190A-8 and 190F-8 ... identical performance??

[MiloMorai]

Me losing it? You were the one that posted the bogus illustration without noting that the outer MG151/20s should not be in the illustration.

It is you, the Fw190 expert:rolleyes:, Crumpp that needs to get a new pair of 'coke bottle' glasses. Even with 2 photos posted you still can't see the difference. Hint, it has nothing to do with the armour fitted.

The F-8, White 7, of the Smithsonion shows no indication that the external side armour was ever fitted.


So if you have the W.Nr. why did you not post them? They must have produced those F-16s like so many hot cakes for F-16 production was not to start til March 1945 by Dornier.


Wotan, your post was VERY clear. It was only Crumpp that it was not clear for. Crumpp expects us to believe his anecdotal evidence, but sluffs off the anecdotal evidence of others.

[Crumpp]

he F-8, White 7, of the Smithsonion shows no indication that the external side armour was ever fitted.

The side armour is internal on the F series Milo.

On the R7/R8 it is external.  Hence the "Rustsatz's" designation.  It was kit you put on an FW-190A8 fighter NOT a factory produced varient like the F series.

So if you have the W.Nr. why did you not post them? They must have produced those F-16s like so many hot cakes for F-16 production was not to start til March 1945 by Dornier.

Exactly.  Dornier is a subcontractor of Focke Wulf.  If you want to know the WNr.  and production runs at which factory then buy the book.  NDW is listed has having their first delivery scheduled for April '45.  Production began in December '44 at the first factory contracted.  Dornier was not the first.

Crumpp expects us to believe his anecdotal evidence

Please point that out.  

Never have I claimed anecdotal evidence is the "end all".  Once again you have opened your mouth without facts and made stupid assumptions.

It is evidence and certainly weighs in the absence of documentation.  In this case though there is documentation.

Why don't you stop with the childishness and simply post the evidence of your original contention.

Milo says:
That is an early production F-8 you posted the armour diagram for Crumpp.

Post the evidence and two things will happen:

1.  We will all learn something, as the documentation does not support the "early" production theory that has evolved from misquoted original statements on Internet sites.

2.  You will have been proven right and gain a measure of credibility.

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

I can't help it if you are not bright enough to see the difference between early and late production F-8s Crumpp. Take your horse blinders off. Actually it is you that is loosing credibility by not noticing the obvious difference, oh 190 expert:rolleyes:.

At what factory did production begin in Dec 1944? Afraid to state it? Bookie, who I consider an expert on the Fw190, lists no Fw190F-16 W.Nr on his very comprehensive Fw190 web site.

Do you mean your book? Nope, will copy what I want from it at the library.

Being internal, proves what Wotan says about the side plates not being installed at the factory. It would be major undertaking to remove them in the field. No doubt you will claim it was only just a 5 minute job.

[Crumpp]

At what factory did production begin in Dec 1944? Afraid to state it? Bookie, who I consider an expert on the Fw190, lists no Fw190F-16 W.Nr on his very comprehensive Fw190 web site.

Bookie does have an excellent site.  You will notice the disclaimer at the top of his WNr. Page.

I will jet him the Werknummers when I publish the book.

Being internal, proves what Wotan says about the side plates not being installed at the factory. It would be major undertaking to remove them in the field.

They take the fuel tanks out at the Geschwader.  In fact the Luftwaffe ground crews were very good.  I have the minutes from one meeting where they are complaining about having to modify the ETC 501 racks in an open field in Russia.  Took them 6 hours to mount bombs because they did not have the correct length bolts supplied in the kits.

It would not be that hard to remove the armour.

Here is some F series pilot anecdotes:



Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Take the fuel tanks out??? The fuel tank compartment was closed off from the cockpit by the cockpit floor, that was riveted to the fuselage sides. Lets be more detailed on the removal of the side armour.


We can only conclude you have your shovel out, again, since you are being Scrooge. Then there is the question of why more reputable Fw190 historians than you, have not found any F-16 production.


Tell me why if sorties only lasted 1/2 hour did they need the 'excess baggage' of the 115l tank you have claimed they needed? There was lots of fuel in the main tanks, even when using C-3 boost.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
Take the fuel tanks out??? The fuel tank compartment was closed off from the cockpit by the cockpit floor, that was riveted to the fuselage sides. Lets be more detailed on the removal of the side armour.

Fromwhat I saw it might acually be pretty simple to remove the main fuel tanks, the ones under the cockpit, by taking them out from beneth the aircraft.  All you have to do is remove a single big panel. The tanks are above it and I belive held on to the plane by straps..

[MiloMorai]

Yes, for sure, GRUNHERZ, but it is the side armour removal that is being discussed.

Yes, I already stated the tanks were held in by straps. Though I did make an error, the forward tank was also held in by 4 straps, not 2 (2 going across and 2 going fore/aft).

