Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Crumpp on January 19, 2004, 02:44:42 PM
-
The 190's in AH seem to tip stall quite a bit. No doubt the Wurger had a nasty stall but I was curious where HiTech got their data for the 190A8 which seems to the worst of all the 190's.
Several days ago I picked up a copy of Dietmar Hermann's new book on the FW-190A. It's a Schiffer Military History and his second book on the FW-190D9 was the best aircraft history I have ever read.
His book on the 190A is a great follow up but concentrates mostly on the Kurt Tanks Test design team the the Focke-Wulf test pilots. One detail struck me when I read it.
On page 94 in Hauptmann Gollob's report of the Test Flights of a 190A2 vs a 109F4 he states:
"Great care must be taken when the factory adjust the alerion push rods. Improper setting of the adjustments or unequal mounting of the tips results in alerion vibration at certain speeds and leads to premature stalling in turns."
He goes on to recommend additonal training for 190 Ground crews so that they can correct the problem when it occurs.
In Peter Cayhill's book "Combat Legend Focke-Wulf FW 190" he reprints both the RAF's test flight of OberLt Armin Faber's 190A3 and the USAAF test flight of a captured 190G in Italy. The RAF report makes no mention of the excessive vibration during turns. It is specifically mentioned in the USAAF report along with the "easy and nasty" stall of the 190.
Since the Luftwaffe reports do not mention any nasty vibration or "easy" stall in a turn nor do the RAF flights...
It is pure conjecture but I think the USAAF test bird had alerions out of adjustment. Since this is one of the only surviving detailed reports of a later model Anton's flight characteristics I have to wonder If HiTech din't use it as the basis for the 190A8's handling.
Flame Away!
:)
Crumpp
-
Never try to turn a FW 190-A8.
eskimo
-
It says right there on the dash board - "Do not turn."
-Blogs
-
Thanks....Now does anybody have an Answer on where Hitech got their data on the 190A8's?
Crumpp:rolleyes:
-
It's actually an accelerated stall. As the prop turns it sends back a spiral of air across the wings. One wing will have airflow coming down on top, while the other will have a strong blast coming up from underneath. The side that has prop-blast coming up underneath it will stall first since it doesn't have that surplus airflow. This becomes a bigger problem when you reef the aircraft into a tight turn. The harder you turn, the harder it is for the airflow to "stick" to the wing. When you turn so hard that the air moving over the wing "unsticks", the wing will stall and drop. Some aircraft are worse than others in accelerated stalls due to wing design. An aircraft with a stable wing, like a Spit's eliptical-shaped wing, won't have that hard snap-stall. But the Fw has a 2x4 wing and a somewhat high wingloading. As a result, it'll really pop around during an accelerated stall.
Just be careful with it and don't flat-turn it. Use Yo-Yos and a lot of vertical or roll-based maneuvers and you'll hardly have to worry about it.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/sig/end_net.gif)
-
190A8 is a bad turner, but 190F8 is a plain b#tch.
-
the f8 is no worse then the a8.
-
Originally posted by Batz
the f8 is no worse then the a8.
that reminds me.... i have no idea "what is" the 190f8?
can someone shed some light on this plane?
-
The FW190F8 is a ground attack version that superceded the FW-190G.
The FW190F8 was a very late war varient specifically designed for "Schlachtflieger" fast attack units and "Stukageschwader" units as a replacement for the Stuka Dive bomber.
The FW190G came into service before the F8 and was a long range ground attack varient. It was lightenend as much as possible and extra fuel tankage added.
The FW190F8 carried around 895 KG of extra armour and added drag from hardpoints. Rudel described it as a "beast" to take off when loaded with ordinance for a mission.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Batz
the f8 is no worse then the a8.
Offline, 50% fuel in both cases, 190A8 with 2x20mm. Accelerating to 300mph IAS at 5k and then performing a 180 dgr turn while keeping WEP and trying to keep the tightest turn without stalling. 190A8 ends the turns at 250/240 mph, F8 at 220/210 and most of the times stalls at the end. I feel definitively the F8 heavier than A8.
-
I have many of hours in the AH f8, my squad mate and I were getting 100+ kills per tour in the f8 most a2a. That was back when I still flew AH and in particular the FW series.
