training aircraft, and a random number of individual engines very early in the design lifecycle of the 801 series.

In June 1942 the knock limited performance of C3 fuel was raised considerably by an adjustment of the alkane ratio.

This is reflected in Flugzeug Handbuch's of the 190 series which allow for full use of Start u Notleistung.

The whole blanket "de-rating" of the BMW801 is based on the RAE intelligence and not German sources.

If using Allied Intelligence estimates is the bases for determining all the facts then the IL2 Series should be using the Dora in the early 1943 line up with the BMW802 Motor.

If selective de-rating is going to be the basis for determining a games models, then the entire USAAF line up should be de-rated as the majority of their aircraft were de-rated to use 91 grade fuel. 100/130 grade was reserved for combat units.

As they had more aircraft than any other nation, the US operated more de-rated planes than anyone else.

If someone has documented proof of a blanket de-rating of the FW190 from a German source I would love to see it!

All the best,

Crumpp

Kurfurst__
02-12-2007, 07:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Problem is that if you go by Luftwaffe documents and instructions used to operate the aircraft, the "de-rating" only exists in new aircraft during the break in period, training aircraft, and a random number of individual engines very early in the design lifecycle of the 801 series.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
In June 1942 the knock limited performance of C3 fuel was raised considerably by an adjustment of the alkane ratio.

This is reflected in Flugzeug Handbuch's of the 190 series which allow for full use of Start u Notleistung. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was it the lack of C-3 performance that caused the derating of the engine? And what is the date (Stand and Ausgabe) of these Flugzeug Handbuch which first allow for full use of Start u Not?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
The whole blanket "de-rating" of the BMW801 is based on the RAE intelligence and not German sources.
If someone has documented proof of a blanket de-rating of the FW190 from a German source I would love to see it!

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This looks like pretty much a German source - GL/A-Rü (Rüstung, ie. fittings/supply), nonetheless.

http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=29

It says for the BMW 801D powered FW 190A-3, dated June 1942 that :

'Notleist. z.Zt. gesperrt.' - ie. that Start und Notleistung (=1.42ata) is currently banned.

Ausschnitt des Blatt 27 der Flugzeugtabellen des OKL über Flugzeugmuster im Gebrauch von Deutschland, Italien und Japan vom 1.6.1942 - Quelle: BAMA Freiburg

AKA_TAGERT
02-12-2007, 08:10 AM
<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 Kurfurst__:

The whole '1.42ata A-4 FTW' stuff seems to me an in-bred 'issue' born within this forum. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fortunately Oleg disagrees 100% </div></BLOCKQUOTE>ROTFL

JG14_Josf
02-12-2007, 09:48 AM
To Whom It May Concern:

The ˜de-rating' topic BEGS to be ironed out in a definitive way.

This:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If someone has documented proof of a blanket de-rating of the FW190 from a German source I would love to see it! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please note the careful wording which I might add is typically accurate from Kettenhunde; ˜blanket de-rating'.

I point that out because the actual ˜de-rating' process was a ˜de-rating' process and not a ˜banning' or ˜trip to the Russian Front' if anyone is caught taking out the ˜de-rating' screw that limits throttle travel in the cockpit (that screw IS de-rating).

That request for information concerning the ˜de-rating' process is one angle of view and that angle of view is supported with evidence. I will supply some of the evidence in a moment.

The following is another angle of view:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">'Notleist. z.Zt. gesperrt.' - ie. that Start und Notleistung (=1.42ata) is currently banned. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note the careful wording which, typically, is aimed at bending the truth concerning the actual process of ˜de-rating' and the subliminal suggestion, if I am not mistaken, is such that the Nazi ORDER must be followed or else.

If the document supplied is a Nazi ORDER that must be followed or else, then, that fact aught to be provable one way or the other way. To those unfamiliar with this issue it is your fortune to have a more objective view point. I've already read much of the information supplied by Kettenhunde on this ˜de-rating' process.

Here is what I have found on this ˜de-rating' process:

One reason for de-rating according to Norbert Hannig (German Fighter/Jabo pilot):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By this time all training had been shut down at Liegnitz and the twelve Fw 190A-6s of the Einsatzstaffel prepared for take-off. When I climbed into the cockpit of my machine and checked the controls I discovered that a screw was inhibiting the full travel of the throttle. This had the effect of reducing engine output by ten per cent, which was a justifiable measure on a training aircraft. It helped to protect the engine and increased the number of flying hours. But in combat it could mean the difference between life or death if maximum engine power was not available. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Norbert Hannig fighting with the de-rated engine:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The trusty Forke at once righted itself and I shot out from the bottom of the cloud into sunlight again. Where were the Mustangs? I looked up and saw them circling the cloud-top above me. I put my nose down and got out of there fast. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I dived toward the ground as fast as my doctored throttle would allow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Later Hannig did not ˜follow orders':
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I rammed the throttle forward – I'd made sure that all the Einsatzsaffel machines had had those damned inhibitor screws removed – pulled up into a steep climb and easily eluded my would–be assailant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note also the reference to 'pull-out' turn performance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The notion that all German soldiers blindly follow orders is about as false as saying the same thing about all British, all Russian, and or all American soldiers blindly following orders.

