Fw 190 A-6 and G-3 top speeds

[JG1_Wittmann]

So having flown the A6 a few times,  using the G3  version with the 1.65 ATA engine,  there is something I have not been able to figure out,  and it goes back to the A5  with the  Strike modification that includes C3.    Other than going to 100% throttle and engaging the boost is there another step required to get to 1.65 ATA ?    All that I can seem to manage with either AC is 1.54 ATA    No difference in either AC,  this is after a period of time also  after it stops increasing  100% throttle, boost engaged

[Mandoble]

3 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

So having flown the A6 a few times,  using the G3  version with the 1.65 ATA engine,  there is something I have not been able to figure out,  and it goes back to the A5  with the  Strike modification that includes C3.    Other than going to 100% throttle and engaging the boost is there another step required to get to 1.65 ATA ?    All that I can seem to manage with either AC is 1.54 ATA    No difference in either AC,  this is after a period of time also  after it stops increasing  100% throttle, boost engaged

 

You will get maximum boost at the super charger critical leves, first sea level and then 5000m if I remember well. This applies as well to A5 and A8.

Edited February 28, 2021 by Mandoble

[JG4_Widukind]

A5(only Jabo) is C3 Fuel  injektion working from 0-1000m

A6(only Jabo) is C3 Fuel  injektion working from 0-1000m

A8 (For all A8) is overridding the supercharger boost regulator 0-1000m  and from 2650-6000m

 

Increased emergency power: Starting from July 1944 all Fw 190 A-8 aircraft will be equipped with "increased emergency". By overridding the supercharger boost regulator, boost pressures are increased at take-off and emergency power in low supercharger setting from 1,42 ata to 1,58 ata and at the high supercharger setting from 1,42 to 1,65 ata. Thus an increase of speed up to 13.6 mph (22 km/h) is obtained with low supercharger operation and up to 15.5 mph (25 km/h) with high supercharger operation. The maximum operating time for increased emergency is limited to 10 minutes due to thermal reasons. (Ab Juli 1944 werden sämtliche Flugzeuge der Baureihe Fw 190 A-8 mit "erhöhter Notleistung" ausgerüstet. Durch Eingriff in den Ladedruckregler wird der Ladedruck der Start- und Notleistung im Bodenladerbetrieb von 1,42 ata auf 1,58 ata, im Höhenladerbetrieb von 1,42 ata auf 1,65 ata heraufgesetzt. Hierdurch wird ein Geschwindigkeitsgewinn bis 22 km/h bei Bodenladerbetrieb und bis zu 25 km/h im Höhenladerbetrieb erzielt.; (sich Flugleistungen Bl. 15). Die höchstzulässige Betriebsdauer für erhöhte Notleistung ist aus thermischen Gründen 10 Minuten begrenzt.)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a8.html

 

 

 

[Yogiflight]

@JG1_Wittmann  what should be noted additional to what Widukind posted is, you only get 1.58 ata up to 100m. The higher you fly, the lower your manifold pressure is. So with the 1.54 ata, you mentioned in your post, I woulkd guess you used the minimum start altitude in QMB of 300m.

[JG1_Wittmann]

Ok,  20M   Kuban map,  100% throttle,   1.56 ATA.    Well below the 100M mark.  Red the write up in game,  so the C3  on the A5 strike, or the G3 versions  is only good at 100% throttle, auto prop pitch,  below from 0-1000M .   Believe this system is slightly different from the one in the A8.  SO the A5/A6  w/ C3,  that boost is  not related to supercharger setting,  maybe unlike the A8,  because at 0-1000M  the SC is in first stage.   Has anyone  ben able to achieve higher than 1.56 ATA    but 1.65 or very close in either   A5 or A6/G3 ?    IS there some setting that I am missing  that  I don't see mentioned  or don't know ?    Take-off I was only able to get 1.50  with the boost,  so that wasn't it  and the mention in the write up is E-power from 0-1000,  not take-off power

[CUJO_1970]

Will need to check further but it seems boost for A5/A6 Jabo is really only working on winter maps. On summer maps I didn’t notice any performance advantage at all.

 

As I said though, need to test further and more in depth.

[Yogiflight]

@JG1_Wittmann how fast were you flying? You need to have ram through high air speed flow. This is the reason, why you don't get maximum pressure during takeoff. You simply are too slow.

[JG1_Wittmann]

