Jump to content

Anton Vs Dora


Recommended Posts

That's why Anton needs its boost.. 

  • Like 2

Specs:

Asus Z97 PRO Gamer, i7 4790K@4.6GHz, 4x8GB Kingston @2400MHz 11-13-14-32, Titan X, Creative X-Fi, 128+2x250GB SSDs, VPC T50 Throttle + G940, MFG Crosswinds, TrackIR 5 w/ pro clip, JetSeat, Win10 Pro 64-bit, Oculus Rift, 27"@1920x1080

 

Settings:

2.1.x - Textures:High Terrain:High Civ.Traffic:Off Water:High VisRan:Low Heatblur:High Shadows:High Res:1920x1080 RoC:1024 MSAA:4x AF:16x HDR:OFF DefS: ON GCI: ON DoF:Off Lens: OFF C/G:390m Trees:1500m R:max Gamma: 1.5

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
On 7/12/2021 at 11:39 PM, rkk01 said:

Tried the same flight as above, but using Anton not Dora…

 

Level flight at 300m, no load out, fuel load adjusted to same TO weight as the Dora run, and yes the Anton would also just about hit 500-510kph - but absolutely maxed out, whereas the Dora was considerably throttled back…


That’s only 315mph 😕

 

 

have you removed the pylons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even with boost, the A-8 lacks the power to compete in air-to-air with any contemporary aircraft. The D-9 within lower altitudes is the Fw answer to US late war fighters. The Ta-152 was meant to be the high altitude option. The A-5 was better than the A-8 at ACM by every measure. As I prefer air-to-air combat, I would much rather have the A-5 than the A-8. I enjoy flying the A-8, but it is very difficult to win against any other flyable WW2 fighter in DCS World.

  • Like 2

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The D-9 was better than the Anton at higher altitudes, but it is only strong against the P-51 from sea level to 20,000 feet. Above 24,000 feet, the P-51 becomes dominant. The story is pretty much the same with the P-47. I would not call a D-9 a high altitude fighter. Whereas the Ta-152 is less than useful below 25,000 feet, but becomes an absolute monster above that it.

Climb.png

Speed.png

 

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, streakeagle said:

The D-9 was better than the Anton at higher altitudes, but it is only strong against the P-51 from sea level to 20,000 feet. Above 24,000 feet, the P-51 becomes dominant. The story is pretty much the same with the P-47. I would not call a D-9 a high altitude fighter. Whereas the Ta-152 is less than useful below 25,000 feet, but becomes an absolute monster above that it.

 

 

 

So in case when D-9 was faster then P-51, you would mark P-51 as low alt fighter ?? D-9 and P-51 are very close in performance both are high alt fighters.

For me every ww2 fighter capable of +30k alt is high alt plane.

Ta152 is just way beyond in service celling that i would call it Uber high fighter 🙂 

 

I9 9900KF @5.0, Gigabyte Z390 Aorus PRO, Ram 32 GB G.skill, Palit Gamerock OC 3090, Hotas Warthog, Thrustmaster Pendular Pedals, OLED 48" 120Hz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The P-51 WEP was limited to 5 minutes with the 150 Octane Fuel whereas the MW-50 was 10 minutes, though I am sure that the Luftwaffe pilots would be less concerned about a failed /damaged engine over Germany than the US Pilots.

 

Excellent video from Greg’s regarding the P-51 versus D-9 confirming the altitude advantage of the P-51. The D-13 would be interesting to compare against the P-51 and P-47 at altitude 

 

 

PC: 9980XE @ 64GB RAM /2080Ti, Samsung C49RG90

Joystick bases: VKB GFIII, FSSB R3L, Brunner CLS-E, Virpil Mongoos CM2

Joystick grips: Realsimulator (F-18CGRH, F-16SGRH-CE), VKB (MCG Pro, F-14, KG-12), Virpil Warbrd

Throttles: Virpil CM2, Kantorrin,

Other: TrackIR, TM MFDx2 (Cubesim Screenx2), Virpil Control Panel 1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2021 at 11:33 AM, Jandar said:

As to the rest of the design philosophy, Tank wanted something more than an aircraft built only for speed. Tank outlined the reasoning:

