FW190 D9 difference between early and late model

[kramer]

On 8/13/2018 at 5:37 PM, RoflSeal said:

Initially Jumo 213A had a WEP setting of  1,750 PS (1.5ata) and a combat of 1,620 PS (1.4 ata) . In September 1944, 1,900 (1.7 ata) PS was cleared for WEP and 1.5 ata became the 30 minute combat setting with 1.4 ata become maximum continuous. In Nov/Dec, MW50 kits were produced and fitted to increase power to 2,100 (1.8 ata) PS.

 

Does it mean D9s with MW50 had 1900PS with MW50 disengaged or they were restricted to 1750PS with disengaged MW50?

[sevenless]

2 minutes ago, kramer said:

 

Does it mean D9s with MW50 had 1900PS with MW50 disengaged or they were restricted to 1750PS with disengaged MW50?

The first D9s were restricted to 1750PS in boost mode for the first operational month (Oktober 1944), after that and completion of the field modification end Oktober/early November all D9s had 1900PS in boost mode. From December 44 on the standard production run was with MW50 and with this engaged the D9 developed 2100PS. In case of usage of C3 fuel and MW50 the D9s were able to develop 2240PS, however this C3 usage appears to be debatable.

[kramer]

So the 1900PS was used just by the throttle lever, not as some additional lever like "erhöhte notleistung" lever in A8?

It means December 44 D9s had 1900PS without MW50 and 2100PS with MW50, i'm right?

[Bremspropeller]

I think you two are not talking about the same issue here... ^^

 

[sevenless]

13 minutes ago, kramer said:

So the 1900PS was used just by the throttle lever, not as some additional lever like "erhöhte notleistung" lever in A8?

It means December 44 D9s had 1900PS without MW50 and 2100PS with MW50, i'm right?

 

I just reread that part in Rodeike (see attached). As far as I understand from the description: Lever full throttle means 1750PS, pushing the boost button in machines with EN means 1900PS and pushing the boost button in machines with MW50 means 2100PS.

 

Edited August 15, 2018 by sevenless

[kramer]

Ok now i understand. So 1750PS without boost and 1900PS or 2100PS with Boost/MW50.

Thanks.

[CUJO_1970]

Hay guys!

 

Just wondering if there are any other threads about the FW-190, so I can learn more about Spitfires with +25lbs boost?

 

TIA!

 

 

[JV69badatflyski]

15years after, still same humor ?
 

Anyway, i'd like to see something close to that in il2:
especially the DM...?

 

Edited August 15, 2018 by JV69badatflyski

[Asgar]

especially DM? wtf. the DCS DM is absolute crap compared to what IL-2 does. 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Agreed, the actual DM is pretty good but the visual (read decals) need improving. Specifically, some exposed metal, rolled/deformed entry points, paint chipping and better lighting inside gaping holes in wings. The internal structure is actually in there but the visual representation/lighting is so dark it is often impossible to see. So, I can understand why Bada has the view that DCS is representing damage better.

Edited August 15, 2018 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[dkoor]

On 8/14/2018 at 3:20 PM, Voidhunger said:

How much good/bad turning radius dora had. In comparison to A8?

 

On 8/14/2018 at 3:55 PM, Voidhunger said:

Thanks. Im curious how she will perform in Bobp.

In all honesty, FW-190D9 felt like FW-190A8 on steroids in IL-2 1946. You really could feel more power that airplane produces, especially in fight.

It is just much better plane all around. FW-190A8 was good for what it should be doing and that is attack on enemy bombers and JABO action.

Anton 8 wasn't good plane for air to air action because I believe that practically all American and English fighters outclassed it. Soviets too, for the most part.

 

On the other hand, FW-190D9 was a fighter that any Luftwaffe-opposing airforce at the time should be feared of... it is just all around good fighter without a weak spot.

At medium altitudes (probably the most interesting for gaining true air superiority in game) I believe that it could just be the best team plane in BoBP, but that remains to be seen... there will be a lot of excellent fighter planes namely Tempest and P-51D which will fight hard for that team no.1 spot.

Edited August 15, 2018 by dkoor

[JV69badatflyski]

12 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Asgar said:

especially DM? wtf. the DCS DM is absolute crap compared to what IL-2 does. 

???
 what you can see in this vid:
Electric failure modelled on different systems
separate flaps dammage modelled (electric or mechanical failure)
1 hit doesn't make it loose 50km/h
Engine can endure some 303 punishement
Engine can sustain high rev/boost without blowing up after 181sec....
No PK like in il2 when canopy shoot...

DCsS has modelled  almost all airplane's systems, each having it's own DM.
if you shoot the wing but the bullet doesn't hit any other part/comp, it's just a hole, not a blown wing like in BoX.
DCS hit-boxes are sized like the different parts in each aircraft's systems, there is no global DM box like in BoX....