There are many examples of Pilot/Ground crew relationships that document field adjustments to factory settings and ˜official' configurations.

What does the ˜banning' document say in English for us non-German speaking readers?

Kurfurst__
02-12-2007, 10:11 AM
*sigh*

Perhaps it's time to remove the screw that is de-rating your mind then. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

faustnik
02-12-2007, 10:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

It says for the BMW 801D powered FW 190A-3, dated June 1942 that :

'Notleist. z.Zt. gesperrt.' - ie. that Start und Notleistung (=1.42ata) is currently banned. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We have seen this issue discussed many times before. There were engine reliability issues with the BMW801D in early 1942. Changes were made in mid-1942 to the C3 mixture and the Fw190's exhaust system to overcome these issues. The Fw190A4 did not enter prodution until late June 1942. It did not enter general service with frontline units until September 1942.

Attempts to associate very limited information on power restrictions with the BMWs in early 1942 with the entire production of 1942 Fw190s are, well, very suspect. If there is anything "in-bred" in a forum, it is this internet myth of blanket de-rating.

JG14_Josf
02-12-2007, 12:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">*sigh*

Perhaps it's time to remove the screw that is de-rating your mind then. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfy,

You earn your reputation as do I. Putting all that superfluous mind fornicating garbage aside for just a moment, if you can, please accurately communicate the reason for posting the document that you linked.

So far it seems; your opinion concerning the Fw 190A-4, in the game, is such that you have nothing against the current way it is modeled i.e. de-rated.

If the link you provide can support your opinion, then, it seems reasonable to ask why?

Example:

According to the document posted the Fw 190A-4 did not operate in combat without the screw in place to limit throttle travel.

That is an example ˜translation' of what your document says – according to a ˜reasonable' interpretation.

You, of course, are the only one who can decide what you think is reasonable.

mynameisroland
02-12-2007, 02:15 PM
I think Kufursts reasons are two-fold, firstly the blanket de-rating the DB series of engines faced during the time period thanks to a number of reasons but primarily having to use B4 fuel and secondly the fact that the Fw 190 A4 or Fw series is not his area of interest - infact perhaps because it is more highly regarded than the 109 there is a little bit of plane envy thrown in as well.

just my 2 cents

MEGILE
02-12-2007, 02:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:


We have seen this issue discussed many times before. There were engine reliability issues with the BMW801D in early 1942. Changes were made in mid-1942 to the C3 mixture and the Fw190's exhaust system to overcome these issues. The Fw190A4 did not enter prodution until late June 1942. It did not enter general service with frontline units until September 1942.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

so prior to mid '42, were all Antons restricted in power setting?
Or only new/troubled engines?

I'm trying to understand, because if it applied to all Antons then Kurfurst's premise that :

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The '1942 FW 190A-4' representing the FW 190As before the clearance of 1.42ata, the '1943 FW 190A-5' representing those FW 190As, inc. the A-4 after the clearance of 1.42ata for the BMW 801D. It has the same performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

is correct.

faustnik
02-12-2007, 10:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:


so prior to mid '42, were all Antons restricted in power setting?
Or only new/troubled engines?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Crumpp has stated there is evidence that de-rating before June '42 was done on a case by case basis.

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

I certainly think it is reasonable to represent late '42 performance with the A5 and early '42 performance with the A4. A fully rated A4 however, would be somewhat lighter and perhaps slightly more maneuverable than the A5. Without outer guns and no ETC rack (standard for the version), we would probably have the best dogfighter of the Fw190A series with a fully rated A4.

In my opinion, for online matchups, the A5/A6s go much better with the Spit IX, La5F and '43 US planes than any Allied a/c labeled '42. The LF Vbs can be good against them, if something else in the mission setup is limiting the Fw190A5s to low altitude. A4s, with experienced pilots, are really nasty against anything from 1942. In nOOb hands, any of the Fw190A versions are going to suck, so, it doesn't matter.

JG14_Josf
02-13-2007, 06:41 AM
Kurfy?

Are you and Hop having a meeting somewhere?

Did your document prove how no Fw 190A model fighter planes flew in combat without the throttle restriction screw in place during WWII at any time including June 1942?

MEGILE
02-13-2007, 07:10 AM
Yes more explanation of that particular chart is required. Perhaps Kettenhunde knows more

JG14_Josf
02-13-2007, 07:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The '1942 FW 190A-4' representing the FW 190As before the clearance of 1.42ata, the '1943 FW 190A-5' representing those FW 190As, inc. the A-4 after the clearance of 1.42ata for the BMW 801D. It has the same performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To Whom It May Concern:

The above is nonsense when applied to the game physics since each successive model Fw 190 (with the same wing design and basically the same airplane drag polar shape) is modeled with a progressively higher corner speed (the low and high speed turn performance decreases significantly).

