Obligatory A-8 Dog Fight Speculation Thread

[SuperEtendard]

The Fw 190 got the 1.65 ata with C3 injection in the first supercharger speed for the Jabos initially (mid 1943 iirc), in the A-5/U17 which was later redesignated F-3 when mass produced in that configuration.

 

The Jabo variants use this setting, extra boost (1.65 ata) for low altitudes (below 1000 meters) with C3 injection in the first supercharger gear, including the F-8.

 

Later on the Fw 190 A-8 got in July 1944 a new engine setting, 1.58 ata for the first supercharger gear and 1.65 ata for the second supercharger gear, without C3 injection.

 

Now looking at the DCS Fw 190 A-8 cockpit pictures and the info one of the devs shared, looks like they will model it after a particular plane that was shotdown in June 1944, so in theory it wouldn't have this increased setting (only 1.42 ata for the fighter version). The extra power was activated via a red button below the speed indicator, which isn't there in the cockpit pictures they published.

 

So unless they confirmed it will get 1.58/1.65 setting it would be with the 1.42 ata 1700 HP engine power for the fighter configuration.

 

The A-8 isn't in a particularly good place in this situation, it is heavier with a high wing loading, and draggier airframe while having the same power as the 190A from the previous years. The speed is slightly faster than the Spitfire LF Mk IX at low altitude, but slower at mid and high alts. It will have to make hit and run tactics, and if it's caught in a bad situation it won't be able to run away in level flight, it will need to dive. The P-51 will be much faster at all altitudes, and looks like better climber and more agile as well.

 

 

Some graphs comparing the speeds of these fighters (the A-8 without the bomb pylon in both cases).

 

 

 

 

With the increased 1.58/1.65 ata power available the situation improves against the Spit at low/mid altitutes, though against the P-51 it would be more or less the same.

 

 

A good choice would be to have both options available, one for 1.42 ata and the other with 1.58/1.65 so mission designers can choose which setting is appropiate with the timeframe they want to simulate. For both early/mid and mid/late 1944.

Edited May 18, 2019 by SuperEtendard

[grafspee]

So 1.42 ata then

it is clear for me now so A-8 limited to 1.42 ATA

and F-8 wich we may get later will have c3 fule injection allowing for 1.65 at low alt then

Edited May 18, 2019 by grafspee

[Gman109]

IMO the only thing an A8 will have in a fight starting from fairly neutral positions vs the current Allied fighters in DCS is to try and use its roll rate to suck the other fighter into a rolling scissors of some type. Using superior roll rate and the ability to rapidly decelerate using this will sometimes give the A8 one good opportunity for a shot. Miss that shot, and then you're very slow in a fighter than turns and accelerates in a much inferior manner - IMO.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

The A-8 isn't in a particularly good place in this situation, it is heavier with a high wing loading, and draggier airframe while having the same power as the 190A from the previous years. The speed is slightly faster than the Spitfire LF Mk IX at low altitude, but slower at mid and high alts. It will have to make hit and run tactics, and if it's caught in a bad situation it won't be able to run away in level flight, it will need to dive. The P-51 will be much faster at all altitudes, and looks like better climber and more agile as well.

Well, the fact is almost whatever we get now after late war models chosen by Luthier (Bf109K4 in particular) will be a downgrade. Not a surprise at all.

 

 

S!

[grafspee]

Well, the fact is almost whatever we get now after late war models chosen by Luthier (Bf109K4 in particular) will be a downgrade. Not a surprise at all.

 

 

S!

 

someone alredy said that that ED should start with f-2 or even e-7 bf109 :) and move up to k4

i will buy every warbird which will come out in future but its only me if someone looks for better plane than bf-109 k4 or fw190 d9 it will be hard to find any :P

Edited May 19, 2019 by grafspee

[Ala13_ManOWar]

I would either, having the opportunity to fly such machines in DCS level is something to take advantage of. But seems not everybody is willing to.

 

 

 

S!

[Magic Zach]

True but in all the air quake servers who actually flys high enough to take that advantage?:pilotfly:

Me, in my Mustang on Burning Skies, fairly regularly. And with great success, by the way :)

[grafspee]

someone alredy said that that ED should start with f-2 or even e-7 bf109 :) and move up to k4

i will buy every warbird which will come out in future but its only me if someone looks for better plane than bf-109 k4 or fw190 d9 it will be hard to find any :P

 

actualy there are couple planes which would be upgrade to k-4/D9/p-51D

p-51H and Ta-152

[msalama]

P-51H

 

No H birds saw combat in WW2.

