Author Topic: an another usefull patch (Read 1445 times)

R4M · « **Reply #90 on:** November 30, 2001, 03:11:00 PM »

from http://www.214th.com/ww2/germany/fw190/ :

FOCKE-WULF 190 S
In connection with the reorganization of diving bomber units into fighter-bomber units and the need to retrain Ju 87 pilots on Fw 190 Fighters the Luftwaffe ordered a two-place training version of the Fw 190 Fighter. In the spring of 1944, one A-8 airframe was modified to this standard and received the additional designation U1. The second cockpit was placed just after the first in the place used for the MW 50 installation. This device was not installed in training planes. The back part of cockpit canopy was also modified. It had a three part, sides opening canopy (similarly to the Bf 109 G-12) ended with a duralumin superstructure in the upper rear fuselage. Three planes were modified and designed as a masters for serial fighter planes modification. To this should be added the damaged planes removed from frontline units and modified by field repair stores. For this reason, it is difficult to find a precise number of A-5 and A-8 planes modified to the two place version. It was a relatively small number and planes were designated Fw 190 S-5 and S-8 (S = Schulflugzeug - training plane) respectively

There you go, the U1 thing. I told you it was a mess up of denominations.

The F8/U1 was a long range jabo.

R4M · « **Reply #91 on:** November 30, 2001, 03:12:00 PM »

Also:

(talking about the Fw190G8):

Quote

Next, and the last production series of the G version, was the Fw 190G-8 plane (G-4 to G-7 variant designated small modifications that were not realized). Basis for this version was the A-8 airframe. It included all modification applied to this version and the enlarged cockpit canopy from the Fw 190F-8. Some G-8 planes also got flame dampers (version G-8/N adapted for night operation). Despite the fact that the plane did not have fuselage mounted machine guns, the G-8 got new, enlarged upper covers forward of the cockpit, adapted for MG 131 machine gun mounting. For transportation of additional fuel tanks and bombs the new ETC 503 bomb racks were used. To widen Fw 190G-8 operational use, the following Rustsatz kits were provided:
.
.
.
(snipped for brevity)
.
.
.
Fw 190G-8/R5 - had four underwing ETC 50 (or ETC 70) bomb racks in place of two ETC 503. Production of G-8 version continued from September 1943 to February 1944, when production of the Fw 190G-8 was abandoned in favor of modified F-8 series planes. This was connected with the tendency to simplify the production process. In the late series G-8 planes (from February 1944), the autopilot device was not used . In the late Fw 190G-8 (after mounting MG 131 machine guns) there were no longer differences between this version and the Fw 190F-8 attack aircraft type ------(G-8 = F-8/U1 in the version with ETC 503 bomb racks, and G-8/R5 = F-8/R1 also).-- In an emergency, single Fw 190G planes were adapted for the transportation of high weight bombs under the fuselage (1000, 1600 and 1800 kg). In this modification, the shock absorber leg was strengthened and wheels with strengthened tires were used. Also used were special bomb racks (Schlos 1000 or 2000) in place of the ETC 501 bomb rack. The Fw 190G planes with these higher bomb loads needed as long as 1200-1300 m of runway for takeoff

Still any doubts left?

[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]

Kieran · « **Reply #92 on:** November 30, 2001, 03:25:00 PM »

Let's stay with the F-8, which is what all the fuss is about, right?

Same source as Creamo, page 509, second paragraph, column one:

Quote

The basic Fw 190F was envisioned to incorporate a center fuselage mounted ETC 501 bomb rack to accept either a single 500 kg (1,100lb) bomb or, with an adapter linkage, four 50 kg (110lb) bombs, and optional ETC 501 wing racks for single 250kg (550lb) bombs or, with adapters, a pair of 50kg (110lb) bombs.

Paragraph six, column one:

Quote

The Fw 190F series continued with the F-8, F-9, and F-10 variants, all of which made use of the Fw 190A-8 airframe. The primary differences in the newer F varieant were the incorporation of the A-8 variant's 13-mm MG 131 machineguns in the fuselage in place of the ealier model 7.9 mm MG 17's, a pair of ETC 50 wing bomb racks under each wing as standard, and an improved bomb release system network for quicker and more accurate response to the pilot's commands.

Furious · « **Reply #93 on:** November 30, 2001, 03:26:00 PM »

In regards to the U1 designation for the 2 seat trainers:

I believe the misunderstanding comes from the fact that the first 2-seater was a modified A8 that was redesignated as U1. Later planes modified or damaged planes rebuilt as 2-seat trainer were designated as Fw 190 S-5 and S-8 (S = Schulflugzeug - training plane)

EDIT-
Oops, I just reiterated what R4M already stated.

F.

[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: Furious ]

R4M · « **Reply #94 on:** November 30, 2001, 03:34:00 PM »

Kieren, Creamo's source is the one wich says that the 190A4 had MW50 fitted, right?.

And the same one wich lists Fw190D9's topspeed at 426mph with 2250hp of power, right?.

And, not sure but I'd say that also lists the 109K4 with MG151 15mm cannons on cowl, isnt it?.

Better look for a more reliable source

CJ · « **Reply #95 on:** November 30, 2001, 04:30:00 PM »

R4M

Just beacuse a plane is certified to only carry a certian load, doesnt mean it couldn't carry more. Do you think noone's ever flown an overloaded, out of center of gravity aircraft successfully? The aircraft has attach points and pylons for the weapons, so they could have all been loaded onto the aircraft at one time. The performance and handling would suck, but it COULD have been done. I agree that it might not have been a historical loadout, but if it could have been technically done, why not? Let the pilot decide how to load his plane.