Can't see how you can say il2 is better than DCS, even CloDo has better DM than BoX.
If i had to create a new flight sim, i would go the same way as dcs, a lot of more work for the 3d guys and the programmer but gives results lot more realistic.

Herrmurf...And i wasn't even talking about the visual aspect...just the "technical" one....
 

[DD_Arthur]

2 hours ago, JV69badatflyski said:

yada, yada....DCS....yada, yada....

 

HUGE yawn.............

[MiloMorai]

Guess the Spit didn't hit with any 20mm.

[69th_chuter]

On 8/14/2018 at 8:39 AM, Bremspropeller said:

One could also argue that a difference was the different canopy. But that just comes down to parts availability, as it's just a different canopy-assembly.

 

The earlier one is just the standard post A-4 canopy/ body-armor.

The later one has improved head-protection in case of a turnover and is slightly bulged outwards (I have in the meanwhile been able to see a picture that shows the slight outward bulge of the "blown" caopy - it's minimal, not more than 1-2cm at most).

 

 

The late flat style canopy (190.1022) and the bulged canopy (190.1025) are actually the same except for the plastic (obviously, it's to improve rear vision), the armor plate (the bulged canopy one having lower "shoulders" to improve rear vision and, due to this improved rear vision there is a sheetmetal glare shield over the armor support rod.  This canopy was originally concieved of for the ground attack guys but its usefulness in aerial combat was obvious.  There never was an over turn structure on the 190 family aircraft.

[Legioneod]

4 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

HUGE yawn.............

Well I do agree with him that the hit boxes in DCS are better than Il2 maybe not the damage model overall though. In DCS the hitboxes for multiple components are modeled but in Il2 it's mostly just big sections of hitboxes from what I understand. 

 

From what I understand, in Il2 it's all RNG on what gets damaged due to the large hitboxes. What Il2 really needs is hitboxes for the components themselves, separate hitboxes for the wings, ailerons, elevator, rudder, engine, fuel tank, etc. this would give a much more accurate damage model imo and would make things more realistic instead of just relying on rng.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Legioneod

[7.GShAP/Silas]

26 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Well I do agree with him that the hit boxes in DCS are better than Il2 maybe not the damage model overall though. In DCS the hitboxes for multiple components are modeled but in Il2 it's mostly just big sections of hitboxes from what I understand. 

 

From what I understand, in Il2 it's all RNG on what gets damaged due to the large hitboxes. What Il2 really needs is hitboxes for the components themselves, separate hitboxes for the wings, ailerons, elevator, rudder, engine, fuel tank, etc. this would give a much more accurate damage model imo and would make things more realistic instead of just relying on rng.

 

 

What?  There are separate hitboxes, damage can be localized to only those components that you hit, or none if you miss.  You can lob a bullet into someone's open cockpit and kill them, you can damage someone's gear while it's retracted only for it to fall out once the gear is lowered, or for it to fail on landing.  You can cause a crack to develop in different parts of wings, tails or control surfaces that will worsen with further strain and potentially snap. 

 

It all depends on what EXACTLY you hit and how hard.

Edited August 16, 2018 by 7.GShAP/Silas

[Bremspropeller]

5 hours ago, chuter said:

There never was an over turn structure on the 190 family aircraft.

 

I didn't say "overturn structure" - I said "offered a better rotection in case of a turn-over". I think I read that in Herrmann's book on the F and G, but I'll have to look it up.

Do you possibly have any more information about the two canopy-assemblies (eg. drawings)?

[EAF19_Marsh]

On 8/15/2018 at 10:12 AM, LukeFF said:

So, you're either faced with not modeling that stuff at all (and never hear the end of it from German fans) or model it and let people decide what they want on their server. And, that's the way it should be. Arbitrarily not deciding to model something because it doesn't reach some "percent of the overall force" threshold doesn't really solve anything in a satisfactory way. 

 

Oh, it's a tricky one for sure. The issue is return on investment / opportunity cost and - as this thread has seen - the concern about balance. But how DO you decide to model something - plenty of appetite for Ta-15s around here so why not those? There has to be a metric somewhere...

 

Quote

Ah, more wishful speculation in the Dora thread about Wishfires and Octane Fantasies. Just what the thread needs. And its sad.

 

Welcome back, how was your holiday? Any other documents about 1.98ata or just the same single one from DB which you correctly identified meant a few a/c in Dec, withdrawal in the New Year and potential use again in March? ?

[dkoor]

15 hours ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

You can cause a crack to develop in different parts of wings, tails or control surfaces that will worsen with further strain and potentially snap. 

 

It all depends on what EXACTLY you hit and how hard.

