Myth or fact > F8F

[Crumpp]

But anyway, I rather agree. Within this margins it's in a certain "ballpark"

Exactly, within the realm of reality, these aircraft are equals.

Only would some gamer think....Ew Ew Ew...says here my aircraft does 3 mph faster than yours!!!



All the best,

Crumpp

[F4UDOA]

Crummp,

Are you saying that the Germans measured the performance of there aircraft in IAS not TAS or that there is a natural variance in performance depending on the aircraft tested?

I'm curious about the A-9, was it a production aircraft? I was looking for the empty weight so I could check wingloading and power loading and I found this statement regarding the A-9

German factories continued to produce FW-190s as best they could, but the A-8 turned out to be the last production Anton. The "FW-190A-9" was an A-8 with a BMW-801F engine with 1,490 kW (2,000 HP). Some sources also claim the A-9 was fitted with an armored wing leading edge for service as a "Rammjaeger", knocking down bombers by ramming them. Home defense squadrons had been encouraged to use this tactic late in the war with earlier FW-190 subvariants, though it appears few pilots did so. The "FW-190A-10", was a Jabo subvariant that was to feature an improved BMW-801TS or BMW-801TH engine. Neither of these subvariants got out of prototype evaluation.

Do you have the empty weight of this A/C?

[Crumpp]

German factories continued to produce FW-190s as best they could, but the A-8 turned out to be the last production Anton. The "FW-190A-9" was an A-8 with a BMW-801F engine with 1,490 kW (2,000 HP). Some sources also claim the A-9 was fitted with an armored wing leading edge for service as a "Rammjaeger", knocking down bombers by ramming them. Home defense squadrons had been encouraged to use this tactic late in the war with earlier FW-190 subvariants, though it appears few pilots did so. The "FW-190A-10", was a Jabo subvariant that was to feature an improved BMW-801TS or BMW-801TH engine. Neither of these subvariants got out of prototype evaluation.

That is a bunch of nonsense, F4UDOA.  Don't listen to that site, it is wrong on many levels.

The FW-190A9 was produced from Sept. 44 until the end.  The FW-190A10 was the last variant and did not see production.  It would have changed the FW-190A from electrical systems to hydraulic.

Here is the real story of the "Rammjager".  Sonderkommando Elbe flew any aircraft available, including 109's and they flew stripped versions with all armour removed or any excess equipment.  Experienced pilots were turned away as they were needed for the continuation of the war.

The battle plan called for the stripped-down fighters to climb to altitudes above the normal operating levels of the B-17s and B-24s and heavily armed Mustangs and Thunderbolts.

The good pilots were ruled out; they were needed alive. Those not deemed brave enough to perform the maneuver were also turned away.

“With our new Messerschmitt Me-262 jet fighters coming on-line, the day of the propeller-driven fighter is over. I propose that we gather our Messerschmitt Me 109 fighters and in one massive attack, ram the American bombers in midair.

http://afmuseum.com/friends/journal/frj_251.html

Empty weight of the FW-190A9 is about 3080Kg's give or take a few.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

Are you saying that the Germans measured the performance of there aircraft in IAS not TAS or that there is a natural variance in performance depending on the aircraft tested?

There are corrected and uncorrected graphs floating around the net, yes.

I am saying that everyone did not use the same numbers when they made their corrections.  Means your not measuring things on the same slide rule which induces an error.

Combine that with natural variance in performance and it becomes real easy to present erroneous conclusions.  The best "performance test" for speed, would be tactical trials.  Even those can be lead to wrong conclusions if the type tested has obvious mechanical difficulties due to unfamiliarity with the type.  They will always give "at least" performance though.

These factors add up to the fact that making conclusion based on such small differences is impossible.  That is why you do not see such things in credible publications.  It's junk science to try and compare within such narrow tolerances.

If the difference is large enough of course it does not matter and general conclusions can be drawn.

All the best,

Crumpp

[F4UDOA]

Well here is another version.