[Crumpp]

We can only conclude you have your shovel out, again, since you are being Scrooge. Then there is the question of why more reputable Fw190 historians than you, have not found any F-16 production.

Oh but they have Milo.  Just not on this side of the pond.  Over here we still think all FW-190's are the same and are powered by the same motor.

it is the side armour removal that is being discussed.

What would be hard about it Milo?  Compared to say..Changing an engine? Or removing the main fuel tanks?  Both are basic maintenance task's.

Are you saying that Luftwaffe ground crew were not capable of servicing their aircraft?

You seem to think field mods are impossible.  Look at Pappy Gun's work.

In fact it is not even an issue except in your mind.  JG 5 removed all the armour from White 1 and the "Grossebombenelectrik".

As for the cockpit on the 190.  It could be stripped very quickly.  Examine this side console.  Notice the PLUGS and tabs for the latches on it?  It popped out with spring loaded latches like a tool box and the entire wiring harness connected with few plugs.  Niether a difficult nor time consuming task.

http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/console_2a.jpg

http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/console_2b.jpg

And here is the Zusatzbehalter in Rumpf:

http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/Zusatzbehalter_MW502.jpg

The one you keep claiming was an impossible task to remove as well.


Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

You sure have trouble with English Crumpp.

"The one you keep claiming was an impossible task to remove as well."

I NEVER said the tank was impossible to remove, only that the oxygen spheres would make it more difficult than what you claim it was. You have yet to describe how the tank went by the oxygen spheres, partially blocking the hatch opening, easily. You should also note the the spheres were monted on a bracket that were further inboard than the outside edge of the hatch.


Again, having trouble with English Crumpp?

"Are you saying that Luftwaffe ground crew were not capable of servicing their aircraft?"

"You seem to think field mods are impossible."

Get a grip Crumpp. You sure read 'the nothing' between the lines.


Make up your mind Crumpp. First you say the side armour was removed through the fuel tank compartment and now you say it could easily(???) be removed through the cockpit. Another indication you don't know wether you are coming or going. Then there is the question of how the armour that went from the frame behind the instrument panel to the line at the back of the seat was lifted out. The word major was used in comparison to your claim the 115l was easily removed.

You are in a London fog on the procedure for removing the side armour.

Where does it say the side armour was removed by JG 5? Maybe I missed it your diarreha.


BTW, where does Rodieke, Wagner and Prien, to name some, live? Their books were first published in German since they are German.

[Crumpp]

First you say the side armour was removed through the fuel tank compartment and now you say it could easily(???) be removed through the cockpit.

Just point out where I said that it came out the fuel tank compartment please??

Where does it say the side armour was removed by JG 5? Maybe I missed it your diarreha.

You missed it because you do not read what others write.  

Why do you digress to name calling Milo?  Can't handle facts?

You can throw all the smiley faces you want in your post's.  Does not change the fact your wrong.

 

You have yet to describe how the tank went by the oxygen spheres, partially blocking the hatch opening, easily. You should also note the the spheres were monted on a bracket that were further inboard than the outside edge of the hatch.

I said it does not mention having to remove them in the Flugzeug-handbuch and the guys who removed the tank at White 1 do not remember having to remove them either.

And you do not Milo.  The cylinders are mounted with quick release buckles, two per bank.  Pop those and the bracket clips into the section span.  Lift it up and move it and set the O2 clylinders out of the way (the line is flexible and still attached).  Remove the Aux tank.  That is if you have the rubber coated self sealing sleeve.  The bare metal just slides right out.

About as complicated as mounting the ETC 501 rack and removing the doors.

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Lets see Crumpp.

I said:

"Being internal, proves what Wotan says about the side plates not being installed at the factory."

You come back with:

"They take the fuel tanks out at the Geschwader." .... snip ...... "It would not be that hard to remove the armour."

What other conclusion can be reached? Or, is this another case of your inability with English?


Name calling??? You are dreaming Crumpp.


"White 1 had ALL of it's extra armour removed."

But, White 1 says 'it thus spent a considerable time at Anklam awaiting it allocation to an operational unit' so the armour could have been removed before going to JG 5. Pure conjecture on your part that JG 5 removed the armour. White 1 seems to have been used more as a fighter than a 'jabo'. JG 5 was a fighter unit so the armour could have been removed at the depot.


Oh I would not mention not reading what others write. You are a prime example of that.


LOL, finally, after how many post, you give some sort of description. Now, was that so hard to do? Why did it take you so long?


"And you do not Milo." what?


Figured out why your illustration is of an early F-8 yet?

[Crumpp]

"They take the fuel tanks out at the Geschwader." .... snip ...... "It would not be that hard to remove the armour."

You claim this is easily confused yet Wotan post was crystal clear?