I was at 1.42 ATA  flying for a few minutes.  So  I did fly a winter map  and was able to get just a hair under 1.63.  Now,  it would appear that this is not modeled correctly as this manifold pressure is not going to be temperature dependent.  The winter air  may be denser,  but the  pressure instrument  should be measuring in absolute.  If my understanding of the C3 Boost is correct,   an additional nozzle is placed in the engine that sprays C3 fuel into the air intake of the supercharger for the purpose of cooling.  I may be  wrong, please correct me if I am.  So the  supercharger  has  the capability  of producing  much greater  than  1.42 or 1.65 of manifold boost.  It is  limited to what it can boost no by the AC control system, not by any  deficit of possible boost production  which would probably top at, or go slightly beyond what  the maximum number on the gauge is.  I don't know if that is 2.0 ATA or higher or lower.   So this pressure is a result of regulation.  The reason that it is used in the A5, G3, and others  and needs to be below a certain altitude (0-1000M)  is that the fuel pump in the aircraft at this period was not capable of delivering enough fuel to the AC and this extra injector system at a higher  supercharger speed  found.   The fuel use for the AC goes up when it is engaged, (supercharger output raised) as it is using the fuel for supercharger air cooling.  This is not going to be temperature or air density dependent to the degree that it's 1.56 in summer  and 1.625  in winter.  The setting removes the 1.42 boost cap and allows it to go to 1.65.   If the engine  was capable of handling the higher boost and resultant temperature increase then there is no reason this number could not be 2.0ATA  or whatever the physical limitation of the supercharger actually is.    So,  it would seem, that this is indeed how this system works, by removing the imposed 1.42 ATA cap on supercharger output to allow 1.65, no matter what the season of the year or ambient temp is  then what we have in game is not modeled correctly at all.   It should be able to supply us with a boost of 1.65 ATA,  maybe some AC at 1.64  maybe some at 1.66  etc  depending on how well the  pressure instrument is calibrated.

[Mandoble]

5 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

So,  it would seem, that this is indeed how this system works, by removing the imposed 1.42 ATA cap on supercharger output to allow 1.65, no matter what the season of the year or ambient temp is  then what we have in game is not modeled correctly at all.

Actually that was my understanding as well, that the ATA limits were imposed by design, not by physical limitations. But I guess some original source would be needed to confirm (or deny) that.

[JG1_Wittmann]

On 2/28/2021 at 8:00 AM, Yogiflight said:

@JG1_Wittmann  what should be noted additional to what Widukind posted is, you only get 1.58 ata up to 100m. The higher you fly, the lower your manifold pressure is. So with the 1.54 ata, you mentioned in your post, I woulkd guess you used the minimum start altitude in QMB of 300m.

The 1.58 (FW190-A8)   ATA  at takeoff and emergency,  and it's not 0-100m   it is 0-1000M  just over 3000ft for the C3 Injection.  When your altitude in the A8 goes up slightly, your manifold pressure does not reach a point that the supercharger can only produce 1.54 lbs of boost It is regulated so the higher you go in the less it needs to bleed off to maintain that pressure.   The supercharger switches to a higher  speed when the air is too thin to produce the required pressure at that altitude.   If the engine could handle the heat there would be no reason  not to use the second stage on the deck for much more boost,  the engine is not capable of handling the heat and will fail..   1.58 takeoff/ which I was not able to reach,  and which does not require a certain speed to reach ( it's an air compressor providing  I'm not sure it was a Winter Map,  and I have previously covered that the boost higher in colder weather is simply another symptom of the developers  Mis-modeling of the boost  in the A5, A6, and also apparently the A8.  I do not have knowledge if the supercharger was different in the 3 AC,  I do not believe it was.  The boost gauge in the cockpit goes up to 1.8 ATA.  This supercharger,  is  most likely  physically capable of providing  between 2.25 ATA and 2.7,  factor of  1.25  and 1.5 of the max gauge reading.  The control for the manifold pressure regulates this pressure, it does not change how much pressure can be produced.  The A5/U17 and the A6/G3 models we have  ( as well as we should have the A6 as this is a field kit)  say they have  C3 injection.  These AC  use C3  fuel.  THe C3 injection does not provide any additional boost,  it simply is used at this time to provide cooling.  The limitation placed on 0-1000m  was only there because at higher altitudes and faster supercharger speeds the fuel pump at this time was not strong enough.  Had the fuel pump been capable there would have been no altitude restriction.

The A8   uses  exactly the same  operation for it's additional boost.  The only exception is,  by this time  BMW  had cleared the 801d  to run at the higher temps produced by hotter temps.  The A8 did not inject some of it's fuel into the supercharger for cooling.  The control system allowed the higher manifold pressure. That is the difference cooling,  vs a decision it was not needed for the engine by the time of the  A8  possibly A7.  What  boost system we do not have available  is the R4    GM1  kit (Nitrous Oxide )   Now this kit would provide  a serious step up in HP,  in addition  and not  reliant on the supercharger,  in addition to the supercharger.   The field kit was produced  and available for field install.

The fact of the matter is the A5, A6, G models, A8   had a supercharger capable of producing "X" amount of boost over 1 ATA.  IT was not dependant on winter,  and later in the war  it was not   Altitude  restricted like the C3 injection systems were.  Now whether some improvements were made in cooling,  or it was just decided the 801 could handle more heat  to this discussion is not relevant.  THe boost will not reach 1.65  in any AC that I have flown,  and the level of boost goes up  on a winter map, where it is almost close.  We should have  1.65,  winter or summer for C3 injection modified planes,   and whatever boost level literature bears out for the A8, whether it was 1.58, low and 1.65 high, or 1.65 all around.

  What we are being given is unrealistic and does not work like it did in the real world

2 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

Why is it inferior? Better speed and firepower than the A-5 for almost the same climb and turn time. Seems like an improvement and a nice middle ground between A-5 and A-8.