The Messerschmitt 109 [sic] and the British Spitfire, the two fastest fighters in world at the time we began work on the Fw 190, could both be summed up as a very large engine on the front of the smallest possible airframe; in each case armament had been added almost as an afterthought. These designs, both of which admittedly proved successful, could be likened to racehorses: given the right amount of pampering and easy course, they could outrun anything. But the moment the going became tough they were liable to falter. During World War I, I served in the cavalry and in the infantry. I had seen the harsh conditions under which military equipment had to work in wartime. I felt sure that a quite different breed of fighter would also have a place in any future conflict: one that could operate from ill-prepared front-line airfields; one that could be flown and maintained by men who had received only short training; and one that could absorb a reasonable amount of battle damage and still get back. This was the background thinking behind the Focke-Wulf 190; it was not to be a racehorse but a Dienstpferd, a cavalry horse.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190

 

Testing the Fw 190

 

On 23 June 1942 Leutnant Arnim Faber of III./JG 2 became disorientated during a dogfight with Spitfires over southwest England, and landed in error at the RAF airfield at Pembrey, south Wales. After undergoing trials at the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough, the captured fighter went to the Air Fighting Development Unit (AFDU) at Duxford for tactical trials against each of the British and US fighter types that was likely to meet the German aircraft in combat. An abridged version of the resultant report, issued in August 1942 and reproduced below, shows how the German fighter compared with its contemporaries. It should be remembered that the words were not those of Focke-Wulf salesmen trying to boost their company's product, but came from those forced to give grudging admiration to a product of their foe.

 

Fw 190 vs Spitfire Mk VB

The Fw 190 was compared with...

 

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/21980-testing-the-fw-190/

 

Attention: The captured version is A3 not A8 with MW-50!!

 

🖖😉

 


the A8 has MW50?

System: 9700, 64GB DDR4, 2070S, NVME2, Rift S, Jetseat, Thrustmaster F18 grip, VPC T50 stick base and throttle, CH Throttle, MFG crosswinds, custom button box, Logitech G502 and Marble mouse.

Server: i5 2500@3.9Ghz, 1080, 24GB DDR3, SSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Mr_sukebe said:


the A8 has MW50?

 

Nope, no MW50 for Antons!!!

Late versions like A-8 or A-9 had "Ladedruckerhöhung", but not all of them.

Core i7-6700K | 32GB DDR4 RAM | GeForce GTX1080Ti | MSI Z170-A Pro | Creative X-Fi Titanium | Win 10 Pro 64bit | Track IR4 Pro | Thrustmaster Warthog | Saitek Rudder Pedals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The D-9 (mid to late 1944 service entry date) was a high altitude fighter relative to Antons, but not compared to P-51Bs and P-47Ds from a year earlier. They closed the gap significantly compared to the Anton, but within a few months, the monster P-47M came online. The Luftwaffe needed the Ta-152 in 1943, not the D-9 in 1944. Of course, the Me262 would have been the real solution to the bomber threat.


Edited by streakeagle

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Flying-Kane said:

 

Nope, no MW50 for Antons!!!

Late versions like A-8 or A-9 had "Ladedruckerhöhung", but not all of them.

The FW-190A-8 had GM1, C-3, or neither, Depending on the variant of A-8.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Krez said:

The FW-190A-8 had GM1, C-3, or neither, Depending on the variant of A-8.

 

 

The technology you're looking for is Erhöhte Notleistung. A8s didn't get C3 and only some received GM1 kits. Basically all A8's from factory had Erhöhte Notleistung.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, EnvyC said:

 

The technology you're looking for is Erhöhte Notleistung. A8s didn't get C3 and only some received GM1 kits. Basically all A8's from factory had Erhöhte Notleistung.

C3 injection is Erhöhte Notleistung.
I thought only the F8's got C3?


 


Edited by Krez
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Krez said:

C3 injection is Erhöhte Notleistung.
I thought only the F8's got C3?


 

 

Most cases the Ground Attack Variant F/G 8 are using C3 Inection Kits. The Fighter Variant A8 uses only increased Mainfoldpressure without C3.

Both have the same ATA 1.58/1.65.

  • Like 1

Once you have tasted Flight, you will forever walk the Earth with your Eyes turned Skyward.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

9./JG27

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, MAD-MM said:

Most cases the Ground Attack Variant F/G 8 are using C3 Inection Kits. The Fighter Variant A8 uses only increased Mainfoldpressure without C3.

Both have the same ATA 1.58/1.65.

I though that with C3 injection Anton could do 1.65 at lower blower and it was limited to low blower only.


Edited by grafspee

I9 9900KF @5.0, Gigabyte Z390 Aorus PRO, Ram 32 GB G.skill, Palit Gamerock OC 3090, Hotas Warthog, Thrustmaster Pendular Pedals, OLED 48" 120Hz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, grafspee said:

I though that with C3 injection Anton could do 1.65 at lower blower.

