Jump to content

FW 190A-8 vs FW 190A-3


Recommended Posts

It is my understanding that 190A8 (normal fighter conf, C3 injection I assume for boost) should outaccelerate the A3 at any speed above 300 kph, but in all the tests I've done the A3 outaccelerates the A8 quite easily at any height starting from 300 kph up to 530 kph where both planes are more or less even. It looks like only above 530 kph the A8 starts pushing away slowly at 500m. Does this make any sense?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the A-3 is a good deal lighter and has slightly less drag, for starters. It's certainly not out of this world to assume the A-3 performs slightly better where it doesn't run into the drag-wall at the upper end of the spectrum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Related - I would like some info on flying the A8.  Is the boost tied to the throttle or is it a separate control?  If it's a separate control, did you use that in your tests?

 

TBH I don't know nearly enough about aerodynamics to tell you exactly how the comparison between a heavier, more powerful plane and a lighter, less powerful plane should play out.  Lots of variables.  I would imagine that the lighter plane would have better initial acceleration assuming no boost but the heavier plane might have better top speed in perfectly level flight.  Add a slight dive to the mix and that would hep the heavier plane.  Add a slight incline and it helps the lighter plane, at least in the initial stages.  Then boost changes the equation again.  

 

@Bremspropeller mentioned drag.  I thought the A8 was draggier than the A3.  To the extent that is true it would give the A3 another advantage in the early stages of the test.

 

What you saw makes sense but if you saw the reverse that might also make sense, especially if your test was not perfectly controlled, which is pretty hard to do.  As long as the results were not obviously wrong then I suppose it's all good (or all good enough).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, A8 has a separate control for the special boost. But this could be a different topic as there are documents describing the A8 in fighter configuration without C3 injection (nor MW50 Rz) reaching the same ATA than A8 in jabo configuration with C3 injection boost. But yes, all my tests were done with max emergency power + boost activated reaching 1.49 ATA 2700 rpm at 500m for the A8 and 190A-3 reaching 1.4 ATA 2700 rpm, and both loading the same fuel. This is a quite simple test you can do with a quick mission where you pursue the A3 or you scape from the A3, you will have the perception that you are simply floating still in the air while the A3 approaches.

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Yogiflight said:

Definitely not an expert, but didn't the A8 have a different propeller, which might have been optimized for higher speeds and therefore might give worse acceleration?

I think there were several propellers, no idea which one is modeled here. But even if this were related, I would never expect a so notable outacceleration until just close to the top speed of the A3, and it is then where the A8 keeps pushing a bit ahead and the A3 stops accelerating all of a sudden. I would be expecting this advantage to be notable under 350 kpm, but not even above 500 kph.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The A-3's lower standard weight has two significant benefits - lower induced drag and lower inertia. At low speeds, these negate the A-8's power advantage.

 

As speeds increase, induced drag vanishes while parasitic drag grows for both aircraft. At some point, the A-8 accelerates faster thanks to its additional power/thrust for overcoming drag.

 

If this explanation is correct, the A-3 and A-8 should be fairly even if operated at equal weights and power settings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the other part of the experiment is the assumption that the AI-controlled A-3 accelerates the same as a player-controlled A-3... or vice-versa with the A-8. I remember with the "old" IL-2 (1946, etc), AI-planes could have extraordinary abilities. I've noticed this is very much less true with the modern Great Battles, but I still wonder.

 

That said, way back when I was into online simming with player vs. player, the earlier 190's (A-3/4/5) were always much more "perky" than the A-8.

 

-Ryan

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RyanR said:

I guess the other part of the experiment is the assumption that the AI-controlled A-3 accelerates the same as a player-controlled A-3... or vice-versa with the A-8. I remember with the "old" IL-2 (1946, etc), AI-planes could have extraordinary abilities. I've noticed this is very much less true with the modern Great Battles, but I still wonder.

 

That said, way back when I was into online simming with player vs. player, the earlier 190's (A-3/4/5) were always much more "perky" than the A-8.

 

-Ryan

 

IL-2: Great Battles is dramatically different than the past iterations of IL-2 on this point. The AI flies with the same flight model as we have for the first time. That's caused other issues (CPU resources notably) but it does mean that they are no longer doing wild unheard of maneuvers.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing il2 1946 and Il2 Great Battles has in common is the name and planeset. That's it and that's great to have more enhanced FM and DM and as Shamrock wrote, in a new and great equal level, compared to the human pilot

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RyanR said:

I guess the other part of the experiment is the assumption that the AI-controlled A-3 accelerates the same as a player-controlled A-3... or vice-versa with the A-8. I remember with the "old" IL-2 (1946, etc), AI-planes could have extraordinary abilities. I've noticed this is very much less true with the modern Great Battles, but I still wonder.