Next and last production series of the A version aircraft was the Fw 190A-9. Previously, it was thought this plane would have been powered by a 1765 kW (2400 hp) BMW 801 F engine. But the BMW factory had not started production of these engines in time and, as a replacement, the 1470 kW (2000 hp) BMW 801 S engine was used with a more efficient, 14 blade fan. These engines were delivered as a power unit BMW 801 TS because of their need for a more efficient radiator and bigger oil tank mounted side by side. Both were in the form of a ring ahead of the engine under an armor cover with thickness increased from 6 to 10 mm. Large area, three bladed wooden propeller with constant speed mechanism should have been used as a standard, but for unknown reasons the majority of the A-9 planes (as opposed to F-9) had the metal VDM 9-12176 A propellers, as used in the previous version. One difference in the airframe between A-9 and A-8 model was a larger cockpit canopy, adapted from the Fw 190F-8 version. A few planes got tail sections with an enlarged tail as provided for Ta 152 fighters. Armament and Rustsatz kits were the same as in the A-8 version, but in many cases, on the pilot's request external part of the wing mounted MG 151/20 E cannons were removed.
Production of the plane started in the end of autumn 1944 and continued parallel to A-8 version. Monthly output depended on limited deliveries of BMW 801 TS engines. Also developed was a project for a highly modified Fw 190A-10 fighter powered by a BMW 801 F engine, but it was not completed because of the end of the war.

Edited for post overlap.

[ShortyDoowap]

Appears maybe just a handful of A-9s were made.  Certainly not any kind of major production model.  



From:
THE HISTORY OF GERMAN AVIATION
KURT TANK:  FOCKE-WULF'S DESIGNER AND TEST PILOT
by Wolfgang Wagner (book proofed by Kurt Tank himself)

[Crumpp]

That is an excellent book, Skychimp.  It was written in 1980 however.  It does not say anything about FW-190A9 production other than they could not tell exactly how many were produced.

You should get a copy of the C-amts or pick up Rodieke's excellent FW-190 book.  It has much more up to date information.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

Well here is another version.

Much better information.

The metal propeller was faster in the air and easier to produce.  The laminate wood props were "high" demand items though because they only lowered top speed about 1.5% but greatly increased climb and turn.  Starting procedures and the operaton of the VDM clock were different.

All FW-190A's could use the "blown canopy", wide chord wooden prop, and Lufterrad 039 was the preferred fan  making exact variant determination without opening the cowling difficult.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

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

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

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg301.html

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

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg301.html

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

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg26.html

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg2.html

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

There is more in there, you can hunt around to find them if you like.

All the best,

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Empty weight of the FW-190A9 is about 3080Kg's give or take a few.

How can the A-9 have an empty weight of 3080kg, which is 410kg lighter than the A-8? The engine in the A-9 added 35kg.

[Neil Stirling1]

Crump.

How dumb is that??

Not quite as dumb as spending all day sitting at the PC arguing.

Note on the British position error curve.

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/Position+error.jpg


Neil.

[Angus]

So after all the Allies knew how to measure speed?

Noooooo wayyyy.

[Crumpp]

How can the A-9 have an empty weight of 3080kg, which is 410kg lighter than the A-8? The engine in the A-9 added 35kg.

Because that is not the empty weight, Milo.  It is the service weight and corresponds to the Empty weight-actual as Grumman defines it.

FW-190A8

Leergewicht - 3050Kg = empty weight

Rüstgewicht - 3438kg = service weight

Fluggegewicht - 4272Kg = Combat take off weight

mit Zusatzkraftstoffbehälter im rumpf - 4392Kg

All the best,

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

Note on the British position error curve.

Which has nothing to do with point I made Neil or the USAAF curve.

It does agree with British data and is within another range of percentage error.  You bring up the "agreement" clause quite a bit.  

You do know that data say within 3% is "good agreement" in aeronautics?

So after all the Allies knew how to measure speed?

What an idiotic statement, Angus.  Of course they could measure airspeed and the data they collected is just fine for comparing British curves to British curves.  Problem is comparing them to other nations as the scale is different as can be seen in the US Position Error correction.

So when you compare a German curve, US Curve, and British Curve, whose scale do you use and how do you convert?

That is of irregardless of normal percentage variation.

Bottom line...It is silly to compare when the aircraft as close in performance.  Your conclusions are just as likely to be wrong.

All the best,

Crumpp

[straffo]

Originally posted by Crumpp
So when you compare a German curve, US Curve, and British Curve, whose scale do you use and how do you convert?

Using the rule of three should be a god start.