Now that may be a physical reality whereby the same size and same shape airplane will stall at higher speeds when pulling high g force because the same size and same shape airplane is gaining T/W (the Fw190A-8 has more thrust per unit weight than the Fw190A-4), because, the same size and same shape airplane is gaining more thrust, AND, gaining more weight (more thrust per unit weight).

Even if that higher corner speed (higher stall speed while pulling g) due to increases in T/W is true, even so, then the Fw190A-5 is no substitute for the Fw190A-4 because of the higher (modeled in the game) stall speed while pulling g.

Look at it this way:

Suppose the game modeled a Spitfire VB (June 1942) with the historically accurate climbing boost settings of 9 psi (like the combat test trials conducted in July 1942)?

Wait...that won't work because that would be historically accurate so...imagine that the Spitfire VB (June 1942) is modeled in the game with a 6 psi boosted engine.

That is more like it.

Therefore the game models an underpowered (de-rated) Spitfire VB (June 1942) with a 6 psi limit on the engine boost (a screw instead of a wire in the throttle gate?).

The historians of the community (who may or may no play the game) point out the combat test trials conducted in July 1942 and how the Spitfire VB (June 1942) in history actually flew combat missions with 9 psi engine boost pressure (with a wire at the gate and without a screw at the throttle gate?).

Oleg then says:

Substitute the Spitfire IX (June 1943) for the Spitfire VB (June 1942) and all will be good in the historically accurate WWII combat simulation world for Jun 1942 scenarios.

All is not fine.

The Spitfire IX is a heavier plane than the Spitfire VB.

Did you read that?

The Spitfire IX gains more thrust per unit weight over the Spitfire VB; however – the Spitfire IX gains weight and if the game physics is correct, then, the Spitfire IX gains stall speed at any g load.

So the fix on the historically inaccurate low boost Spitfire VB (June 1942) by replacing it with the Spitfire IX (June 1943) reduces the entire turn performance envelope on a plane that was historically a very good slow speed turn fighter (stall fighter) i.e. The Spitfire VB. That is bad enough for that supposed fix where the later Spitfire is substituted for the early Spitfire (due to incorrectly modeling the engine boost in the early model Spitfire) the worse part is how the later model game Spitfire IX has a higher corner speed than the early model Spitfire VB so the advantage given to the player at high speed, high g, is gone when ˜substituting' the later model for the early model. That won't due for Spitfires.

In other words: The Spitfire VB, in the game, is one of if not the best slow and high speed turning planes in the game and it would be outrageous to consider substituting the less capable of turning high g at slower speeds Spitfire IX just because of an error in engine boost.

But this has nothing to do with the early model Spitfire modeling having a less than accurate engine boost setting (which it has more boost in the climb, in the game, and more boost in the climb without the known overheating issues – metal in the oil – etc.).

This has nothing to do with the early Spitfire having poor initial acceleration either.

The ˜de-rating' issue concerns the performance of the early model Fw 190A, so...., just substitute the poorer turning Fw 190A-5 in for the poorer accelerating Fw 190A-4 and everything is fixed – according to whom?

Is this ˜substitution fix' accurate according to the person who can order a few changes in the game code and make the substitution himself if he thinks the fix is actually a fix?

I like this quote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">did oleg say what 190 to use in 43?

cheers fruitbat
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Using logic is not popular; so the fix is to model all the Fw190A series planes with very high corner speeds, or low boost, and make sure that the Fw190A can't turn – no matter what.

Which turns better at slow speed?
Spitfire I or Spitfire XIV

Which turns better at high speed?

Spitfire I or Spitfire XIV

If the answers to those questions follow logic then apply that same logic to these questions:

Which turns better at slow speed?

Fw190A-1 or Fw190A-8
Fw190A-1 or Fw190A-9
Fw190A-1 or Fw190D-9
Fw190A-1 or Fw190D-12

Which turns better at high speed?

Fw190A-1 or Fw190A-8

How is the logic working?

Now answer these questions:

Which turns better at slow speed?

Spitfire XIV or Fw190A-1
Spitfire XIV or Me 109E-1
Spitfire XIV or Spitfire I

Which turns better at high speed?

Spitfire I or Spitfire XIV
Spitfire I or P-47D
Spitfire I or Fw190D-9
Spitfire I or P-51D
Spitfire I or Me 262
Spitfire I or F-86
Spitfire I or F-16
Spitfire I or Focker Tri-plane

Logic isn't required:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The '1942 FW 190A-4' representing the FW 190As before the clearance of 1.42ata, the '1943 FW 190A-5' representing those FW 190As, inc. the A-4 after the clearance of 1.42ata for the BMW 801D. It has the same performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not unless the topic is the 109 – I suppose.

