Fw-190F8/U1

[GScholz]

Originally posted by senna
Everybody knows the 190s in AH are under modeled.

In what way? The speed figures matches up nicely with the figures GODO posted in that thread you linked to, and our 190A5 has the performance of a 190A4 with MW50!

I'd say that the A5 might actually be overmodelled.

[senna]

I dont remember the A5 doing 416 at leve flight. I remember the A8 taking forever to get to 400 level at about 18k. There was some other debate as wel l in another thread about the fw190 sea level speeds being off as well. An indicator of slightly lacking performance at lower alts. I dont think anything was ever adjusted on the flight model of the 190s.

[GScholz]

In AH the A5 is actually faster than the A8 doing approx. 410-415
 mph at 22k while the A8 is doing 405 mph at 18K. That matches up to a MW50 boosted A4 and a standard A8 according to this table that GODO posted in the thread you linked:




It would seem that our A5 has MW50 boost.

[senna]

Actually that chart shows the A8 with a 2100 HP 801D2 engine. Same rating as the 801D2 in the A4. The 190 is not a fast bird by any means. That last 5 mph takes forever to get to in thr A8.

[GScholz]

As it should.

[senna]

Well at this point, without doing too much searching thus far, just take a look at the two charts for the A5 and the A8. Well assume that the A5 is either got the A4s numbers or its an A5 with MW50. Now look at the A8s 0 sea level top speed under full mil power or WEP. it shows 350mph where as for the A5 it shows 326-327 mph. How is that the case when the A8 is basically heavier and thus slower than an A4 or A5 model with MW50 under full WEP.

[senna]

Heres an interesting document: Notice section 39). and also note the date which is March 24th, 1945.

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/tmp/fw190a-boost-doc1.jpg

To me it shows a war time (credable) document stating the sea level speed of the FW-190 fighter as 360mph under full mil power 1.65 ata over boost. It does not state what model 190 however you can assume that its either an early A4 model thru later A8 model.

[GScholz]

Both planes have the same rated altitude for the blower, but the A5 with MW50 has slightly better high altitude performance than the A8 with Erhöhte Notleistung. However the A8's Erhöhte Notleistung seems to be more effective at low alts. As you can see, without boost both planes are very equal in speed with the 1000+ lbs lighter A5 having a speed advantage as altitude increase, but the A8 is faster at 18k (rated altitude) because that where its boost system is the most effective, however the A5's MW50 boost is most effective at 22k giving the A5 the best overall top speed.

About acceleration: Take two planes with the same top speed, but no. 1 has a powerful engine and a high drag airframe (190, P47 etc.) and no. 2 has a less powerful engine but a more aerodynamic airframe (P-51, Yak-9 etc.).

Plane no. 1 would have the best acceleration at low to medium speeds while plane no.2 would have the best acceleration at high speed.

[GScholz]

Originally posted by senna
Heres an interesting document: Notice section 39). and also note the date which is March 24th, 1945.

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/tmp/fw190a-boost-doc1.jpg

To me it shows a war time (credable) document stating the sea level speed of the FW-190 fighter as 360mph under full mil power 1.65 ata over boost. It does not state what model 190 however you can assume that its either an early A4 model thru later A8 model with mw50.

Yes but we don't have a 1945 version 190A8 with 1.65 ata boost, we have a 1944 190A8 limited to 1.42 ata (I believe).

[senna]

Erhöhte Notleistun is C3 direct port injection. I see the standard power rating is the same for both aircraft. Still one would think the 1000 lbs lighter aircraft is faster at sea level without the over boost. After all, lift is drag and theres less to lift.

Yes but we don't have a 1945 version 190A8 with 1.65 ata boost, we have a 1944 190A8 limited to 1.42 ata (I believe).

Conspiracy of course. We should have the best A8 modeled.

[senna]

Ok, wait a minute. Either the A8 is running C3 or it is not. If its running mw50 then the max speed sea level numbers dont add up. If its running C3 then the A8 sea level speed is low.