 

That said, way back when I was into online simming with player vs. player, the earlier 190's (A-3/4/5) were always much more "perky" than the A-8.

 

-Ryan

 

While that could be an explanation, flying A3 I can catch 190A8 AI with no effort up to 500 kph.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A8 was not intended for dogfight in mind as A3... It main task was desperate attempt to inflict a serious damage to endless formation of monsters B17 / B24, in a fast and short approach - or even head to head "pass by" with frontal attack ( one second lasting punch in the face ) ...hoping that it won't end up blasted by heavy bombers machine gunners - or with a Jug or Mustang on a tail.

 

We are comparing fighting falcon with a battle train.

 

( many members are not aware of this... due to missing heavies B-17 and B-24 in the sim. Unfortunately this generation of CPU / RAM could not handle events of 4engine formations with engine effectsx4, complicated phisicsx4, damagex4 and armies of AI machine guns... etc. )

 

Edited by esk_pedja
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, esk_pedja said:

A8 was not intended for dogfight in mind as A3... It main task was desperate attempt to inflict a serious damage to endless formation of monsters B17 / B24, in a fast and short approach - or even head to head "pass by" with frontal attack ( one second lasting punch in the face ) ...hoping that it won't end up blasted by heavy bombers machine gunners - or with a Jug or Mustang on a tail.

 

We are comparing fighting falcon with a battle train.

 

( many members are not aware of this... due to missing heavies B-17 and B-24 in the sim. Unfortunately this generation of CPU / RAM could not handle events of 4engine formations with engine effectsx4, complicated phisicsx4, damagex4 and armies of AI machine guns... etc. )

 


Nice try at keeping the web legend alive, just like the mk108 in the 262 build in for the bombers...

The A8 is a natural evolution of the airframe, using the pushed to the limits D-engine.
The A8 wasn't build because of the bombers, but some weaponery was adapted to the airframe to tackle the bombers issue.
The A8 was built to fullfill the whole range of roles the luftwaffe needed and was the most versatile airframe from WWII.
It could be tuned to pilots or missions requirements and needs, that's why you see some with ETC's and prop weights, others not( meaning the rear tank is removed, this is the pure fighter version) , with outer guns removed, etc, etc.
Without the rear tank and without the ETC , the A8 as was agile as an A3 but faster. As for the acceleration, the initial one at least, the A3 and the A8 needed the same length of runway to clear a 20meters obstacle.
As the higher power cancel the weight creep, i still see the lighter airframe having  a better acceleration than the fatter-one, in this case you have to take the prop efficiency into account also to have a global view as the start speed of the test may put an advantage to one or the other propeller equipped airframe.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, JV69badatflyski said:


The A8 was built to fullfill the whole range of roles the luftwaffe needed and was the most versatile airframe from WWII.
 

70-80% of roles the luftwaffe needed in 1944 was related to Reich defense in one or the other way, talking of Western needs... it certainly was not returning the control of French or Belgium skies air superiority... or pushing back allied offensive back to Atlantic

 

Edited by esk_pedja
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if the A8 was supposed to work without a rear auxiliary tank of some kind, C3 to compensate C3 injection, MW50 or GM1. But it always has a quite noticeable boost of power over the A3. BTW, tests were done starting around 350kph. As far as I understand, what we have now is a 190A8 with extra armour for the frontal ring, 80l extra C3 and 2 extra MG151/20, but also more than 200hp than the A3.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, esk_pedja said:

70-80% of roles the luftwaffe needed in 1944 was related to Reich defense in one or the other way, talking of Western needs... it certainly was not returning the control of French or Belgium skies air superiority... or pushing back allied offensive back to Atlantic

 


Sorry, totally forgot that on the east front,  there were just some millions of love spreading care bears riding unicorns that just needed a heart shaped arrow to stop them leaving the hitlerjugend able to stop the rainbow spreading all by themselves and the LW had the sole goal to stop the continuous flow of bombers from London to Berlin, not that weren't any ground troops and tanks on the west front, nope, just bombers everywhere from hambourg to munich 24h a day. 
<sarc>:rolleyes:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am talking about this sim.

The latest eastern scenery/title was Battle of Kuban... which was well finished in 1944. 

If we got Poland, Slovakia or Romania, just remind me..