The speed  is really not much better.  They made it wallow around I feel worse than the A8.  I keep seeing posts  with claims of better firepower,  Can anyone explain how 4 MG151 cannons in the Wing  is better than 6 MG151 cannons in the wing ?  The improvement  in firepower for 4 cannons  is  very marginal.  At this point,   the mine rounds were the preference for A2A   not  AP.    I'm  not sure why we can't select the proportion of our own loadout.  I believe CLOD  you can,  not sure.  Anyways,  using the mine rounds,  the velocity of the round  is not a factor, which the 151 gives you more of.  The rate of fire is slightly higher, and you get 125 RPG  instead of 90 RPG with the A5  in the outboard position.   Now in A2A  this slight gun increase does not match what you lose  in other areas.

Edited March 1, 2021 by JG1_Wittmann

[ShamrockOneFive]

1 hour ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

The speed  is really not much better.  They made it wallow around I feel worse than the A8.  I keep seeing posts  with claims of better firepower,  Can anyone explain how 4 MG151 cannons in the Wing  is better than 6 MG151 cannons in the wing ?  The improvement  in firepower for 4 cannons  is  very marginal.  At this point,   the mine rounds were the preference for A2A   not  AP.    I'm  not sure why we can't select the proportion of our own loadout.  I believe CLOD  you can,  not sure.  Anyways,  using the mine rounds,  the velocity of the round  is not a factor, which the 151 gives you more of.  The rate of fire is slightly higher, and you get 125 RPG  instead of 90 RPG with the A5  in the outboard position.   Now in A2A  this slight gun increase does not match what you lose  in other areas.

 

When I do a max performance turn in an A-5 I get essentially the same result, within a margin of error, as the A-6. So that's a feeling.

 

Unless I am a bomber destroyer only, I'm not going to take the 6 MG151/20 loadout on the A-5. I am likely to take the MG-FF/M's in the A-5, however, the A-6 is better here as the four MG151/20's have better ballistics and muzzle velocity, do more damage, and have the same ballistics across four cannons. It's a marginal improvement but it's still better.

 

So again... marginally better speed, marginally better firepower, and no verifiable claims of any loss of performance. It's the better aircraft in my experience.

 

3 hours ago, Hajo_Garlic said:

I admittedly have flown it about 20 minutes. I was being harsh.

the jabo configurations seem slower than the a5u17? the fighter without outboard cannons seemed slower and less maneuverable 

thinking back I probably tried em out with full fuel or maybe the upgraded ai made a fool out of me 

 

I haven't tested the performance of the Jabo versions. Only fighter configuration.

 

I'm at several hours with the A-6 at this point including a few sorties on Combat Box. It's an excellent fighter and it's now my favourite Anton.

[69TD_Hajo_Garlic]

2 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

When I do a max performance turn in an A-5 I get essentially the same result, within a margin of error, as the A-6. So that's a feeling.

 

Unless I am a bomber destroyer only, I'm not going to take the 6 MG151/20 loadout on the A-5. I am likely to take the MG-FF/M's in the A-5, however, the A-6 is better here as the four MG151/20's have better ballistics and muzzle velocity, do more damage, and have the same ballistics across four cannons. It's a marginal improvement but it's still better.

 

So again... marginally better speed, marginally better firepower, and no verifiable claims of any loss of performance. It's the better aircraft in my experience.

 

 

I haven't tested the performance of the Jabo versions. Only fighter configuration.

 

I'm at several hours with the A-6 at this point including a few sorties on Combat Box. It's an excellent fighter and it's now my favourite Anton.

I like all of the other antons I’m sure I’ll come around to it 

Edited March 1, 2021 by Hajo_Garlic

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

I am likely to take the MG-FF/M's in the A-5, however, the A-6 is better here as the four MG151/20's have better ballistics and muzzle velocity, do more damage, and have the same ballistics across four cannons. It's a marginal improvement but it's still better.

 

And, a higher ammo count in those outer MG 151/20s.

[JG1_Wittmann]

Do any of the players that were involved in testing the A5/U17  or G3   want to comment  on the incorrect boost for these ?    Was this noticed or brought up during testing?

I find it hard to believe this was not noticed as some players fly using the manifold pressure gauge.   I have seen many call out uniforms being wrong, flaps on holster not looking right,   was the incorrect boost modeling not  something that reached the same level of importance ?  Someone mentioned earlier about posting sources.  Really not necessary, I am using the game description of the boost as my primary source.  Now the understanding of how it worked  is not mentioned there,  I summarized it,so you'll have to confirm that on your own.   Why I can't get 1.65 on my manifold pressure gauge is more important to me and maybe some others than uniform details

[CUJO_1970]

For A5 and A6 Jabo the boost is up to 1.58ata up to 1,000m.

 

The last I tested they would only reach their boosted speeds on winter maps, any other map the boost provided no benefit. When I can I will test it again.

