Author Topic: The Fw 190A-5 fallout (Read 3715 times)

Knegel · « **Reply #45 on:** September 15, 2005, 01:28:07 AM »

Hi,

in AH 6-9k ft is common = 1,8-2,7km !!

The A9 was better than the early D9, dont forget, the displayed A9 had 4 x 20mm, instead of the 2 x 20mm of the D9.

I guess 250HP more than the 190A8 will make a huge different, so the A9 could fight a La7! At highspeed this power will be less important than while the slowspeed acceleration.

btw, what power the AH D9 shal have??

Greetings,

Wilbus · « **Reply #46 on:** September 15, 2005, 03:07:33 AM »

OK, will post in here.

No Ta 152 C's saw action as far as is known.
The Ta152 C was suposed to have the engine on the chart above, DB 603 LA but also flew with the DB 603 L and E. E was the least powerfull and used during the testings of the C together with the L in some planes.

OK, there are some charts. It's important to check which kind of engines they use, what they use with them, fuel, emergency boost such as MW50 or GM1 etc.

Wilbus · « **Reply #47 on:** September 15, 2005, 03:27:08 AM »

Check the last chart. The engine there wouldn't really be representative for the Ta152 C (spelling????!!!!)

The L and LA would've been the engines used in production planes with the possibility to install the Jumo 213 E as in the H versions.

Problem with deciding what planes would representative lies in the number of engines some planes used. The A) for example used BMW 801 T, TS and F (any more?). Not sure if the F was ready by and installed before the end of the war, anyone know?

The chart above showing the A9 with the F engine gives a deck speed of 550 km/h without MW50 injection.

It also shows two version of the Ta 152 C, L and E engines. 576 and 590 km/h using MW 50 at the deck.

Looking at the middle chart the C has a max speed of 702 km/h at 9500 and 736 at 10 000 using MW 50.

Not sure where I got the higher deck speed of the C over the H from but it doesn't look as if it was faster down low.
Guessing acceleration would've been better though thanks to shorter wing, as would roll rate have been.

I've seen some charts for the A9 giving it a speed in excess of 600 Km/h at the deck, wether this would be estimated or tested or actually used I am not sure, don't have those charts.

The A9 and A8 were not the same though, quite a big difference in the engines. There would have been no real use to have a plane be the same and rename it A9 nor would it have been any real reason to make a new plane and name it A9 if it had the same performance and stats as it's predecessor.

Crumpp · « **Reply #48 on:** September 15, 2005, 07:41:11 AM »

Quote

Not sure if the F was ready by and installed before the end of the war, anyone know?

The BMW801F refers to the BMW801TH or TS engine.

Both used the "F" designator.

There were two BMW801TS motor's. The BMW801TS-1 and BMW801TS-2.

Quote

I guess 250HP more than the 190A8

Actually the BMW801TS-1 and the BMW801D2 produce the same amount of power at 1.65ata.

The BMW801D2 produces about 1970PS (rammed) at 1.58 ata or 1870 (unrammed), about 80PS more.

Add in the Erhöhte Notleistung of the S-2 motor, and the FW-190A9 has a large horspower difference.

All the best,

Crumpp

MiloMorai · « **Reply #49 on:** September 15, 2005, 08:10:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by 1K3
"190A-9 absolute common from mid 44 onward"

190A-8/F-8 made up more than half of the late war 190 family lineup and was more common from mid 44 onward. The A-8/F-8 production was @ ~1,500+ while A-9 production was only @ 700+ (the same as the D-9s)

Crumpp, I think it is time you posted that Fw production list again. Iirc the Dora production was ~1800.

Wilbus · « **Reply #50 on:** September 15, 2005, 09:04:48 AM »

Found Bookies Fw 190 page again.

Here is a link to the A9's built, unfortunalty, only one part is finished (showing some of the ones built at Cottbus).

http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/a-9.htm

and here for the other 190 A's, same thing there, A-0 to A-4 only ones covered so far and not all of them.

Wilbus · « **Reply #51 on:** September 15, 2005, 09:08:07 AM »

And another list, more complete it seems like.

http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/werkn.htm

MiloMorai · « **Reply #52 on:** September 15, 2005, 09:33:48 AM »

Wilbus,

those are the WNr blocks assigned to the Fw. It does not mean the whole block was constructed.

Wilbus · « **Reply #53 on:** September 15, 2005, 10:29:15 AM »

DUH!

Maybe I should check the site more before posting it!

Krusty · « **Reply #54 on:** September 15, 2005, 12:11:00 PM »

Wilbuz, I'm not entirely sure, either, but I read a comment on one of these forums that the C-0 saw action but was never put into production (the test versions may have been pressed into service, perhaps?)

Considering there were only about 12 serving Ta152H-1s, and we have it, that might be grounds for a C-0 at some later date, no?

Wilbus · « **Reply #55 on:** September 15, 2005, 01:26:55 PM »

Well there were more then 12 serving Ta152 H's.

The C-0 is pre-production (0) planes handed out to test squads so it may very well have seen action. Not sure if HTC (or even I) consider it a valid plane though.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #56 on:** September 15, 2005, 03:49:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wilbus
Well there were more then 12 serving Ta152 H's.

The C-0 is pre-production (0) planes handed out to test squads so it may very well have seen action. Not sure if HTC (or even I) consider it a valid plane though.

For sure there was more than 12 serving 152Hs. The disposition of 150 001 - 150 0040, 150 167 - 150 169 are known.

Krusty · « **Reply #57 on:** September 15, 2005, 03:55:39 PM »

well, going by a post just above yours (scroll up a bit) you can't just use wrk no's. Could be unused airframes. Could be blocked out but never built. Could be waiting for engines.

Not going by wrk no's, how many actually were distributed to squads?

MiloMorai · « **Reply #58 on:** September 15, 2005, 04:31:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
well, going by a post just above yours (scroll up a bit) you can't just use wrk no's. Could be unused airframes. Could be blocked out but never built. Could be waiting for engines.

Not going by wrk no's, how many actually were distributed to squads?

What did you not understand about disposition? To help you, the listing for the WNr given above shows where the 152s went and what happened to them. You can go through the list on pg 113 of Hermann's 152 book and see that there was at least 19, which is ~44%.

Crumpp · « **Reply #59 on:** September 15, 2005, 04:38:07 PM »

Quote

Could be unused airframes.

Yes. Milo has point that WNr. is important.

However there was a conversion program of FW190A8's to FW-190A9's. While it is a little more involved than just swapping the power egg, the differences were small enough a depot level maintenance shop could handle it.

Additionally there was an airframe reconstitution program which took obsolete or damaged airframes and converted them as well.

All in all, around 700 FW190A9's were built.

You can cross reference the subcontractor with the WNr. Block and make a very good ballpark figure. WNr. Blocks are issued by contract. Those blocks that appear after an incomplete run were most likely never built. Those blocks that list a subvariant conversion such as the R11, most likely were built. The major wildcard is the FW-190A5 factory conversions. Most of the NDW production is FW-190F9.

Whatever the case, the type showed up in strength in the summer/fall of 1944. Incidently that is when Focke Wulf contract states factory production was to begin in August. It is obvious though, as FW-190A9's show up in the Geschwaders before then that the conversion program was underway as ordered in July.

All the best,

Crumpp