190 versions and thoughts

[Hristo]

With most 190 pilots waiting for A-5, the unevitable question arises.

Why was earlier version (supposedly) better than later one (A-5 better than A-8) ?

Sure, it is lighter, so it benefits from this and has better acceleration, climb, lower wingloading and is slightly faster.

But, why did Germans made the A-8 such a pig, compared to A-5 ? Is it because they needed better buff killer ? Or maybe they realized that most important factors for air combat were other than low wingloading and aerobatics ?

IMO, the most important plane characteristic for WW2 air combat are speed, guns, dive and cockpit visibility. The most successful WW2 planes prove that. So, when A-8 was introduced, it had much better guns than A-5, it was heavier so dive was faster, and speed suffered only marginally. IMO, it was actually a better plane, if flown correctly.

On the other hand, Spitfire was just an outdated design. Sure more powerful engines were introduced, but the plane could only count on mistakes of enemy pilots or surprise to be effective (any Dora could simply dive away from Spit XIV). WW2 air combat was rarely a 1 on 1 duel, where Spitfire could beat any plane. It was all hit and run, and some plane designers just knew better than Mitchell some 10 years earlier  

Comments, please ?

[RAM]

Sorry Hristo...disagree in A5 with you 100%


   

Originally posted by Hristo:
With most 190 pilots waiting for A-5, the unevitable question arises.

Why was earlier version (supposedly) better than later one (A-5 better than A-8) ?

Sure, it is lighter, so it benefits from this and has better acceleration, climb, lower wingloading and is slightly faster.

Damno, Hristo...you need more answer that this? a plane that is faster (5-10 mph), accelerates better,turns closer and faster and has WAY better climbrate than other...and you still ask why is better?

   

But, why did Germans made the A-8 such a pig, compared to A-5 ? Is it because they needed better buff killer ? Or maybe they realized that most important factors for air combat were other than low wingloading and aerobatics ?

IMO, the most important plane characteristic for WW2 air combat are speed, guns, dive and cockpit visibility. The most successful WW2 planes prove that. So, when A-8 was introduced, it had much better guns than A-5, it was heavier so dive was faster, and speed suffered only marginally. IMO, it was actually a better plane, if flown correctly.

So you resign that advantage on speed, handling, climbrate and acceleration for a better dive performance and 2 porked Mausers with 140 rpg?...sorry but I disagree. If you want 4 20mm cannons you'll still have those MG FF (pure crap ok, but they still are 20mm isnt it? )

Hristo, Fw190A5 with 2*13mm and 2*20mm has exactly the same weapons as a Dora-9...and Dora turned better than A8, too.

The fact that in Aces High Fw190A8 is the pig it is,is because it is the heavy sturm version, with armor and adds that made it clumsy. In real life, pilots flew "lighted" Fw190A8, quitting armor and even outer cannons, to win the performance lost by the weight added.

I did a test the other day. I took off in a 50% fuel Fw190 with only 2 20mm. That weight is more than that of the 100% fuel loaded fw190A5. The plane handled like a REAL dream. I felt like a god in it.

Then why dont I fly Fw190A8 light? you'll ask
1-Because I want to fly sorties that last more than 10 minutes
2-Because If I fly Fw190A8, I fly Fw190A8. WIth all its advantages and drawbacks. The day we have A5 I'll do in it, with all its advantages and drawbacks, too.

I am pretty sure that I'll still fly some sorties on A8, as I love its firepower. But Fw190A5 is better fighter than A8.


   

On the other hand, Spitfire was just an outdated design. Sure more powerful engines were introduced, but the plane could only count on mistakes of enemy pilots or surprise to be effective (any Dora could simply dive away from Spit XIV). WW2 air combat was rarely a 1 on 1 duel, where Spitfire could beat any plane. It was all hit and run, and some plane designers just knew better than Mitchell some 10 years earlier      

Hey! I am bringing a chair ,a cold beer and some popcorn!!! lets see the thread explode in flames!!!!!

               

------------------
Ram, out

Fw190D9? Ta152H1? The truth is out there
JG2 "Richthofen"

     


[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 05-22-2000).]