Kurfurst__
02-13-2007, 12:49 PM
<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 Kurfurst__:

It says for the BMW 801D powered FW 190A-3, dated June 1942 that :

'Notleist. z.Zt. gesperrt.' - ie. that Start und Notleistung (=1.42ata) is currently banned. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We have seen this issue discussed many times before. There were engine reliability issues with the BMW801D in early 1942. Changes were made in mid-1942 to the C3 mixture and the Fw190's exhaust system to overcome these issues. The Fw190A4 did not enter prodution until late June 1942. It did not enter general service with frontline units until September 1942. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well there was about 7 delivered in July, and some 60 more were delivered from the factories during the course of August.

Otherwise I don't quite see what this has to done with the note from mid-1942 that the Notleistung ist gesperrt.
It's exactly the same phrase used for noting the DB 605's Startleistung is gesperrt as well.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Attempts to associate very limited information on power restrictions with the BMWs in early 1942 with the entire production of 1942 Fw190s are, well, very suspect. If there is anything "in-bred" in a forum, it is this internet myth of blanket de-rating. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would say the say to attempts to dismiss clear German notices (and Allied documents supporting this) on restriction of engine output on the basis of a curious and unsupported story that it would be a case by case ban of the Startleistung of individual engines. Now, that claim is entirely unsupported.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Crumpp has stated there is evidence that de-rating before June '42 was done on a case by case basis. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Posting the evidence would be much better than stating that there's evidence.. out there.
Or something like the first known date of a 190 Flugzeughandbuch that no longer notes the restriction.
I am quite sure it happened by 1943 the latest with the A-5.

faustnik
02-13-2007, 01:07 PM
Kurfurst, where are your "clear German notices" and when are they dated? The "data" that you linked has no relavence to the A4.

Like I said, internet myth, propogated by a few for their own various reasons.

Kurfurst__
02-13-2007, 01:29 PM
I posted already, and that's something at least vs. nothing if you understand what I mean.

But anyway, I don't care much, and as for myself, I am rather sceptical of this 'selected derating' story. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

faustnik
02-13-2007, 01:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I posted already, and that's something at least vs. nothing if you understand what I mean.

But anyway, I don't care much, and as for myself, I am rather sceptical of this 'selected derating' story. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, in this case, you posted something that was irrelevant. Fw190 tests and stat sheets from 1942 used 1.42ata:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/Fw190A3%20Graph.jpg

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/Fw190A_1942.jpg

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/A3%20Performance.jpg

It was the standard emergency power setting, the rule, de-rating would be the exception.

But, scepticism is OK, nothing wrong with that!

MEGILE
02-13-2007, 02:01 PM
I can read Kurfurst's mind, and this is what he is thinking.

Firstly.. that first chart is for performance of an A3 during tests. Nothing more. It doesn't mention clearance use or date.

Secondly, the two A3 data charts, and the performance graphs are all dated November 1942... so his arugment will follow,
we know that 1.42 was cleared by late '42.

Therefore I think further information on the data kurfurst so kindly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif presented requires further detail.

Kurfurst__
02-13-2007, 02:02 PM
I am sorry, but in what way these prove anything pro or contra about 'selective derating'?

The 1st and 3rd simply appears to be a datasheet for an export version FW 190Aa (Turkish?) and does not say it's was tested figure at all. The 2nd is more useful, since it has a data of the very end of 1942, and obviously from a test, but again the fact that the engine run for a test on 1.42ata does not prove a thing. The DB 605 for example was run for more than a hundred hour at 1.42ata in mid-1943 as per Rechlin documents, still it was not seen sufficient to release it back then.

Again I am not saying pro or contra, just a bit sceptical. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

MEGILE
02-13-2007, 02:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I am sorry, but in what way these prove anything pro or contra about 'selective derating'?

The 1st and 3rd simply appears to be a datasheet for an export version FW 190Aa (Turkish?) and does not say it's was tested figure at all. The 2nd is more useful, since it has a data of the very end of 1942, and obviously from a test, but again the fact that the engine run for a test on 1.42ata does not prove a thing. The DB 605 for example was run for more than a hundred hour at 1.42ata in mid-1943 as per Rechlin documents, still it was not seen sufficient to release it back then.

Again I am not saying pro or contra, just a bit sceptical. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

someone give me a medal.

Infact the only point I will disagree with Kurfurst on is 3rd chart. It specifically mentions Start-u Notleistung for the Aa3 on a Focke Wulf document.
I therefore presume that Start-u Notleistung was atleast by this time cleared.

JG14_Josf
02-13-2007, 02:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Posting the evidence would be much better than stating that there's evidence.. out there.
Or something like the first known date of a 190 Flugzeughandbuch that no longer notes the restriction.
I am quite sure it happened by 1943 the latest with the A-5. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To Whom It May Concern:

It seems reasonable to ask what, exactly, the German language document reports i.e. cruel and unusual punishment for removing screws in the throttle gate that reduce engine performance by 10%.

