Author Topic: FW190 Weight questions (Read 565 times)

Sable · « **on:** December 08, 2005, 01:58:50 AM »

A couple questions for the Luftwaffe experts out there.

4300kg is the normal loaded takeoff weight for a 190A8 fighter including the additional rear fuselage tank (and the fuel in it) right?

Second, the chart I'm looking at shows 4000kg for the 190A5, and 4100kg for the 190A6 - do those seem like reasonable takeoff weights in fighter configuration?

Third, any idea what the weight of the A2-A4 models would be?

And my last question, does anyone have a good BMW 801C horsepower chart? I've got a really nice one for the D, but I'm kinda interested in the performance of the early models.

Thanks!

justin_g · « **Reply #1 on:** December 08, 2005, 02:58:47 AM »

The chart show here: http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=13&L=1 shows Fw 190A-2(C engine) at 3800kg - and the speed curve should give some idea of the 801C power output.

Crumpp · « **Reply #2 on:** December 08, 2005, 08:16:42 PM »

FW-190A2 and FW-190A3 Weights:

Leergewicht - 2900Kg

Rüstgewicht - 3141Kg

Fluggewicht - 3855 kg ohne MGFF

- 3978kg mit MGFF (Fabers FW-190A3 set up)

Schwerpunktslagen x is .55m bis .75m hinter Vorderkante wurzelprofil.

FW-190A4

Leergewich - 2900Kg

Rüstgewicht - 3148Kg

Fluggewicht - 3862Kg ohne MGFF

- 3985Kg mit MGFF

Schwerpunktslagen x is .55m bis .75m hinter Vorderkante wurzelprofil.

FW-190A5

Leergewich - 2960

Rüstgewicht - 3312Kg

Fluggewicht - 4088Kg Focke Wulf flight testing determines there is no difference in aircraft performance with or without wing armament. All fighters now produced with full wing armament.

Schwerpunktslagen x is .50m bis .73m hinter vorderkante wurzelprofile.

FW-190A6

Leergewicht - 3000Kg

Rüstgewicht - 3365Kg

Fluggewicht - 4189Kg

Schwerpunktslagen x is .52m bis .73m hinter vorderkante wurzelprofile.

FW-190A8

Leergewicht - 3050Kg

Rüstgewicht - 3438kg

Rüstgewicht - 4272Kg

mit Zusatzkraftstoffbehälter im rumpf - 4392Kg

Schwerpunktslagen x is .48m bis .69m hinter vorderkante wurzelprofile.

Mit Zusatzkraftstoffbehälter im rumpf schwerpunktslagen ist .74m hinter vorderkante wurzelprofile.

Hope this helps!

All the best,

Crumpp

agent 009 · « **Reply #3 on:** December 08, 2005, 10:14:55 PM »

Read somewhere that Rudorrfer kept his A-6 & didn't want to go to A-8 as it weighed more & wasn't as maneuverable. Bigger guns= more weight.

Rubbish? or true?

Krusty · « **Reply #4 on:** December 08, 2005, 10:45:06 PM »

The A6 carried the same wing cannon (4xMG151) as the A8. The cowling guns were larger caliber but with less ammo, and for the most part it wasn't that much heavier.

Maybe it was a mis-quote, because many claim the A8 is the best of all the Antons.

MANDO · « **Reply #5 on:** December 09, 2005, 09:28:12 AM »

Crumpp, is that none of these words has its corresponding one in english? Next is Tilt giving us all the info about Las in russian and Mitsu in japanese.

leitwolf · « **Reply #6 on:** December 09, 2005, 09:47:24 AM »

.. perhaps technically not the most accurate translations but a little hint:

"Leergewicht" => empty weight
"Rüstgewicht" => fully armed and equipped plane without ammo/fuel/pilot (unsure on what constitutes a "Rüst"weight tho)
Fluggewicht => T/O weight
"Schwerpunktslage .55m bis .75m hinter Vorderkante Wurzelprofil." => center of gravity 0.55m-0.75 behind the leading edge of the wing measured at wingroot
"mit Zusatzkraftstoffbehälter im rumpf" => when using internal aux fuel tank (probably referring to the [optional] internal fuel tank on A-8's [for C3 injection or increased range])

Crumpp · « **Reply #7 on:** December 09, 2005, 09:54:05 AM »

Quote

Schwerpunktslagen x is .55m bis .75m hinter Vorderkante wurzelprofil.

This is the CG range for the type. You can see the adjustments.

Leergewicht - empty weight

Rüstgewicht - service weight empty

Fluggewicht - Loaded flying weight for service aircraft assuming a 100KG pilot, and all perishable's full.

Quote

Rubbish? or true?

Rubbish most likely. Pilots in combat are always skeptical of change when they have something that works.

When Focke Wulf only began producing the full wing armament fighter variant, you can find a few "old hares" who removed the outter wing cannons in the belief it somehow improved performance. As confidence was gained that practice disappears as the gain in firepower was greatly appreciated over the non-existant loss in performance.

All the best,

Crumpp

Crumpp · « **Reply #8 on:** December 09, 2005, 10:13:58 AM »

Quote

[for C3 injection or increased range])

Hey Leitwolf,

Looks we translated at the same time! Thank you for doing that.

Allow me to clarify one point in your post:

C3-Einspritzung or Erhöhte Noleistung is not tied too the use of the Zusatzkraftstoffbehälter im rumpf. Alkohol-Einspritzung does need the tank and that fact is one fo reasons for it's rare use in the FW-190 until the F series motors become common. C-3 Einspritzung simply gave much better performance than Alkohol-Einspritzung and weighed substantially less upon installation. It gave almost twice the average speed gains and did not need the heavy tank.

C3-Einspritzung and Erhöhte Noleistung für Jager have different injection rates with different fuel consumption/manifold pressure.

C-3 Einspritzung is used only on Bomber and Ground Support aircraft. It develops 1.65ata@ 2700U/min below 1 KM altitude and cannot be used above that height. It could be used for "as long as the emergency last's" until July 44 when it was changed to a 10 minute time limit.

Erhöhte Notleistung für Jager develops 1.58ata @ 2700U/min in 1st gear Supercharger FTH. At the 2nd Gear Supercharger FTH different jetting causes it develop 1.65ata @ 2700U/min. It can be used for all altitudes for 10 minutes.

The presence of Erhöhte Notleistung für Jager is noted early on by a white circle on the lower left hand side of the MG cover. The later marks appear to have become the same breather valve mounted on the left side of the cockpit and no longer white in color.

All the best,

Crumpp

leitwolf · « **Reply #9 on:** December 09, 2005, 12:37:56 PM »

Thanks for the clarification. I knew the aux tank would feed the alcohol when MW-50 injection was used - hence the assumption that this is the case for C3 injection also -- i know they are different beasts of equipment - that's just the source of my wrong association.

Crumpp · « **Reply #10 on:** December 10, 2005, 07:24:17 PM »

Quote

- that's just the source of my wrong association.

No problem at all and you made a very common association. You can see by the CG shifts that the Zusatzkraftstoffbehälter im rumpf degraded performance of the aircraft. At .75m the CG was dangerously too far rearward. At .74m it was flyable but not fightable.

All the best,

Crumpp