Obligatory A-8 Dog Fight Speculation Thread

[Yo-Yo]

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

 

Of course yes, and the Universe will be cold and flat one day...

Anyway, returning to our rams, now you are ready to draw prop thrust vs speed and estimate the thrust comparing to gravity...

[Ala13_ManOWar]

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...

Gravity, hu? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

 

 

S!

[Kyso4ek]

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.

 

By the way the in game spitfire lies more in the realm of 520-530 kmh at deck and ~620-630 kmh at ~7 km. So the graphs that you are listing are 10-20 kmh optimistic for the spitfires in game as a matter of fact.

[LeCuvier]

I certainly hope that ED will model the A-8 with the extra power. Without it, it would be a dead duck in just about every scenario and I would regret my purchase.

[DD_Fenrir]

It's been stated already that the A-8 will be a pre-July model.

 

So looks like you're going to regret your purchase....

 

Or you could fly to it's strengths. This of course requires developing some skill in flying it... something successful Spit and -51 flyers have had to be familiar with for some time considering the current opposition.

[grafspee]

It's been stated already that the A-8 will be a pre-July model.

 

So looks like you're going to regret your purchase....

 

Or you could fly to it's strengths. This of course requires developing some skill in flying it... something successful Spit and -51 flyers have had to be familiar with for some time considering the current opposition.

 

=1.42 ATA max

[saburo_cz]

It's been stated already that the A-8 will be a pre-July model.

Yes, for time when it is going to be released, but for the future?

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.

Who knows what the future will bring...

[amazingme]

It won't have any success if it's going to be crippled like that..

[71st_AH Rob]

It won't have any success if it's going to be crippled like that..

 

That's hilarious! :megalol:

 

The A-8 was put into production to counter the improvement to the Spitfire Mk IX and the one we have is an early 1943 not the early 1944 version...

[Flying-Kane]

That's hilarious! :megalol:

 

The A-8 was put into production to counter the improvement to the Spitfire Mk IX...

 

 

What? :doh:

[DD_Fenrir]

Here we go....:doh:

[DD_Fenrir]

It won't have any success if it's going to be crippled like that..

 

What profound BS.

 

Like the Spits have no success against the faster 10K9s/190D9s.

 

Or the P-51 has no success against the faster climbing, better accelerating or more manoeuverable 109K?

 

You want to shoot down Spits in an A-8? Engage from above, attack with speed, shoot well and dive to low altitude to escape.

 

Oh, just like the real 190/109 tactics of the era.

 

Funny that!

Edited May 30, 2019 by DD_Fenrir

[DD_Fenrir]

That's hilarious! :megalol:

 

The A-8 was put into production to counter the improvement to the Spitfire Mk IX and the one we have is an early 1943 not the early 1944 version...

 

Please tell me how a 1944 Spit Mk.IX differs from a 1943. Go on. I dare you.

[Magic Zach]

It doesn't matter what plane it is, I will have:

1) fun

2) kick your *** with it

[Magic Zach]

That's hilarious! :megalol:

 

 

 

The A-8 was put into production to counter the improvement to the Spitfire Mk IX and the one we have is an early 1943 not the early 1944 version...

I thought it was the other way around?

[DD_Fenrir]

I thought it was the other way around?

 

Spitfire F.IX was a rushed development to get the series 60 Merlin (the 61 to be precise) on the front of an F.V airframe to counter the general issues presented by the early series Fw 109s; the A-0/1/2.

 

The Spitfire LF.IX comes when an Fw 190A-3 force landed in Pembry UK and was captured. Direct performance evaluation discovered there was still a few altitude bands where the A-3 was faster than the F.IX but by changing the supercharger gear ratios on the Merlin - and thus creating the Merlin 66 - that gap was closed. Ergo the LF.IX is born.

 

The Fw 190A-8s primary difference to the A-5 is that it had a structurally redesigned and lighter wing (from the A-6) and the nose mounted armament was increased to two MG 131 fuselage machine guns (A-7) and a new radio, IIRC.

 

Weight of fire for tackling US bombers seems to have been the primary driver in the development of the A-8 (via the -6 & -7).

 

Given the disposition of the Jagdwaffe in late '43 and into 1944, their primary concern was intercepting USAAF B-17s/B-24s, not dogfighting Spitfires over the Channel or Pas de Calais.

Edited May 30, 2019 by DD_Fenrir

[grafspee]

i realy dont know why this argue is happening.

every plane will be downgrade to what we have righ now :)

unless it is p-51H ta152 or spit mkIVX or higher

[DD_Fenrir]

War Thunder mentality.

 

Historical accuracy vs top trumps.

[Sniper175]

Bunch of cry baby air quakers that’s why, Jesus this bird will rock, crush AG and get flight experience like the war hero’s before us and you do just fine. That’s the fun learning and flying the envelops not pay to win lord.... go spamraam on the modern servers. Tail draggers in dcs you actually have to fly them and thanks to yoyo and party we have the plus and minus modelled for these air frames:thumbup:

 

Rant off

 

4x20mm:joystick:

[Magic Zach]

Imo the BS server should change a bit. SoW has some more realistic missions. I think BS should expand their mission more though. The single target area thing has gotten a bit lame. Other things like at least a half-hearted recreation of a war zone would be nice. Convoys to destroy. Trains to dismantle. Etc.

Also Normandy, but I can understand why eekz has decided not to use it...

[amazingme]

What profound BS.

 

Like the Spits have no success against the faster 10K9s/190D9s.

 

Or the P-51 has no success against the faster climbing, better accelerating or more manoeuverable 109K?

 

You want to shoot down Spits in an A-8? Engage from above, attack with speed, shoot well and dive to low altitude to escape.

 

Oh, just like the real 190/109 tactics of the era.

 

Funny that!

 

Please watch your language!

Second, 'success' as in ED selling the module, that is..

[DD_Fenrir]

Apologies amazingme, I misinterpreted your post.

 

However I suggest you go look at the "bought" thread. There are many others who haven't posted who will also want this module.

 

I have the D-9. I've pre-purchased the A-8. Most other WW2 loving DCS enthusiasts will too.

 

Some of us aren't bothered by balancing, or War Thunder stat wars/races.

 

Why?

 

Because the majority find satisfaction in historical authenticity. This is the aircraft that should have been part of the kickstarter campaign to tie in with the Normandy Map.

[amazingme]

Apologies accepted!

You probably missed the fact that the A-8 we'll be getting is a specific one.. and it does not represent the model. Or, at least, the motives in developing exactly that model are pretty subjective.

[DD_Fenrir]

You mean this one?:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3651630&postcount=100

 

How does it not represent the model? We've been told we'll be getting a pre-July 1944 spec A-8. That plane is a pre-July 1944 spec A-8.

[grafspee]

who didnt bouy this already ??