requested Erhöhte Notleistung

[Bozon]

Removing the outboard wing cannons will probably do more for the Anton as a fighter than the EN boost. Regardless, both options should be available.

[ButcherBiird]

On 11/23/2022 at 10:42 AM, Ala13_ManOWar said:

Guys, you can go for that fancy stuff to any other arcade out there. This simulator never was, and I hope it keeps not being, that kind of transformer travesti thing were you can select every tiny stupid detail available even when it's absolutely unnecessary and useless, or unhistorical.

Whenever people ask things like that I always think if we follow that path the day we got an Emil the Galland ashtray and telescope seen in one and single aircraft once should be available to everyone just because without that the aircraft couldn't fly or shot down a thing. Yeah, sure mates… it's a shame we don't have that kind of options which makes the aircraft flyable, right now it's not like it does fly at all .

 

Do you realize A-8 even with that MP setting will keep being what it is now which is what it was historically, right? P-51 will keep being out of your reach, Spitfire will keep turning tighter, and P-47 will keep being… well, a P-47D-28/30/40 beast. That tiny MP boost won't change that. If you want a more powerful Fw you have to go Dora. Hence, it's probably coming some day (as well as F-8 I hope) but despite the fancy 5 minutes 1.58/1.65 Ata it'll be mostly the same you have now. Just saying.

This post was never intended to be about all the other what if modifications and I would like it to stay focused only on the boost. Nobody ever claimed EN would be some miracle fix all for the Anton. It would simply make it a little more aggressive with acceleration and top speed. The boost raises final horsepower the engine produced by 250 horsepower or nearly 15%. That is nothing to sneeze at in a WWII fighter. It is a significant amount of engine performance that the aircraft had historically. Us people who love the Anton simply want it to be represented as accurately as possible within the simulation and that includes this boost system which the plane was widely known to have even before our timeline in the game. In the end most of us who love the Anton just simply love it and would argue its effective how it is, it's simply just not accurate to what it was.

On 11/23/2022 at 12:59 PM, Ala13_ManOWar said:

R2 was for intercepting bombers, here aircraft is used in all sort of roles, it's not like you're not downing P-51s because you lack R2, right? It'll make the aircraft also heavier and worse behaved…

GM-1 was for F-8 only, and it should come with it if finally we get it. Of course, but it's not an A-8 thing despite people asking for it.

And yes, for date changing purposes, if we get EN boost it should be ME removable, definitely. But still, a small temporary boost which won't change what people already think of the aircraft if you got my previous point. Don't get me wrong, it's nice to have historical options available, but sometimes some people think of some of them as magical items which will make them better pilots just because, and that's not gonna happen. Just, manage your expectations guys, it's not the magical solution to all your A-8 "problems".

 

I would also disagree with the ability to remove the boost unless you are planning on making missions that predate March of 1944. If that's the case by all means do as you will I have never been one to harp on timeline continuity being the most important factor of DCS WWII. However, there are lots of people that continuity does matter to, and most servers are running June, July, and August missions where you would probably have been hard pressed to find an Anton that didn't have the system. I believe the Devs have also stated that the Anton in DCS is meant to be a representation of what you would've encountered in June of 1944. By that logic the Anton should have the EN system, and it shouldn't be something that is an option as by the stated mission of the Devs that would be standard fare on an A8 of that time.

 

Lastly, I never have claimed and as far as I know nobody (who has intelligently added to this thread) has claimed the EN system is a "magical solution to all [of our] A-8 problems". It is simply a system that historically existed on our favorite aircraft and one that should be included just to add to the accuracy of the simulation. I personally know I will never get to fly an Anton irl. DCS is the closest I will ever get and with each passing year less and less flying examples of any plane exist. As far as I know there are no surviving A8s with the original BMW801 engine left in flying condition. So, I personally want the history to be preserved in this digital format for myself and any others who want to fly this or any bird that they will probably never get the chance to touch irl. Is it really too much to ask that we keep our digital preservation as accurate to the historical artifact as possible especially when we fly this because we know we will never get to fly the real deal?

[Blackbird12]

I have this question : did the EN boost was really introduced before july 1944 ? There is the modification sheet speaking of introduction in 1944 if I recall correctly, and wasn't the A-8 introduced in April 1944 ?

[iFoxRomeo]

11 hours ago, Blackbird12 said:

I have this question : did the EN boost was really introduced before july 1944 ? There is the modification sheet speaking of introduction in 1944 if I recall correctly, and wasn't the A-8 introduced in April 1944 ?