Reasonable questions, according to some, are unreasonable according to others.

Example:

Some may think it is a good idea to leave the screw screwed. Those types can be called screw heads – perhaps.

And then there are those who actually fly the plane in combat. Like Norbert Hanning (http://www.amazon.com/Luftwaffe-Fighter-Ace-Norbert-Hannig/dp/1904010946)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I rammed the throttle forward – I'd made sure that all the Einsatzsaffel machines had had those damned inhibitor screws removed – pulled up into a steep climb and easily eluded my would–be assailant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perpetuating the Myth that soldiers blindly obey orders is inaccurate if not simply unreasonable.

Perpetuating the Myth that German Fighter Pilots (every one of them) preferred the 109 over the Fw190 is another one of those inaccurate if not simply unreasonable Myths.

Messerschmitt Bf 109 in action Part 2 (http://www.amazon.com/Messerschmitt-109-Action-Part-Aircraft/dp/0897471385/sr=1-2/qid=1171400346/ref=sr_1_2/002-4145612-2992822?ie=UTF8&s=books)

From the source above is published a picture of one Fw190A-4 at the end of a long line of Messerschmitts.

The caption reads:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Leading the Bf 109G-2 aircraft of JG 2 in his Fw 190A-4, Walter Oesau begins another mission. JG 2, along with JG 26, held the "Channel Front" alone for many months in 1942. Eventually, pressure from USAAF and RAF raids forced the Luftwaffe to bring other units back to help France and Germany. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now; the source may be somewhat inaccurate but the picture does exist.

The source linked (the one with the picture) also states the following report:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The first unit to receive the new machine [Bf 109G-2] was JG 2 Richtofen when Stab and I/JG 2 began to convert from the FW 190A during late April 1942. Walter Oesau, Kommodore of JG 2 again declined to fly the new Messerschmitt design, preferring to retain his FW 190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps the source is wrong and Walter Oesau was just following orders issued by someone behind a desk in Berlin ordering the Fighter Pilot to fly the poor turning Fw190 with the screw in place – or else.

The source is written in English. The pictures are nice. Something may have been lost in the translation.

faustnik
02-13-2007, 02:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
we know that 1.42 was cleared by late '42. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the question is the exact date. The only answer that I can provide is, "I don't know". There is no evidence that use of 2700rpm@1.42ata was ever restricted in the A4 except for break-in. There is no order saying "use of 1.42ata cleared". There have been attempts here to say that full power was not allowed, but, there is no evidence to support that. 2700rpm@1.42ata is the standard full power setting seen in Fw190A tests and on data sheets for the time period that the A4 was in use.

JG14_Josf
02-13-2007, 02:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">someone give me a medal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://usmilitarystuff.com/images/air-force-cross.gif

ploughman
02-13-2007, 02:21 PM
I think Luft pilots not taking a screw driver to their throttles is about as realistic as Spitfire pilots sticking to the 5 minute rule for maximum boost just to keep some bean counter in logistics happy.

Ratsack
02-13-2007, 03:50 PM
Careful, you'll be hauled out of here and shot for suggesting that the Teutons could bring themselves to do unauthorised mods.

Heresy!! Burn him!!!

cheers,
Ratsack

Viper2005_
02-13-2007, 03:54 PM
Stranger things have happened.

The 5 minute rule wasn't just about bean counters. Depending upon the boost, condition and mod state of the engine it could be quite critical. At the end of a 200 hour overhaul life I'd feel very sheepish about pushing too hard on the 5 minute limit. I know of at least one case in which catastrophic (con-rods through the cowling, oil over the windscreen etc.) failure occurred after 9 minutes at +25.

Doubtless not a beautiful thing when chasing a V1 at low(ish) level.

I'm quite satisfied that most 190A4s ran 1.42 ata from (or nearly from) their entry into service.

However, my biggest concern about the 190 is that its prop seems to have an excessively coarse fine pitch stop, such that rpm falls off even with full power below about 260 km/h. This just doesn't seem sensible when compared with the other aeroplanes in the game, and the a/c I've flown IRL.

At present Vy in the 190A is defined by the fact that it's the lowest speed at which full rpm (and thus full power) may be achieved.

I think that this may well have something to do with the claims regarding "undermodelled" sustained turn performance, and I consider it far more important than a few km/h on the deck since as has already been stated the A4 eats the Spitfire V for breakfast anyway, and if you want a real A4 it's simple enough to substitute an A5, the above gripe notwithstanding.

Ratsack
02-13-2007, 04:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
...
However, my biggest concern about the 190 is that its prop seems to have an excessively coarse fine pitch stop, such that rpm falls off even with full power below about 260 km/h. This just doesn't seem sensible when compared with the other aeroplanes in the game, and the a/c I've flown IRL.

At present Vy in the 190A is defined by the fact that it's the lowest speed at which full rpm (and thus full power) may be achieved.