[JG1_Wittmann]

The boost on A5 and A6/G3  should not be 1.58,   it should be 1.65.   The boost on the A8  some literature has it saying 1.58 low sc gear, 1.65 high sc gear.  The A8  did not use fuel in the supercharger for cooling like the A5/U17 and A6/G3.  So unfortunately,  that is not reaching their boost, even on winter map.  I tested it and got 1.625  on a winter map,   not the  1.65 it calls for.    A thing to take note of, is the boost of 1.65   is not   a physical limitation of the supercharger.  It is a self imposed limitation of the control system for the plane.  The C3 injector was added for cooling,  by the time of the A8,    the engine was cleared for the higher boost, without the need for extra cooling.

 

It would be  great   if someone  had some  knowledge on why this manifold boost pressure  was not modeled correctly, and wildly varies with ambient temps, coming close but not quite to rated pressure.  It's pressure controlled,  not a physical limitation of the compressor.  I'm certain the compressor has a limit,  but I have never seen any docs that list the actual #.   Other German AC were able to run much higher pressures,  so the compressor knowledge was not lacking, but the need to keep engines from overheating and destroying themselves  helped make the determination  on how much each different model could handle through testing.

[Mandoble]

1 hour ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

The boost on A5 and A6/G3  should not be 1.58,   it should be 1.65.   The boost on the A8  some literature has it saying 1.58 low sc gear, 1.65 high sc gear.  The A8  did not use fuel in the supercharger for cooling like the A5/U17 and A6/G3.  So unfortunately,  that is not reaching their boost, even on winter map.  I tested it and got 1.625  on a winter map,   not the  1.65 it calls for.    A thing to take note of, is the boost of 1.65   is not   a physical limitation of the supercharger.  It is a self imposed limitation of the control system for the plane.  The C3 injector was added for cooling,  by the time of the A8,    the engine was cleared for the higher boost, without the need for extra cooling.

 

It would be  great   if someone  had some  knowledge on why this manifold boost pressure  was not modeled correctly, and wildly varies with ambient temps, coming close but not quite to rated pressure.  It's pressure controlled,  not a physical limitation of the compressor.  I'm certain the compressor has a limit,  but I have never seen any docs that list the actual #.   Other German AC were able to run much higher pressures,  so the compressor knowledge was not lacking, but the need to keep engines from overheating and destroying themselves  helped make the determination  on how much each different model could handle through testing.

One thing is clear, all the Focke-Wulf performance charts are showing curves for 1.42, 1.58 and 1.65 ata, not anything in between or above the upper limits.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

@JG1_Wittmann  1.65 ata at sea level was right at the limit of the max compression the supercharger could achieve. They needed to be at sea level and at high speed to make use of air intake ram. And even with that not all planes managed it (individual differences between planes and engines) but they generally were in the 1.62 ata region.

Here is a report that compares different individual 190 boosting behaviour http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Erprobung_2581.pdf

That being said in game looks like the supercharger could use a bit more compression, I can't reach more than 1.60 ata at sea level max speed in standard conditions, so it should be a bit higher. The devs know about this and will evaluate the issue.

[Mandoble]

That document is listing 1.68 and 1.69 ATA?

[JG1_Wittmann]

4 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

@JG1_Wittmann  1.65 ata at sea level was right at the limit of the max compression the supercharger could achieve. They needed to be at sea level and at high speed to make use of air intake ram. And even with that not all planes managed it (individual differences between planes and engines) but they generally were in the 1.62 ata region.

Here is a report that compares different individual 190 boosting behaviour http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Erprobung_2581.pdf

That being said in game looks like the supercharger could use a bit more compression, I can't reach more than 1.60 ata at sea level max speed in standard conditions, so it should be a bit higher. The devs know about this and will evaluate the issue.

Thank you for the  information posted.  I  do not speak German,  but I did look at this as much as I could,  translated some small parts,  not complete.   A quick synopsis is that they tested 5 AC Shows that the boost  was  higher  at lower alt's,  and also was higher if the ambient temperature was higher.  Have not figured out what it all had to say but it appears they tested  4 FW190 A4's  and 1 FW190 A5.     This line  on the first page confuses me :    "The test is temporarily canceled because the roller-bearing-mounted VDM variable speed drives that are still to be tested have not yet been approved for flight operations"  So,  it appears  that this test was gathering data on the  superchargers that were mounted on A4's and 1 A5  of  slightly different  set ups,  to be used for a supercharger that they wanted to test, but was not yet  cleared for flight ?  Boost reported achieved  was 1.61 to 1.68.  Now I saw a mention  of setting a regulator  to 1.68 ATA.   Is that regulator they were setting up  on a plane with a different supercharger, but the test of it was postponed ?   So I guess it iwould be good to know what the whole doc says, and then whether  the A6  or the G3  used the same, or different supercharger.  As it is now,  these  numbers  show that what we have in game is lower than it should be,  or the A5/U17 at least  so looking at another page in the charts  it looks like  they were testing  cylinder temps at higher  boost pressures  and the effect the C3 injection had on the temperatures.  Is this test prior to the release of the C3 injection kits,  prior to manufacture,  etc

Edited March 2, 2021 by JG1_Wittmann

[BlitzPig_EL]

I believe the VDM "variable speed drives" is a reference to the prop pitch control mechanism.