I say you just have a hard on for me.  You show up in every thread I post in and no matter what I post, you dispute it.  

But, White 1 says 'it thus spent a considerable time at Anklam awaiting it allocation to an operational unit' so the armour could have been removed before going to JG 5. Pure conjecture on your part that JG 5 removed the armour. White 1 seems to have been used more as a fighter than a 'jabo'. JG 5 was a fighter unit so the armour could have been removed at the depot.

And a great piece of conjecture on YOUR part.  Which you seem to have NO trouble laying before us!


Except for couple of things Milo.

1.  White 1's pilot....
2.  White 1's pilot....

You can throw all the smiley faces you want in your post's. Does not change the fact your wrong.

LOL, finally, after how many post, you give some sort of description. Now, was that so hard to do? Why did it take you so long?

You had the BBS version of a tantrum over it.

You did not ask for a description Milo. Had you done that I would have immediately responded.  If I did not know I would have found out for you.

Instead you attacked and said I was wrong.  You claim it was impossible for them to remove the tank mission by mission.

1.  First argument you used was that it not removable.

2.  Then you claimed it was not an optional piece of equipment for the unit/pilot.  Since it was factory installed, it had to stay.

3.  Then you said the O2 made it impossible to take out or was some massive obstacle.

Do I need to link to the other threads you have chased me around the BBS over this?

In one of them I even translated the Flugzeug-Handbuch for you!

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Crumpp
You had the BBS version of a tantrum over it.

You did not ask for a description Milo. Had you done that I would have immediately responded.  If I did not know I would have found out for you.

Instead you attacked and said I was wrong.  You claim it was impossible for them to remove the tank mission by mission.

1.  First argument you used was that it not removable.

2.  Then you claimed it was not an optional piece of equipment for the unit/pilot.  Since it was factory installed, it had to stay.

3.  Then you said the O2 made it impossible to take out or was some massive obstacle.

Crumpp

Tantrum??? More of Crumpp's vivid imagination. Don't come down on me for your inabilities.

1. I never said it was not removable.

If it was not removable, then if it had been damaged it would be excess bagage. Common sense says it has to be removable, never mind that a hole was cut in the bottom of the fuselage. A rather dumb thing to do if it was not removable.

2. I never said it had to stay in the a/c.

I only questioned the multitude of removals/insertions you claimed. You even changed your story on who gave the order. You have yet to supply a mission profile for when and when it not would be in the a/c or if some JGs did it more than others.

3. I never said the oxygen bottles made it impossible to remove or a massive obstacle.

I said the placement of the oxygen spheres would make it difficult to remove and then asked how the tank got past the spheres. But then your were not bright enough to supply a description in the first place, were you?


And he is writing a book? Have you found a professional writer for your book yet? You require one.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Crumpp
You claim this is easily confused yet Wotan post was crystal clear?

Crumpp

quote:"They take the fuel tanks out at the Geschwader." .... snip ...... "It would not be that hard to remove the armour."

Why did you mention fuel tanks and then side armour in the same statement? Was fuel tanks part of the discussion about the side armour?

Wotan is very clear in what he says, unlike you, who meanders all over the place.

[Wotan]

There's no doubt that at the Geschwader and Gruppe level modifications were made to their aircraft but none of these modifications equate to 'standard'.

Of course the 115l tank was sometimes removed, The the Soviets captured a lightened FW 190A-8 (W.-Nr. 580967) that weighed in at just 3986 kg as compared to the 4300kg normal take off weight.

The NASM F-8 was converted from a damaged A-7 to early F-8 production standards:

From this page:

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/focke_190f.htm

The NASM FW 190 left the production line in late 1943 as a FW 190A-7 fighter. After suffering damage during operations it was repaired and remanufactured into an FW 190F-8 fighter bomber. The conversion involved fitting a new wing and bomb racks to the original fuselage and adding armor plate around and beneath the cockpit. Reissued to the Luftwaffe, the aircraft flew on the Eastern Front during late 1944, probably on strength with SG 2 (Schlachtgeschwader or Ground Attack Wing 2) based in Hungary.

However, later production F-8s left out that "added armor plate around the cockpit".

Pilots flying F-8's in Kurland (From SG3 and some SG4) stated there was a difference in the early F-3s and F-8s which still had the armor and early canopy and the later F-8's they got as replacements. In fact 10.(PZ)/SG 3 who traded their Ju-87G's in for F-8's late in the war (late '44) also say that the only 'extra armor was the plates underneath the engine and fuel tanks.

If Crumpp is the community director for the White 1 foundation then he should be able to ask if White 1 had the cockpit armor and find out for himself.

But the only point I care to discuss is what constitutes 'standard'. Early F-8s had the added cockpit armor as standard, later variants did not. Later F-8's with out the added cockpit armor where not just fighters with an F-8 designation.