Whats the stats of a FW190-A5?

[chisel]

Fd-ski

The blower on the Merlin is losing pressure(= less HP) up to 23,000 ft at 23k the blower drops a gear (speeds up) and recovers performance.

The blower on the BMW is just geared for a different altitude band. Switches speeds at a different altitude.

Dont have any numbers to back this up but I would suspect the BMW engine switches to high blower at 15,000ft? Recovering HP at a lower alt than the Merlin but topping out faster.

Then again, Maybe Eric is just full of toejam  

[chisel]

Had a look at your charts funky one. Cool!  
but kinda hard to read.

Looks like high blower kicks in at around 10,000ft?

[crabofix]

Do I see some fear of the comin 190 a5 in the posts from  the barbie and the hog drivers?

MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Crabofix <What happend?...:A stranger morgie turndee burndee ,flip flip flip flip flip flip>

[wells]

Yep, that's 4000 fpm with emergency power (no MW50) at a weight of 8500 lbs or so.  I'm pretty sure we have the heaviest (sturm) of all 190A8 models, although I don't recall Pyro ever confirming that.  At least the climb rate indicates that this is so.  

The main flaw in the German machines are the sustained turn speeds (turn rates) which should be over 200 mph for both 109 and 190 models, compared to 150-175 for most other fighters with larger wings.  Sure, the German planes won't turn inside anything, but they climb well and should hold lots of speed in turns.  That extra 50 mph coming out of a hard turn is almost enough to pull off a hammerhead right then and there or at least allow for a faster escape.  It's the speed advantage that makes the zooming ability.

[Hans]

Hell, when I started this post all I wanted to know was what the differences between the -A4 and the -A5 was (engine mounting...thanks Funked).  I had no idea I was opening a forum for Spit versus FW.  Keep it up though, it is good reading (my opinion is neither is better).

I do think that the -A5 is going to be a good airplane and will be better in air-to-air than the -A8 (bomber-killer varient = heavy guns and heavy armor = bad fighter).

Hanz, who may have to put his Macchi 205 and 109G-10 back in the hanger.

[This message has been edited by Hans (edited 04-30-2000).]

[Jekyll]

The max loaded weight of the 190A-8 was, I believe, around 10,800lb.

Take off 1,100lb for the bomb it could carry on the central rack.
Take off another 1,100lb for the two 550lb bombs on the wings
Take off another 200lb (approximately) for the extra 25 gallon of fuel
Take off another (approximately) 50lb for the extra fuel tank and associated piping

Take off another 400lb (minimum)for extra armour on the A8.

Hmmm  we finish up with a loaded weight on the A4/A5 variants of around 8000lb for the aircraft.

And that doesn't even take into account the weight difference between the Mg131 machine guns and the Mg17's on the A4/A5 variants?
And how about the weight difference between the Mg151/20 and MGFF cannon (and associated shell loads).

Wells, I always find your posts most interesting, but according to some of my data the A4/A5 variants DID have MW50 which 'upped' the available power to 2,100hp.  Maybe I misinterpreted your post.  Are you saying that the 190A-4/5 did NOT have 2,100 hp available to it?

And certainly, if you look on the climb rate data on funked's post, it is pretty clear that the rates were calculated using both normal military power and 'boost' (whether MW50 or plain water injection) respectively.

Fw190A-4:  FuG16Z radio; BMW 801D-2 with MW50 injection, U1 and U8 fighter-bombers; U4 ground-attack fighter, R6 bomber-destroyer; 'Trop' sub variants; introduced first Rustsatz.

The above is an extract from "Fighters of WW2", published by Aerospace Publishing.

Interestingly, Janes "All the Worlds Aircraft" 1945 lists the times to altitude of the A8 using MW50 injection.  MW50 took roughly 10 minutes off the A8's time to 32,800 feet, yet according to funked's climb chart, the tested A5's climb (supposedly without MW50) bettered the A8 with MW50.

Does that make any sense to you?

------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron http://www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'

[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 04-30-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 04-30-2000).]

[Hristo]

Although I am not competent to comment on exact data and numbers, I can see 2 different approaches here.

First is the one clearly taken in WB, and you have a flying brick of 190. Its pilot has to have mental discipline of a Buddist monk if he wants to survive.

The other approach would take more of historical reputation and pilot stories into account, but we all know it is hard to judge that. Model 190 according to that and you will have a terror plane.

Current A-8 is a flying brick and its pilot has to be much better than his opponent if he wants to win a fair fight.

Our G-10 has incredible turn radius. Just about everything can turn inside it. Luckily, it has a fantastic engine and best WEP in the game, so it compensates for it.

I suppose if A-8 with MW 50, it would be much better plane in AH. So, why the Germans put MW 50 only in a handful of 190s ? This game suggests that 190s badly needed it. Somehow it is hard to believe Germans rather put more fuel than a MW 50 (they didn’t have to fly long sorties in 1944 and they had a drop tank option). Could it be that A-8 actually performed better without MW 50 than we think ?