 

VDM was a propeller manufacturer.

[JG1_Wittmann]

Thats good to know.  I'm still plugging away on translating as I have time.   I do find it interesting that the test  involved 4 190 A4's  and 1 190 A5.  It does look like this data is being gathered for a  modified AC  but I don't clearly see any reference  to that AC in the documents.  Just the 5 AC that were used to gather data,  and the note about the test being temporarily cancelled on page 1 due to VDM  delay.  It seems clear that this info was being used to set up a test aircraft as the mention of using the supercharger data to set up the regulator at 1.68 ATA.   It's clearly not referring to these 5, as these 5 gave them the data to make that setting on a different AC

3 hours ago, Mandoble said:

That document is listing 1.68 and 1.69 ATA?

it is, but that 1.69  came at -5 deg C   23 F.   That result came from one of the 190 A4's tested,  and seems to be the best result,  at 0M alt  the result for that A4 was 1.675 at 100M    The single 190 A5 in the test got  1.63 at 100m at -1 deg C   the A4's  best readings were  1.635  at 2 deg C.

Will have to see the complete doc   and be able to read to see what exactly it all means.  4 A4's  and 1 A5 were tested, this data was going to be used to set up another AC and make sure the engine temps were safe and that some hours of flying them at such temps did not destroy the engine.  Now whether or not this testing was done before the A5/U17 package came out remains to be determined.  That's really the point, not whether or not some A4's and A5's,  built before the U17 package was available.  We can see from this data, that a standard A4, or A5  can reach a boost level of 1.65,  some higher some lower  in some colder temps,  would have needed to overide or disable the manifold pressure regulator that was apparently normally set at 1.42-1.44

[Bremspropeller]

14 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

The single 190 A5 in the test got  1.63 at 100m at -1 deg C   the A4's  best readings were  1.635  at 2 deg C.

Will have to see the complete doc   and be able to read to see what exactly it all means.  4 A4's  and 1 A5 were tested, this data was going to be used to set up another AC and make sure the engine temps were safe and that some hours of flying them at such temps did not destroy the engine.  Now whether or not this testing was done before the A5/U17 package came out remains to be determined.

 

The time-frame of testing would pretty much coincide twith the F-3's service-entry. Erhöhte Notleistung could be retrofit and it's written in the report that neither the F or G versions had issues with C3 injection-installation.

 

The 1.68 ata number comes from a supercharger that had the allowed +0.02 tolerance at 1.42 ata (resulting in 1.44 at Notleistung and 1.68 ata at Erhöhte Notleistung).

 

The only soft limitation that's mentioned is the inability of the oil-cooler to cope with the additional long-term cooling-demand above an outside air-temperature of 20°C. As the use of Erhöhte Notleistung was suggested to be short and in emergencies only, this was deemed acceptable and no undesireable issues were expected to happen by sticking to those terms. No CHT or other issues were noted.

The Constant Speed Drive issues only arose during long-time testing and it wasn't seen as a risk for short-term use of Erhöhte Notleistung.

 

As a side-note one has to realise that IRL engines weren't always flown at MCP or the highest rating acceptable, but were babied a lot more. For both, fuel-consumption and service-life reasons. You don't want an engine quit on you during take-off or 50 miles behind enemy lines and thus, you'd always keep temps and loads to a minimum.

 

[Mac_Messer]

On 3/1/2021 at 8:37 PM, JG1_Wittmann said:

What  boost system we do not have available  is the R4    GM1  kit (Nitrous Oxide )   Now this kit would provide  a serious step up in HP,  in addition  and not  reliant on the supercharger,  in addition to the supercharger.   The field kit was produced  and available for field install.

Damn, I forgot all about it. AFAIK 109 had it also installed, and it is the earlier kit to the MW50. But we don`t have it ingame.

[Guest deleted@134347]

On 3/1/2021 at 2:37 PM, JG1_Wittmann said:

What  boost system we do not have available  is the R4    GM1  kit (Nitrous Oxide )   Now this kit would provide  a serious step up in HP,  in addition  and not  reliant on the supercharger,  in addition to the supercharger.   The field kit was produced  and available for field install.

 

 

 

NAAAWWSS you say?

 

damn, son, those LW's will be living 1/4 mile at a time. The Fast and the Furious style.

 

[CUJO_1970]

Quick run on Kuban Autumn at noon - G3 cant reach over 1.58/1.59 ata and it's slower on the deck than the A6 using it's 1.42ata by quite a lot.

 

Something is wrong here.

[Bremspropeller]

I also don't quite understand the speed-loss figures in the loadout-options.

-27kph for a G-3 and again -17kph for a clean G-3 after dropping bombs?

 

That's not accurate. What do those figures actually mean?

[CountZero]

8 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

Quick run on Kuban Autumn at noon - G3 cant reach over 1.58/1.59 ata and it's slower on the deck than the A6 using it's 1.42ata by quite a lot.

