190 A5 and A8

[GScholz]

You're welcome 

[Denniss]

Some corrections to the build numbers:
18 F-1, 270 F-2, 432 F-3, 50 G-1, 626 G-2, 550 G-3 and finally 146 G-8/R5.

Many F- and G-series aircraft were retroffitted with the C-3 injection system, an early/ low-alt version of what later became "erhöhte Notleistung" in the A-8/F-8.

[Babalonian]

My mistake, havent read up on it in months.

The 801s (and Jumo 211/213As) had a two speed supercharger, that's the break in the power curve, similar to the break in Merlin-powered engines when the second stage kicked-in.
DB engines had a single-speed supercharger with the noted fluid coupling.

F-1= A-4/U3
F-2= A-5/U3
F-3= A-5/U17, the first to be noted with underwing racks for 50kg bombs
F-8 -according to Fw docs they planned to remove some of the additional armor due to weight limitations

G-1= A-4/U8
G-2= A-5/U8
G-3= A-5/U13
G-8 - only built as pure groundattack G-8/R5, similar to the F-8 but without extra armor

Some corrections to the build numbers:
18 F-1, 270 F-2, 432 F-3, 50 G-1, 626 G-2, 550 G-3 and finally 146 G-8/R5.

Many F- and G-series aircraft were retroffitted with the C-3 injection system, an early/ low-alt version of what later became "erhöhte Notleistung" in the A-8/F-8.

This is the correct/great info.

[STEELE]

I suspect the overweight nature of our A8 is the main culprit for speed... though I don't know why it would affect it THAT much. The outboard guns only detract 1 mph. The cowling bumps are minimal. Otherwise the airframe is identical, as far as drag, surface area, wing area, frontal area. Identical.

So I'm a bit at a loss as to why such a drastic difference off-wep. I've never really understood that part.

This is just for in-game curves. Historically the A-5 did even better than ours, so who knows what's going on.

Yeah, its a bummer that the original A5 tests show 352 at sea level at 1.42 ata,  ours only does what, 329?
  At best altitude ours is running ~20mph slow as well.    
ps. The 190 that Capt Eric Brown tested was most likely a misidentified F model, so a lot of the turn radius and rate info that we get for the early A's is much worse than it should be.  

[MiloMorai]

Yeah, its a bummer that the original A5 tests show 352 at sea level at 1.42 ata,  ours only does what, 329?
  At best altitude ours is running ~20mph slow as well.    
ps. The 190 that Capt Eric Brown tested was most likely a misidentified F model, so a lot of the turn radius and rate info that we get for the early A's is much worse than it should be.  

Loaded weight of the late war Fw190A-8 was 4400kg. With the MK108s the weight increased by ~50kg. I would think Brown tested an A-8 with the extra armour.

A fighter bomber weighed 4775kg.

from Tech Description #284.

[Krusty]

Those lines look exactly what engaging GM-1 would look like as a performance gain similar curves are seen in plenty of other original speed performance docs which explicitly associate them as being due to the use of GM-1. The actual altitude at which GM-1 can be used depends on the feed rate of the nitrous oxide and the engine that it is being used in.

While the use of GM-1 was very very rare, saying that it was never used by 190A isn't correct either. In his book Fw190 Jagdflugzeug Peter Rodeike for example mentions the use of GM-1 in an Fw190A-8/R4 in the end of '44/start of '45 by 10./JG 11. A GM-1 went into the same space that was normally occupied by the AUX tank.

Good point. I agree it "looks like" a GM-1 line, but I think it is probably an estimated or calculated "what-if" line. GM-1 on Fw190s is one of those things that is a great controversy. There is abundant false claiming that it used it, along with claims that the MW50 was used on models as early as the A-4. Overall despite some plans and claims, it was never put into actual use. If it was tested on one or two airframes, it doesn't explain why so many different variants of Fw190A8s with different weapons setups would all have GM-1. Also, while it may take up the space of the aux tank, it would weight more, or weigh "differently" but the weights on that chart are dead-on standard weights across the board.

Finally, I think that any chart that actually used GM-1 or MW50 or any special additive spells that out clearly like in this chart:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-3jan45.jpg

It says which are carrying MW50 and how many liters, as well as how many liters of gas.