[funked]

Jekyll,

Power
I reiterate that AFAIK there were no MW 50 equipped A-4 or A-5 aircraft in service.  Furthermore I've never seen a boost pressure, rpm, or altitude associated with the magical 2100 hp figure, so I'm not sure it is a real number or just an estimate.

The maximum power used on the USAAF G-3 climb and speed charts on my website is just the full emergency/takeoff power of the engine as noted on the power charts.  This just means the maximum supercharger boost was used.  There was no injection of anything but fuel on that aircraft.

Weight
There's no mystery about Fw 190A weights.  There are many direct measurements available.  No need to back-calculate the weight from the A-8 weight.  BTW no wing bomb racks on the A-8.

I recommend Alfred Price "Focke Wulf 190 At War", Wolfgang Wagner "Kurt Tank Focke-Wulf's Designer and Test Pilot", and Heinz Nowarra "Fw 190 & Ta 152, Aircraft & Legend".

From these sources here are the takeoff weights I have found, for max. internal fuel and ammo:

Fw 190A-1
8305 lb (Wagner)
4 x MG 17, 2 x MG FF

Fw 190A-2
8470 lb (Wagner)
2 x MG 17, 2 x MG 151/20

Fw 190A-3
8789 lb (Wagner)
2 x MG 17, 2 x MG 151/20

The AFDU estimated their Fw 190A-3 (The one they flew against the Spitfire Mk. IX, from which all those climb comparisons are derived) at 8600 lb.  This plane had 2 x MG 17, 2 x MG 151, and 2 x MG FF.  I'm guessing this weight is without ammo.

Fw 190A-4
No figure for this plane, but virtually identical to A-3.

Fw 190A-5
The aircraft on my pages (an A-5 modified by the Germans to G-3 standard then modified by the USAAF back to A-5 standard) weighed about 8500 pounds without outer cannon or cowl MG's.  

Fw 190A-6
Wagner's book quotes 9035 lbs for an A-6 with 4 x MG 151/20 and 2 x MG 17.  This weight also includes 330 lb for a GM 1 kit, so make that 8705 lb for a standard aircraft.

Fw 190A-7
I don't have a figure for this plane, but it's virtually identical to the A-8.

Fw 190A-8/R2
In Wagner's book there is a breakdown of weight for this MW 50-equipped model.  The takeoff weight is 9570 lb.  This model carries 2 x MG 131 in the cowl, 2 x MG 151/20 in the wing roots, and 2 x MK 108 guns in the outer wing stations.  Unfueled unarmed weight was the same as the A-6 mentioned above, so any differences are due to the fuselage MW 50/fuel tank (filled with fuel in this case), as well as the armament.

Weight of Armament
It's hard to compare the weight of these planes because of the differences in armament.  Here is a breakdown of the weights of guns and ammo for different stations on the Fw 190A series.

Cowl Guns:
2 x MG 17 + Ammo 354 lb
2 x MG 131 + Ammo 308 lb

Inner Wing Guns:
2 x MG 17 + Ammo 163 lb
2 x MG 151 + Ammo 396 lb

Outer Wing Guns:
2 x MG FF + Ammo 326 lb
2 x MG 151/20 + Ammo 308 lb
2 x MK 108 + Ammo 530 lb

[funked]

Hristo said:

   

The other approach would take more of historical reputation and pilot stories into account, but we all know it is hard to judge that. Model 190 according to that and you will have a terror plane.

LOL!  Not a whole lot of Spitfire Mk. IX, Typhoon, Tempest, P-47 or P-51 drivers thought it was a "terror plane".

In any case, it is simply not possible to convert stories and reputations into flight models.

 

So, why the Germans put MW 50 only in a handful of 190s ?

They had difficulty getting a reliable system into mass production.  The engine was ready for the system from A-4 onwards, but the full system didn't get into production until the A-8.  Even the D-9's were only fitted with MW 50 by retrofits after production.  It was one of many development problems they had a hard time dealing with.

P.S.  Pyro's approach of looking at available engineering data to build flight models is the only reason you have a 450 mph Me 109G-10.  Actual test data indicate she was only good for 425 or so.  Be very careful what you ask for Hristo.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 04-30-2000).]

[air_spro]

Have any of you read Johnnie Johnson's book ?  He writes about Spit5's v 190's .
  http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345304721/qid=957096572/sr=1-5/103-3449194-5067009

[This message has been edited by air_spro (edited 04-30-2000).]

[Jekyll]

"As the RAF desperately sought to introduce an answer to the Fw-190, production of the German fighter was stepped up as Focke-Wulf factories at Cottbus, Marienburg, Neubrandenburg, Schwerin, Sorau and Tutow joined the programme, as well as the Ago and Fieseler plants.  The Fw-190A3, with 1268-kW (1,700 hp) BMW 801DG, four 20mm and two 7.92mm guns, joined II/JG 26 in March 1942 and shortly therafter the only fighter geschwader in the West, JG 2.

