Fw190A Rating

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Fw190A Rating

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich >> Fw190A Rating

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Fw190A Rating - 3/15/2009 10:38:47 AM

Wayn Reinbold

Posts: 27
Joined: 2/28/2009
From: Perth (Australia)
Status: offline

In the Original BTR the Fw 190A had a Mvr rating lower than both the Me 109G-6 and the Spitfire IX. As an overall performer I would have though that the Fw190A was the equal of the Spitfire IX and better than the Me 109G-6. What do you think?
From memory the Mvr for
the Me 109G-6 was 36
the Spitfire was 37
and the Fw 190A was 35.

Post #: 1

RE: Fw190A Rating - 3/15/2009 11:04:58 AM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

the 190 was better then the Spit V, all the way around, the IX was made, to give the Spit back it's edge

plus it all depends on the words used, in the Game, MVR does not mean the same as turn rate, which also screws it up, as the LW didn't care as much about turn rate as they did about roll rate (the clip wing Spit, the idea was to improve the roll rate of the Spit, but, a clip wing hurts you the higher up you go, that is why you see some of the HF models with the longer, pointy tip wings)

so most times, a LW plane could out climb (until later), out dive and out roll the English planes, but the English planes could still out turn them

basic 109 G6 numbers are, 387 speed, 3115 climb, MVR of 35
190 A-5, 410, 2830, 36
A-6, 405, 2830, 35
A-8, 397, 2830, 34

the Spit VB.LF, 374, 2666, 34
the Spit IX.F, 408, 2800, 37

the 190s are getting heavier and heavier as they improve (it was common for pilots to pull guns and armor off of it)
the tricky part is, the numbers change as they change Alt, the IX is going to have the edge over the 190 in the mid 20's and higher, but the 109 is better at that alt also

(even with all of my books, Speed between models and climb rates, are very HARD to find something soild on, and most only give for a basic model and use it for all, plus climb rates are tricky, as you have starting climb, zoom climb, sustand climb (IE, a plane may show a climb rate of 4000, but a time to alt of 8 minutes to 21 K, so I have tried to use the time to Alt numbers were I could)

_____________________________

(in reply to Wayn Reinbold)

Post #: 2

RE: Fw190A Rating - 3/15/2009 11:40:47 AM

Wayn Reinbold

Posts: 27
Joined: 2/28/2009
From: Perth (Australia)
Status: offline

i assumed the MVR rating was a combination of Roll rate, turn rate, energy conservation, and all the other considerations
not covered by max speed and climb rate

and these three factors along with the selected engagment doctrine and height (?) determine the chances a kill?

(by the way I don't envy you trying to make sense of the information on aircraft performance and deciding on its significance in your program algorithms) :)

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 3

RE: Fw190A Rating - 3/15/2009 12:18:05 PM

wernerpruckner

Posts: 4148
Joined: 5/5/2005
Status: offline

in the Matrix Edition there will be a difference of MVR depending on the flying altitude

.
In the old BtR only very few A/C had this.

_____________________________

(in reply to Wayn Reinbold)

Post #: 4

RE: Fw190A Rating - 3/15/2009 10:45:57 PM

Wayn Reinbold

Posts: 27
Joined: 2/28/2009
From: Perth (Australia)
Status: offline

Good to hear.
just to give you some background.
In the game I was playing (about 1998 i think and ver 1.03?)
I had intercepted a group of mark IX Spits on the coast, had them outnumbered 2-1 with Fw190A's. had forced them down to low level.
The result being my Fw190A's did not inflict any losses on the Spits wereas the Spit's shot down a couple of my 190's.
I thought, this is not right! and the main reason why my 190's could not get at the Spits was the MVR rating. So I increased the MVR rating of the Fw190A but reduced its ceiling (poor engine at altitude) from 37k ft to 32k ft. :) To ensure a even swop of losses.
The funny thing about all this is that it got me interested in researching the nity grit of the planes and the experiences of the pilots. ie I became an avid reader of Martin Middlebrooks book's among others. :)

(in reply to wernerpruckner)

Post #: 5

RE: Fw190A Rating - 3/16/2009 4:38:06 AM

TechSgt

Posts: 306
Joined: 9/19/2008
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: swift

in the Matrix Edition there will be a difference of MVR depending on the flying altitude .
In the old BtR only very few A/C had this.

Swift:

This gets me to wonder...

With all the new models being added...

How is the player to "know/understand/get the feel" about all the different planes?

All the Allies do is set the type of mission and altitudes. The combinations of missions is how to set operational tactics.
The Axis can set target priority -- fighter or bomber -- and prefered attack method -- direct or bounce.
... and just "Why can't Axis "escort" interceptors????"

I'm not looking forward to having a library full of charts, just to discover that my formations should fly and engage at 22.75K altitude for a plus 1 DR.

I know this will add greatly to the realism, but I'm wondering how much this will add to the immersion factor?