[grafspee]

No H birds saw combat in WW2.

 

desnt matter but H was ready for fight if not nuclear bombs it would see combat

[LeCuvier]

Probably it is all regarding the earlier versions. The current plane will not have C3 injection.

 

UPD: The ability to add 1.58/1.65 is added to the engine already, but for this modification it is disabled due to the variant modelled.

Thanks for closing this endless discussion!

[macrossMX]

I guess the ideal way to fight in the A8 is to focus on BnZ and always have a wingman at your side in case the defender finds an opening to reverse on you. And if nothing else have a wingman with you and execute the Thach Weave to lure the poor fool into an open broadside for its 4 MG151 cannons to work its magic.

 

And if all else fails, go hellcat on them and fight them head on.

[gavagai]

Wonder if the Radial is heavier... that might help with boom and zoom tactics.

 

Late to the party, but...

 

A better power:weight ratio is always going to win in a zoom climb compared to the extra kinetic energy of more mass. The 109K-4 is a good example of this principle.

 

The idea that more mass improves BnZ capability needs to die.

[grafspee]

why ppl thinks that heavier object will fall faster i dont know

earth gravity attract objects to it's centre. the force depends on mass of the object so if we have heavier plane earth will affect it with greater force but acceleration will remain the same becouse havier object neeed greater force to reach same acceleration.

in initial stage of the dive while plane has low velocity engine power place greater impact on acceleration so more power better less mass better at great speeds engine power effect passing away leaving only gravity in dominant force, at high velocity neither mass of the plane or engine power plays the role only drag of the airframe.

in climb after dive extra mass wont change anything earth will put same ammount decceleration on heavy and light plane so in this case engine powert to weight ration will play main role and airframe with less high speed drag will win here too

if we compare planes with similar drag and couple times difrence in mass that would change the subject but planes mass were preaty much the same comparing to their drag

as most of ww2 planes can go in dive much faster then structural strenth of the airframe at low alt so only difrences between those planes is controlbility at high mach numbers at high at alt

if we compare planes with similar drag and couple times difrence in mass that would change the subject but

so D-9 is much better in diving for sure

and difrence in mass d-9 and a-8 is marginal i would say and a-8 has more draggy airframe

Edited May 26, 2019 by grafspee

[antagonist]

why ppl thinks that heavier object will fall faster i dont know

earth gravity attract objects to it's centre. the force depends on mass of the object so if we have heavier plane earth will affect it with greater force but acceleration will remain the same becouse havier object neeed greater force to reach same acceleration.

in initial stage of the dive while plane has low velocity engine power place greater impact on acceleration so more power better less mass better at great speeds engine power effect passing away leaving only gravity in dominant force, at high velocity neither mass of the plane or engine power plays the role only drag of the airframe.

in climb after dive extra mass wont change anything earth will put same ammount decceleration on heavy and light plane so in this case engine powert to weight ration will play main role and airframe with less high speed drag will win here too

if we compare planes with similar drag and couple times difrence in mass that would change the subject but planes mass were preaty much the same comparing to their drag

as most of ww2 planes can go in dive much faster then structural strenth of the airframe at low alt so only difrences between those planes is controlbility at high mach numbers at high at alt

if we compare planes with similar drag and couple times difrence in mass that would change the subject but

so D-9 is much better in diving for sure

and difrence in mass d-9 and a-8 is marginal i would say and a-8 has more draggy airframe

 

In the absence of drag, yes. Once you get close to a plane's level top speed, the heavier it is, the faster it'll keep accelerating past it.

 

Is it going to decide the fight? Probably, hell, almost certainly not outside of very specific circumstances.

 

Is it measurable? Absolutely.

 

E: Also, following your logic, parachuting is impossible.

 

--------

 

Also, saying this isn't true because the 109K outperforms its opponents is a logical fallacy. The plane has in the vicinity of 400 more hp than the Spitfire and Mustang, yet is around 800 kg lighter at TOW than the P-51 and around the same weight as the Spit.