I was flying in Bf-109E yesterday and got overzealous, fixating on some cannon on ground too much to recover successfully from a dive... and so I hit a tree with my wing, it was a big hit, I guess I just grazed it, but I actually felt aircraft swaying to the right and immediately recovering... when i reached some 200-300m altitude and made a gentle turn it was all ok, but when I pulled the stick a bit hard to correct heading on target my wing snapped and I spiralled down to Earth and crashed.

It was one of those jawdropping BoX moments. Conclusion is, that not all collisions with ground objects will make you destroy/lose part 100% immediately...

Edited August 16, 2018 by dkoor

[EAF19_Marsh]

You can see your wing bending slightly, I think, indicating that you are about to be in serious trouble.

 

Knocke talks about flying gingerly during a second sortie on 17th August because he knew hus wing had been hit and wanted to avoid stressing it. Seems like a great way to model this given current computer limitations.

[7.GShAP/Silas]

1 hour ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

You can see your wing bending slightly, I think, indicating that you are about to be in serious trouble.

 

 

Yes, there's a great video someone on the forums took of an ever-expanding crack in their left wing that eventually starts to bend much too far under strain and then snap.  I've seen it myself many times.

[LukeFF]

12 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Oh, it's a tricky one for sure. The issue is return on investment / opportunity cost and - as this thread has seen - the concern about balance. But how DO you decide to model something - plenty of appetite for Ta-15s around here so why not those? There has to be a metric somewhere...

 

Why does balance even need to be an issue? Pardon the cliche, but this isn't War Thunder.  

 

There's a couple simple metrics that can be and by all accounts are being applied:

• What's the timeframe being simulated?
• What the geographical area being simulated?

Both of those questions have already been answered: Northwest Europe, September 1944 - March 1945. From there it's a relatively simple task to determine what was in service at that time. Really, isn't that hard.  

[JonRedcorn]

57 minutes ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

 

Yes, there's a great video someone on the forums took of an ever-expanding crack in their left wing that eventually starts to bend much too far under strain and then snap.  I've seen it myself many times.

Let me know if you find that video, I have done this myself, actually had my yaks wing 85% broken off and you could see the wood splinter yet it was still hanging on for dear life. It's so awesome. Would love to see the video though.

19 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Well I do agree with him that the hit boxes in DCS are better than Il2 maybe not the damage model overall though. In DCS the hitboxes for multiple components are modeled but in Il2 it's mostly just big sections of hitboxes from what I understand. 

 

From what I understand, in Il2 it's all RNG on what gets damaged due to the large hitboxes. What Il2 really needs is hitboxes for the components themselves, separate hitboxes for the wings, ailerons, elevator, rudder, engine, fuel tank, etc. this would give a much more accurate damage model imo and would make things more realistic instead of just relying on rng.

This is completely false. The hitboxes are all individual and pertain to the certain structures on the aircraft, don't believe me? Take up a early 109 with the small machine guns, pit yourself against a lagg or something else easy to beat, and litter it with machine gun fire, where your rounds hit the damage behaves accordingly, not sure where you got this information from but it's just completely incorrect. Maybe you are thinking of warthunder? Because that's exactly how that game deals with damage.

[BraveSirRobin]

40 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Why does balance even need to be an issue? Pardon the cliche, but this isn't War Thunder.  

 

 

This^^^^

 

We currently have plenty of people online flying 109s despite the fact that Yaks can outclimb them, outdive them, out turn them, outshoot them, and I’m pretty sure are faster than them at all altitudes (according to them).  Being in an inferior aircraft has not stopped anyone from flying 109s.

[Cybermat47]

5 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Being in an inferior aircraft has not stopped anyone from flying 109s.

 

Probably because it’s not an inferior aircraft, and Luftwhiners just don’t know how to fly it properly.

[BraveSirRobin]

1 minute ago, PB_Cybermat47 said:

 

Probably because it’s not an inferior aircraft, and Luftwhiners just don’t know how to fly it properly.

 

Thanks for that insight, Captain Obvious!

[JonRedcorn]

1 minute ago, PB_Cybermat47 said:

 

Probably because it’s not an inferior aircraft, and Luftwhiners just don’t know how to fly it properly.

That was the joke. ?

[Cybermat47]

Ah, there goes my Asperger’s again 

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

I really hope D9 rocks because A8 is a flying brick 

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, 15th_JonRedcorn said:

This is completely false. The hitboxes are all individual and pertain to the certain structures on the aircraft, don't believe me? Take up a early 109 with the small machine guns, pit yourself against a lagg or something else easy to beat, and litter it with machine gun fire, where your rounds hit the damage behaves accordingly, not sure where you got this information from but it's just completely incorrect. Maybe you are thinking of warthunder? Because that's exactly how that game deals with damage.

Thanks for the clarification but I was always told that they don't model all the hitboxes, they model the control surfaces, wings, etc but they don't have actual hitboxes for things like the control rods, etc. I was told for instance, that if it hits the tail or elevator it just rng to see what exactly gets damaged, whether it be the control rod or a mix of things.