 

Something is wrong here.

low ata is explained in A8 specs, in game A5 A6 and A8 with 1.65 boost all have 1.58 ata at deck, and if you check boost at 2nd gear alt of 3km you get 1.65 ata so all is ok.

 

"- There is an additional emergency engine mode system installed. When it is engaged, the first supercharger gear pressure increases to 1.58 ATA and the second gear pressure to 1.65 ATA, the time limit is 10 minutes. This system is turned on by the engine boost command and works only when the throttle is set to 100%, automatic propeller pitch system is engaged and the altitude is lower than critical altitude for a given supercharger gear."

 

and at 3km+ A8 have 1.65 while on deck it hase 1.58, so if you can turn on boost at 3km on A5 and A6 when boost modification is equipedyou would get 1.65 ata.

 

Why your slower on G3 is you equip 2 wing bomb racks and underbelly bomb rack, thats -27km speed from clean A6, and if on emergancy power on deck you engage boost it gives you around +20kmh more so you end up 7kmh slower then clean A6 withot boost as you added that drag of 3 bomb rack that extra ata with boost cant totaly overcome.

 

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

I also don't quite understand the speed-loss figures in the loadout-options.

-27kph for a G-3 and again -17kph for a clean G-3 after dropping bombs?

 

That's not accurate. What do those figures actually mean?

-27kmh is info for G3 variant with 3 bomb racks.

-17kmh info is for modification with just clean A6 with that belly bomb rack ( you see when you select that).

Edited March 5, 2021 by CountZero

[Bremspropeller]

15 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Dont know whats the reason for low ata, but why your slower on G3 is you equip 2 wing bomb racks and underbelly bomb rack, thats -27km speed from clean A6, and if on emergancy power on deck you engage boost it gives you around +20kmh more so you end up 7kmh slower then clean A6 withot boost as you added that drag of 3 bomb rack that extra ata with boost cant totaly overcome.

 

...which is wrong.

The C3 injection should yield a speed-increase of roughly 35 to 45 kph for a clean bird (see tests).

Add the 27kph penalty with the racks, you should still come out faster than a normal, clean, un-boosted A-6 at 1.42 ata.

 

16 minutes ago, CountZero said:

-17kmh info is for modification with just clean A6 with that belly bomb rack ( you see when you select that).

 

Which is 5kph too much.

[CountZero]

14 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

...which is wrong.

The C3 injection should yield a speed-increase of roughly 35 to 45 kph for a clean bird (see tests).

Add the 27kph penalty with the racks, you should still come out faster than a normal, clean, un-boosted A-6 at 1.42 ata.

 

 

Which is 5kph too much.

 

ok i tought you dont understand why is there differant -27 and -17 so i explained it, i didnt tought you think thouse values are wrong or 20kmh boost is wrong.

 

but it works same on A5 we have for years as its gain is also 20kmh when you engage boost, so they just copy paste same error if gain is more then 20kmh.

Or there is more gain on A6, and they just used 20kmh gain from A5 ?

 

EDIT:

but if gain is 35-45kmh on clean version why would same gain be on version with 3 bomb racks, gain with boost would be less like we have in game when 3 racks are on, as there is more drag to push trough ?

Edited March 5, 2021 by CountZero

[Bremspropeller]

There is a diagram in Dietmar Hermann's book on the Fw 190F and G (sadly only published in German so far) that gives delta-V for several G series in different configurations.

 

G-1 with it's bulky Junkers carriers

G-2 with the elegant Messerschmitt carriers (only useful for external tanks, though)

G-3 with the Focke-Wulf carriers (good for both bombs and tanks) => we do have this version in game

G-8 with the ETC 503 racks (also both good for bombs and tanks) => we do have this version in game

 

The speed-losses are given in comparison to a clean (!) A-5 at Steig- und Kampfleistung (2400RPM) more or less at ground-level ("in Bodennähe").

 

For the G-3, the values are:

 

- Inbound (2x 300l + SC 500): -90kph

- Inbound (3x SC 250): - 85kph

- Outbound (only the racks): -30kph

 

For the G-8, the values are:

 

- Inbound (2x 300l + SC 500): -82kph

- Inbound (3x SC 250): -75kph

- Outbound (only the racks): -18kph

 

It is noted, that the ETC501 below the fuselage accounts for -12kph out of the given numbers.

 

Four pages later, there's a table of performance losses with several configurations of the G-3.

Performace-losses are given for speed (GND and FTH), vertical speed (GND and FTH) and a difference in operational ceiling.

 

The performance-loss for a 3x SC 250 configuration is within 1kph of the loss given on the earlier diagram.

 

53 minutes ago, CountZero said:

but if gain is 35-45kmh on clean version why would same gain be on version with 3 bomb racks, gain with boost would be less like we have in game when 3 racks are on, as there is more drag to push trough ?

 

Just subtract the loss of the racks from the gain of the boost on the clean bird. You're likely to be off by 2-3kph from the real numbers, but it's close enough.

