Jump to content

FW-190 A-8 (SNCAC NC.900)


ElBarca
 Share

Technical description
 
Engine: BMW 801D
Power: 1520 bhp at SL, 1800 bhp on WEP (1.65 ata)

 

Is this a typo? Power out-put at 1,58 ata was 2000HP (SL). Also seems that in-game it has the correct power out-put.

 

Also, it never overheats at 1,42 ata. It even cools down. But the A-5, with the same engine and cooling system overheats at the same engine setting.

  • Upvote 9
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, why does the A-8 have the EXACT same maximum level speed stats as the F-8? I thought the engine on the F-8 was specifically tuned for low altitude performance...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

climbing 5000m in 7.2 minute? too damn low.

this is without WEP, since it is nominal power, it will probably climb to 5k in around 6 mins with wep.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this plane severely under performing currently. 

 

Explains, please.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Explains, please.

well one obvious issue is the fact that it doesn't dive well. Considering it's much heavier than a A5 it should dive faster than it, but it doesn't. I don't have time to go into details right now but it obviously doesn't have correct FM currently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Developer

I'm sorry but we won't take that seriously, unless you can provide some proofs, at least video with full controls enabled and exact measurements. Don't forget to use radiator in equal positions

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but we won't take that seriously, unless you can provide some proofs, at least video with full controls enabled and exact measurements. Don't forget to use radiator in equivalent settings

I'm not very good at that stuff but I'm sure someone can easily show you the information you're looking for. I'm just speaking from a logical stand point. A8 was more armored than A5, had more guns so thus it was heavier. A plane with more weight should gain acceleration in a dive faster. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Developer

well... you do not give any proofs to back up you saying that A8 underperforms

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not very good at that stuff but I'm sure someone can easily show you the information you're looking for. I'm just speaking from a logical stand point. A8 was more armored than A5, had more guns so thus it was heavier. A plane with more weight should gain acceleration in a dive faster. 

 

Your downwards acceleration is

(Thrust - Drag + Mass * g) / Mass

 

It is visible from above that adding more armour only really helps you where Drag > Thrust, and this will only happen above your maximum speed (where Thrust = Drag) where more mass will make plane accelerate better. Below that, more mass will make it accelerate worse.

 

In a dive with 0 throttle, then yes, more mass makes you accelerate better.

Edited by Cpt_Branko
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this plane was as u made him soo why u put it on BR 5.3? cant even reach 500 kph flying at low altitude... If i dont use wep i will crash on Berlin... very good...

  • Upvote 3
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I did a little junky testrun on the overheating of the A8.

Speed was TAS

 

Simplified controlls, full fuel load, RB.

 

I did a simple climb test (go to around 6000 meters, level out and keep wep up). Speed was above 280.

 

 

The engine went into the damage countdown at around the 6 minute mark. I continued to wep until the counter ran out and then reduced throttle to around 85% (so only 8 minutes of wep used). After the countdown finished it took roughly to the 10 minute mark until my engine died as the airflow was incapable of rapidly cooling the engine. (not to mention that any kind of engine damage means the temerpature must be even lower so that it does not continue to take damage)

 

So it is possible to wep for ten minutes like the manual states. It´s just that then your engine is dead which makes no sense whatsoever considering that the manual states that you can WEP for 10 minutes and doesn´t even say that you need to cool down after that.

 

http://www.simcentrum.com/uploads/Manual-FW190a8.pdf

 

As such, even though this was no perfect sim test it can be safely assumed that the overheating (and potentially cooling) mechanics on the 190 A8 are broken and severely underperforming.

 

Now you might go and argue that I didn´t use full real controlls and didn´t do this in SB. I´ll simply point out that if you only test it in SB and then suddenly get feedback of things being completely broken in different gamemodes that you´re only doing a third of the actual job that you should be, probably less considering that you don´t bother to test all the other controll methods while at it.

  • Upvote 4
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the point of testing on SB settings if there isnt too many people plaing there... Most important should be auto cotrol of engine settings on RB to use its bests performance. Soo that test is more important than manual control test.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Developer
Tests in full control simply allow you to rule out issues, that are connected with control type (in case they are present)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi, i have a question...