I don't know about the validity of your tests but from ht's charts they perform identical. From my experience it was no better or worse then the F8.
AH Normal loaded weight
F8 weight 9849 lbs.
A8 weight 9682 lbs.
FB take off weight
F8 4,150 kg, 4270 (9414 lbs) with the 115-liter back tank
A8 4,250 kg, 4,360 kg (9612 lbs) with the 115-liter internal tank
The 109f8 did not have 1973 lbs (895 KG) of "extra" armor. That may be total armor weight. I had charts showing the "armor" weight and placement for both the a8 and f8. I had posted them several times before on this bbs but my HD failed and I no longer have them. I can't recall off hand the exact weight but IIRC there was very little difference the 2. The f8 had a 5mm plate on the underside of the eng to protect against small arms ground fire.
Brady and I are planning a scenario for AH that is based on the fighting in Kurland late in the war. I have several books that contain pilot accounts from SG3 and SG4 that flew as many as 6 sorties a day in their F8. One particular account is of 2 pilots who knocked out 7 tanks in a column using bombs and rockets. They praise the low alt speed. On ingress they would fly low 500m or so then as they approached climbed to 1000m and would put the target on their left. For the attack they climbed to 1500m and made a shallow dive and dropped their 250kg bomb on the front of the column then circled around and used their rockets. Then they made their egress at full power and C3 injection.
The 190F8 used "C3 injection" (erhöhte Notleistung) like in the "A series" but was only used in the low supercharger gear, but not in the second stage and was limited to below 1000m. The F8s would hit and run before the VVS could vector in interceptors. Incidentally La7s and Yak-3 were placed at front lines fields to intercept the fast jabos.
edit: Heres an image of my career scores when I flew the FW. Just to show I am not speaking out my arse. FYI I was a furballer not a strat guy and most sorties never went above 10k...
(http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/batz.jpg)
-
Please post them cause I would really like to see your data.
To quote one site: This came about not only as a result of the additional bombs load, but due to the need to introduce additional armor to protect the plane from ground fire. This armor consisted of plates protecting the fuel tanks, engine and undercarriage firings from below. Previously planned armor plates in the cockpit side walls were abandoned. This decision was made because the worsening overweight condition lead to a marked performance reduction. For the same reason, new strengthened undercarriage struts were not introduced, instead the pressure in shock absorbers was increased. In connection with the mass production of the Fw 190A fighter aircraft, early development work on the attack version was restricted to A-3, A-4 and A-5 airframe modifications. These planes, already introduced in Luftwaffe service units, were fully suited to fighter-bomber tasks. However, the increased weight forced a reduction the armament suite (removal of the one pair of wing mounted MG FF cannons), that could result in only slightly poorer performance in spite of increased weight."
This particular article goes on to say that many FW-190F8 pilots had the extra armour removed AND that late in the war F8's were produced with NO extra Armour but were simply A8's with added hardpoints.
-
oops hit the wrong button!!
That is the weight of the extra armour added. In fact 400 kg of weight was saved by removing the outer cannons and ammo.
To finish my post:
We are both right on the F-8.
It still doesn't answer my question on where HTC got their data on the A8 nor why it tip stalls so quickly.
Crumpp
-
Early production F8s had additional armor (same as the F3). To reduce weight the additional armor was dropped from production.
These had the standard the A8 armor and the under-fuselage ETC 501 bomb rack but without the stabilizers for the droppable fuel tank.
IIRC on the underside of the eng starting from the oil cooler armored ring moving aft to under the eng, pilot seat and ending under the aft fuel tank ran either 5 or 6mm plate. Along the eng area it "wrapped" up a bit on the sides. It was called the "panzer ring".
As I said there's very little difference in the F8 and A8. The Ah F8 paint scheme is based on the NASM F8, which incidentally was rebuilt from a damaged a7 airframe.
Unfortunately I lost those images when my HD crashed. I will ask on another forum if someone else has them.
-
Originally posted by Batz
Iedit: Heres an image of my career scores when I flew the FW. Just to show I am not speaking out my arse.