True Point...1.65 for the Ground Attack Variant in the lower Blower and 1.58 for the Fighter Variant.

Once you have tasted Flight, you will forever walk the Earth with your Eyes turned Skyward.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

9./JG27

Link to comment
Share on other sites

G-8_additional C3 injection.jpeg

For Fw190 G-8: ADDITIONAL C3 injection, conversion kit necessary because the normal fuelpump in not capable to deliver enough fuel at 1,65ATA

C3 fuel was used by the Fw190 in general.

 

 

A-8_boost increase.jpeg

"simple" boost increase by adjusting the boost regulator for 1st and 2nd stage. No conversion kit necessary

 

Eagle Dynamics, ceterum censeo: dare nobis ME CCLXII!

Spoiler

PC Specs: Ryzen 9 5900X, EVGA RTX 3080 FTW3 ULTRA GAMING, 64GB RAM 3600Mhz, Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus 1TB, HP Reverb (G1)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another video from Greg on t he BMW 801 engine released today, indicates that the 1.58 ata was for the 1st speed at low altitude and the 1.65 ata was at the 2nd speed at altitude. 

 

I am an avid follower of this Chanel on YouTube and it is really informational and puts a lot of the engine development into perspective

 

 

I bought the book Secret Horsepower Race by Calum Douglas but just started reading it so not got to the late war engines/fuels

https://www.calum-douglas.com/current-book-the-secret-horsepower-race/

 

  • Like 1

PC: 9980XE @ 64GB RAM /2080Ti, Samsung C49RG90

Joystick bases: VKB GFIII, FSSB R3L, Brunner CLS-E, Virpil Mongoos CM2

Joystick grips: Realsimulator (F-18CGRH, F-16SGRH-CE), VKB (MCG Pro, F-14, KG-12), Virpil Warbrd

Throttles: Virpil CM2, Kantorrin,

Other: TrackIR, TM MFDx2 (Cubesim Screenx2), Virpil Control Panel 1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Krez said:

What about GM1? How widely was that used on the A-8?

 

Without Source i think that was not used or absolute limited Numbers. Because in the A8 they incorporated the Fuel Tank in the Fuselage to increase the Range, with his appropriate Setup to feed the Engine with the Fuel Lines.

GM1 as MW-50 required a pressurised injection System that was spraying in to the Super Charger. After the MW-50 System was never used appart from some test Run's on the Fighter Version, think GM-1 also wasnt much more then on the Paper. Given the high Altitude Performance of the A8 lackluster at best. So 109 would be probably also the better choice for GM-1 that was used most of the Time as Fighter Cover for the Antons.

Once you have tasted Flight, you will forever walk the Earth with your Eyes turned Skyward.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

9./JG27

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway DCS Anton needs this increase rating so much 🙂

  • Like 1

I9 9900KF @5.0, Gigabyte Z390 Aorus PRO, Ram 32 GB G.skill, Palit Gamerock OC 3090, Hotas Warthog, Thrustmaster Pendular Pedals, OLED 48" 120Hz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MAD-MM said:

Without Source i think that was not used or absolute limited Numbers. Because in the A8 they incorporated the Fuel Tank in the Fuselage to increase the Range, with his appropriate Setup to feed the Engine with the Fuel Lines.

GM1 as MW-50 required a pressurised injection System that was spraying in to the Super Charger. After the MW-50 System was never used appart from some test Run's on the Fighter Version, think GM-1 also wasnt much more then on the Paper. Given the high Altitude Performance of the A8 lackluster at best. So 109 would be probably also the better choice for GM-1 that was used most of the Time as Fighter Cover for the Antons.

 

You are right about GM-1, from what i know it was used only used in one squadron. I have to check my sources.

Core i7-6700K | 32GB DDR4 RAM | GeForce GTX1080Ti | MSI Z170-A Pro | Creative X-Fi Titanium | Win 10 Pro 64bit | Track IR4 Pro | Thrustmaster Warthog | Saitek Rudder Pedals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Flying-Kane said:

 

You are right about GM-1, from what i know it was used only used in one squadron. I have to check my sources.

By DCS standards, that means it should be available. LOL

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always wanted to try GM-1 at SL, maybe ED will make it possible some day 🙂

I9 9900KF @5.0, Gigabyte Z390 Aorus PRO, Ram 32 GB G.skill, Palit Gamerock OC 3090, Hotas Warthog, Thrustmaster Pendular Pedals, OLED 48" 120Hz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...