Author Topic: Fw190A-9 (Read 1437 times)

Jochen · « **Reply #15 on:** February 07, 2002, 01:54:32 AM »

There definitely were lots of A-9's in use!

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bjagd.htm

For example, check out JG 301.

Those numbers are from original strenght reports that I would think are trustworthy. Many A-9's have even their rustsatze listed.

butch2k · « **Reply #16 on:** February 07, 2002, 02:20:51 AM »

According to Rodeike 910 Fw 109A-9 airframe were produced, personnaly after studying late war BMW deliveries, i believe that the actual number of aircraft produced and fitted with an engine might be around 600.
The A-9 definitely saw service and some picture are known but since it's really hard to tell the difference between an A-8 or A-9, the most obvious difference being the number of blades of the cooling fan, i suspect that some pictures captionned as A-8 might actually be A-9s.

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #17 on:** February 07, 2002, 03:01:40 AM »

It is clear that 190A9s were served since September 44, mainly since October 44. In the Wilbus link there is a direct reference to the Cottbus production line.

While the Jochen link list 0 190A9s assigned to JG300, I've seen several pictures of JG300 190A9s ("bubble" canopies are clearly visible).

Definitively this plane was in production line and served in combat and it covers the performance gap between 190A8 and 190D9.

Kratzer and Karnak, the topic of this thread is not "what AC do you prefer to play with, my childs?"

What about, "nah! I want an A6M2!!!"?

Anyway, 190A1 had an awful armament and your wep time will be minimal. If you want an early 190 model, go for 190A2 or 190A3.

butch2k, any idea about 190F9 production numbers?

Nath[BDP] · « **Reply #18 on:** February 07, 2002, 03:18:15 AM »

A-9 airframe isn't going to fill any performance gaps with a BMW801D engine, which most A-9s probably had, considering. Furthermore, 200hp won't make a difference since the A-9 weighs more.

Wilbus · « **Reply #19 on:** February 07, 2002, 03:25:18 AM »

Cc, 190 A1 only served very early, and not in very many numbers, it suffered from engine problems (engine caught fire) and from poor armement, was like 4x7.9mm?
The A20 and 2x7.9mm + 2x20mm MG151 and it showed up shortly after the A1, mainly to fix the engine problem but allso to give its pilots a good firepower.

butch2k · « **Reply #20 on:** February 07, 2002, 03:45:22 AM »

The bubble canopy is not distinctive enough as late production A-8 also had them AFAIR. I'll check the F-9 production numbers when i'm back home.

The A-9 could not be fitted with a BMW801D-2 engine due to differences in engine mounting, wiring and piping. Nonetheless due to the few differences between the late prod A-8 and the A-9, an A-9 with a BMW 801D-2 would have been called an A-8.

Personnaly i'm not sure the T series of the BMW-801 were very reliable due to shortage of various stategic materials and skilled manpower. I won't be much surprised if engine had to be derated in order to preserve some service life. Keep in mind that the overall quality of German production dropped a lot in 1944/1945. Serious defects were common, and some piece of equipment like the engine were particularly affected, as an exemple the service life of a 1945 DB605D was about 20 hours...

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #21 on:** February 07, 2002, 03:50:31 AM »

Nath,
1 - Where do you read about 190A9s equipped with BMW801D? As far as you knew til yesterday, there were ony 2 or 3 prototypes...

2 - 190A8, WEP ON, is getting about 1990hp at sea level, even less than a 190A9 WEP OFF. For the entire weight of the 190A8, when WEP is ON you are getting about 150 extra hp, and the difference is very noticeable, so, 200hp extra are something to be considered. Do you have data about the power of the 801TS using WEP? Did that engine use same WEP system as 801D?

3 - Can you post weight of 190A9? AFAIK, it only had 4mm of extra armour in the armoured ring protecting the engine (6mm 190A8, 10mm 190A9).

In any worst case, if extra armour compensates the extra engine power, we would have a very resistant 190A8 with the canopy of a 190F8, and (not sure of that) the tail of a Ta152H.

Nath[BDP] · « **Reply #22 on:** February 07, 2002, 04:53:27 AM »

Mr. Wagner seems to think the 801Ts were interchangeable with 801Ds and both engines could be fitted on an A-9, this is futher evidenced by the fact that in his book(read up, I posted an excerpt) he lists the 801TS and 801Ds length, width and height which are all idenitical. If you have sources confirming that these two powerplants aren't interchangeable please post it.

To respond to Mandoble, it ostensibly been evidenced that there were more A-9s built that I originally though--however half or more of the A-9s built could have easily been equipped with 801D powerplants because of the well-known shortage of 801T powerplants, there aren't even detailed performance documents of it that I can find.

It is also written that the 801TS was apparently evaluated for its high-altitude performance in conjunction with the GM 1 system.
So as we see, the 801TS could be used with GM1 and MW50 just as the 801D can.

