[REPORTED] underperforming engine

[Hornetjock]

Thank you for the responses. Very instructive and thoughtful from obviously experienced fliers. I don't know which A8 Nineline was looping "fine", but it wasn't mine. Yes I take your point re taking an aircraft beyond its envelope - thats just common sense. But I still believe Max Immelmann's maneuver to reverse course quickly by rolling off the top of a loop is still a basic fighter action. It is also useful when strafing ground targets - saves time and keeps you in the same firing orientation, only reversed. I take your point that you are slower obviously at the top - not good against an opposing fighter, so you shouldn't be doing it in a dogfight, especially in the A8. I still believe its a basic maneuver that any fighter should be capable of, and the level of its difficulty speaks to flaws which should not be there. It just feels stally/squirrelly. In addition, I am finding the landings extremely hazardous, current success rate about 2 in 10. Smoking piles of scrap everywhere. But I will keep trying, and as you say - it is a WIP and maybe, just maybe...

[Hornetjock]

Even with the centerline mount you can loop. But its a bit hard.

Current Open Beta

 

 

1st loop was okayish

2nd loop was meh

3rd loop was okay

 

Centerline mount installed.

Full fuel, full ammo.

Throttle was set to full power most of the time.

 

 

I also installed the version of OB with the Anton release. The performance was similar.

 

 

 

 

 

WOOOT?? Looping is not a good idea in a Dogfight.... that explains some things...

 

 

This video is excellent and shows that the A8 will loop nicely. Thanks. I will lose the centreline mount and go half fuel and keep trying. I hope my technique is as smooth as yours.

[NineLine]

Thank you for the responses. Very instructive and thoughtful from obviously experienced fliers. I don't know which A8 Nineline was looping "fine", but it wasn't mine. Yes I take your point re taking an aircraft beyond its envelope - thats just common sense. But I still believe Max Immelmann's maneuver to reverse course quickly by rolling off the top of a loop is still a basic fighter action. It is also useful when strafing ground targets - saves time and keeps you in the same firing orientation, only reversed. I take your point that you are slower obviously at the top - not good against an opposing fighter, so you shouldn't be doing it in a dogfight, especially in the A8. I still believe its a basic maneuver that any fighter should be capable of, and the level of its difficulty speaks to flaws which should not be there. It just feels stally/squirrelly. In addition, I am finding the landings extremely hazardous, current success rate about 2 in 10. Smoking piles of scrap everywhere. But I will keep trying, and as you say - it is a WIP and maybe, just maybe...

 

If you read up on the tactics used by the pilots in the A-8 you will find they were not doing loops or Immelmans, and generally avoided turn fights when they could. You cant be so general and say this move is a basic fighter move, that just isn't how it works. They were doing Boom and Zoom, which as you are all pointing out, that the A8 climbs well after a dive... Boom... then zoom. In many cases, the A-8 could outpace a Spit in a climb initially, but at the top end of it would run out of energy before the Spitfire. Seems to be similar to what everyone is saying here. So again, you have to adjust your tactics to the fight. While I was able to loop just fine, it was very low energy at the top of the loop, and if I was in a fight, I am sure I would have been dead.

[Yo-Yo]

I see that discussion lost its point. First of all - the claims that 190A8 can not perform loops are very far from the truth - it's looping easy if you start it at 450+ and have not less than 200-220 kph at the top. So, the initial g-load must be 4+.

Looping itself is not a best way to energy managment ESPECIALLY FOR THE PLANES WITH HIGH WING LOADING. It's a bare math. Energy loss depends on n^2 and on G/S. I think only the Spitfire can perform endless loops because of the highest power/weight and area/weight ratious. 109k could do the same, I think, but a bit worse for the same power due to its lower area/weight ratio.

But 190 is very good in gaining and retaining energy in 1g or partly unloaded flight due to low ballistic coefficient.

 

And no - these fundamental relationships can not be changed neither in early access nor in release and even final access.

[grafspee]

i was trying to do loop at 350kph :P

[Yo-Yo]

i was trying to do loop at 350kph :P

Bad idea... you need to take in account that your speed deposit for energy trading becomes smaller, as you need to have the same 200 kph at the top. So, you need to do tighter loop loosing more energy or even stalling.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

I see that discussion lost its point. First of all - the claims that 190A8 can not perform loops are very far from the truth - it's looping easy if you start it at 450+ and have not less than 200-220 kph at the top. So, the initial g-load must be 4+.

Interesting, so in a Fw190A-8 you do a loop exactly as classic theory says you should in any aerobatic aeroplane :D.

 

 

S!

[grafspee]

4+ what does it mean ?? 8G count as 4+ too ?? or is it range between 4.1-4.9g?

[Ala13_ManOWar]

4+ what does it mean ?? 8G count as 4+ too ?? or is it range between 4.1-4.9g?

Means, as is obvious, more than 4Gs. Is 8G more than 4G? Yes, it is. Will be you be able to pull 8G's at 450Km/H to the vertical? I hardly doubt it, but you can try. 4 to 4.5 Gs will get you to a nice loop, even though you people usually forget to ease the pull at the top and gradually pull again in the dive so usually end up in vertical eggs instead of circles :D.

 

S!

[grafspee]

what about rpm drop in hard pulls is it supossed to be like this?

[Hornetjock]

what about rpm drop in hard pulls is it supossed to be like this?