TS

< Message edited by TechSgt -- 3/16/2009 4:39:59 AM >

(in reply to wernerpruckner)

Post #: 6

RE: Fw190A Rating - 3/16/2009 1:26:13 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

the bad part of all this is still the same

bad things happen to good people (other ways to say it, but can't on the forum:)

the worse high flying plane, can still knock down the best high flying plane, depending on what happens and the die roll

plus, you set a raid of B-17s to 25,000, give it some fighters, flying 4 and 6000 ft above it, FWs can still bounce the fighters, and do well, but as things go on, you will start to see planes at anywhere from 35, to 5 K, a flight will break off from a FG and Bounce some 190s that just attacked the fighters, these will in turn, get bounced by other 190s that were still up higher

the area around a raid is fluid, and things are going on, all around it

a Spit V at 10,000 feet should be a better plane then a 109G-6, but, that same G-6 is not really going to be flying that low, so if it sees and attacks, it is normally going to get a bounce, with Alt and the Bounce, the G-6 is going to be HARD to beat

so, there is much, much more then just saying I got a MVR of 34 here and MVR of 35 there, so this guy will win every time they meet up, a DW 520 will shot down a Spitfire XIVE, by the stats, it shouldn't or shouldn't do it very often, but it can and will

you can have a BG of A-20s flying by itself and watch it get jumped by a Gruppen of A8/R8s, normally, your going to be saying, AH CRUD, as 8 or 10 A-20s get hit, but other times you going to be LYAO, as the A8s miss and the Gunners rip the Gruppen apart

neither is going to happen every time, most times, it will be a trade, every once in a while, the trade will be bad, for one or the other side (and other times which you don't really see, is when they both miss)

there is just too much to say this or that is going to happen

Early P-38s shouldn't fly too high, but you still want them above your bombers, now, do you plot your bombers to fly lower, and easier for Flak to hit and easier for LW Fighters to get the bounce on, or do you fly normal Alt and take your chances with the 38s

_____________________________

(in reply to TechSgt)

Post #: 7

RE: Fw190A Rating - 3/16/2009 8:55:04 PM

Denniss

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline

Bf 109 G-6: Still using wrong data?!? that 387 mph roughly translates into 625 kmh and that's max speed in full throttle height for climb and combat engine setting (30 min rating). That's not the G-6 max speed. G-6 max speed was between 640 and 650 km/h.

The mvr loss for the 190A is somewhat off, There's almost nothing in the A-6 that may be responsible for a one-point loss. The A-6 was just ~70 kg heavier (due to the heavier gun and more ammo). It may be OK for the A-8 to loose one point as it added another ~100 kg but it also had more armor, especially around the engine from mid'44) and should receive one point in durability. Do you model the A-8 as the early model or the mid'44 model with additional internal fuel and engine boost system?

BTW - the armor was usually only removed or not built in to get the bomber destroyer A-8/R8 at least somewhat maneuverable to retain a small chance for evading pursuing fighters. The outer wing cannons were usually only removed on fighters equipped with MG FF (due to the diffent arch of fire and to save some weight) or in Fw 190A that were tasked with fighter-to-fighter combat - they traded gun/ammo for mvr and speed/climb)

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 8

RE: Fw190A Rating - 3/16/2009 9:23:26 PM

wernerpruckner

Posts: 4148
Joined: 5/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TechSgt

How is the player to "know/understand/get the feel" about all the different planes?

I think HS tries to keep to historical numbers.....
a few examples:
FW190A/D good in low&medium alts, but not so good at high alts
Spitfire has different variants with different wings - low/medium/alt

there will probably not given excact numbers....but a general hint/direction :p

_____________________________

(in reply to TechSgt)

Post #: 9

RE: Fw190A Rating - 3/16/2009 9:33:00 PM

wernerpruckner

Posts: 4148
Joined: 5/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss

Bf 109 G-6: Still using wrong data?!? that 387 mph roughly translates into 625 kmh and that's max speed in full throttle height for climb and combat engine setting (30 min rating). That's not the G-6 max speed. G-6 max speed was between 640 and 650 km/h.

depends on the source you are using ad at the production date of the G-6.

WNF (Wiener Neust�dter Flugzeugwerke - one of the largest producers of Me109s) gives following numbers on their A/C drawings in June 43:
highspeed at sea level: 542 km/h
highspeed at 6000m: 615 km/h

do not confuse it with a G-6/AS

_____________________________

(in reply to Denniss)

Post #: 10

RE: Fw190A Rating - 3/17/2009 12:45:19 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

the D model is better at higher Alt also (reason they went with the Jumo) but still not as good as the Ta 152

the changes to the A-6 went alot deeper then just a weapon change, it was getting heavier and is reported to be not as good as the A-5 was in fighter vs fighter combat, but was much better vs Bombers

we have four models of the A-8, 2 are fighter verisons and 2 are Heavy Fighters, but even a standard A-8, is starting to tip the scales

_____________________________

(in reply to wernerpruckner)

Post #: 11

RE: Fw190A Rating - 3/20/2009 11:38:03 PM

Denniss

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: swift
depends on the source you are using ad at the production date of the G-6.

WNF (Wiener Neust�dter Flugzeugwerke - one of the largest producers of Me109s) gives following numbers on their A/C drawings in June 43:
highspeed at sea level: 542 km/h
highspeed at 6000m: 615 km/h

do not confuse it with a G-6/AS

June 1943 = DB605 engine not fully rated due to reliability problems. Probably using the then-maximum setting what was previously the climb and combat power (30 min rating). Hard to tell without knowing the actual document. Also there must be something wrong with this data, between max speed at sea level and max speed at altitude (both with the same power rating) there was a performance delta of usually 110 to 120 km/h. A G-6 should achieve 500 to 510 km/h at sea level and 640 to 650 max at alt (~6600m). G-6/AS was a little bit slower at SL but capable of ~670 at alt (~8km)

(in reply to wernerpruckner)

Post #: 12