However, in terms of boost pressure:

801D-2

0 meteres -- 1.42
700 m -- 1.32
etc.

801TS

0 meteres -- 1.65

The D-2 is just about 300 or so hp below the TS across the board, there are several charts in this book but I can't scan them right now.

It is also noted that with MW50 2700hp was gained with the 801F during a flight in Apr-May 1945. Base HP for the 801F was 2400 hp at takeoff.

-- all info from Wagner's above mentioned work.

Here's an old chart back from the Ta 152 performance/numbers debates awhile ago.

http://www.beatdownposse.com/images/old/bs/chrta.jpg

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #23 on:** February 07, 2002, 06:20:26 AM »

Nath, according with butch2k's study of 801TS and airframe deliveries we have about 600 801TS equipped 190A9s plus 300 airframes waitting for an engine or using earlier BMW engine models. Using heavier airframes with less powerful engines seems a not very good idea, supposing that 190A8 airframes were availabe in greater numbers than 190A9 ones.

According with your chart and the performance of the 801TS, we have a plane 70Kg heavier than 190A8 and about 250 Hp more powerful at take off.

801D-2 performance drop above 10k is well known but 190A9 was designed as a hi alt buff heavy armoured interceptor, so, even not using GM-1, 801TS probably had better hi alt performance than D-2. AFAIK, the first 801TS was tested in a 190A6 and one fitted a prototype of 190F8.

Personaly, I havent read anything about MW50/GM1 usage in 190A9/F9.

butch2k · « **Reply #24 on:** February 07, 2002, 06:56:55 AM »

I should have a bit clearer regarding the mounting of a 801D-2 on a A-9 airframe. It was indeed possible to do this but only at the factory level due to the differences i mentionned above, for some reasons i was initially thinking of "in the field" modifications.

Is a BMW 801D-2 equiped A-9 still an A-9 ??
Yes and No :
Indeed The 801D-2 equiped A-9 were virtually identical to the late A-8 with modified armor and canopy, the only way to tell them apart being the Wk.Nr. So it depends if what you consider is a distinguishing feature between series the Wk.Nr. or the equipment.

At best there were 600 TS equiped A-9s, probably much less (200-300) it depends on how many of the T series engines were put on hold for repair workshop and how many were actually delivered to factories. Those numbers are very difficult to evaluate due to missing documents from FW factories.

AFAIK the MW-50 was only tested and never used operationnaly on the Fw 190A, contrary to the GM-1 which was in use.

Tilt · « **Reply #25 on:** February 07, 2002, 07:24:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MANDOBLE
[iIf the "small numbers" are 100 or more units, then we are talking about some level or real production.

IMHO we have enough "odd ball" AC that were produced in few numbers (F4U-C, TA 152, etc)

Here we discuss a variant that may have been produced to the tune of a few hundred whilst we have AC types that were produced in their thousands and in use through 44 and 45 yet not represented in AH at all.

Tilt

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #26 on:** February 07, 2002, 08:31:01 AM »

Tilt, quantity may be a factor for historical events and even the CT, but not for MA. The fact that a country industry was being anihilated at the end of the war doesn't mean we should punish the planes that effectively fight in these final days.

The efforts needed by Germany to build 200 Fw190A9 may be the same needed by USA to build 3000 P51D.

Wilbus · « **Reply #27 on:** February 07, 2002, 09:03:40 AM »

I don't get, all you guys say 150 and 200 is a LOW number! IT IS NOT!

Sure, compared to the 109 in all its different modells and the IL2 200 is a low number, but don't compare to planes wich were produced over many many years (so was most US and Brittish fighters although they never reached 33,000). 200 of one type of plane sure is alot, specially today, was alot during WW2 aswell so don't try and not get a plane because it "only" 200 of the ever flew, that is more then enough to add it!

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #28 on:** February 07, 2002, 09:34:12 AM »

Another point about numbers.
At Dec 44 the front lines were really small compared to 1942 front lines. So, a single density calculation will tell us that at Dec 44, 200 190A9 were equivalent to 2000 109G6 at Dec 43. Same may be applied to anyother "rare" plane.

I agree with Wilbus, 200 is not necesary a "small" number, it is equivalent to the actual spanish frontline fighters quantity.
Just imagine 200 identical planes parked side to side ...

I've found a source pointing that about 350 190A9 were built til Apr45. Still waiting for a more reliable source cause that one do not specity detailed characteristics of the plane and all the listed performance numbers seem rounded up.

butch2k · « **Reply #29 on:** February 07, 2002, 10:27:33 AM »

Out of curiosity what's your source ?
Griehl only give >200 and Rodeike 910, 350 pretty well fits my own researchs.

Btw the 801TS was 120Kg heavier than the 801D and the direct fuel injection boost was not available on this engine (only on D and TU). This is one of the differences that made exchange of engine not possible on the A-9 except at construction time.

Weight with ammunition and fuel of the A-9 was 4419Kg while the A-9 weighted 4272Kg.