 

 

I can't believe the performance could have been as poor as modeled. I'm no expert - only a moderately skilled sim pilot - but the transition to the Spit is a relief and revelation after an hour in the A8. While on the subject... the prop pitch was supposed to be able to be mapped to a controller in the latest update. I still can't get any changes to rpm on a switch or using the aircrafts throttle thumb switch.

Edited July 5, 2019 by Hornetjock

[NineLine]

Why are you trying to manually control RPM? Pilots were quite happy using the automatic controls.

[Yo-Yo]

By the way, if somebody has several WWII planes (L-39, MiG-15 and Sabre are suitable too), he can perform a series of maneuvers and obtain energy and vertical turnfight energy abilities.

 

THe first test is a swing-test:

1. Pass a point at the certain altitude (better start from the SL - more ques) at the maximal SL speed, then pull gently (it's a matter of practice to find optimal g-load for the plane) up to 60 deg pitch (keep it the same for all planes) and as you rich near 1g stall speed turn the plane gears-up and reverse your flight gently but not too slow (a kind of wingover if you prefer) - you must have long way at -60 deg pitch and smooth recover over the same point you started the swing.

After some passes the top altitude and the maximal speed will remain the same - it is limits for the certain plane. THe more is altitude gain the more the plane can be used as an E-fighter.

 

2. Perform a loop starting from different speeds ending it at the same point you start it. Find (V2^2 - V1^2)/2g, where V2 - is the final speed (TAS) and V1 is the initial one. Getting the best result for your plane you can learn how to manage speed and g-load during a loop.

 

So, now you can range the planes regarding their energy capability.

Edited July 5, 2019 by Yo-Yo

[grafspee]

By the way, if somebody has several WWII planes (L-39, MiG-15 and Sabre are suitable too), he can perform a series of maneuvers and obtain energy and vertical turnfight energy abilities.

 

THe first test is a swing-test:

1. Pass a point at the certain altitude (better start from the SL - more ques) at the maximal SL speed, then pull gently (it's a matter of practice to find optimal g-load for the plane) up to 60 deg pitch (keep it the same for all planes) and as you rich near 1g stall speed turn the plane gears-up and reverse your flight gently but not too slow (a kind of wingover if you prefer) - you must have long way at -60 deg pitch and smooth recover over the same point you started the swing.

After some passes the top altitude and the maximal speed will remain the same - it is limits for the certain plane. THe more is altitude gain the more the plane can be used as an E-fighter.

 

2. Perform a loop starting from different speeds ending it at the same point you start it. Find (V2^2 - V1^2)/2g, where V2 - is the final speed (TAS) and V1 is the initial one. Getting the best result for your plane you can learn how to manage speed and g-load during a loop.

 

So, now you can range the planes regarding their energy capability.

 

spitfire is the best i think

[Yo-Yo]

spitfire is the best i think

 

In which test?

[grafspee]

In which test?

 

in loops

[Yo-Yo]

in loops

 

Sure. But the worst in the first one.

[Hornetjock]

Why are you trying to manually control RPM? Pilots were quite happy using the automatic controls.

 

 

Because it is specifically mentioned in the update 2.5.5 notes that the rpm in the 190 A8 is "can now be assigned to a controller..." I thought this was important info to act on as it might affect the performance we are struggling with. Apparently not...

[Hunter Joker]

 

Here a test between the two game versions, the BoX FW apparently got a little more powered engine and the boost. The number are more closer to the original data advertised, so probably a little tweaking on engine and drag... (too much power loose on turn...) could be right.

 

Inviato dal mio BLA-L09 utilizzando Tapatalk

[OG84]

Fun fact, i found an official doc from the manufacturer where it says:

 

"Starting from july '44 all planes of the A8 series will be set up with an increased emergency power setting.

 

1.42 ata -> 1.58 ata below 3.3km

1.42 ata -> 1.65 ata above

 

This should give us an extra 25km/h when fighting the Mustang :)

 

[Vatikus]

Did anyone test yet if anything was improved with the release of A8?

[MrExplosion]

Originally Posted by Robin885 View Post

tbh I think it's just sad we got the 1.42 ata instead of the 1.55 or 1.68 ata engines. But it still feels underpowered in combat.

I still don't understand the story with the C3 injection system either, every source I read of talk about it for the A8 variant, so why is it not going to be done?

 

Far as I know we will get it.

 

Any updates on this?

[grafspee]

How i understand this.

1.C3 injection allowing for 1.68 ATA take off limited to 1000 ft alt is used to enhance take offs suitable for A-G missions.

2. Boost increase w/o c3 or mw50 injection to 1.55 low supercharger and 1.68 high supercharger. suitable for fighter use.

[Cunctator]

1.C3 injection allowing for 1.68 ATA take off limited to 1000 ft alt is used to enhance take offs suitable for A-G missions.

 

The limit for C3 injection is 1000 m, not 1000 ft. It can be used up to three times per mission for up to 10 minutes, with a 10 min cooldown period between. Not intended for take off but to give fighter bombers and attack aircraft an extra speed boost, up to 45 km/h, to increase their survivability during low level attacks. Hopefully we will see this once the F8 and G8 are released.

[MrExplosion]

Far as I know we will get it.

 

The limit for C3 injection is 1000 m, not 1000 ft. It can be used up to three times per mission for up to 10 minutes, with a 10 min cooldown period between. Not intended for take off but to give fighter bombers and attack aircraft an extra speed boost, up to 45 km/h, to increase their survivability during low level attacks. Hopefully we will see this once the F8 and G8 are released.

 

Look here for my explanation:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4227074#post4227074

 

In short: C3 is for take off and increased manifold pressure for increased dogfight performance.