 

Taking the numbers from the diagram:

Worst case: +35-30= +5 => 5kph faster than the clean aircraft at 1.42 ata

Best case: +45-30= +15 => 15kph faster than the clean aircraft at 1.42 ata

 

EDIT:

A FW-test with Wnr. 1428 (an A-5/U-8, which is a G-2) with Messerschmitt-racks under the wing and an ETC501 under the fuselage yielded a gain of 37kph (from 540kph to 577kph) between Notleistung and Erhöhte Notleistung. That test was conducted on 3rd June 1943.

MG 17 muzzles were faired, MG151/20s were without ammo.

 

Edited March 5, 2021 by Bremspropeller

[CountZero]

51 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

There is a diagram in Dietmar Hermann's book on the Fw 190F and G (sadly only published in German so far) that gives delta-V for several G series in different configurations.

 

G-1 with it's bulky Junkers carriers

G-2 with the elegant Messerschmitt carriers (only useful for external tanks, though)

G-3 with the Focke-Wulf carriers (good for both bombs and tanks) => we do have this version in game

G-8 with the ETC 503 racks (also both good for bombs and tanks) => we do have this version in game

 

The speed-losses are given in comparison to a clean (!) A-5 at Steig- und Kampfleistung (2400RPM) more or less at ground-level ("in Bodennähe").

 

For the G-3, the values are:

 

- Inbound (2x 300l + SC 500): -90kph

- Inbound (3x SC 250): - 85kph

- Outbound (only the racks): -30kph

 

For the G-8, the values are:

 

- Inbound (2x 300l + SC 500): -82kph

- Inbound (3x SC 250): -75kph

- Outbound (only the racks): -18kph

 

It is noted, that the ETC501 below the fuselage accounts for -12kph out of the given numbers.

 

Four pages later, there's a table of performance losses with several configurations of the G-3.

Performace-losses are given for speed (GND and FTH), vertical speed (GND and FTH) and a difference in operational ceiling.

 

The performance-loss for a 3x SC 250 configuration is within 1kph of the loss given on the earlier diagram.

 

 

Just subtract the loss of the racks from the gain of the boost on the clean bird. You're likely to be off by 2-3kph from the real numbers, but it's close enough.

 

Taking the numbers from the diagram:

Worst case: +35-30= +5 => 5kph faster than the clean aircraft at 1.42 ata

Best case: +45-30= +15 => 15kph faster than the clean aircraft at 1.42 ata

 

EDIT:

A FW-test with Wnr. 1428 (an A-5/U-8, which is a G-2) with Messerschmitt-racks under the wing and an ETC501 under the fuselage yielded a gain of 37kph (from 540kph to 577kph) between Notleistung and Erhöhte Notleistung. That test was conducted on 3rd June 1943.

MG 17 muzzles were faired, MG151/20s were without ammo.

 

I start game and went to check what is seed los when only belly bomb rack is equiped, that modification that says 17kmh loss.

and loss is 13kmh, so either -17 means something els or its mistake.

 

Also i went and check what is 1.65 ata boost  gain in game on A8, at deck is same as for A5 and A6, around 20kmh, at 3km its 30kmh tas. 

So they are using same 20kmh boost at deck for all 3 airplanes, is it wrong or not i dont know as they dont say what data they used , but its same on all 3 190s when they use boost.

[Bremspropeller]

You need to understand, that we're talking different boost systems here:

 

A-5 and A-6 => no boost at all (plain Jane 1.42 ata)

F-3 (A-5/U17) and G-3 (A-5/U13...in game it's available through the A-6) => 1.65 ata boost below 1000m by C3 injection

F-8 (through the A-8) and G-8 (through the A-8) => 1.65 ata boost below 1000m by C3 injection

A-8 "Erhöhte Notleistung" => 1.58 ata in low gear and 1.65 ata in high gear by increased supercharger pressures, available at all altitudes

 

The Gs should be slightly faster than the Fs (given similar rack-configurations*) because they're significantly lighter and have a faired upper cowling with no machine-guns (there's an additional oil tank under the cowl).

 

 

___

* specificly F-3 and F-8 vs G-3/R5

Edited March 5, 2021 by Bremspropeller

[CountZero]

34 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

You need to understand, that we're talking different boost systems here:

 

A-5 and A-6 => no boost at all (plain Jane 1.42 ata)

F-3 (A-5/U17) and G-3 (A-5/U13...in game it's available through the A-6) => 1.65 ata boost below 1000m by C3 injection

F-8 (through the A-8) and G-8 (through the A-8) => 1.65 ata boost below 1000m by C3 injection

A-8 "Erhöhte Notleistung" => 1.58 ata in low gear and 1.65 ata in high gear by increased supercharger pressures, available at all altitudes

 

The Gs should be slightly faster than the Fs (given similar rack-configurations*) because they're significantly lighter and have a faired upper cowling with no machine-guns (there's an additional oil tank under the cowl).

 

 

___

* specificly F-3 and F-8 vs G-3/R5

In game boost behaves same on all 3 190s ( exept you can use it on A8 on more then just up to 1km) but ata on deck is same and speed gained is same when boost is used and time of 10min is same.