 

In SB, this plane is completely useless atm, so why we don't have the possibility to equip the R2 kit (Fw 190A-8/R2) ?

 

U know, the replacement of the two outboard MG 151/20 by 2 MK 108 with 55 rpg.

 

With this kit, this plane could finally be very useful (pur anti-bombers role) !

 

Maybe i should make a suggestion ?

Edited by Ze_Hairy
  • Upvote 4
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit of an old thread, Ze_Hairy. Generally speaking the Mk108s were standard from mid-1943-onwards. The earlier models had the MG151/20 because it was operational before Mk108s were ready for widespread integration.

 

Speaking from personal taste and other WW2 games, the Mk108s aren't only for bomber hunting. They work rather splendidly on fighters and the like, too! You just have to be careful how you aim.

 

Not sure if GJ wants to do that though. They tend to spread a single variant out and give different BRs to different weapons loadouts. I would hope SOME version has the Mk108s, but I haven't unlocked that far on the Germany tree.

  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, why does the A-8 have the EXACT same maximum level speed stats as the F-8? I thought the engine on the F-8 was specifically tuned for low altitude performance...

 

I know it's an old thread, but generally speaking: nope! The F-8 had the same engine as the A-8. The differences lied in extra armor plating around the oil cooler ring and plating the belly of the plane to protect against ground fire. The weight was increased, being the heaviest of of the radial-powered Fw's, but the drag and thrust and lift were identical to the A-8 of the same configuration.

 

You may be thinking of some of the setups used on earlier models, such as A-5s (possibly considered F-3s depending on the bomb racks carried) where they used C3 direct injection below certain altitudes to increase performance on their channel raids. Those setups didn't last to the -8 variants in the lineup.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Is this a typo? Power out-put at 1,58 ata was 2000HP (SL). Also seems that in-game it has the correct power out-put.

 

 

Considering this plane is tiered so high i really don't understand why they removed its C3 fuel performance and reverted to a "bog standard" 1800hp setup when most of the planes its tiered alongside usually have maximum possible boost levels like the Spitfire LF MK IX or La7-B20.

 

Sorry if this belongs more in the "Suggestions" forum but i find the A8s current treatment discouraging to say the least. 

Edited by Ottobon
  • Upvote 7
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering this plane is tiered so high i really don't understand why they removed its C3 fuel performance and reverted to a "bog standard" 1800hp setup when most of the planes its tiered alongside usually have maximum possible boost levels like the Spitfire LF MK IX or La7-B20.

 

Sorry if this belongs more in the "Suggestions" forum but i find the A8s current treatment discouraging to say the least. 

yes i hope it gets this performance plus the 2 mk 108 mod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Is it planed to allow us to remove certain parts of the plane?

Removing the 13mm guns and ammo would save about 50kg. Removing some parts of the armor would make it even lighter.


Would be 100% historical accurate (TM)
  • Upvote 3
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technical description
 
Engine: BMW 801D
Power: 1520 bhp at SL, 1800 bhp on WEP (1.65 ata)
Propeller: 3-blade VDM-9-12176А (variable pitch)ç

 

 

Er...no. The BMW801D2 delivered 1775hp with 1.42 ata @ 2700rpm. There's no way an increase of manifold pressure like the one the special emergency power enabled on them gave them only 25 extra horsepower.

 

The listing is also wrong by default. Lists power at sea level, but under brackets it says 1.65ata. The BMW801D2 at low altitudes used 1.58ata. 1.65ata was the top manifold pressure for the 2nd blower of the supercharger, it was not used at sea level.

 

This are the power curves of a BMW801D2 with power settings up to 1.42 ata and 2700rpm:

 

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/album/showfull.php?photo=20310

 

1775hp@SL

 

Please give me some hindsight and illustrate how a plane that drastically raised the manifold pressure in the engine gave almost no increase in hp whatsoever.

 

Erhöhte notleistung in the BMW801D2 provided for a similar extra boost as that enjoyed by the later Jumo213A in the Fw190D9 (pre-MW50 introduction). 1900hp@Sea level.