( by the way, even in Romania the main point was defense of Ploesti, the last serious source of natural fuel, that was attacked by B-24 )

 

Bailing out from topic :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

IL-2: Great Battles is dramatically different than the past iterations of IL-2 on this point. The AI flies with the same flight model as we have for the first time. That's caused other issues (CPU resources notably) but it does mean that they are no longer doing wild unheard of maneuvers.

 

Totally agree. I really noticed and appreciated this.

 

The other thing that's been exciting to check out, is that there isn't a generic A-8 as in the past. There's a variety of flavors. I'm really excited about that for the battle of Kuban. I still have a Stalingrad career to finish up.

 

-Ryan

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, RyanR said:

 

Totally agree. I really noticed and appreciated this.

 

The other thing that's been exciting to check out, is that there isn't a generic A-8 as in the past. There's a variety of flavors. I'm really excited about that for the battle of Kuban. I still have a Stalingrad career to finish up.

 

-Ryan

 

As far as I know Kuban allows only 190A5 and only in jabo role.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Mandoble said:

 

As far as I know Kuban allows only 190A5 and only in jabo role.

 

That is correct. There were no 190s in the fighter role southward of Kiev in 1943/44. JG51 and JG54 were operating mostly in the area of Army Group Center and AG North. However if you want to fly 190s (A5 and A3) on the BoK map in the fighter role you need this Mod ([MOD] Extended Il2 BoX careers - Mods - IL-2 Sturmovik Forum).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the heads up on the JABO-only A-5. Sort of a bummer, but I love learning about the Eastern Front history more. My mind is really blown by how much detail went into IL-2 beyond simply getting the airplanes right.

 

Thanks!

 

-Ryan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RyanR said:

Thanks for the heads up on the JABO-only A-5. Sort of a bummer, but I love learning about the Eastern Front history more. My mind is really blown by how much detail went into IL-2 beyond simply getting the airplanes right.

 

Thanks!

 

-Ryan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, while in Kuban all your A5 missions will be ground attack oriented, in most cases you will have no cover and your group will be in charge of its self defense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mandoble said:

Anyway, while in Kuban all your A5 missions will be ground attack oriented, in most cases you will have no cover and your group will be in charge of its self defense.

 

There is a slight chance for air-to-air missions for the A-5, but they are relatively rare. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

 

There is a slight chance for air-to-air missions for the A-5, but they are relatively rare. 

In fact they are all air to air. Sometimes before attacking the ground target and sometimes while attacking the ground target. Didn't the Schlachtflieger fly escort themselves? So one flight with bombs, attacking the ground target and a second flight escorting them without bombs?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

Didn't the Schlachtflieger fly escort themselves? So one flight with bombs, attacking the ground target and a

 

That's what I've read, yes, and IIRC you can fly that sort of mission (ground attack escort) with the A-5. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

That's what I've read, yes, and IIRC you can fly that sort of mission (ground attack escort) with the A-5. 

I was more thinking about flying ground attack missions and having a fighter escort. No matter if you fly 109 E7, 110 E2 or 190 A5, you always attack ground targets and are not protected by a fighter escort. It would be OK with a good AI, but currently those missions pretty much always work the same way. The Russian fighters are chasing the player, while his squadmates unhurriedly attack the ground targets and even RTB without caring about the player.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Yogiflight said:

I was more thinking about flying ground attack missions and having a fighter escort. No matter if you fly 109 E7, 110 E2 or 190 A5, you always attack ground targets and are not protected by a fighter escort. It would be OK with a good AI, but currently those missions pretty much always work the same way. The Russian fighters are chasing the player, while his squadmates unhurriedly attack the ground targets and even RTB without caring about the player.

 

Ah ok, I see what you mean now. That would be something for the developers to address.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed: I'm finding that ground attack missions just aren't super fun unless you're in a dedicated ground attack plane that picks up a fighter escort along the way. The friendly AI is a little frustrating to manage.

 

The other fly in the ointment is that the "Mission Objective" doesn't seem to get completed when you drop/fire your non-gun ordinance on the target. For example, if you release bombs on your target from a level bomber at altitude, your mission gets completed before the bombs even hit the ground, and you get the RTB message. Conversely, with a fighter, the mission seems to just go on and on after you put your bombs and/or rockets on a vehicle column. There's just not much more you can do, as you want to save your MG's to get you out of there if you're, say, in a P-40 in a BoM campaign without escort. It just gets a little discouraging if you blew up a few trucks, turn the tables on the 109F's that came into the area and you get a couple kills, limp home home, and then it tells you that the mission "failed".

