amazingme

The art of sharpshooting is pretty hard.. That's why it's better to come as close as you can get to the target.. in terms of 'accuracy'.. but, there are situations in which it is very risky to get close to the target because it takes time to do so and you'll be pretty exposed during that time. In this case, it is much safer but exponentially harder to take high deflection shots at the target, especially when you boom'n'zoom, and that takes A LOT of practice to master. It IS of very much importance the deflection angle as well as the distance to the target, taking into consideration the guns convergence and, respectively, the 'bullet drop'. Practice is your only solution here, there are NO shortcuts.

In reality, most probably, you won't do any critical damage to a tank. In DCS you probably can kill it with sufficient rounds put on it.

It seems the WWII people are more inclined to airquake, which is a pity..

It's still underpowered.. and Saburo probably has wind, so TAS would be smaller. I still can't go past 540km/h with rads flaps completely closed. Also, you can't cook the engine no matter what you do. Is it still in beta? Sent from my Redmi 5 using Tapatalk

I have a FF joystick (G940) and it feels like it's going to tear apart sometimes.

This behavior is much older, but since more allied players have started to use the Bf, the number of reports are gradually rising too. Old axis pilots are used to it.. unfortunately.

Yeah.. crazy acceleration.. Thanks for the effort! I'll give more tries..

Hi Saburo, Can you, please, make a video or attach a tacview with the speeds obtained? I can't get to those speeds no matter configuration and air temperature I set in ME. My top speed (TAS) is ~540km/h with rads fully closed and ~530km/h with rads fully opened (both on a hot day). Are you sure you weren't diving? I also noticed (in tacview) that TAS and IAS differ with maximum +/-3km/h no matter the atmospheric conditions, so, of course, this difference could be easily neglected @ SL.

You, again, are a very confused man. You maybe confuse me with someone else, like, your parents, I don't know.. When you attack a person it means two things: first, you don't have any logical argument and second, it makes you look like a low character person, but you should've known that by now, without me telling you these. I've shown you that the values from the charts are OFF in DCS, no matter what the conditions are. The differences are too large. Additionally, and that was my main concern about Anton's FM accuracy, is that it loses the power during climbing at any altitude.

I hope it's not only on my side..

