Jump to content

Was the Anton really this rubbish?


Bagpipe
 Share

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Aesirhunter said:

I guess when you talk about the ground attack version you mean the F-8 variant that was adapted to use 96 octane fuel (C3). I agree about MW50, about A-8/R4, GM 1 injection was implemented but it was not widely used, the most used rüstsatz for A-8 were: R2, R6, R7 and R8. And don't worry about that, all good.

 

All  of the Fw-190 was running on C3 Fuel, Jabos (Ground Attack) getting a additional Spray Bar what was injecting the C3 Fuel direct in to the Blower. Cooling the Supercharger Air and probably more rich Fuel/Air mixture will cool the Engine do evaporation of the additional Fuel for the heavy loaded Ground Attack Planes. F8 or G8 190s

 

109 aswell the 190 dont feature a intercooler to for the Supercharger Air, that why this additional C3 was working. Like Water from the P-47.

 

Both is called erhöhte Notleistung C3 Injection aswell the increased Boost for the Fighter Variant without C3.

  • Like 3

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

interesting reading guys thanks.

 

Has anybody ran the numbers in dcs and compiled a report of their findings as to whether the dcs A8 is indeed underperforming or are we still at the stage of figuring out what numbers to expect?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BMW 801D-2 required C3 fuel.

Even for 1.42ATA.


Edited by saburo_cz
EDIT : MAD MM was faster.
  • Like 2

F-14A/B

P-51D | P-47D | Mosquito FB Mk VI |Spitfire | Fw 190D | Fw 190A | Bf 109K |  WWII Assets Pack

Normandy | The Channel

F-86 | F-16C | A-10C | FC-3 | Syria | PG | NTTR | CA | SC |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Aesirhunter said:

A-8 should be able to achieve 1.6 ATA, that is why I say is not well represented, I feel like is not performing like it should, other than that I love the Anton.

1.56 ATA for 1st gear and 1.65 for 2nd gear.


Edited by grafspee
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

I9 9900KF Stock, Gigabyte Z390 Aorus PRO, Ram 32 GB G.skill, Palit Gamerock OC 3090, Hotas Warthog, Thrustmaster Pendular Pedals, 4K 49" screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2021 at 6:14 AM, Mr_sukebe said:

 

 

So I did some more research last night.   According to several sources the 190A8 had a roll rate of a 162 deg per second at 255mph(410km/h).

 

Compared to the P-51D which had a 71 deg per second at 200kias.  

 

Which is less than half the rate of the 190.

 

It doesn't feel or even come close to those numbers in game.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was looking forward to getting the Anton, but have been so disappointed that I rarely (like never) fly her nowadays. I found her next to impossible to land with that stiff, bouncy gear, which is doubly bad in fragility. I love to take off, fly and land em...I'm not so much of a dogfighter, which the Anton is not. Now the Mossie - well, there is an aeroplane you can love!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Old myths die hard.

 

There was no MW50 in operational Antons. Ever. No GM-1, ever.

The 115l Reichweitenbehälter was either used with C3 fuel, or not used altogether and possibly removed. The latter is unlikely.

 

Erhöhte Notleistung became a thing in August '44. Before that, yes, the Anton was really "that bad" in comparison with the allied fighters.

 

No, the A-6 thru A-8 were not specially armored-up. There were special versions of A-6 thru A-8 airframes, though.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...