[Krusty]

Some corrections to the build numbers:
18 F-1, 270 F-2, 432 F-3,

And what sources are you citing for these numbers? The F-2 number seems higher than any I've seen recently. It was a short run series. Or are you considering all A-5s of equivelant setup, that weren't really custom-made F-models? Because those would be considered A-5s IMO.

[bustr]

Is there a single person alive who all of you accept as the living expert on the FW190?

If so, is he willing to put this to rest for all of you?

[Debrody]

Yeah, its a bummer that the original A5 tests show 352 at sea level at 1.42 ata,  ours only does what, 329?
  At best altitude ours is running ~20mph slow as well.    
ps. The 190 that Capt Eric Brown tested was most likely a misidentified F model, so a lot of the turn radius and rate info that we get for the early A's is much worse than it should be.  

I could reach 339-340 at 20 feet alt, with wep. 327 is at 1.3 ata. Still 12mph slower than your data tho.
Whats the source for the 352?

[Denniss]

And what sources are you citing for these numbers? The F-2 number seems higher than any I've seen recently. It was a short run series. Or are you considering all A-5s of equivelant setup, that weren't really custom-made F-models? Because those would be considered A-5s IMO.

The numbers are from the german wikipedia which in turn originate from the Military Bundesarchive Freiburg. I don't know how the Luftwaffe counted these versions but it seems they separated the early F- and G-series aircraft (if built as A-4/A-5 U3 version) from standard A-4/A-5 because they received their own designation later on. Both Focke-Wulf and Arado built 135 F-2 each so the run was obviously not that short. All 432 F-3 were built by Arado and the majority of the F-8 as well.

GM-1: was tested and may have been an option for very special mission but I doubt they ever used it.
MW-50: was tested with A-4 or A-5 but performance increase wasn't as good as with C3 injection. In late war it's claimed they reverted to an improved MW-50 system as they couldn't effort the higher fuel consumption of the "Erhöhte Notleistung" system anymore.

[Wmaker]

I agree it "looks like" a GM-1 line, but I think it is probably an estimated or calculated "what-if" line.

The fact that it is calculated like the rest of the curves is clearly noted in that document. The curves are calculated based on a power curve which was obtained from earlier testing of a single example of a BMW 801D engine.

GM-1 on Fw190s is one of those things that is a great controversy. There is abundant false claiming that it used it, along with claims that the MW50 was used on models as early as the A-4. Overall despite some plans and claims, it was never put into actual use. If it was tested on one or two airframes, it doesn't explain why so many different variants of Fw190A8s with different weapons setups would all have GM-1.

Now you say that it is a matter of great controvercy but were so confident in saying that it was never used earlier? Peter Rodeike's has found at least 11 Fw190A-8/R4s from AGO's production records and R4s were used by 10./JG 11. At least one is found from the 10./JG 11 loss reports. So Krusty, what is your source to the fact that GM-1 was never used by 190As? Considering how thoroughly Mr.Rodeike has researched the Luftwaffe and its aircraft, I take his word over yours any day of the week.

Scan from Rodeike's book:

[R 105]

 I don't really fly the 190s much but the 190A-5 is my favorite. It seems to me that the A-5 with the four 20mm gun package fly's much much better then the A-8 with the same gun pack. Plus there is no armor advantage in the modeling of the A-8 in the game over the A-5 and I get a pilot wounded just a fast in the A-8. So if I am going to use a 190 to deack I fly the A-5. If I plan to use a German bird for a dog fight I will take any model ME-109 over the 190.

[save]

Im flying the A-series in AH making up for 90% of my total flights.

The only thing that make me go .. hmmmm is when I try to pull up hard from level at most speeds 250-> faster, and I get stall horn screaming all the way to departure of controlled flight.
The A5 does not behave this way.
Is the A8 that much more nose-heavy ?
I have read many combat reports of late p47 outturning A8 turning to the right with paddle-prop and jg26 war diary volume 2 say the same.
Late p47's (we pretty much have paddle-prop late-47s in AH, where is the C-model ?? ) also can climb with them, but I have never read about p51s and p47  just pull up and lost them because A8 cant follow nose-up because its so darn nose-heavy, and yes, its with full trim up

[save]

Grr ,double post

[save]

tripple post