Also, I agree with you on your point about more options for the F-8. The more options we can get, the better, but imagine how you would feel if you just released a patch to your own software and people started ranting and raving about how pissed off they are that the other person's planes got fixed and theirs did not. amazinhunk is the word that comes to mind. Just please stop being an amazinhunk. It's not only HTC that has to see it, it's everyone else in the community too. It scares people away, and then HTC has even less money to hire people to fix your Luftwaffe.

For what it's worth...

Karnak · « **Reply #96 on:** November 30, 2001, 04:44:00 PM »

Not that I really want to wade into this, but I have this info:

Fw190F-8
Number produced: 385

Photos in book with:

Fw190F-8/R1 with 300 litre droptank under the fuselage and two ETC 50 racks under each wing, each holding a 50kg bomb (4 racks and 4 bombs total)

Fw190F-8/R1 ground attack plane was armed with two supplemental 130-round Mk 103/30 cannons in addition to two MG 17s and two MG 151s.

Fw190F-8/R1 with four ETC 50 bomb racks beneath the wings (two each) and an ETC 250 rack under the fuselage, occupied by a 250kg bomb.

In a table titled:
Fw 190A, F and G Umrüst-Bausatz Factory Conversion Sets*

U1 Fw190A-8/U1 - two seater for conversion training, also known as Fw190S
U1 Fw190F-8 conversion for use as Jabo-Rei long-range fighter-bomber
U1 Temporary fitting of BMW 801C in place of -D(A-4 only)

Then it moves on to the U2 specs, ect.

There are many more intersting specs listed here and I will post them later if I have time.

The source:

The History of German Aviation
KURT TANK:
FOCKE-WULF's DESIGNER
AND TEST PILOT
by Wolfgang Wagner
Publised by Schiffer Military History
ISBN: 0-7643-0644-8

My conclusion is that RAM is correct as to the U1 designation, and I continue to believe that the Fw190F-8 should have many more options.

ra · « **Reply #97 on:** November 30, 2001, 04:53:00 PM »

R4M,

Here is a German webpage which shows a picture of a 190F8/U1 in an RAF museum. http://www.bingo-ev.de/~eb2948/Museum/Hendon6.html

If you are right and it is a Jabo, it must have been able to carry a hell of a lot a bombs. They even put a bombardier behind the pilot.

I don't speak German, what does 'Zweisitzer' mean? Maybe it means 'two big bombs under wings'.

I've seen the Baugher site, I have know idea who he is, or why he thinks the U1 was your dream Jabo.

ra

R4M · « **Reply #98 on:** November 30, 2001, 05:04:00 PM »

I guess the other links I've posted are also done by stupids, RA. And Karnak's source is also idiotic, I guess...

I've told you once and I tell you again, it wont be the first time a same designation is used for different planes. Such is the case of teh 109G6/R2. And such seems to be the case of the Fw190A8/U1 with the Fw190S.

Raubvogel · « **Reply #99 on:** November 30, 2001, 05:32:00 PM »

It's incredible the effort people put up to disprove something that has been backed up with countless sources.

The trainer was the 190S, the prototype for the trainer was designated U-1. numerous F8s were equipped to carry 2 drop tanks or 250kg bombs underwing in addition to the centerline tank or bomb. These were fielded as the replacements for the 190Gs. I've seen this in numerous sources, guess it's time to make a trip to the military library...maybe we need to do a seance and get Miss Cleo to channel Kurt Tank to convince everyone.

Kieran · « **Reply #100 on:** November 30, 2001, 06:09:00 PM »

Ram, you do realize the source I quoted supports your viewpoint, right? You do realize this means that, despite me agreeing with you, you appear to wish to continue to argue with me about it?

I'm wondering if you are reading everyone's posts completely or not?

Creamo · « **Reply #101 on:** November 30, 2001, 06:33:00 PM »

I was thinking the same thing.

My interest was almost nil, now none.

Carry on.

R4M · « **Reply #102 on:** November 30, 2001, 06:58:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran:
Ram, you do realize the source I quoted supports your viewpoint, right? You do realize this means that, despite me agreeing with you, you appear to wish to continue to argue with me about it?

I'm wondering if you are reading everyone's posts completely or not?

Kieren, just because it was supporting my view point, I said what I said. That book is not reliable to extract conclussions. I didnt say a thing after creamo's post for a good reason (to not make people think I'm discrediting sources just because they dont agree with my points). Note that I said NOTHING of what I said in my answer to you, in the posts I made after Creamo. For a good reason.

Then you came in with that part wich supported what I said, and I posted about my thoughts about the source. That book is not really reliable as source of information. Just wanted to say it in a way it shows I really think that honestly and not because a bias

hope is better understood now

[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]

Toad · « **Reply #103 on:** November 30, 2001, 08:13:00 PM »

Wasn't this thread about a patch to AH?

Doesn't all the esoteric stuff about how many rivets were on the aileron trim tab.. for those who actually care how many... go in another thread or something?

Common sense, common courtesy.

Kieran · « **Reply #104 on:** November 30, 2001, 10:05:00 PM »

Tell ya what, Ram. Think what you will. Wouldn't matter what source I put up there, you aren't going to settle down anyway. If I can't agree with you and make you happy, well... kiss my butt. You are now arguing just for argument's sake.