Author Topic: Performance figures of Fw 190A-9 ? (Read 1947 times)

funkedup · « **Reply #30 on:** May 29, 2002, 07:03:40 PM »

From what I've read, Fw never recieved those engines.

wulfie14 · « **Reply #31 on:** May 29, 2002, 07:12:38 PM »

The werk# vs. production #s is true.

One thing not being mentioned - many aircraft (mostly Bf 109 and radial engine Fw 190) were 'built' by the 'rebuilding' of heavily damaged aircraft from 1943 onward.

For example, it's a good bet that more Fw 190A-6s saw operational service than just the # of Fw 190A-6s listed as 'built'. Every A-4 and A-5 surviving by the time the A-6 was 'standardized' eventually 'became' an A-6.

A-8 -> A-9 is basically a powerplant change alone. It's a good bet that a high % of any A-9s that saw service weren't officially 'built from the ground up' at a production facility. A-8 goes to rebuild facility with heavy damage, newer engine available, A-8 comes back out the door as an A-9.

Mike/wulfie

funkedup · « **Reply #32 on:** May 29, 2002, 07:20:51 PM »

Yep the rebuilds are a big factor. I believe it was William Green who pointed out that the claimed total of 20,000 Fw 190s built far exceeds the total number of BMW 801s built.

wulfie14 · « **Reply #33 on:** May 29, 2002, 11:14:35 PM »

Funkedup,

For certain about production #s and rebuilds. I have no doubt that the Bf 109 got it's 'production record title' from a little 'rebuild' help as well.

Mike/wulfie

Heinkel · « **Reply #34 on:** May 30, 2002, 04:47:51 AM »

Quote

The last of the A series aircraft. The A9 was supposed to be powered by the more powerful 1765 kW (2400 hp) BMW 801 F engines. However these were unavailable and the 801TS was used instead

It was the 801 F engine they never recieved. The 801 T was used instead. And like sombody said, they 190A-9's were very similar to A-8's except for a different engine, and some had 152 tails.

Wilbus · « **Reply #35 on:** May 30, 2002, 10:41:41 AM »

RRAM, where did you get the Chart from? I want sources so I can buy some books and stuff and get more charts

Btw, are you RAM?

MiloMorai · « **Reply #36 on:** May 31, 2002, 06:15:27 AM »

wulfie14,

do you know what the difference was between the A-4 > A-5 > A-6? - to much for any field conversion. If there was 3200 A-6 built, thats how many there was, no more, no less.

An example of a re-build is the NASM's F-8 (WkN 931 884) which had an A-7 ID plate (WkN 640 069), found during restoration, still mounted in the fuselage.

RRAM · « **Reply #37 on:** May 31, 2002, 06:23:21 AM »

wilbus those charts I found them here in this same board some time ago...and some others while looking for them on internet

I wish I had a book with all those jewels

Quote

Originally posted by MiloMorai
wulfie14,

do you know what the difference was between the A-4 > A-5 > A-6? - to much for any field conversion. If there was 3200 A-6 built, thats how many there was, no more, no less.

An example of a re-build is the NASM's F-8 (WkN 931 884) which had an A-7 ID plate (WkN 640 069), found during restoration, still mounted in the fuselage.

Milomorai, from A4 to A5 I agree, the difference was big enough to make impossible to refit the plane up to the new standards (the fusselage was 50cm longer in the A5)...

But the A5-to-A6 upgrade consisted mainly on a new strenghtened wing...and given that the Fw190 wing was replaced as a WHOLE (it was built in a single piece), it was VERY easy to bring up an A5 to A6 standards...you change the wing, and voila...A6 for you.

Wilbus · « **Reply #38 on:** May 31, 2002, 06:29:40 AM »

Oh yeah, gotto find some books with it!

MiloMorai · « **Reply #39 on:** May 31, 2002, 07:40:12 AM »

RRAM

" (the fusselage was 50cm longer in the A5)... "

This is a typo error??? 15.25cm should be the increase.

Agree from A-5 > A-6 is not much.

wulfie14 · « **Reply #40 on:** May 31, 2002, 02:05:47 PM »

I'm not talking about 'field conversion'. I never used the word 'field' at all in fact.

I am talking about 'battle damage rebuilds'. If you don't know what I was talking about...

Yes, I know very well the difference between the versions. And the 'fuselage extension' was indeed 'added' to heavily battle damaged A-4s to 'make' them later version radial engined Fw 190As.

We are talking about two different things here (field conversion vs. rebuilds). I don't understand how field conversion became part of the discussion however.

Mike/wulfie

Heinkel · « **Reply #41 on:** May 31, 2002, 02:29:08 PM »

Well, he asked for 190 specs, and i found them. Thanks Verm for posting this image in the first place

Hristo · « **Reply #42 on:** June 03, 2002, 06:00:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Heinkel
Well, he asked for 190 specs, and i found them. Thanks Verm for posting this image in the first place

Thanks, Heinkel.

Looks like the A-9 is somewhere between A-8 and D-9. If it still incorporates advantages that A-8 has over D-9 (guns, inst. turn, higher compression speed, better roll), it would be a very welcomed addition for any 190 type. Of course, if production numbers and introduction dates justify such an addition.

I know that I'd be very happy to try one out

.

P.S.
thanks for keeping the thread on topic

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #43 on:** June 03, 2002, 08:27:02 AM »

Note that last chart is for BMW 801F, not TS.

Wilbus · « **Reply #44 on:** June 03, 2002, 10:34:39 AM »

If it was there in real life (as A9 was) and saw some kind of action, it's legitimate, no matter how many were produced