I think that this may well have something to do with the claims regarding "undermodelled" sustained turn performance, and I consider it far more important than a few km/h on the deck since as has already been stated the A4 eats the Spitfire V for breakfast anyway, and if you want a real A4 it's simple enough to substitute an A5, the above gripe notwithstanding. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Viper,

I've clipped your post above to draw attention to this excellent bit of it. I strongly agree! The low speed revs are far too low, and this affects power very directly. Power = torque x revs. It's that simple.

cheers,
Ratsack

IIJG69_Kartofe
02-13-2007, 04:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
With Fw-190s you have to round up one model. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/3162/sigex2.jpg


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

BOOOOOOOOOOOBSSSS !!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif

Hum ... Eeeerh !! Sorry !

I leave!

ploughman
02-13-2007, 04:27 PM
Thanks for the clarification Viper. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MEGILE
02-13-2007, 04:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IIJG69_Kartofe:



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

BOOOOOOOOOOOBSSSS !!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif

Hum ... Eeeerh !! Sorry !

I leave! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's $10

go by yourself a dance

IIJG69_Kartofe
02-13-2007, 04:35 PM
Whoooaa

I'm rich!

All your Boo*** Euuh http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif ... $$$ Belongs to me!

Kettenhunde
02-13-2007, 10:58 PM
Kurfurst,

1. Your document refers to a "Project-Werke" which by June 1942 the FW-190A3 was in full serial production and not a project. One very plausible explanation is that it is simply older information printed on a later dated document. Until the exhaust reroute on the BMW801C1 series the motor was extremely troublesome due to overheating of the bottom rear cylinders. The first BMW801D engines were a BMW801C series motor with a different supercharger gearing ratio.

2. The Power development listed on that document does not match a BMW801D2 according to the September 1941 Einbaumappe which clearly lists 1.42 ata.

The FW190A3 Flugzeug-Handbuch is from October 1942.

The Beanstandungen is from June 1942 and lists the maintenance downtimes for normal and de-rated engines being used in JG26 and JG2. There is an even spread of both types of motors.

Thanks for pointing that out, btw!! It certainly bears closer attention. I will check some other documents and let you know what I have found out.

All the best,

Crumpp

La7_brook
02-14-2007, 12:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Stranger things have happened.

The 5 minute rule wasn't just about bean counters. Depending upon the boost, condition and mod state of the engine it could be quite critical. At the end of a 200 hour overhaul life I'd feel very sheepish about pushing too hard on the 5 minute limit. I know of at least one case in which catastrophic (con-rods through the cowling, oil over the windscreen etc.) failure occurred after 9 minutes at +25.

Doubtless not a beautiful thing when chasing a V1 at low(ish) level.

I'm quite satisfied that most 190A4s ran 1.42 ata from (or nearly from) their entry into service.

However, my biggest concern about the 190 is that its prop seems to have an excessively coarse fine pitch stop, such that rpm falls off even with full power below about 260 km/h. This just doesn't seem sensible when compared with the other aeroplanes in the game, and the a/c I've flown IRL.

At present Vy in the 190A is defined by the fact that it's the lowest speed at which full rpm (and thus full power) may be achieved.

I think that this may well have something to do with the claims regarding "undermodelled" sustained turn performance, and I consider it far more important than a few km/h on the deck since as has already been stated the A4 eats the Spitfire V for breakfast anyway, and if you want a real A4 it's simple enough to substitute an A5, the above gripe notwithstanding. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

La7_brook
02-14-2007, 01:21 AM
its low end power that needs looking at the most in the antons http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Kurfurst__
02-14-2007, 02:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Kurfurst,

1. Your document refers to a "Project-Werke" which by June 1942 the FW-190A3 was in full serial production and not a project. One very plausible explanation is that it is simply older information printed on a later dated document. Until the exhaust reroute on the BMW801C1 series the motor was extremely troublesome due to overheating of the bottom rear cylinders. The first BMW801D engines were a BMW801C series motor with a different supercharger gearing ratio.

2. The Power development listed on that document does not match a BMW801D2 according to the September 1941 Einbaumappe which clearly lists 1.42 ata.

The FW190A3 Flugzeug-Handbuch is from October 1942.

The Beanstandungen is from June 1942 and lists the maintenance downtimes for normal and de-rated engines being used in JG26 and JG2. There is an even spread of both types of motors.

Thanks for pointing that out, btw!! It certainly bears closer attention. I will check some other documents and let you know what I have found out.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thanks, so it appears that 1.42ata was cleared for somewhere around October 1942 for the BMW 801D? ie.

"The FW190A3 Flugzeug-Handbuch is from October 1942. "

This date refers to the Stand or Ausgabe?

JG14_Josf
02-14-2007, 04:10 AM
Communication can be difficult - I suppose.

I read the following, AND, the other communications from Kettenhunde.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Beanstandungen is from June 1942 and lists the maintenance downtimes for normal and de-rated engines being used in JG26 and JG2. There is an even spread of both types of motors. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The following is more of the "banning" mentality:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thanks, so it appears that 1.42ata was cleared for somewhere around October 1942 for the BMW 801D? ie.

