Author Topic: 190A8 Tip Stalls....Got a question (Read 6297 times)

Batz · « **Reply #15 on:** January 20, 2004, 08:44:20 PM »

lol mandoble

I posted those stats to show I flew the f8 as much as I had any other FW and that my kd and flying style was consistant with all the FW. Since I dont have any FW kills under my current nik I figured it would be best to show some evidence to avoid any confusion.

BTW Only 70 of your 8000 were in the F8.

Crumpp · « **Reply #16 on:** January 20, 2004, 09:26:06 PM »

Batz,

The FW190F8 was the largest production run of the F series and the mainstay of the F's to see combat. The FW190F8 HAD the additional armour as the standard installed at the factory. That's the reason the 190F's had the bulged canopy. It was needed to accomodate the additional pilot armour! Some pilots would have the some of the armour removed when the plane got to their Stukageschwader, SchnellKampfgeshwader, or Schlachtgeschwader to improve handling.

Late in the war, in order to expedite production FW190F8's were produced without the armour. This meant it took less time to convert a basic 190A8 airframe to an 190F8. All it needed was the hardpoints and bombing insturments.

Again this is completely off the subject. I want to know why the fighter version of the FW190A8 stalls so easily in a turn in AH? Apparently it stalls even before the FW190F8. A version which clearly should be below the Air Superiority version in performance.

IS HTC's FM based on the USAAF test flight? What are the chances the USAAF ground crew knew how to adjust the alierons?

Crumpp

MiloMorai · « **Reply #17 on:** January 20, 2004, 10:32:21 PM »

Crumpp, what additional pilot armour?

It was my understanding, from what I have read, that the bulged canopy was to give the ground attack pilot better visibility.

..................

Batz the NASM put out a book on their restoration of the Fw190. 8.5x11x104pg

ISBN 0-87474-885-2

straffo · « **Reply #18 on:** January 21, 2004, 02:11:12 AM »

Crumpp don't you make a confusion with the Sturmbock ?

There is not a lot of difference between A8 and F8 concerning performance but there is a huge gap between A8/F8 and A8-R8

I think Milo is right concerning the bulged canopy

Crumpp · « **Reply #19 on:** January 21, 2004, 04:58:51 AM »

No I'm not confusing the Rustsatz 8 with the F8.

Yes modifications were made to the F8 canopy to improve FORWARD vision that was so important to ground attack missions. Bulging the canopy doesn't do that much for your forward vision. This was done to make room for the pilots larger/higher armour plate.

It is possible on the web to find conflicting info on the canopy mods However. I am on my way to work and will look up some references for you guys this afternoon. I for one don't place a whole lot of value on web sites as sources.

Take care and thanks for the input.

Still need my question answered about the stall characteristics of the A8 Air superiority version.

Crumpp

MiloMorai · « **Reply #20 on:** January 21, 2004, 05:39:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
Yes modifications were made to the F8 canopy to improve FORWARD vision that was so important to ground attack missions. Bulging the canopy doesn't do that much for your forward vision. This was done to make room for the pilots larger/higher armour plate.

Hmmm, am looking at some scale drawings and can measure no height difference between the 2 types of head armour.

What mods were done to improve the FORWARD vision?

The 2 types of armour had the same width and shoulder piece height, the head armour to canopy rear piece was different. There was a difference in the A-2/3 to A-4>A-9 shoulder armour.

The bulged canopy allowed the pilot to raise his seat higher, which gave him better visibility.

Batz · « **Reply #21 on:** January 21, 2004, 08:27:49 AM »

Pilot armor was added to improve visibility.

As milo states this allowed the pilot to raise his seat higher. But look at the F3 which had more armor then later F8s. It didn,t had the bulged canopy.

The later F8s had the same armor as the standard (non(sturmbock) A8. The only added feature was the wing racks (ETC 50/71).

Quote

F-8 production began around March 1944. Defining features are typically based upon the A-8, with 115 liter fuselage tank, outboard pitot, FuG16ZY or ZS and possibly an FuG 25 radio, ETC 501 center fuselage stores rack, and the added ETC 50 or later ETC 71 under wing stores racks, with either standard or later style bubble canopy. Outboard cannon were deleted.

But this is getting further off topic. I never felt the A8 "stalled to easily". I don't know the answer to question. HT will not and has never revealed his sources. There are a number of reasons for this so don't hold your breath waiting for him to tell you. During my time in AH I enjoyed the a8 alot. I believe Fishu got over 200 kils with out a loss flying the a8.

One thing you might do is burn the aft tank first to shift the C of G forward a bit. When flying the 190s I would always burn the aft tank 1st.

If you think AHs A8 stalls to easily have you flown WBS or IL2 FB?

Angus · « **Reply #22 on:** January 21, 2004, 08:28:31 AM »

I have read pilot accounts that say that the 190 A series (in 1944) could give a Mustang a hard time in a turn.
Interesting.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #23 on:** January 21, 2004, 08:46:53 AM »

Angus that would be late '44 and be the A-9. The A-9 was as good, and some say better, than the D-9. That is just not turn.

Tarmac · « **Reply #24 on:** January 21, 2004, 01:02:36 PM »

Here are the a8 diagrams Batz was talking about, although I don't have the F ones. I'd like to see them, if anyone has them.