[HABICHT]

hi hristos,
you want a comment?

SO GIVE ME A D13!!!!

one question:
A5 had 2x mgff's+2xmg151+2xmg131, right??

------------------
 
JG2 "Richthofen"

[This message has been edited by HABICHT (edited 05-22-2000).]

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by HABICHT:

one question:
A5 had 2x mgff's+2xmg151+2xmg131, right??

Yes ,HAsqueak, but MG FF was a low muzzle vel. cannon, more or less like the Japanese Type99 of the A6M2. And you know that here in AH muzzle velocity means that Hispanos are Turbolasers while Mausers are scratching guns...so go and imagine a Mg FF...

MG FF was usually deleted from Fw190A5 series by the own pilots, they thought that they werent worth the weight (and I agree 100%).



[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 05-22-2000).]

[jmccaul]

If you dive you are no longer a threat    

But if you climb.......


Turn though can help when energy fighting as you don't have to pull G's for as long as you would in a worse turner.

Turn isn't important providing your energy is greater than that of you enemy. That ain't always the case.

Admitably turn isn't the most important factor in a fighter but in many pilot accounts of 2 squads of planes meeting the fight turned into a furball where turn was a factor.

I suppose fighter design is a trade off if you put big enough wings on a FW to make it turn with a spit you could knock 30 mph off it's top speed.

As it happened the spit 14 could retain it's turning ability while still having a higher top speed and climb than the 190-D9.

And if turn isn't important then why didn't all late war spits have clipped wings?        


What it boils down to is to hit and run (the most survivable tactic) you don't need turn (or climb) you need speed (and to a lesser extent guns and dive). So If you make a perfect BnZ fighter you make it like a FW. However by doing this you put youself at a major disadvantage when you have inferior energyas the only thing you can do is put your nosedown and run (how you gonna shoot those bombers down now). In our arena it's easier to maintain an energy advantage because you can cruise at 30k and be very selective about your targets. I don't think this was nessacarily the case in WW2    


[This message has been edited by jmccaul (edited 05-22-2000).]

[Vermillion]

 

And if turn isn't important then why didn't all late war spits have clipped wings?

Umm...  I always thought that clipped wings, increased the roll rate, but decreased the turn ability, since your decreasing wing area and increasing the wingloading.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"

[funked]

Hristo:

I would add to your list (speed, guns, dive, visibility) range, altitude performance, controllability through all speed ranges, rate of climb, and turning performance in that order.

Why did Fw 190A performance degrade slightly as time went on?  Simple - weight increases without power increases.

If you look at all WW2 fighters you will notice one thing:  as time went on, new versions were always heavier.  There was always more and more equipment being added, fuel tanks being added, weapons being added, armor being added, etc.  
Many of the planes were given more engine power as time went on to compensate.  P-51 and Spitfire got more powerful Merlins, F4U and P-47D added water injection, LaGG-3 got M-82, etc.

However the 190 soldiered on with the BMW 801D-2 despite the efforts of Kurt Tank to add more power.  Fw 190 designs for more powerful engines were ready as early as 1941.  But the planned turbosupercharged variants (Fw 190C) were a failure due to metallurgy problems, and Tank was unable to get significant DB 603 or Jumo 213 allocations until Q4 1944.  It's not that Tank was not aware of the need for more power, he was just let down by the fools controlling aircraft production.

This issue was even more severe on the Fw 190 because the plane was overweight from the start.  It was originally designed for a smaller engine, the BMW 139.  BMW offered the 801 instead, and the airframe was adapted to the larger engine.  However the wing loading was too high and the wings had to be enlarged as well on the second prototype with the 801.

As far as the Spitfires, don't forget that later Spitfire Mk. IX variants were just as fast as Fw 190A at most altitudes, and faster above 20,000 feet.  Spitfire Mk. XIV was faster than Fw 190A at any altitude, and faster than the Fw 190D-9 at most altitudes.

BTW Habicht, only about 12 Fw 190D-12 were built, and the D-13 was a prototype only.


[This message has been edited by funked (edited 05-22-2000).]