"The FW190A3 Flugzeug-Handbuch is from October 1942. "

This date refers to the Stand or Ausgabe? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is funny. When the paper says: "Cleared", then, I suppose the screws were taken out in unison! Sig Heil. What a laugh. I really think that it is surprising that someone can't understand the utter contempt with which soldiers have for falsehood from any quarter let alone from politicians or desk jockeys. On the other hand – mechanics ˜have ways' of speaking without words – and the pilot's certainly listened.

This (http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/dieppe.htm) may shed some light on the actual history involving the early model Fw 190 during the early 'screwed' portion of the power availability (de-rating) period which lasted at least until Norbert Hannig was flying bomber defense missions using 190A-5 training planes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"As we talked, the air almost at cliff-top height over our heads was suddenly full of fighters snarling, screaming and twisting in a dogfight ... I could see the heads of the Germans in their Focke-Wulf 190s, and of the R.A.F. pilots in their Spitfires".[9] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Jagdgeschwader 2
J.G. 2 had begun to re-equip with the FW 190 in March 1942 and by July, the entire Geschwader had recieved the potent radial-engined fighter. Stab J.G. 2 converted in July, I./J.G. 2 in June, II./J.G.2 in March and April, and III./J.G. 2 in May.[2] The Geschwaderkommodore was Walter Oesau, and with over 100 aerial victories to his credit, he was one of the most able pilots on the Channel Front. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">J.G. 26 had been the first German fighter unit to equip with the FW 190, and it achieved a good deal of success with the type. By 28 March 1942, J.G. 26 was entirely equipped with the FW 190, with the exception of 11.(Höhe)/J.G. 26, which like its counterpart in J.G. 2, used Bf 109 G-1s.[4] Major Gerhard Schöpfel led J.G. 26. He had succeeded Adolf Galland, and Schöpfel proved himself to be the equal of his famous predecessor. I </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Dieppe Air Battles
The first Luftwaffe fighters to go into action on the morning of 19 August were those of the duty Schwarm of 5./J.G. 26. Rottenführer of the first pair of FW 190s to take-off from Abbeville-Drucat at 06:15 was Lt. Horst Sternberg, a ten-victory Experte.[6] Another of these four pilots was Ofw. Heinz Bierwirth. At 06:20, 1./J.G. 26 took off from St. Omer-Arques and flew to Dieppe, led by Oblt. Haiböck. The rest of I.Gruppe soon followed, but they did not have any success.[7] It was to be Ofw. Bierwirth who claimed the first Spitfire over Dieppe at 06:43. This was the first of more than 100 Luftwaffe victory claims made during the day.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Despite the inevitable overclaiming, this was a clear victory for the Germans.[15] Dieppe was one of the finest moments in the service career of the Focke-Wulf 190, and the combats of 19 August 1942 represent the climax of the Luftwaffe's dominance on the Channel Front.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

III./JG2 (http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biiijg2.html) in Jun of 1942 lists:
2 Bf 109F-4 aircraft
30 Fw 190A-2 aircraft
2 Fw 190A-3 aircraft

JG-2 fully refitted to the Fw 190 after the only other fully operational Fighter Squadron in the Channel front i.e. JG-26.

Mix a number of Spitfire VB (August 1942) and Spitfire IX (August 1942) against Fw190A-2 and FW190A-3 in a fight at low level snarling and twisting in a dog fight and what happens?

What happens in that DOG FIGHT when the Fw190 fighter/bomber is screwed?

As to ˜over-claiming' there is an interesting book (http://www.amazon.com/Luftwaffe-War-Diaries-German-Force/dp/0306806045) reporting this:

(The following details Black Thursday August 15 1940 and ˜overclaiming')

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What was the balance of success and loss?
On the British side the fighter claims were feverishly calculated, and finally an astonishing figure was published: 182 German aircraft definitely destroyed, and another fifty-three probably.
Against this German war records show a loss of fifty-five, mostly bombers and Me 110s – but even this weighted heavily enough.
On their side the Germans similarly claimed an exaggerated score of British fighters: 111 certainly shot down, with fourteen "questionably". The official Fighter Command count was only thirty-four.
The last figure is of course deceptive. A fighter plane was only deemed to be "lost" if it crashed vertically to the ground or fell into the sea.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Earlier in the year a fight is documented in the book with the following notation:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">All the same, this particular battle was by no means just a "pheasant shoot", as it has hitherto been painted by British historians. According to them not one Spitfire was either lost or damaged. 1

Footnote 1: This is a mystery considering that at least two Spitfires were seen to plunge into the sea.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And these events occurred before the old Squadron leaders like Osterkamp, Handrik, and Mettig were replaced by the new Squadron leaders like Galland, Moelders, and Troutloft.

