Question about 190A-5, A-8 and D-9..

[Kweassa]

Is the A-5 faster than the A-8?

 Our HTC charts clearly claims this is so.

 I've always considered the A-8 to be equivalent of the 109G-6 - heavily upgraded armour and armament + same power plant = reduced speed, climb rate and maneuverability. Yet I've seen some sources which seem to claim the A-8 is faster than the A-5.

 Can it be the case that somewhat 'upgraded' A-8s esxisted, and they were faster than the A-5? Perhaps maybe like the late G-6s which were upgraded to G-14s?

 I would appreciate it if anyone can clarify this for me. If possible, with some of the real factory charts.. all I seem to have found via search forum are charts with broken links

 ..

 I also heard of some sources claiming the Fw190D-9 climbs to 10000 meters(33,000ft) in 7.1 minutes. Now when other sources indicate the Bf109K-4 does the same altitude in 6.7 minutes, the D-9 is almost on par with the K-4 in climb performance according to those claims.. That just doesn't sound right. Does anyone have info on where these claims first showed up, and if they are right or wrong??

[Citabria]

a8 w mw50 is faster

ours dosnt have mw50 in aux tank its got fuel instead

be nice plane to have w that boost

[HoHun]

Hi Kweassa,

>Is the A-5 faster than the A-8?

The Fw 190A-8 had an engine power advantage over the Fw 190A-5 as its BMW801D-2 engine was equipped with a special emergency power mechanism injecting liquid fuel into the supercharger air intake for charge cooling purposes. Accordingly, the Fw 190A-8 could run at 1.58/1.65 ata in supercharger low/high gear while the Fw 190A-5 could only run at 1.42 ata boost pressure.

This gave the Fw 190A-8 an advantage of 18 - 24 km/h over a Fw 190A-8 without the extra boost. However, at sea level, the Fw 190A-8 had lost 6 km/h against the A-5 at 1.42 ata, and 24 km/h at high gear critical altitude.

Since the increased boost also lowered the critical altitudes, this gave a complex picture, with the Fw 190A-8 being faster at sea level, the A-5 between 1000 and 3000 m, the A-8 up to 6000 m, and the A-5 much faster above that.

>Can it be the case that somewhat 'upgraded' A-8s esxisted, and they were faster than the A-5

The above data is for a Fw 190A-8 that's about 400 kg heavier than the Fw 190A-5. At least at the Eastern Front, a lightened version of the Fw 190A-8 was employed, too, that was almost down to the weight the Fw 190A-5 again (no outer wing guns, no bomb racks, no rear fuselage tank, and probably no Reichsverteidigung radio gear either). At low altitude, weight doesn't matter much for top speed, but at high altitude the lower weight it might have made it almost as fast as the Fw 190A-5 again.

>I also heard of some sources claiming the Fw190D-9 climbs to 10000 meters(33,000ft) in 7.1 minutes. Now when other sources indicate the Bf109K-4 does the same altitude in 6.7 minutes, the D-9 is almost on par with the K-4 in climb performance according to those claims.

The climb time figure of the Me 109K-4 apparently is from a document posted in the recent "G-10 climb rate" thread for a Me 109K-4 not using MW50. The problem is, it has been misread as 6.7 min while it really means 670 s for a 14.9 m/s average.

For the Fw 190D-9, a more credible figure is 8000 m in 480 s with MW50 use (as reported by Dressel/Griehl).  That's a 16.7 m/s average - slightly better than the Me 109K-4 value above, but on a higher power setting and to a lower altitude only.

(The Fw 190D-9 number you quoted makes more sense if you read it as 710 s, too, yielding a 14.1 m/s average.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Wilbus]

The K4 had about 22m/s initial climb rate though, about the same as our G10.

[Seeker]

A slight hijack....

What's the F8 for?

I'm only an average Fw jock at best, but I can't do a thing in the F8. Not enough load out to be a desicive Jabo, and too much of a brick to be an effective fighter.

Have I mis-read this plane? any tips?

[HoHun]

Hi Wilbus,

>The K4 had about 22m/s initial climb rate though, about the same as our G10.

According the chart I referred to, the Me 109K-4 equipped for MW50 use had an initial climb rate of 20 m/s or 22 m/s depending on engine configuration WITHOUT relying on MW50 injection.

With MW50 injection, it would have been more than that, with the exact amount being determined by the extra power MW50 gave over the Start-/Notleistung mit Drehzahlsteigerung mode employed for the 20/22 m/s figure that I've been unable to connect with a specific horsepower number.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi again,

>With MW50 injection, it would have been more than that, with the exact amount being determined by the extra power MW50 gave over the Start-/Notleistung mit Drehzahlsteigerung mode employed for the 20/22 m/s figure that I've been unable to connect with a specific horsepower number.

Taking the lower climb rate with known climb and combat power as a starting point (15.6 m/s at 1370 HP), the Me 109K-4 special war emergency power (with MW50) should result in a 25 - 26 m/s initial climb rate, depending on propeller efficiency.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)