[FUNKED1]

Ram I remember this discussion about F-8/U1 being a trainer, thx for posting that.  You have a good memory.  

[RRAM]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
Ram I remember this discussion about F-8/U1 being a trainer, thx for posting that.  You have a good memory.  

not a problem .


The Fw190F8/U1 was the F-series equivalent to the Fw190G8 (thus having the ability to load 250kg bombs or DT on the wings), not a trainer. The training series of the Fw190 were the S. As I said, maybe they were labelled as F8/U1, and thus the confussion, but I doubt it, as the Fw190S were based on Fw190As, not Fs


Gcholz:

the A5 sea level speed has been beaten to death in this same board some time ago.
And believe me one thing, would the AH's A5 had MW50, it would run MUCH FASTER at sea level than normal.

The MW50 injection was used on lower altitudes than the critical alt of the supercharger (in the BMW801D-2 around 18000 feet) to allow for higher manifold pressure.
Over that alt, it's impossible to run the engine at higher MP than the normal maximum (there's not enough air to do it), and so the MW50 does nothing other than cooling the mixture a bit, adding no power at all.
under that altitude the pilot could pull higher manifold pressure than the usual normal maximum, using the MW50 injection to prevent engine knocking. That's why the Fw190D9 (for instance) could pull 1.8 ata with MW50 ,while only being able to use 1.65ATA with C3 injection, and 1.42 without any injection at all.

And that was only possible UNDER the critical altitude of the supercharger in the plane fitted with MW50. A5's Critical altitude is around 18500 feet, as I said, so there's no question about AH's A5 having MW50. It does not. If it had it, the A5 would be significantly faster than expected at LOW altitudes, down from the deck and up to 18000 feet or so.

Not at 21500 feet.


In fact I have posted in the past, in this same forum, several charts of Focke-Wulf official data showing that the Fw190A5 topped 345mph@SL, although being a tad slower at high alt, running at something like 405mph@21500 feet.
And I'd trade those extra 10mph on the deck for those 10mph at 21500 any day, for AH gaming purposes.


Aces High's Fw190A5 is modelled after the american tests done on a captured aircraft in 1943 (or 44, can't recall now), which showed EXACTLY the performance you see on the A5's speed chart. The american Fw190A5 had no MW50 when captured or tested, of course.


So no, it ain't overmodelled. And it ain't porked either.
It's just modelled after american data, not german data (something which I find debatable but in any case the data is 100% correct).
So be 100% sure: Aces High's Fw190A5 carries no MW50 on board, and it isn't under/overmodelled at all.


now, back to topic, something to add about the Fw190F8/U1?

[RRAM]

Originally posted by Karnak
Hmmm.  I thought it was solidly established that the Fw190F-8 had a very large number of loadouts, however, looking at my source I can find nothing that looks like a fuel loadout under the wings.

Back when the original posts over the Fw190F8/U1 were posted, there were weapon charts posted showing that configuration

Other than that possiblity it seems to me that those photos may be Fw190Gs mislabeled as Fw190F-8s.  They certainly appear to match the fuel systems pictured on the Fw190Gs in my book.

It's quite normal to confuse Fw190G8 with F8/U1, after all the F8/U1 was almost identical, exception made of the cowl guns which were removed on all the "G" series. When the G series were brought to an end, the F8/U1 took the long range deep penetration jabo role from them, having the same loadout variety as the G-8.


Granted, there weren't many of them because the long range jabo role wasn't by far a priority by 1944 (which was the main reason the G series were stopped) and removing the wing fuel piping and changing the bomb racks helped both removing weight and streamlining the plane for better performance. So the F8/U1 configuration wasn't continued, and there weren't too many of them.

But they did exist...proving it (at least showing some graphical data that backs the argument, which I admit isn't definitive proof), and solving the questions about the training version of the Fw190 ,which I do think it's solved now, is the point of this thread

[RRAM]

Originally posted by senna
Production stoped in 44 and further G8s were produced in the field by modification of F8 models.

Modification commonly known as Fw190F8/U1