The source (book linked above) goes on to report:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Churchill, who seemed unconvinced by the high score of victories claimed by Fighter Command, sent a warning letter to the Chief of the Air Staff:
"While our eyes are concentrated on the results of the air fighting over this country, we must not overlook the serious losses..."&lt;snip&gt;
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is a good book and I have yet to read up to the Dieppe dog fight between screwed Fw 190A-2s and 3s against the Spitfire VB (Aug 1942)s and Spitfire IX (Aug 1942)s.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Beanstandungen is from June 1942 and lists the maintenance downtimes for normal and de-rated engines being used in JG26 and JG2. There is an even spread of both types of motors. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder if little brother Galland got one of the screwed engines.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thanks, so it appears that 1.42ata was cleared for somewhere around October 1942 for the BMW 801D? ie.

"The FW190A3 Flugzeug-Handbuch is from October 1942. "

This date refers to the Stand or Ausgabe? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder if Walter Oesau (http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/dieppeoob.htm), Erich Rudorffer, and Hans Hahn ˜followed orders' and kept the screw in place at Dieppe.

Perhaps they didn't need the extra 10% of engine power in a low altitude dog fight with Spitfires in August of 1942 while piloting their screwed Fw190A-2s and Fw190a-3s.

WWMaxGunz
02-14-2007, 05:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
I really think that it is surprising that someone can't understand the utter contempt with which soldiers have for falsehood from any quarter let alone from politicians or desk jockeys. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you had any real idea how much BS goes on in every military organization then you might
get a clue about that 'utter contempt'.

WWMaxGunz
02-14-2007, 05:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by La7_brook:
its low end power that needs looking at the most in the antons http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try reducing power a bit until the plane really gets moving. If the prop spins too fast then
the pitch of the blades is coarsened you know? Put enough power behind them and they will
spin fast even while being stalled. Until the plane is moving fast enough that there is not
enough excess power for this to happen it would be best to not apply full power. You would
accelerate faster at less power, increasing it with speed increase of the plane.

Kettenhunde
02-14-2007, 06:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thanks, so it appears that 1.42ata was cleared for somewhere around October 1942 for the BMW 801D? ie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfurst,

You can say that in October 1942 1.42ata was in use in Luftwaffe service aircraft.

Again I have seen no evidence for a blanket de-rating of the BMW801D2 in Luftwaffe service. IIRC Production began in May 1942 on the type with around 4-5 FW190A2's converted in April 1942 as pre-production aircraft with BMW801D series motors. I believe these were sent to II/JG26 for pre-production trials.

By June 1942 Most of the Geschwaders were still flying FW190A2's with only a handful of FW190A3's delivered to the Luftwaffe. Sources vary but we are talking about less than 20 airframes!

The Beanstandungen is from June 1942 and clearly shows normal motors operating alongside "de-rated" ones. So even very early in the production cycle the Luftwaffe was using normal motors in service. The report is simply the maintenance status of BMW801 motors.

IMHO it very well could have been a fuel issue. If the knock limiting properties of C3 were barely adequate then depending on the quality control of the individual production motors we would see a random number of motors effected.

However the report does not say anything about being the solution to any engine difficulties and restricts itself to simply discussing improvements of the fuel. It very well could be the normal progression of the fuel technology.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This date refers to the Stand or Ausgabe? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is the stand date and represent conditions in service as of October 1942.

All the best,

Crumpp

CMHQ_Rikimaru
02-14-2007, 07:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by La7_brook:
its low end power that needs looking at the most in the antons http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try reducing power a bit until the plane really gets moving. If the prop spins too fast then
the pitch of the blades is coarsened you know? Put enough power behind them and they will
spin fast even while being stalled. Until the plane is moving fast enough that there is not
enough excess power for this to happen it would be best to not apply full power. You would
accelerate faster at less power, increasing it with speed increase of the plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont really get it. What does it mean, IN PRACTICE, in combat?
I dont know if i understood La7_brook right, he meant power of FW190 during speed under 300km/h, when RPMs are going low?
Also, did u guys also saw, that while maneuvering hard, RPM lowers to 2500-2600RPMhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

JG14_Josf
02-14-2007, 07:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you had any real idea how much BS goes on in every military organization then you might
get a clue about that 'utter contempt'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Max,

What is your point?

I did not serve in the military. My father, who served in Korea, did and he repeated often that 'joining' was a bad idea – in so many words that were spoken to me and not you.

My Uncle also served in the Military, in Korea, and he went to the front; my Dad was in the motor pool.

One of my best friends served in WWII – he is dead. He went on that march in the Philippines. If you have some wisdom to pass onto me; then pass it on.

What is your point?

Are you suggesting by ˜innuendo' that the screw was ˜banned' and therefore no Fw190A series fighter planes flew until the banishment was un-banned?

What is your point?

Are you getting yourself dirty for the good cause of saving your flock from my fabrications of utter stupidity – again?

WTG!

&lt;S&gt;

Keep up the good work and all that...

SNAFU