No, but you should watch your language. Please keep this civilized without ad hominem attacks. My controls are fine, A-8 not so much.. You should try and see for yourself what I mean. See the clips bellow. ===============Translation of your report======================== http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a8-733705-2.html Flight Report Fw 190 A-8/733705 Nr.2 translated: [...] Condition: Engine 801 D-2/316248 A-8 production condition (without outer wing weapons). Armament: 2 Mg 131, 2 MG 151 (MG 151 with 230 rounds ammunition each). ETC 501. Rigid wheel door panels. Perlon-landing-gear tires the Firm Conti 25.10. ./. 10.11. Ballast: In the FT area 10 kg. In fuselage center instead of internal extra tank 125 kg. Between floor panel and master compass 75 kg. 30.10. ./. 6.11.44 Take-off weight G = 4224 kg Center of gravity position = 0.78 m. Program: 1. Determination of level speeds with engine, Werk-Nr. 316248. 2. Recording of the cooling pressures in climb and level flight. 3. Flight characteristic investigations with rear positions of the center of gravity. Results: 1. After replacement of the engine that failed from supercharger damage, serial No. 328909, level speeds using combat and take-off power were determined in the as-delivered condition. Using the ram pressure calibration as shown in Flight Report Nr 1 the important points of the speed plots are as follows: Speed at SL with combat power VwKC = 321 mph (516 km/h) " " " take-off power VwKC = 334 mph (537 km/h) Speed at full throttle height with combat power (5650m) VwKC = 366 mph (589 km/h) " " " " take-off power (6100m) VwKC = 383 mph (617 km/h) The necessary conditions are fulfilled for a later comparison and the airplane can be converted to the intended improved aerodynamic condition. 2. Since a modification of the cowl flaps as well as the cooling air outlet cross-section is also scheduled with the conversion, the pressures in the engine were determined during climb and level flights. The chart of the values obtained in the climb show, that from 6000 m height upwards the necessary cooling pressure drop as required by BMW for 220° cylinder temperatures is reached only with fully opened cowl flaps. 3. For the check of the rearmost position of the center of gravity for bad weather fighters the machine was brought, through ballast, to a rear center of gravity with full drop tank from s = 0.78 ./. 0.76 m . With this the airplane is significantly unstable and must be flown carefully. Only after consumption of the fuel supply down to approximately 100 litres for each main fuselage tank, thus a cog-position of 0.72 m, a sufficient stability around the transverse axis is present. In the case of standard pre-setting of the horizontal stabilizer of 2° toward nose-heavy (indicated 0) and neutral elevator trim tab edge resulted in the following trim indicator positions: Center of Gravity position 0.78 m (unstable): Take-off + 1° Climb +1.8° Center of Gravity position 0.72 m (stable): Level flight + 0.5° Climb +1.0° Further flights conducted with trim tab edges adjusted to ~ 25° nose-heavy resp. tail-heavy show that no movement of the neutral point is caused through this. Judged purely by feel, however, the upward slope of the stability line seems thereby influenced by, and in the favorable sense with trim tab edges adjusted nose-heavy. Langenhagen, 21 November 1944 GT/Schw. ========================================================= The results are: Speed at SL with combat power VwKC = 321 mph (516 km/h) " " " take-off power VwKC = 334 mph (537 km/h) This test was done for a SPECIFIC engine Werk-Nr. 316248 with ETC501 installed. Anyway, I made two short videos to back up my claims. In the first movie you can see that my top speed @SL is ~500km/h @ 1.32ATA and ~520 km/h @ 1.42ATA , whereas my wingman can reach >557km/h @ probably 1.42ATA. I also did a few loops to show that the rpm dropping can be heard. Nothing wrong with the controls as you can see that my VPC throttle can reach the maximum travel. In the second one, with air start, you may notice that the boost is capped @ 1.32ATA and, unless I dive it cannot reach 1.4ATA not even 1.42 and upon climbing it is again capped @1.32ATA. Call that NORMAL and I'll uninstall DCS altogether. I'll try to remove A-8 module and re-install it, maybe it'll change something. L.E. Same thing after re-installing the module.

You clearly confuse me with somebody else..

ED also calculates data and uses those data in the FM model of various aircraft and it's nothing wrong with that as long is uses the CORRECT input data. What you ignore is how the REAL engineers from Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau AG calculated those data and how the tests were done to confirm those data. All I said is that the A-8 in DCS is underpowered in DCS, from all points of view. Besides that, also in DCS, the A-8's governor behaves weird, at least. Starting in air with 2700rpm with full power you can only get to 1.32ATA in level flight, and it stays there. The only way to achieve 1.4ATA (and not 1.42!!!) is if you dive, but the power remains constant. Sometimes, the boost goes to 1.65 then returns to 1.4, very weird. The only "logical" thing I understand from you is that the Mustang is better than the A-8 because it can achieve a higher top speed forgetting to mention in what conditions those tests were done so that the Mustang could achieve those speeds. If you think that the engineers from FW were wrong in their calculations and ED is right.. I rest my case here.

First of all, your data are with these conditions: Engine BMW D-2/328909 to 27.9 . Engine BMW D-2/316248 A-8 production condition (without outer wing weapons). Armament: 2 MG 131, 2 MG 151 (MG 151 with ammunition) ETC 501. Rigid wheel door panels. Wing nose camera BSK 16 installed (temporarily) AT-bomb rack mockup with 6 bombs per wing ( Panzerblitz ) 29.9 . / . 6.10. Here's the correct data: The flight performance in clean configuration is 557km/h at SL (2700 rpm @ 1.42ATA) in a test done in 1943 and 578km/h at SL in a test done in 1944: 1943 1944 Secondly, the top speed, only, won't tell anything about the other characteristics of the planes, acceleration (level, climbing, diving), roll rate etc. that I was referring to. FYI:

