can "we" have 1 more Spitfire/109 variant?

[Krusty]

Have to agree -- turn our attention elsewhere, where it's more needed. We could use another version or two of the Mossie. Eventually mind you, I know HTC has a full plate right now.

As for the hurri's, ditch the sea hurri (it's a hurri mk1, basically) and add the MkIIb, and you'll have every major hurricane. Although.... the hurr IIb didn't see much use. They put them to work as ground pounders (1 bomb under each wing). Royal Navy didn't have too many sea hurricanes. They took up far too much room (no folding wings). Usually hurris were ferried on the deck, and if they had to land on it sandbags were strapped to the tail to keep them on the deck while landing (once to land on the ship, take sandbags off and it'll land on land once it arrives at destination).

Not a vital fighter to the Royal Navy. They lacked good naval fighters. I guess that's why they went with the US F4F/F6F/F4U series instead.

[Kev367th]

Sea Hurricanes were based on -
I, Ib, IIb, IIc, XII

From FAA website

The first of the Sea Hurricanes to see service with the Fleet Air Arm arrived in February 1941 and were operating with front line unit 880 squadron from 15 March 1941. Overseas deliveries commenced with shipping in HMS Furious to 807 squadron at Gibraltar 1 July 1941 (eg V7301, V7623), Many shipped to Simonstown in SS Lt St Lonbert Brie thence to 800 squadron HMS Indomitable in July 1942 (eg V7416), some shipped to South Africa in SS City of Bombay 9 January 1942 (eg Z4056) and others shipped in SS Belgian Seaman to Takoradi from Liverpool 30 June 1942 (eg BP709). A significant loss occurred when Sea Hurricanes were sunk with HMS Eagle which was torpedoed on 11 August 1942 (eg V6854).
The Sea Hurricane Mk I were followed by about 300 Mk Is converted to Sea Hurricane Mk IB configuration, these having catapult spools plus a V-frame arrester hook: in addition 25 Mk IIA were modified as Sea Hurricane IB or Hooked Hurricane II fighters. Their initial role was a considerable improvement on CAM-ship deployment, for from October 1941 they began to go to sea aboard MAC-ships, these being large Merchant ships fitted with a small flight deck.
 

Sea Hurricane Mk IC fighters, introduced in February 1942 were conventional Mk I conversions with catapult spools and arrester hook; they had, however, the four-cannon wing of the land-based Hurricane Mk IIC. The Sea Hurricane Mk IIC, was intended for Fleet carrier operations and, consequently, was without catapult spools. This version was also used as hurri-cats. They introduced also to navy service the Merlin XX engine, and carried FAA radio equipment. Mk.IIC's with 4-cannon wings built by Hawker and delivered between December 1942 and May 1943. The Sea Hurricane Mk X - Canadian built Hurricane X converted to Sea Hurricane standards were all classified either Mk.IA or Mk.IB by the RN, even though all used the two-stage Packard Merlin 28.  Thet were all built with eight .303 machine guns. The Sea Hurricane Mk XII - Conversion of Canadian Hurricane XII for Royal Canadian Navy with full naval equipment. Packard Merlin 29 with twelve .303 machine guns. The last of the Sea Hurricane variants was the Sea Hurricane Mk XIIA, of which a small number were converted from Canadian-built Mk XIIs, and these were used operationally in the North Atlantic. Although the Sea Hurricane last saw service in 1945, Sea Hurricane NF670 was still extant on the East Kirby dump in 1956/57.
Versions
 Mk I      One Hurricane Mk I conversion; Catapult spools and arrester hooks
 Mk IA      50 Hurricane conversion; catapult spools only; specially produced for
                     CAM fighter scheme - launched from CAM ships
 Mk IB      300 Mk I (merlin III) and 25 Mk IIA series 2 conversions; Catapult
                     spools and arrester hook (MAC-ship service)
 Mk IC      Hurricane Mk I conversion with four-cannon wings; catapult spools
                     and arrester hook
 Mk IIC      Arrester hook and naval radio equipment
 Mk XIIA    Canadian built navalised Mk XII, with Packard Merlin XXIX engine

Lol - imagine the XII, 12x303s !!!

[Karnak]

Most Hurri IIb pilots had the outer four guns removed as I understand it.  They had a noticably effect on manuverability.

If we're looking at other versions of aircraft in AH that would be good, I'd want some of the following:

A6M3

B-17E or B-17F

B-24D

F6F-3

Fw190A-3
Fw190A-6

Ju88G-1

Ki-61-I-Ko
Ki-61-I-Otsu

LaGG-3
La-5

Mosquito B.Mk IV
Mosquito B.Mk XVI
Mosquito NF.Mk XIX or Mosquito NF.Mk XXX

N1K1-J

Yak-1
Yak-7
Yak-9D or Yak-9M

[1K3]

(off topic but...)

it would be nice to have 190A-3 and A-6.  What about the A-5.  Should AH keep 190A-5 or replace A-5 with A3 and A-6?

[Karnak]

Originally posted by 1K3
(off topic but...)

it would be nice to have 190A-3 and A-6.  What about the A-5.  Should AH keep 190A-5 or replace A-5 with A3 and A-6?

More is better, but if it were an issue I'd say replace it.

[Krusty]

I say there's no reason for the A6 except the outer MG121/50s. In that case there's no difference between the A8 and the A6, 20mm wise. There's no reason to take one as opposed to the other, except a few MPH on the A8. By keeping the A5 (and not the A6) the outer MG/FF present an "early" war armament that better differentiates "early" a5s and "late" a8s.