[CUJO_1970]

6 hours ago, CountZero said:

low ata is explained in A8 specs, in game A5 A6 and A8 with 1.65 boost all have 1.58 ata at deck, and if you check boost at 2nd gear alt of 3km you get 1.65 ata so all is ok.

You aren’t even referring to the same boost system, specs on the A8 are irrelevant.

The G-series in game are waaay too slow outbound after dropping bombs and using boost - they apparently have all of the drag penalty of the bomb racks with none of the boost benefits. G3 is doing all of 544kph and not even reaching 1.65ata.

 

Its quite a bit slower than A6 with 1.42ata. With 1.65ata C3 injection it should outrun even the clean A6 on the deck on the outbound leg.

[CountZero]

28 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

You aren’t even referring to the same boost system, specs on the A8 are irrelevant.

The G-series in game are waaay too slow outbound after dropping bombs and using boost - they apparently have all of the drag penalty of the bomb racks with none of the boost benefits. G3 is doing all of 544kph and not even reaching 1.65ata.

 

Its quite a bit slower than A6 with 1.42ata. With 1.65ata C3 injection it should outrun even the clean A6 on the deck on the outbound leg.

 

So there is mistery in game why 190A6 when in G3 mode is making on deck 1.58 ata when boost system spec in game say its 1.65.

 

I go and look at A5 with same mode for it U-17 as it also say it have 1.65 at deck and in game it also have 1.58 ata.

 

So then i check A8 in G8 mode and also it have 1.58 ata.

 

In game all 3 airplanes to me look like they are having same system for boost at deck. It have 1.58 ata when spec say its 1.65, it lasts 10min when spec say it should last 10min, it gives same 20kmh speed incresse on all 3 airplanes. So for me this is same resoult for boost on all 3 airplanes.

 

So they either made it work correct, or they screw it up when they made A5 years ago and then they just copy paste same mistake on other 190s that come after.

 

Then there is other thing about is 20kmh boost correct or it should be 35-45kmh, and also if speed penalty of 27 kmh is correct, and thats why its slower with G3 then only clean A6.

 

But to me it looks like all 3 use same boost system in game that on deck give 1.58 ata or there is some mistery  extra boost button that make A5 U-17 and G3 go 1.65 ata at deck in game ? 

 

Also its hard to belive there wasent single tester who tested 190G3 and noticed that it does 1.58 ata at deck and asked whats the deal with that. Its obvious thing to ask so either they didnt test 190G3 or dev give them reson that all is ok and it does 1.58 at deck like other 2 190 do.

Edited March 5, 2021 by CountZero

[CUJO_1970]

10 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Also its hard to belive there wasent single tester who tested 190G3 and noticed that it does 1.58 ata at deck and asked whats the deal with that. Its obvious thing to ask so either they didnt test 190G3 or dev give them reson that all is ok and it does 1.58 at deck like other 2 190 do.

Not sure what may have happened here, but it’s probably best to submit a detailed report to the developers for their consideration.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

@Bremspropeller

Some numbers in game:

clean A-5 with four wing guns, 1.42 ata: 559 km/h

clean A-5 with two wing guns, 1.42 ata: 567 km/h

A-5/U17 with central pylon and wing racks, 1.42 ata: 538 km/h (-29 km/h compared to two wing guns, -21 km/h compared to four wing guns).

A-5/U17 with central pylon and wing racks, 1.59 ata: 560 km/h (+22 km/h compared to 1.42 ata).



clean A-5 with two wing guns, 1.32 ata: 541 km/h

clean G-3 with central pylon and 250 kg wing racks, 1.32 ata: 512 km/h (-29 km/h).



clean A-6 four wing guns, 1.42 ata: 569 km/h

clean A-6 two wing guns, 1.42 ata: 568 km/h

clean G-3 with central pylon and 250 Kg wing racks, 1.42 ata: 539 km/h (-30 km/h)

clean G-3 with central pylon and 250 Kg wing racks, 1.59 ata: 561 km/h (+22 km/h).

The behaviour is consistent compared to the A-5 and A-5/U17, so I don't think drag is the issue, more the lower boost overall.


Are there real tests of a plane with 1.65 ata and the bomb pylons?

Edited March 5, 2021 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[JG1_Wittmann]

Well  I guess the big question is  was that a summer  or winter map,  need to know the season and the temps.  Altitude  would also be nice.  I don't remember who,  but someone posted a link to a test of 4 A4's  and 1 A5,  and that test was showing  I believe 1.61 to 1.68  ATA on the compressor at 100m,  at @ 32-41 F I believe.  So in order to get a good test  it needs to match those parameters, or very very close to see if in game  matches IRL.   Much colder than that and the  #'s will be artificially high.  All AC in game recieve a power boost from the colder air of winter maps,  I have just never bothered to check the map temp  and try and match the temps to the published test vs in game.  I would guess a mission  made Kuban, winter and  set the temp to 0 C  will  give results to compare

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

@JG1_Wittmann This data is for Autumn at sea level in Kuban map, which has 15ºC and 760mmHg pressure , standard atmospheric conditions. These are the conditions used as a standard to compare top speeds, otherwise there will be pitot tube discrepancy and needs to be corrected in function of temperature.