 

-Ryan

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RyanR said:

For example, if you release bombs on your target from a level bomber at altitude, your mission gets completed before the bombs even hit the ground, and you get the RTB message.

IIRC bombers don't have certain targets, but a target area. So if the game recognizes the bombs of your flight will hit this area, it counts your mission as successful.

 

1 hour ago, RyanR said:

It just gets a little discouraging if you blew up a few trucks, turn the tables on the 109F's that came into the area and you get a couple kills, limp home home, and then it tells you that the mission "failed".

Absolutely agreed. You have to stay at the target for a certain time, until the map shows, that the mission was successful. If you return earlier, your mission counts as failed, no matter if you destroyed the complete enemy army. This surely is the reason, why your flight often circles over the target after all ground units are destroyed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Yogiflight said:

IIRC bombers don't have certain targets, but a target area. So if the game recognizes the bombs of your flight will hit this area, it counts your mission as successful.

 

That isn't really true though. Many raids had point targets (e.g. U-Boat pens, bridges)...

 

Furthermore even area bombing raids were assessed for their effectiveness. There was a constant process of photography and target damage assessment.

 

P.S. This is even more true of photo-recon... light, clouds, blurring... all could be assessed and attempts made to refine the technique.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

That isn't really true though. Many raids had point targets (e.g. U-Boat pens, bridges)...

 

Furthermore even area bombing raids were assessed for their effectiveness. There was a constant process of photography and target damage assessment.

 

P.S. This is even more true of photo-recon... light, clouds, blurring... all could be assessed and attempts made to refine the technique.

Sorry mate, you misunderstood me. I was talking about how it works in game. IRL you are absolutely correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

IIRC bombers don't have certain targets, but a target area. So if the game recognizes the bombs of your flight will hit this area, it counts your mission as successful.

 

Absolutely agreed. You have to stay at the target for a certain time, until the map shows, that the mission was successful. If you return earlier, your mission counts as failed, no matter if you destroyed the complete enemy army. This surely is the reason, why your flight often circles over the target after all ground units are destroyed.

 

I don't know about career, but I always put my target area over a target :) .  Use of "Target Area" as opposed to "Target" is only to make level bombers drop their full bomb load as a formation and all at once.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yogiflight said:

Sorry mate, you misunderstood me. I was talking about how it works in game. IRL you are absolutely correct.

 

Ah, sorry :) I actually figured you'd be aware of that...

 

I guess, I just get the impression that some people have the idea that level bombing (particularly night bombing) is so inaccurate that there was no attempt to hit pinpoint targets... so I wanted to prevent that possible misapprehension... (afterall, a lot of Lancasters and Mosquitoes carried only one bomb...)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

Ah, sorry :) I actually figured you'd be aware of that...

 

I guess, I just get the impression that some people have the idea that level bombing (particularly night bombing) is so inaccurate that there was no attempt to hit pinpoint targets... so I wanted to prevent that possible misapprehension... (afterall, a lot of Lancasters and Mosquitoes carried only one bomb...)

 

As @Yogiflight put it, it's just a game mechanic to ensure the AI-controlled bombers turn to the next waypoint after dropping their bombs. Otherwise, they would just circle the target forever if none of their bombs hit the target. 

 

Put another way, it's a way for the game to say, "yes, you made it to the target, so you will be credited with a sortie flown."

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

Put another way, it's a way for the game to say, "yes, you made it to the target, so you will be credited with a sortie flown."

Would be nice, if the Devs could make some mechanic like that for ground attacks, too, to prevent ground attackers from circling over the target until the preset time is over, before returning to base. It doesn't make sense to stay there to wait until enemy fighters attack you or to stay in a fight with superior enemy forces.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yogiflight said:

Would be nice, if the Devs could make some mechanic like that for ground attacks, too, to prevent ground attackers from circling over the target until the preset time is over, before returning to base. It doesn't make sense to stay there to wait until enemy fighters attack you or to stay in a fight with superior enemy forces.

 

Air combat too... setting up a robust system to allow AI to make single passes and then disengage vs. persist until out of ammunition etc.

 

It'd be neat to see a slightly greater diversity of tactics and responses to situations. I wonder if some of the approaches being developed by Eagle Dynamics might be worth copying at some point (i.e. regarding responding to different enemies differently, and regarding situational awareness)... but even just having more options to have some aircraft disengage early or have a random probability of losing track of the player would be pretty cool.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...