My logic behind wanting to keep the a5 and not get the a6.

[Crumpp]

By keeping the A5 (and not the A6) the outer MG/FF present an "early" war armament that better differentiates "early" a5s and "late" a8s.

There is no such thing as an FW190A5, A6, A7, A8, or A9  fighter variant that was produced without the outboard weapons.

It simply is not a Jagd-einsatz.

Why?  It has a negliable effect on performance.  In flight testing it was found that removing the outboard weapons increased performance by less than 1%.  So small was the performance increase that in the air it made no difference.  The benefits of more powerful weaponry far outweighed the insignificant "loss in performance".

The FW190A5 saw no power increases over the BMW801D2 found in the FW-190A3.  The only motor development during FW-190A5 production was an adjustment of the Kommandogerät supercharger gear changing operation.  The operation of the hydraulic clutch was smoothed out so the torsional shock was eliminated.  In other words, it did not "clunk" and jar the aircraft.

The FW-190A6 on the other hand experienced a laundry list of engine improvements during it's production that significantly increased the power of the motor.  Everything from exhaust changes to receiving the pistons of the BMW-801E motor.

The FW-190A6 not only has more firepower, it is a better performer than the FW-190A5.

There are significant differences between the FW-190A8 and FW-190A6 as well.

All the best,

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

quote:

"By keeping the A5 (and not the A6) the outer MG/FF present an "early" war armament that better differentiates "early" a5s and "late" a8s."

Originally posted by Crumpp
There is no such thing as an FW190A5, A6, A7, A8, or A9  fighter variant that was produced without the outboard weapons.

It simply is not a Jagd-einsatz.

Crumpp

Krusty is saying no such thing. He was commenting on the change from FF to 151 cannons mounted outboard. You do have your reading problems.

[Crumpp]

Krusty is saying no such thing. He was commenting on the change from FF to 151 cannons mounted outboard. You do have your reading problems.

His assertion is that there is no difference between an FW-190A5 and an FW-190A6 except the armament as noted in his very first sentence.  

Krusty says:
I say there's no reason for the A6 except the outer MG121/50s.

In fact there is a huge difference.  

If the FW-190A3 is modeled then we will have the early war armament that extends to cover 1942-3.

All the best,

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

On the section you quoted, you showed you have a problem. You were the one that read into Krusty's statement that the outer wing cannons were not fitted.

Originally posted by Crumpp
There is no such thing as an FW190A5, A6, A7, A8, or A9 fighter variant that was produced without the outboard weapons.

It simply is not a Jagd-einsatz.

in reply to: quote:

"By keeping the A5 (and not the A6) the outer MG/FF present an "early" war armament that better differentiates "early" a5s and "late" a8s."

How anyone could read that the outer cannons were not fitted in Krusty's statement quoted by Crumpp is beyond logical comprehesion .

LOL, Crumpp did not even comment on the first part of Krusty's statement until caught and then tries to weasel out of his problem.

[Crumpp]

On the section you quoted, you showed you have a problem.

No, you just did not read it and take it into context, Milo.

As usual you jumped to conclusions and offered snide input without comprehending.  

On the section you quoted, you showed you have a problem.

Now your telling me what I meant in my own post.  



The FW-190A6 not only has more firepower, it is a better performer than the FW-190A5.


Modeling the FW-190A3 cover us for the MGFF armed FW-190's.

All the best,

Crumpp

[1K3]

hmmmmmm

i've always been told that  later 190s  got worse due to weight. now it seems not after looking @ a3 and a6 marks.

[MiloMorai]

Nice weasel job Crumpp. To bad it is so tranparent to all.

Why not just admit you screwed up.

[Krusty]

Stop stop STOP!

Let it be. It's all cleared now.

The FW-190A6 not only has more firepower, it is a better performer than the FW-190A5

Yes.. the A-6 is much closer to the a7, which was stopped after 80 planes and then production was started on the A8. So the A6 is closer to the A8 than an early war plane. I still say the A5 is a better representative plane (not for numbers, but for matching up against '43 planes). I wouldn't mind if the A3 is added someday, no, not at all! But given an A6 vs an A5, I think the A5 rounds out the selection much more than the A6. Heck we have the A8 already. A6 pretty much went right to A8 in terms of plane production. Too close a margin, if ya ask me (not that you have but I'll offer my opinion anyways).

Like I said, this is my logic, and my reasoning for not wanting an A-6. If we have one I might fly it, but if we don't I'd say "turn that effort elsewhere, as we don't need it".

[Crumpp]

So the A6 is closer to the A8 than an early war plane.

FW-190A6 - 1192 produced from May 1943 to March 1944.

Most definately a major variant and a mid-war FW190A.  It is the third most numerous variant produced in the Anton series.

 

I wouldn't mind if the A3 is added someday, no, not at all!

I think the FW-190A3 could be a welcome addition to the series.   There is only a 2 month gap between the end of FW-190A3 production and the begining of FW190A5 production in November 1942.  

I think the A5 rounds out the selection much more than the A6.

Not really IMHO.  Both are major FW190A mid war variants yet one is the worst performer of the series.  To hold it up as representative of the entire mid war line up is simply not true.  

Look at the numbers from some of the Geschwaders, the FW-190A5 had a short rather lackluster fighter career.  

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg26.html

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg1.html

In the East:

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg54.html

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg54.html

The FW190A8 was produced from Feb. 1944 until Jan. 1945 and the FW-190A9 from September 1944 until Feb. 1945.

The FW-190A8 is a late war Anton, IMHO.

All the best,

Crumpp