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_A-8_15-3-44.pdf

 

No date when the modification was widely available. Only "In Kürze" / Soon dating march 1944. 

[Ramires]

On 12/3/2022 at 12:37 PM, iFoxRomeo said:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_A-8_15-3-44.pdf

 

No date when the modification was widely available. Only "In Kürze" / Soon dating march 1944. 

The further development of the BMW 801 continued independently from the Fw 190. The intention was to replace the "D-2" with the more capable "F" engine. 
In some sources you can find evidendences that the improvement of the "D-2" had already been started in 1943. According to the most publications the increased emergency power was introduced shortly after the introduction of the A-8 and went into service with the production of the A-8.

[ButcherBiird]

On 12/2/2022 at 4:16 PM, Blackbird12 said:

I have this question : did the EN boost was really introduced before july 1944 ? There is the modification sheet speaking of introduction in 1944 if I recall correctly, and wasn't the A-8 introduced in April 1944 ?

The A8 entered production in February of 1944. Given the number they produced within the year it was in production, that averages to about 555 A8s per month being produced. How that translates to how widely did the units get it by when I have 0 clue, but I believe most of the big FW squadrons had already received them by April as you say. However, on page one of this thread, that I will link below, you will find a post with a source stating that the kits for adding the EN system to the A8 would be available, from BMW, by March 1944 onwards as testing had already shown that "the increased boost is [] most remarkable" - Report linked below. Then as we know EN was a standard modification by July 1944.

 

Post about March 1944: 

On 1/15/2022 at 2:51 PM, B4ron said:

There is a historic report exactly with this topic:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-A-8-boost-15-03-44.html

 

[Bremspropeller]

On 11/23/2022 at 11:22 PM, Ala13_ManOWar said:

I know GM-1 was theoretically intended for high altitude, in some cases, but apparently F-8 used it,

It technically could be installed, as the 115l aux tank could be filled with pretty much anything (Fuel, MW50 or even GM-1), but you'd need a tailored injection system for each of the three substances. GM-1 was a nice idea, but it never really worked perfectly. Mostly because it was too volatile and would gas-out on warm summer days at readiness quite quickly, so figuring out the correct timing was a bit of a chore.

It was still better than not having it at all. Having a larger motor with better supercharging and better fuel would have been the better option. Naturally.

 

There's no reason not to implement the Erhöhte Notleistung modification, as it was a relatively easy fix. Also there is no "our A-8".

The A-8 was flown from March/ April '44 through to the war's end and surviving aircraft were modified. Hence an A-8 flying around in late '44 would certainly have EN.

 

Just make it a mission-builder option and we're good to go.

[grafspee]

Shame that non of ED stuff commented on this topic so far, at least from my knowledge.

[ButcherBiird]

On 2/3/2023 at 9:42 AM, grafspee said:

Shame that non of ED stuff commented on this topic so far, at least from my knowledge.

This really is the shame of it all. I have tried a few times to get NineLine on discord to look at this post and I think he said he did a while ago, but I never heard anything further than "I'll have a look". 

[Fortinero]

I think that Anton is very abandoned by ED, I bought it in good faith and the truth is that I am very disappointed, I made the decision not to buy anything else from ED until they dedicate the time they deserve to modules like this one.

IL2 offers to me a better representation of this aircraft, with the power she had and different setup and weapon configuration.

[peachmonkey]

1 hour ago, Fortinero said:

I think that Anton is very abandoned by ED, I bought it in good faith and the truth is that I am very disappointed, I made the decision not to buy anything else from ED until they dedicate the time they deserve to modules like this one.

IL2 offers to me a better representation of this aircraft, with the power she had and different setup and weapon configuration.

I share your sentiment about ED's lack of attention to this model and to wwii in general, but IL2 doesn't come close to replicating this iconic bird.

[MAD-MM]

On 11/30/2021 at 7:57 PM, ButcherBiird said:

Lastly it is noted in the Haynes publication on page 83 that "in early 1945 orders were given that limited time emergency power for fighter variants (A series) could be achieved by a simple manifold pressure boost to 1.8ata, giving the equivalent power boost to around 2,400ps." (2,367hp). I am not arguing for the inclusion of this as it doesn't make clear if this was a result of MW50 or the Erhöhte Notleistung system, it makes it sound like the Erhöhte Notleistung is the system used but I have no backing evidence and that seems to be unrealistic as I can find performance charts with 1.58ata and 1.65ata but not 1.8. Interesting to note though.

