« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Fw 190A-8 and Fw 190F-8  (Read 2455 times)

Offline 1K3

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3449
Fw 190A-8 and Fw 190F-8
« on: December 20, 2006, 03:25:28 AM »
I noticed something weird.  I wonder if you guys notice it too.

Why is it that 190F-8 with wing bomb racks turn better than a Fw 190A-8 with 4x cannons.  The F-8 does not snap roll as bad as the A-8 when turning hard 300 mph.
Logged

Offline Benny Moore

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
Fw 190A-8 and Fw 190F-8
« Reply #1 on: December 20, 2006, 04:16:49 AM »
I imagine it's because bomb racks are a lot lighter than four twenty millimeter cannons with ammunition.
Logged

Offline Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Fw 190A-8 and Fw 190F-8
« Reply #2 on: December 20, 2006, 04:57:03 AM »
It seems that those outboard 20mms hamper the handling so badly that I usually leave them out.  You probably noticed that F loses its wing tips rather easily, too?

As few other matters it's just another nail in the FW coffin. Actually hard to believe that that plane represents Germany's front line fighter.

But what can you do if its flight model is reviewed and confirmed as accurate.

-C+
Logged
"When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a giant meteor hurtling to the earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much screwed no matter what you wish for. Unless of course, it's death by meteorite."

Offline 1K3

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3449
Fw 190A-8 and Fw 190F-8
« Reply #3 on: December 20, 2006, 11:54:15 AM »
I dunno but i was doing really well in Fw 190F-8 in MA yesterday.  Despite the +300 pound excess fat i find it a dream to fly compare to Fw 190A-8
Logged

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Fw 190A-8 and Fw 190F-8
« Reply #4 on: December 20, 2006, 12:52:39 PM »
There's no way FWs shed their wings pulling out of dives, like they do here in AH. They were diving machines, high-speed monsters. They had a solid wing spar almost all the way through the entire wing, and another through half of it. I doubt they'd EVER ripped a wing off in flight, ever (well... unless it was shot off, mind you).

EDIT: I would think that 12 panzerfausts and the rack mounts for them would create a helluva lot more drag, and weight a helluva lot more, than 2 internal MG151/20s with 150 rounds each.
Logged

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Fw 190A-8 and Fw 190F-8
« Reply #5 on: December 20, 2006, 01:48:52 PM »
Oh, PS I think the 190A5 and the 190A8 ENYs are mixed. Think about it. The A8 and F8 should be about the same. The A5 should have a higher number (older model, less capable, much less firepower), but it matches the F8, and the A8 has the higher number, so I think HTC just plugged the wrong number into the wrong plane.
Logged

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Fw 190A-8 and Fw 190F-8
« Reply #6 on: December 20, 2006, 02:14:32 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
EDIT: I would think that 12 panzerfausts and the rack mounts for them would create a helluva lot more drag, and weight a helluva lot more, than 2 internal MG151/20s with 150 rounds each.
The rack and the mounting would surely have more drag since it is out in the airstream.


140 rds of 151/20 weighs 64kg
MG151/20 weighs 42.3kg

The missles were  the panzerblitz, not the panzerfaust. The p'faust was a an infantry weapon. It is a R4M adapted to a2g use. A R4M(Pb2) weighs 5.37kg.

2(64+42.3) = 212.6kg

12(5.37) = 64.5kg
Logged

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
Fw 190A-8 and Fw 190F-8
« Reply #7 on: December 21, 2006, 03:12:52 AM »
The specs for the AH F-8 seem to be some what strange; fuel load is listed as 170 gallons and AFAIK there was no additional tank in the F-8.

gripen
Logged

Offline Jochen

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 188
      • http://www.jannousiainen.net
Fw 190A-8 and Fw 190F-8
« Reply #8 on: December 21, 2006, 04:02:35 AM »
I might be wrong since it has been a few years I actively studied Wulfs but...

I think A-8 has 115 liter tank behind the cocpit for MW50. I'm quite sure F-8 did not use MW50 but instead injected fuel to supercharger inlet to prevent detonation on high boosts. That means that the tank behind cocpit can be used to store fuel.

Hi there charge! :)
Logged
jochen Gefechtsverband Kowalewski

Units: I. and II./KG 51, II. and III./KG 76, NSGr 1, NSGr 2, NSGr 20.
Planes: Do 17Z, Ju 87D, Ju 88A, He 111H, Ar 234A, Me 410A, Me 262A, Fw 190A, Fw 190F, Fw 190G.

Sieg oder bolsevismus!

Offline Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Fw 190A-8 and Fw 190F-8
« Reply #9 on: December 21, 2006, 05:39:40 AM »
Hello Jochen, welcome back!!!  :)

-C+
Logged
"When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a giant meteor hurtling to the earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much screwed no matter what you wish for. Unless of course, it's death by meteorite."

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Fw 190A-8 and Fw 190F-8
« Reply #10 on: December 21, 2006, 06:49:04 AM »
The aux tank in the A-8 was used for fuel.
Logged

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
Fw 190A-8 and Fw 190F-8
« Reply #11 on: December 21, 2006, 06:58:33 AM »
So, was there a additional tank (115l) in the F-8 or not?

gripen
Logged

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Fw 190A-8 and Fw 190F-8
« Reply #12 on: December 21, 2006, 07:01:06 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by gripen
So, was there a additional tank (115l) in the F-8 or not?

gripen
The NASM F-8 has an aux tank.
Logged

Offline Noir

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5964
Re: Fw 190A-8 and Fw 190F-8
« Reply #13 on: December 21, 2006, 12:31:24 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by 1K3
I noticed something weird.  I wonder if you guys notice it too.

Why is it that 190F-8 with wing bomb racks turn better than a Fw 190A-8 with 4x cannons.  The F-8 does not snap roll as bad as the A-8 when turning hard 300 mph.


The A8 is supposed to have reinforced front armor for bomber hunting. Does the A8 and F8 have similar proportions ? whats the difference in engine and fuel ?

IMO the A8 should be introduced in mid war, it would be an usefull and fun ride. I don't know when it came in service but it wouldn't be the first to be out of time range.
Logged
now posting as SirNuke

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22416
Re: Fw 190A-8 and Fw 190F-8
« Reply #14 on: December 21, 2006, 01:38:39 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by 1K3
I noticed something weird.  I wonder if you guys notice it too.

Why is it that 190F-8 with wing bomb racks turn better than a Fw 190A-8 with 4x cannons.  The F-8 does not snap roll as bad as the A-8 when turning hard 300 mph.


When I was flying the A-8 99% of the time, I'd roll an F-8 for "jabo".   After dumping ord, I was able to turn pretty good in that thing.  As long as I stayed over 130 is wasn't as sloppy.   It is a VERY capable and underused 190.
Logged
FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up
« previous next »