 

This picture (illustrating the results of the test of the new emergency settings on an otherwise unmodified BMW801D2 Fw190A5) it's probably the source of your wrong data, and obviously hints that "something" is wrong in your numbers:

 

190a5chart-26nov43.jpg

 

Power figures speak of 1890Ps@SL. However, one must be reminded that -this- graphic is -NOT- of the emergency system in the Fw190A8. It's a set of data collected from the first test run of said system, in a different airframe and an earlier engine. And the tests ended in a fail, as the engine couldn't produce the extra power, and the parts couldn't take it either.

 

And as a result this data chart is totally meaningless if you're trying to model a FW190A8. Some more in-detail reasons as for why:

 

1- Those graphs come from a 1943 test on a FW190A5 airframe, and were conducted to investigate the viability of a more powerful emergency setting for the BMW801D. In short, those are tests of a system far from maturity in several levels conducted on an engine that wasn't designed neither to produce that kind of power, not to handle with the consequences. That's, by definition not representative of the system that was integrated in the Fw190A8 one year later, as the engine itself was different (labelled still as a D2 there were some extremely drastic changes between a February 1943 BMW801D2 and a Februarly 1944 BMW801D2).

 

2- The power setting was instantly discarded as the engine on the tests which resulted in the charts avobe posted was reduced to scrap metal after the runs. The crankshaft had developed cracks, the plugs were wasted, the whole engine was a mess and not even worth an overhaul. The BMW801 design needed a whole rehaul and a set of new parts in order to make the emergency power setting viable and available (new fuel pumps, stronger materials and cylinder walls, different sparkplugs, stronger crankshaft, different plug ignition times,  and a LONG etcetera) for the Fw190A8 one year after this test was conducted, both to make the engine survive an overboost without being reduced to scrap metal, and to improve the power outputs of the system itself

 

3-one of the reasons the BMW801D couldn't take this system in the dates of this test (1943) was because the fuel pumps that were designed to provide for a top boost of 1.42 ata couldn't keep up with the extra fuel demand required by the 1.60 ata setting, ending up in too lean mixtures (running lean hurts top power, just for those who don't know. And probably might even cause some knocking) Said in easy to understand words: The top power setting of that chart isn't the top power of a Fw190A8 using that power setting.

 

 

There's enough anechdotal evidence to place the BMW801D2 with the 1.58 ata emergency system in the 2000ps power range, from the initial 1800ps range of the 1.42ata setting. That's a jump in power which pretty much makes sense from a 10% increase of the manifold pressure. Not only that, reported speed increases when using the system coincide with the expected performance of a Fw190A airframe with powers in that range. Sadly, I can't produce any charts that specifically list that power output, for, as far as I know, and up to which my knowledge reaches, those charts do not exist. I can however produce documents that testament the increase of performance it caused, like this one:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/td284.pdf

Which speaks of 22kph surge in top speed at sea level. Let me be frank, you don't get a plane to hit 578kph from a top speed of 565kph out of extra 25hp.

 

Also incidentally, that report means that your top speed for the FW190A8 in the game is WRONG by around 15kph at sea level.

 

 

What's meaningless is that in a "data sheet" thread in a flight model section of a forum of a game about WW2 planes you list an aircraft that gained 22kph at sea level out of a system that was cleared for a 10% increase in manifold pressure...yet produced roughly the same power as the same engine without the usage of said power output. Then again, the top speed you list for that aircraft is not any faster than the one of the Fw190A5, which pretty much remarks how wrong your model is, and makes my point:

 

 

If you've really modelled the Fw190A8 according to the data posted in the opening post, then  the Fw190A8 in the game, in short, is not a realistic, accurate, representation of the historical Fw190A8. Its a Fw190A5 laden with extra 200kg and almost no extra power,no gain of low-altitude speed, and totally unrepresentative of the real aircraft.

 

 

You've included a model in the game that's something...but certainly whatever it is, it's not a Fw190A8.

Edited by RAMJB
  • Upvote 37

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...