Just small Detail, the BMW 801D2 Fighter Engine was not running behind that 1.58 and 1.65 AtA Boost. The A9 with BMW 801S engine running in both low and high supercharger Gears  1.65 ATA and in the final version in 1945 with 1,82 ATA. 

And BMW 801S version was build from the BMW801 E Version with different supercharger Gears for better high alititude performance some strengthen internal parts.

And the final version was 1,82 ATA with 2200 PS, when compare the numbers it is linear makes sense. 1,42 - 1.65 roughly 200 PS again 0,2 AtA more boost to 1,82 ATA 2200PS.

Only the BMW801F engine was developing 2400 PS, but this was never produced in mass production.

 

In the End you cold not tell what is A9 or A8 Version because they build the Plane with engine what was availble the improvments like blown canopy was also mounted on the A8.

Was a note i posted allready sometimes ago in the German War diary from the OKB about Engine devlopment from BMW. Letter is the internal engine coding from BMW, pretty sure it is BMW801 S Engine. Test aprroved the Engine without MW50. there is now where to be find in any doku that a 190A was ever running with MW50 in service.

 

Not realy good Picture but there all different Versions in level speed diagramms next to each other, note the different altitudes for the supercharger

fw190-a8-3jan45.jpg (950×1295) (wwiiaircraftperformance.org)

[Night Owl]

Am 19.12.2022 um 16:52 schrieb ButcherBiird:

How that translates to how widely did the units get it by when I have 0 clue, but I believe most of the big FW squadrons had already received them by April as you say. However, on page one of this thread, that I will link below, you will find a post with a source stating that the kits for adding the EN system to the A8 would be available, from BMW, by March 1944 onwards as testing had already shown that "the increased boost is [] most remarkable"

@ButcherBiird

Within the squadrons and area that is relevant for us (France summer 44) they received the A8 mostly only in Mai or even in the beginning of June. Given that the EN modification was validated for the second time and officially in April, and it was an easy field modification, it seems very likely that the vast majority of A8s got immediately fitted with it when they arrived at the squadrons in late Mai or June.

[motoadve]

I always wanted a WWII airplane sim so detailed as DCS, as a real pilot (also fly warbirds) I was very frustrated in IL2, how arcade feels in the FM and DM, and was getting worse and worse,  I found out DCS again (I had it 3 years ago but VR performance was unplayable).

I am enjoying all the warbirds, the A8 is one of my favorites, if this modification was enabled historically for this model , I hope we get it.

DCS is a business, and this will be extra work, so maybe  if they could sell it as an A8 field modification for a low price?  Will people buy it? I know I would.

[Blackbird12]

I would buy it and give ED an other chance BUT if : 1) ED makes other missing things on the A8 2) ED finish what they begin (and stop saying the team is small while making new WW2 modules btw...), and fixes other WW2 issues, at least shows some interests  and regularity, I understand things can be slow, but there is a difference between slow and regular (and pationate) and showing very little interest.

I don't want to pay an upgrade for things that should have been part of the module since release, I understand a module need to be profitable but either they tell what's planned for the module and tell they don't have the ressources or they make a higher price for a higher quality module. I already said this but DCS is awsome and IS capable of doing great things, but it's really sad to see them doing half modules while giving some much attention to very small details.

Edited March 4, 2023 by Blackbird12

[Bananabrai]

On 3/4/2023 at 10:58 PM, Blackbird12 said:

I don't want to pay an upgrade for things that should have been part of the module since release

Sounds like AIRBUS 

Industry standard.
You sell a perfect product. Then you deliver 20% of. Then you say: ha, for this you have to pay extra, it is not included in the IOC...
Imagine car manufacturers are doing this for steering wheels or brakes...^^

Anyways, enough OT, hope the Anton (an mostly all other modules and the core game) get some love again.
Talking about core functionality here of course, don't need another USAF tailhook for now.

[NineLine]

This is already planned and requested, just no timeline to share as of yet. Thanks.

[MrExplosion]

On 3/6/2023 at 4:44 PM, NineLine said:

This is already planned and requested, just no timeline to share as of yet. Thanks.

Do you have a contact who I can message daily to get some priority onto these plans? 

[Katj]

On 3/6/2023 at 4:44 PM, NineLine said:

This is already planned and requested, just no timeline to share as of yet. Thanks.

Thank you for the confirmation!

I think the community has put forward a strong case and it is nice to see that you listen.