 

DCS damage model is currently like the one on the right, I'm under the impression that IL2 is the same way. I was just saying that if they modeled the DM like the image on the left then it would be a much more accurate DM and represent the damage done much better.

[69th_chuter]

16 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

I didn't say "overturn structure" - I said "offered a better rotection in case of a turn-over". I think I read that in Herrmann's book on the F and G, but I'll have to look it up.

Do you possibly have any more information about the two canopy-assemblies (eg. drawings)?

 

 

Actually, I should have paper photos somewhere that I took in the '90s ... but I'm not sure where they are at the moment, I'm transferring them to digital.  If I run across something here I will post.

1 hour ago, PB_Cybermat47 said:

Ah, there goes my Asperger’s again 

 

Hey there, fellow Aspie! 

 

?

[7.GShAP/Silas]

4 hours ago, 15th_JonRedcorn said:

Let me know if you find that video, I have done this myself, actually had my yaks wing 85% broken off and you could see the wood splinter yet it was still hanging on for dear life. It's so awesome. Would love to see the video though.

 

Found it!

 

 

[303_Bies]

6 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Gielow said:

I really hope D9 rocks because A8 is a flying brick 

I also though so, but after some practice it is not bad, it has somewhat worse handling than A3/A5, but at alt higher then ~2600m when your second gear kicks in you have plenty of power and you can go full 1.65 ata for about 10 minutes. And stronger armament.

You just have to remember to take far less fuel because A8 has more tanks, if you took i.e. 300-400L with A3/A5 - take 300-400L in A8 also. (it will be even more pronounced with US birds)

Upgunned and uparmored variants are pigs but they didn't mean to be nimble.

By far the biggest drawback of A8 is overheating. IDK why but having the same engine you are overheating a lot faster with the same regimes than A5 is. A8 has about 10° celsius more than A5 in every identical situation.

Edited August 17, 2018 by bies

[JV69badatflyski]

6 hours ago, Legioneod said:

DCS damage model is currently like the one on the right, I'm under the impression that IL2 is the same way. I was just saying that if they modeled the DM like the image on the left then it would be a much more accurate DM and represent the damage done much better.

Looks like the new DM is implemented in dcs...?

[Asgar]

looks like you didn't read what he posted ? 

[Legioneod]

5 minutes ago, JV69badatflyski said:

Looks like the new DM is implemented in dcs...?

Not sure what you mean, as far as I know they are still working on it. It's still the old DM like the pic on the right.

[Asgar]

yes they are. the mentioned the new DM once after Normandy release and then dropped it cause nobody buys their WW2 crap stuff. it's too overpriced for what it is really. i rather get one BoX than the Normandy map + assets. With the same level of detail in flight physics and much more fidelity in combat and scenarios. DCS is for studying, IL-2 is for having combat in a simulated war enviroment.

 

1 hour ago, bies said:

I also though so, but after some practice it is not bad, it has somewhat worse handling than A3/A5, but at alt higher then ~2600m when your second gear kicks in you have plenty of power and you can go full 1.65 ata for about 10 minutes. And stronger armament.

You just have to remember to take far less fuel because A8 has more tanks, if you took i.e. 300-400L with A3/A5 - take 300-400L in A8 also. (it will be even more pronounced with US birds)

Upgunned and uparmored variants are pigs but they didn't mean to be nimble.

By far the biggest drawback of A8 is overheating. IDK why but having the same engine you are overheating a lot faster with the same regimes than A5 is. A8 has about 10° celsius more than A5 in every identical situation.

it might need to be corrected but i'm not sure, because you seem to be missing one thing, yes, it is the same engine, but it was completely moved forward in the airframe and the aircraft is longer. which could potentially have a big impact on the airflow and as such the cooling of the engine, I'm not sure if anything changed in that regard but i would be suprised if there wasn't a reason for the difference in the A5 and the A8 in game in that regard

Edited August 17, 2018 by 6./ZG26_Asgar

[303_Bies]

18 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Asgar said:

I'm not sure if anything changed in that regard but i would be suprised if there wasn't a reason for the difference in the A5 and the A8 in game in that regard

Yes, it is a big difference.

BTW. I thought A5 had longer nose and changed CoG in compare with A3.

I think A5 and A8 have the same lenght.

Maybe with A8 the devs implemented just different heat system and didn't have a time to implement it to older planes?

Edited August 17, 2018 by bies

[Asgar]

1 minute ago, bies said:

Yes, it is a big difference.

BTW. I thought A5 had longer nose and changed CoG in compare with A3.

I think A5 and A8 have the same lenght.

Maybe with A8 the devs implemented just different heat system and didn't have a time to implement it to older planes?

i might be remembering wrong but i think with the change in position of the ETC the also moved the engine somewhat. but it's been a while that i did the in depth reading