[Nath-BDP]

Clipped wings basically enhanches low alt performance.

The MG FF was a Swedish design based on the German Becker cannon of world war 1, being the first standard cannon adopted by the Luftwaffe it was reliable but hampered by its slow rate of fire and ammunition feed from -45 -60 or -100 drum magazines.  It was generally used in its MG FF/M form in a moteur-cannon installation between the cylinder banks of the aircraft's engine, firing through the propeller shaft.

[ra]

<<<IMO, the most important plane characteristic for WW2 air combat are speed, guns, dive and cockpit visibility. >>>

Ah, I can't wait for the P-47.

(sorry for hijacking this thread)


ra

[Nath-BDP]

Also, the Type 99 Model 2 Mk 4 was a superb weapon, placing it in the same class as the MG FF isn't quite right...

The Type 99 M2 M4 had a muzzle velocity of 2.4k ft/sec.

The main german 20mm cannon, the MG 151/20 had a muzzle velocity of 1,910 ft/sec.

Even the earlier Type 99, the model 2, was superior to the MG 151, which a muzzle velocity of 1,970.

[funked]

Nath take a gander at this:
 http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/fgun.html

Doesn't agree with the MV figures you are quoting.

[Hristo]

Some answers:

A-5 had MG 17s.

Remember that WW2 fights were iconless. It was very hard to spot low E 190 running on the deck.

I’d rather have almost twice as firepower in A-8 than that of A-5. Sure, I am not able to outturn anything anymore, but who cares. Turning is not needed when attacking. And I prefer to have dive instead of turning as defense.

What matters speedwise is dive speed and deck speed. Speed at 20k or so is not important IMO. All chases end up on the deck sooner or later. Thus, Dora is faster than Spit XIV.

As for multi plane dogfights, I disagree again. BnZ and E fight can be performed there, it doesn’t have to boil down to WW1 furball every time. All 190s should do there is to keep the speed. IMO, in multi vs multi fight you need great cockpit visibility, guns for quick kill and speed for staying alive. Start turning and looping and someone is bound to nail you when you are most vulnerable. Also, good wingman and squad tactic negate any of these advantages.

Not to mention, I’d much rather be in 190 co-alt at 10k with 10 Spit IXs than in Spit with 10 190s. I guess you know why  

And I agree, Funked, 190 would be much better plane if Tank could get the engines he wanted from start. But even now, I am still impressed by the plane.

Now, more questions:

Some say Dora outturned A-series, some disagree. What is the thruth ?

[funked]

Speed at altitude is important for an interceptor.  Speed on the deck is great for survival though.

Also I haven't seen any data that suggest the D-9 was any faster than the Mk. XIV at sea level.

About the turning abilities of D-9 vs. A-8:  They have the same wing, and the D-9 is a tiny bit lighter, with more power.  Seems like the Dora might be able to turn better.  Also there are some pilots who said that was the case.

[Hristo]

With superior dive performance (brick) and 10 minutes of power boost with MW 50, Dora would win any deck chase with Spit XIV. Some 20 mph at 20k is far less important than 20 mph in dive or 5 mph on the deck, IMO.

Wasn't it able to catch diving P 51s too ?

Funked, what is the exact weight difference between A-5 and A-8 we are talking about ?

Next, is Dora closer to A-5 or to A-8, performance wise ?

[This message has been edited by Hristo (edited 05-23-2000).]

[funked]

I don't know about the diving.  It's not THAT much a brick.  For instance P-51D is heavier and has less drag.

Weights...

A-5 8700 lb (no outboard cannon)
A-8 9625 lb (clean fighter, MG 151/20 outboard)
D-9 9400 lb

A-5 and A-8 performance were not drastically different.  A-8 had boost override for a few more hp and it was actually faster on the deck.  But the climb rate was lower due to extra weight.

D-9 has a little more power than the A series at low level, and more power above 20k.  Also some D-9 had MW 50 boost with over 2200 hp at sea level.  So D-9 performance (climb and speed) is superior to A series above 20,000 feet (approximately) and is much superior at low altitudes if MW 50 is used.