Thus, by the time the RAF was ready to introduce its new Spitfire IX and Typhoon fighters to combat over the Dieppe landings in August 1942, the Luftwaffe could field some 200 Fw 190As in opposition.

Unfortunately, not only had the RAF underestimated the numbers of these fighters available but they were unaware that a new version, the Fw 190A-4, had appeared with a water-injected 1567-kW (2,100 hp) BMW 801D-2 engine and a top speed of 670 km/h .......

The result was a stinging defeat for the RAF, which lost a total of 106 aircraft, including 97 to Fw 190s."

Sorry, just couldn't resist  

[funked]

Jekyll, where is that quote from?  I've seen references to MW 50 on the A-4 like that in a couple of other books too.  

However I have some technically detailed books on the subject (see previous post) that describe the development problems that delayed the introduction of the MW 50 system until the A-8.  The majority of sources, and particularly the more detailed sources, agree on this fact.

This is supported by the absence of any RLM record of performance testing of an MW 50 equipped A-4, and the absence of MW 50 equipment from any captured Fw 190A until the A-8.  Many of the groups testing these aircraft (particularly the US) completely disassembled and tested every aspect of the aircraft.  I'm pretty sure they would have found the MW 50 system if it existed.  

There was a petrol injection system used on some ground attack aircraft (A-4 and subsequent F/G series) where fuel was injected into the supercharger to cool the mixture and give some anti-detonation effect.  Maybe this system is the source of the confusion?

This subject has been discussed on several boards, in exhaustive detail, and the search for confirmation of MW 50 on the Fw 190A-4 has never come up with anything solid.  Good luck.  

[RAM]

<Ironic mode ON>

Ok,of RAF pilots, you are COMPLETELY right. The Fw190A5 was an useless plane that could easily be won by a SpitIX hands down. The fact that LW had a K/D ratio on the channel in 1942-43 of nearly 3/1 was only because British people wanted to make Hitler confident before the invasion. Yah, thats it.The Dieppe raid air defeat was only a "strategical desinformation" for the Luftwaffe to dont let them know how bad their planes were. Yeah, right.

And Me109G10, just like K4,was in fact a glider plane with a little prop on it. Yes, thats it. 450mph were also a bad information given by RMA to make their pilots confident. of course.

And MW50 wasnt equipped to any G6 in WWII, too..Of course. That is why G6 is such a pig here. Yah, thats it.

Of course, again with Fw190, That was an useless plane brought in by the uncompetent German aircraft engineer Kurt Tank, widely known by his stupid designs. It was clear that Fw190A wasnt in the same leage as their enemies. Of course. Agree 100%.

All in all, The fact that the Luftwaffe was flying in ABSOLUTELY toejamty planes is well known by all of us...luftwaffe's aircraft were all pure crap, of course.

YES!!! OF COURSE!!
<Ironic mode off>

I Repeat...if A5 cant fight 50% 50% with a Spit IX as it did historically I'll grab my falcon 4.0 again.

THATS IT

------------------
Ram, out

Fw190D9? Ta152H1? The truth is out there
JG2 "Richthofen"

 

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 04-30-2000).]

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 04-30-2000).]

[funked]

RAM, with your attitude sometimes I wish you WOULD play Falcon.

Spend as much time and money as I have studying the Fw 190 and flying it with Luftwaffe flight sim units, and maybe I will listen to your fantasies errrrr opinions.

That said, the A-5 should be 500-1000 lb lighter than the A-8, and I'm expecting it to be a much more "sporty" aircraft, particularly if the 2-cannon loadout is used.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 04-30-2000).]

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by funked:
RAM, with your attitude sometimes I wish you WOULD play Falcon.

Funked. I'm doing nothing more than repeating all the words by RAF-flyers.

 They keep on saying that Fw190A was clearly (!!??) inferior to Spitfire IX. And of course, nothing near P51 and P47, or P38 (heressy!!! hang me I'm comparing Fw190 with AMERICAN IRON!!! i deserve to be hanged from my ears!)...

You are ignoring the fact that during 2 big and lasty years, Spit IXs were splattered time after time by Fw190A.

You are ignoring that Fw190A was a feared enemy, able to beat ANYTHING the Allied had. You are ignoring that Fw190A was regarded as the best fighter plane in the world in 1942-43.

You are ignoring that Fw190D9 is considered one of the best prop planes in WWII.

YOu are forgettign that german aircraft industry was YEARS over allied...F86, MiG15, Hawker Hunter...ALL OF THEM based on German WWII designs or studies (The Sabre wasn't to be a swept wing plane until Americans put their hand on WWII german tests, ans MiG15 was nothing more than a COPY of a design made in 1944 by KURT TANK! the same inutil that designed Fw190).

Nah, why to keep talking about this. A5 should be able to fight 50% 50% with SpitIX...and that THE LESS! because Fw190A5 was better E fighter than SPit IX.

------------------
Ram, out

Fw190D9? Ta152H1? The truth is out there
JG2 "Richthofen"

 

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 04-30-2000).]