Edited May 27, 2019 by antagonist

[Yo-Yo]

why ppl thinks that heavier object will fall faster i dont know

earth gravity attract objects to it's centre. the force depends on mass of the object so if we have heavier plane earth will affect it with greater force but acceleration will remain the same becouse havier object neeed greater force to reach same acceleration.

in initial stage of the dive while plane has low velocity engine power place greater impact on acceleration so more power better less mass better at great speeds engine power effect passing away leaving only gravity in dominant force, at high velocity neither mass of the plane or engine power plays the role only drag of the airframe.

in climb after dive extra mass wont change anything earth will put same ammount decceleration on heavy and light plane so in this case engine powert to weight ration will play main role and airframe with less high speed drag will win here too

if we compare planes with similar drag and couple times difrence in mass that would change the subject but planes mass were preaty much the same comparing to their drag

as most of ww2 planes can go in dive much faster then structural strenth of the airframe at low alt so only difrences between those planes is controlbility at high mach numbers at high at alt

if we compare planes with similar drag and couple times difrence in mass that would change the subject but

so D-9 is much better in diving for sure

and difrence in mass d-9 and a-8 is marginal i would say and a-8 has more draggy airframe

 

just compare the prop thrust at, for example, reasonable low dive entering speed and the gravity force projection to the flightpath at, say, 45 degrees dive angle.

As you take reasonable combat speed (350 IAS, I think is the lowest) you can repeat the calculation.

[grafspee]

In the absence of drag, yes. Once you get close to a plane's level top speed, the heavier it is, the faster it'll keep accelerating past it.

 

Is it going to decide the fight? Probably, hell, almost certainly not outside of very specific circumstances.

 

Is it measurable? Absolutely.

 

E: Also, following your logic, parachuting is impossible.

 

--------

 

Also, saying this isn't true because the 109K outperforms its opponents is a logical fallacy. The plane has in the vicinity of 400 more hp than the Spitfire and Mustang, yet is around 800 kg lighter at TOW than the P-51 and around the same weight as the Spit.

 

i was talking about a-8 and d-9 which are quite close in weight and drag so terminal speed for both will be close to each

and spit/p-51 has maby 150hp less then k-4 not 400

that why i told that airframe drag will play main role here

actualy a-8 could be significantly more draggy

parachuting increasing drag area 1000 time or more that will ipact terminal speeed by great deal

D-9 more power, less drag, slight heavier then A-8 i think is safe to say that D-9 is better boom zoom plane

Edited May 27, 2019 by grafspee

[grafspee]

just compare the prop thrust at, for example, reasonable low dive entering speed and the gravity force projection to the flightpath at, say, 45 degrees dive angle.

As you take reasonable combat speed (350 IAS, I think is the lowest) you can repeat the calculation.

 

i do know that prop looses efficiency with increase of airspeed so i assume that at high speed engine power will play lesse role then at low airspeeds

[grafspee]

if we load up a-8 and d-9 that total weight will be the same we can eliminate weight from equation ,can we ??

Edited May 27, 2019 by grafspee

[Sniper175]

Either way 4x 20mm canons baby. Ground pounding time!

[Yo-Yo]

i do know that prop looses efficiency with increase of airspeed so i assume that at high speed engine power will play lesse role then at low airspeeds

 

https://www.facebook.com/pozytywkawsem/videos/664393313991127/

 

 

Prop DO NOT loose efficiency (if you mean efficiency in its accurate meaning) with increase of airspeed - it increases within the certain range of speed. But anyway, try to compare it to the gravity...

[grafspee]

https://www.facebook.com/pozytywkawsem/videos/664393313991127/

 

 

Prop DO NOT loose efficiency (if you mean efficiency in its accurate meaning) with increase of airspeed - it increases within the certain range of speed. But anyway, try to compare it to the gravity...

 

how should i read that ??

[Klonk]

Same sh.t that permeated the IL2 forums.

I hope you know how to fly your a/c.. as razo+r has already said.

:smartass:

[Yo-Yo]

how should i read that ??

 

Very carefully, with respect of the fact that we are discussing not a Tiger Moth or Po-2.

[grafspee]

Very carefully, with respect of the fact that we are discussing not a Tiger Moth or Po-2.

 

yes this one above is for fixed pitch

i can still see some drop in efficiency here and every prop has its max pitch limited somewhere