Batz · « **Reply #25 on:** January 21, 2004, 01:12:07 PM »

Yup thats it i had I image just like that for the F8, I am still trying to locate it.

FYI the 190a8/r8 is the "sturmbock" variant.

GODO · « **Reply #26 on:** January 21, 2004, 01:41:14 PM »

Crumpp, while flakbait gave you some good tips about that effect, some offline tests are enough demostrate there is not much difference between engine on and engine off turns:

190A8 50% fuel, 2x20mm, 4k, 200 mph engine on, wep on:
Inmediate tip stall with 3.1 - 3.4 G turn losing about 25 mph.

190A8 50% fuel, 2x20mm, 4k, 200 mph engine off:
Inmediate tip stall with 3.1 - 3.4 G turn losing about 50 mph.

190A8 50% fuel, 2x20mm, 4k, 250 mph engine on, wep on:
Inmediate tip stall with 4.9 - 5 G turn losing about 40 mph.

190A8 50% fuel, 2x20mm, 4k, 250 mph engine off:
Inmediate tip stall with 4.9 - 5 G turn losing about 100 mph.

Crumpp · « **Reply #27 on:** January 21, 2004, 03:00:08 PM »

How come your diagram for the R7/R8 Rustsatz is missing the characteristic side armour plate AND the side armoured glass?

Are you sure this is a list of the FINAL R7 kit? It clearly DOES NOT show the same armour plates that are present on IV/JG 3 Sturmstaffel FW-190A8/R7 and R8's. These Operational photos show a distinct armour plate on the side of the cockpit fuselage AND a framed out somewhat square shaped piece of armoured glazing on the side of the canopy. Additionally Armour was added that encased the entire engine compartment and GM-1 tank.

It is confusing cause it is labeled standard A8 armour yet clearly points to R7 components and has them listed. I don't think it is the final Rustsatz 7 list though. Unfortunately the RLM lost many records in the turmoil of defeat AND the German insistance on overengineering cause's lots of confusion to the postwar historian.

I would attach a picture from "Luftwaffe Aircraft in profile" but I cannot post attachments!! What club do I have to join to be able to do that??!!

Crumpp

Crumpp · « **Reply #28 on:** January 21, 2004, 03:28:21 PM »

Looking into the "canopy" of the F8 I can only find where it was widened to improve forward vision. The bulged canopy was a late war addition to all FW-190's including the Dora's and the Ta-152.

Just bought "The Luftwaffe profile Series No 4 Focke-Wulf FW 190" by Manfred Griehl. It has a nice chapter on the Friederich including many photos of the FW-190F8's. Only one of them has a bulged canopy.

It also list's ALL the F varients as having the extra armour EXCEPT the last late war production FW-190F8's. These it does state as being A8's with extra hardpoints and bombing instrumentation. BTW each Hardpoint adds to the drag and reduces performance. The ETC 501 rack alone reduced speed by 10-15mph W/O the Droptank. An A8 will outperform an F8 just because it is aerodynamically cleaner EVEN if they weigh the same.

GODO not quite sure what to make out of your test other than to say mmmmmmmmmm
Seems to me 1700/2100 hp should make more of difference in pulling an A8 thru a turn.

Crumpp

Batz · « **Reply #29 on:** January 21, 2004, 06:55:22 PM »

Fw 190 A-8/R8 "Sturmbock" was modified with bolt-on 5 mm armor plates called "Panzerplatten" on side of the cockpit. 30mm armored glass panels were added on the sides of the canopy. 30mm was armored glass panels were added to the windshield quarter-panels as well.

The R7 had 4 x 20mm. The R8 The outboard 20 mm wing guns were replaced by HK 108 30 mm cannons. This combination was the Fw 190 A-8/R8 "Sturmbock". See the image posted above where it shows the additional armor around the mk108 ammo box.

Now some Pilots didn’t like the side glass and removed it, some removed the armor from the sides of the cockpit. Some removed their mg131's as well.

FW 190 A-8/R8 W.Nr 961 076 'Black 10 + -' of Obgefr. Aksel M. Kessler, 6.(Sturm)/J.G.4, Sweden, 19 April 1945

Notice no armor of the sides of the canopy or cockpit.

Fw 190 A-8/R8 of Maj. Walter Dahl Geschwaderkommodore JG 300, Lllesheim 1944

Notice the side armor and side canopy armor

Fw 190 A-8/R8 of Uffz. Willi Maximowitz IV. Sturm)/JG 3, Salzwedel 1944.

No canopy armor and mg131s faired over.

Heres Dahl's (Kommodore of JG 300) from early summer 190A8/R7 (notice 4 x 20mm) and lack of armor.

Here’s Willi Ungers (Sturmgruppe IV./JG 3) A8. You can easily spot the armor.

From my understanding later most of the side armor (from the cockpit and canopy) were abandoned. That’s what that diagram shows. I have will better scans in the next few days of both the a8 and f8 armor.

Incidentally the Soviets captured a "lightened a8" (W.-Nr. 580967) that weighed just 3986kg (normal take-off weight of 4360 kg). Find documentation of that variant

Here's something I learned were researching VVS aircraft

Quote

While there are murky points in the documentation for almost every aircraft, trying to track down some odd details for Soviet (German?)aircraft is an exercise in frustration and contradiction.

As the A8 came with the ETC 501 bomb rack as well (drop tanks) and yes these racks caused drag.