Questions for Pyro and any 190A-8 expert

[MANDOBLE]

Aside the initial model (4x20mm), R6, R7 and R8 kits were mainly used being the R8 the most popular at the end of the war.

Having the ETC 501 mounting the external fuel tank and the Mk108 guns it seems that we have just an A-8/R8 version.


The problem is that R8 kit also involved 200 Kg of extra armour plating (R7).

R8 was basically R2 + R7. R2 alone (2 Mk108) was found ineffective due the short range of the Mk108 guns, much more armour was needed to ensure the survival of the plane until rdy to fire at the bombers. The solution was the R7 kit with the additional armour and the optional external drop tank attacked to the ETC 501.

Is our 190A-8 performance based on a 190A-8/R8 or R7 instead the standard one?

Is our 190A-8 getting 400 lb more of armour plating when using Mk108?

Do we have these 400 lb all the time whatever we select?

R6 (WGr21) plus R2 (Mk108) didn't exist, so, this combination should not be enabled.

[funkedup]

AH speed and climb curve are a very close match for curves from the Focke Wulf manual that Gatt sent me.  The curves are for standard armament and armor and no bomb rack.  The curves are so close that I am convinced they are what HTC used to build the FM.

[MANDOBLE]

Does that book describes clearly the differences between basic A8 and A5/U9 ? AFAIK, U9 is a basic A5 with the standard A8 armament and without the aux fuel tank.

[funkedup]

You mean A-8/U9 right?

All the curves in the manual were for full internal fuel including the fuselage tank behind the pilot.

I don't have the full manual with me right now but I remember there are performance curves for the clean airplane, for an airplane with a centerline bomb, with a drop tank, and with WGr. 21 rocket.

I don't recall any performance data for the aircraft with the additional Sturm armor package.

[MANDOBLE]

Originally posted by funkedup
You mean A-8/U9 right?

Neg, 190A5/U9, AFAIK, was equivalent to a basic A8 without "aux" fuel tank. 190A5/U9 have 2 13mm Mg and 4 20mm Mg151/20 instead of 2 7.7mm and 2 MGFF. Small wing modifications were needed to acommodate the pair of 151/20 on the outerwing.

I've not seen any reference about extra armour of A8, A6 or A7 over A5 unless with R7 or R8 kits.

In the other hand, the small fuel tank behind the pilot was not a standar for A8, some had it, some hadn't.

[funkedup]

Ahhh this one!

Fw 190A-5/U9 - experimental plane with heavier armament, it was fitted with 2x1 MG 131 13 mm machine guns in place of MG 17 guns in the fuselage; in the wings the MG FF canons were replaced by MG 151/20 E cannons. Only two were built (W.Nr. 150812, and 150816). The W.Nr 150816, BH+CF plane was later used as test bed for more powerful BMW 801 engine versions.

I concur that R7 and R8 were the only A-8 versions with extra armor.

I think the fuselage tank was supposed to be standard on A-8 (which is supported by the manual) but with the chaotic production situation (8 factories building 190s) I definitely believe that some of them could have been built without the tank.

[MANDOBLE]

IMO, that means that a 2x20 A8 should have almost same performance, turning, etc than a 4x20 A5.

While a Mk108 armed A8 should be penalized by 400 lbs more but adding the effect of a lot of more armour plating.

[funkedup]

IMO, that means that a 2x20 A8 should have almost same performance, turning, etc than a 4x20 A5.

Well two things are different, the engine and the weight.

The Fw 190A-8 in the manual (and presumably in AH) uses a boost control override system that gives it something like 300 more HP than the A-5 engine when using WEP.

The normal loaded weight of the AH A-8 is 9682 lb which conforms with the normal loaded weight in the manual.  But the AH A-5 weighs 8583 lb.  Even if you account for the difference in armament, this A-8 would still be heavier.

BTW the 8583 lb weight precisely matches the weight of the USAAF's Fw 190G-3 which had all armament, ammunition, and bomb racks removed.  A-5 and G-3 shared airframe, engine, avionics, etc, so I think the A-5 in the game is something like 500-700 lb underweight.  I did some more precise calculations on this forum a long time ago, maybe I can find them with the search feature...

The A-5 performance in AH very closely matches the USAAF's performance curves for the G-3, so closely that I think the USAAF curves were the source for the plane's performance in the game.  I had a copy of some pages of this report on the web but they are lost now.  I will try to put them back online soon.

[Vermillion]

Looking at the Fw190 Pilots Manual that Funked sent me, the difference in armor between the A8 and the A8/R8  is exactly 111 kg or 234.8 lbs.  

There is an excellent chart that shows exact armor components, and the weight of each. It also details the same information for the R2 and R3 varients.

There are also performance curves for the x4 gun A8 with aux tank (which exactly matches the AH charts as funked said), performance curves for the x4 gun A8 with GM1, and performance curves for the A8/R2.

[Wilbus]

I've asked HTC this before, it takes as little dammage with 30mm as without, and no more dammage then the A5. It should be heavier even without the extra armor though.

The A8/R8 was the version used by Sturmgruppen.

[Wilbus]

Funked, I'vew been trying to find the 190 Manual for years, both on the net and as a book(paper form atleast). Where can I find it???

[MANDOBLE]

Wilbus, Sturmgruppen used first R2 (2 Mk108), then R7 (AFAIK, about 400 lb more of armour, not 200, some of them including also heavy reinforcements in the cockpit glass), then  R2 + R7 (R8).

Vermillion, can u scan performance curves of R4 and standar A8? Not sure about how many R4 where in action, at least 66 were  registereded as converted to R4 standar.

funkedup, where is that 1100 lb difference in weight between A5 and A8 baseline?

[funkedup]

The 1100 lb difference is not real, it's only in AH.  I don't think standard A-8 was more than 700-800 lb heavier than an A-5.

[R4M]

Originally posted by funkedup

BTW the 8583 lb weight precisely matches the weight of the USAAF's Fw 190G-3 which had all armament, ammunition, and bomb racks removed.  A-5 and G-3 shared airframe, engine, avionics, etc, so I think the A-5 in the game is something like 500-700 lb underweight.  I did some more precise calculations on this forum a long time ago, maybe I can find them with the search feature...

I just read this forum and don't use to post too much any more, but I have to answer this kind of statements wich are clearly not correct:




AH's "normal load" A5 weigths 8600lbs, around 3910kg if my maths are correct.

The 190 in that chart, fully loaded (and with 90 round drums for the MGFF) weights 4000kg. Around 8800lbs, and that weight is clearly rounded anyway.

I would ask the exact difference of the MG-FFM weight with a 90 round drum instead of the 60 round one, but anyway the final difference would be around 100-150lbs. Not the 500-700 lbs you say, funked.

Thats all.

'later.

[MANDOBLE]

funkedup, my point is that even 800 lb is too much, unless more armour plating was involved.

A small extra fuel tank, some wing reinforcements to acommodate the Mg151/20 and a pair of Mg131 instead the Mg17 would justity 1100 or 800 lbs?

Based on Wilbuz post, do we have an overweighted 190A8 with no extra armour really present?

Is our A8 carrying the ETC 501 extra weight even when no drop tanks nor bombs are loaded?

These 300hp extra with WEP are translated into a much lower climbing performance at any altitude than the 190A5 but 12 mph more at sea level.

Looking at the performance charts of HTC, A8 is faster than A5 only at sea level, and A5 is noticeably faster than A8 above 20k. Same engine and better wep for A8 at sea level would justify that? Have our A8 much more drag coeficient than our A5 without using the R7 kit?

I cant understand the actual difference in performance between a baseline A5 and a baseline A8.