Fw 190F-8/U1

[Lusche]

Recommended setting as per report by III/ SG4 to the 3. Fliegerdivision from March 45 was either 6 or 12 rockets per salvo. One month earlier standard recommended setting was 6 rockets or possibly 4 when little defense was encountered, but as Soviets got used to these kind of attacks the salvo size had to be increased

[Butcher]

Interesting stat lusche, not once in a year have I been killed by a 190F while tanking, given the odds that's amazing.

[Lusche]

Interesting stat lusche, not once in a year have I been killed by a 190F while tanking, given the odds that's amazing.

Not that amazing if you consider the fact that there's been a total 460,000 Air-to-Ground kills in 2011 (and about 1,800,000 GV deaths all together).
Statistically spoken, the chances of being killed by a 190F or a HurriD (both with about 4800 ground kills each) are quite small

In pure number of GV kills (all of them, not just tanks), the 190F and the Hurri D ended up rank #27 and #28. The A-20 had about 10 times more kills than each of them.

[R 105]

 I used the190F-8 as a tank killer and had four kills in two sorties with a total of 24 rockets fired. Much better than I expected. 

[Babalonian]

I would like to request the 190F-8/U1. It would be really simple to add, as all it would require is adding a pair of 250kg eggs and DT's for the wings.

I imagine it would be implemented simmilar to the loadout options for the M3 (ie, all options on one rack), as they only carried a 250kg egg on the centerline when they had 2 250's on the wing, not the 500kg egg like our current biggest bomb for the F8.


While it wouldn't significantly increase the ordnance carrying capacity of the F-8 (only 50kg, or ~110lbs more), but what it would do is increase the number of usefull bombs carried. In most cases, a 250kg bomb is preferable to 4 50kg bombs.



So overall, we gain a lot of versatility that the F-8 has been a bit lacking in, all for a minimal ammount of work, and we lose nothing in exchange. Lot of benefit, no down sides.

(+1, duh, but)  Why the ordnance restriction and added complication?  Not saying it should or shouldn't, but it would be a simpler/quicker modification to the current model.  And there have been discussions before in this forum along similar lines where such "overloading" is overlooked (IE: 1000lbers and rockets sumultaneously on one single wing of certain ac) 

[Krusty]

Strictly speaking, I believe HTC don't have the info they need/want for the 4x50kg centerline rack. They asked for some info from the community back when the 109s were being redone, but didn't get what they wanted. That's why our 109E has no bombrack options and possibly why our 109F is a pure fighter.

Since it is the same rack, and they are still lacking what they want/need to know, it stands to reason that's why it's not an option on the Fw190F-8 either. I presume/guess that if/when it's ever added to the 109s, it will be added to the 190s at the same time. It won't require a new variant, and would just be a loadout option on the planes we already have.

Strictly speaking, though, 50kg outboard are pretty useless, even against towns. You need salvos of them. Nice to have as an option, but a single 250kg is better because you'd have to drop 2x 50kg anyway to get a kill on any building, and the 1 bomb packs more than the 2 lesser ones.

[Tank-Ace]

The 109E has a bomb rack now. It can lug around a 250kg egg, just like the rest of them.

[Krusty]

Yes, I mis-spoke. I meant it doesn't have that 4x50kg bomb rack I was talking about. Thanks for the clarifying note.

[Babalonian]

Strictly speaking, I believe HTC don't have the info they need/want for the 4x50kg centerline rack. They asked for some info from the community back when the 109s were being redone, but didn't get what they wanted. That's why our 109E has no bombrack options and possibly why our 109F is a pure fighter.

Since it is the same rack, and they are still lacking what they want/need to know, it stands to reason that's why it's not an option on the Fw190F-8 either. I presume/guess that if/when it's ever added to the 109s, it will be added to the 190s at the same time. It won't require a new variant, and would just be a loadout option on the planes we already have.

Strictly speaking, though, 50kg outboard are pretty useless, even against towns. You need salvos of them. Nice to have as an option, but a single 250kg is better because you'd have to drop 2x 50kg anyway to get a kill on any building, and the 1 bomb packs more than the 2 lesser ones.

Hmmm, I know a certain old geister thats been brushing up on his high school german and has a mound of luft ord documentation he thumbs through just for a bedtime story.

Getting sick or retirement yet Bustr? (we luv u!)

What type of specific documentation on this would be needed/desired if it can be found?  Aircraft performance?  Manufacture/distribution? 

Edit:  Thinking of it, I'd be surprisd if HTC really needs it since they very likely probabley have it and have looked over it at least once.

[Krusty]

Look up the ancient discussions before the 109 was redone. It may have been Pyro asking about it. It was his famous



signal ........  NOISE



comment. His or whomever's. I don't recall exactly what info they wanted, sorry.

[TimRas]

Look up the ancient discussions before the 109 was redone. It may have been Pyro asking about it. It was his famous
signal ........  NOISE
comment. His or whomever's. I don't recall exactly what info they wanted, sorry.

It was this thread:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,162110.45.html

Your personal contribution was 11 irrelevant posts. Then Pyro deleted his original question.
Your  Coup de grāce (post 12) was:

Also sorry... I seemed to have gotten confused and then made the thread confused along with me.

 I understand totally if these guys don't answer any modelling questions any more.

[Babalonian]

It was this thread:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,162110.45.html

Your personal contribution was 11 irrelevant posts. Then Pyro deleted his original question.
Your  Coup de grāce (post 12) was:

 I understand totally if these guys don't answer any modelling questions any more.

I think most of us understand that, although it should be noted that while HTC does pick and choose their battles carefuly, compared to other similar companies, they're very outgoing and supportive.  I wouldn't say they don't answer modelling questions or at any point have, but to sum it up well, in regards to specificly this thread and topic:

You obviously don't understand the gravity of the situation.  190 threads are no laughing matter, they're serious business!

Wiley.

So, until we get 6-more 190 varients, including at the least a "Finnish V-day 190" version, I wouldn't touch a 190 thread with a 50-foot pole if I were them.

(spaking of which, now that the dust has settled, who is it that handed Skuzzy the cattle prod, pointed him at the nearest 190 thread, and dared him a few weeks ago?  Pyro?  )

[Denniss]

Neither 109 nor 190 had a 4x50kg centerline rack. The 50kg bombs were held by the ER4 adapter which was plugged into/held by the ETC 500 series centerline rack. Every German bomb-capable aircraft with the ETC 500 series rack could also carry the ER4 adapter and 4x50kg bombs.