Yes, in reality was not underpowered, but as I don't have any real life experience with it nor any data coming from real life testing for this, I can only compare it to other planes in DCS, as they share the same framework, and I reckon it's still underpowered even with 1500PS @ 1.4 ATA. A lower wing loading means larger wing which, in turn, means more drag, so it's not all about wing loading. It helps with sustained turn at lower speeds, but those are not true fighters, are they? The ability to change the direction, due to higher roll rate is what a fighter is all about and instantaneous turn rate would allow the pilot to put the guns in lead especially at high speeds. The logic behind the Mustang which would have to carry a lot of fuel for long distances missions are opposite to the FW philosophy of creating a nimble fighter that could rapidly intercept and destroy the bombers together with their cover. An additional question would be if we'll get 1.65ATA that will ameliorate the current performance. Thanks!

I do understand how aerodynamics work and the laws of physics, in general, but the A-8 cannot recover it's energy in the dive after doing a loop, because it's either underpowered or it loses power or both. The double loop experiment it very concludent. If you avoid the high AoA, as you said, then you won't be able to go over the top in the first place. The max AoA should be around 18-19 degrees, and you'll bleed all speed doing it. iFoxRomeo did some looping tests, and as you can notice, he has to extend longer and longer after each loop to regain the initial energy.

Your judgement is hollow, not mine. And if you don't believe me then here it is for you to better understand: -P51D: Weight 4054kg (30% fuel), Power 1,490 hp (1,111 kW) at 3,000 rpm -FW 190 A-8: Weight 4037kg (40%), Power 1,500 hp at 2,400 rpm With these data in mind do the looping tests again and see the differences. Let me add another thing here, if I don't have any data then neither ED has, because they are public data not and some state secret. That's why I used my own judgement and ED's own data regarding different planes and make comparisons. It's clear that FW 190 is underpowered (low acceleration) and it also loses power in climbing. It should have 2700 rpm with OR without 1.65 boost (C-3, NOS, MW) with the relative INCREASE in power. It's obviously an incomplete airframe that we have now. Nevertheless, with only 1500hp it should be able to do a double loop without missing 50km/h at the bottom of the loop, as in currently does. "The 190 has a high power-to-weight ratio, meaning that it has a good acceleration. It is equally quite manoeuverable and can reach higher airspeeds than the Mustang at altitudes under 20,000 ft(6 km)." page 71 https://www.mudspike.com/wp-content/uploads/guides/DCS%20FW-190A-8%20Guide.pdf

Nothing stops me to use common sense to judge different things.. but that's a different story. You confuse energy with power..

Please introduce pilot STAMINA together with the new damage model. A human cannot withstand the 11 Gs that the Spitfire can pull without blacking out or cannot withstand those G forces for a long period of time followed by another period of high Gs. There are a lot of science data regarding the effects of G forces on a human body. It really adds to the REALISM.

Of course it's a wrong behavior, as long as you have common sense and notice that it loses power. You just have to compare it to the other planes IN DCS with comparable or less power to weight ratio.

Thanks for taking the time to test the Anton's looping capabilities. First of all, the loops are not correctly done but skipping this, I asked you to make 2 consecutive loops.. that means when you exit the first loop you must enter the second one and not gain speed flying flat, those are NOT consecutive loops, in other words, the loops should intersect.

If you read carefully the document, it says that "The stated performance figures are going to be reached with well-built serial production machines FOR CERTAIN." No specials were included in the calculations: as in surface finish of airframe and prop, or improved rads and so on. Also, the documents that you provided are clearly incomplete. Nevertheless, I would trust those engineers more than I trust you or anyone else that didn't took part in the development.

Hummingbird's reasoning is perfectly justifiable, just as Yo-Yo's extrapolations are when he calculated different things for all birds where data were not available. But, what does this mean? "This 12 km/h will be only added to the calculations, if the abovementioned MEASURES can be actually materialized for series production." (if that's the correct translation).

Thanks for the fix!:thumbup:

This is NEW behaviour.. She starts shaking as soon as you engage the MW50. Something is definitely not right here. Sent from my Redmi 5 using Tapatalk