I didnt even insinuate you may be speaking out of your arse, but perhaps near 8000 kills in Fws mean I'm not speaking out of my arse alsocareer (http://www.innomi.com/ahkillstats/careerstats.php?sortby=&player=mandoble).
-
lol mandoble :p
I posted those stats to show I flew the f8 as much as I had any other FW and that my kd and flying style was consistant with all the FW. Since I dont have any FW kills under my current nik I figured it would be best to show some evidence to avoid any confusion.
BTW Only 70 of your 8000 were in the F8. ;)
-
Batz,
The FW190F8 was the largest production run of the F series and the mainstay of the F's to see combat. The FW190F8 HAD the additional armour as the standard installed at the factory. That's the reason the 190F's had the bulged canopy. It was needed to accomodate the additional pilot armour! Some pilots would have the some of the armour removed when the plane got to their Stukageschwader, SchnellKampfgeshwader, or Schlachtgeschwader to improve handling.
Late in the war, in order to expedite production FW190F8's were produced without the armour. This meant it took less time to convert a basic 190A8 airframe to an 190F8. All it needed was the hardpoints and bombing insturments.
Again this is completely off the subject. I want to know why the fighter version of the FW190A8 stalls so easily in a turn in AH? Apparently it stalls even before the FW190F8. A version which clearly should be below the Air Superiority version in performance.
IS HTC's FM based on the USAAF test flight? What are the chances the USAAF ground crew knew how to adjust the alierons?
Crumpp
-
Crumpp, what additional pilot armour?
It was my understanding, from what I have read, that the bulged canopy was to give the ground attack pilot better visibility.
..................
Batz the NASM put out a book on their restoration of the Fw190. 8.5x11x104pg
ISBN 0-87474-885-2
-
Crumpp don't you make a confusion with the Sturmbock ?
There is not a lot of difference between A8 and F8 concerning performance but there is a huge gap between A8/F8 and A8-R8
I think Milo is right concerning the bulged canopy
-
No I'm not confusing the Rustsatz 8 with the F8.
Yes modifications were made to the F8 canopy to improve FORWARD vision that was so important to ground attack missions. Bulging the canopy doesn't do that much for your forward vision. This was done to make room for the pilots larger/higher armour plate.
It is possible on the web to find conflicting info on the canopy mods However. I am on my way to work and will look up some references for you guys this afternoon. I for one don't place a whole lot of value on web sites as sources.
Take care and thanks for the input.
Still need my question answered about the stall characteristics of the A8 Air superiority version.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Yes modifications were made to the F8 canopy to improve FORWARD vision that was so important to ground attack missions. Bulging the canopy doesn't do that much for your forward vision. This was done to make room for the pilots larger/higher armour plate.
Hmmm, am looking at some scale drawings and can measure no height difference between the 2 types of head armour.
What mods were done to improve the FORWARD vision?
The 2 types of armour had the same width and shoulder piece height, the head armour to canopy rear piece was different. There was a difference in the A-2/3 to A-4>A-9 shoulder armour.
The bulged canopy allowed the pilot to raise his seat higher, which gave him better visibility.
-
Pilot armor was added to improve visibility.
As milo states this allowed the pilot to raise his seat higher. But look at the F3 which had more armor then later F8s. It didn,t had the bulged canopy.
The later F8s had the same armor as the standard (non(sturmbock) A8. The only added feature was the wing racks (ETC 50/71).
F-8 production began around March 1944. Defining features are typically based upon the A-8, with 115 liter fuselage tank, outboard pitot, FuG16ZY or ZS and possibly an FuG 25 radio, ETC 501 center fuselage stores rack, and the added ETC 50 or later ETC 71 under wing stores racks, with either standard or later style bubble canopy. Outboard cannon were deleted.
But this is getting further off topic. I never felt the A8 "stalled to easily". I don't know the answer to question. HT will not and has never revealed his sources. There are a number of reasons for this so don't hold your breath waiting for him to tell you. During my time in AH I enjoyed the a8 alot. I believe Fishu got over 200 kils with out a loss flying the a8.
One thing you might do is burn the aft tank first to shift the C of G forward a bit. When flying the 190s I would always burn the aft tank 1st.
If you think AHs A8 stalls to easily have you flown WBS or IL2 FB?
:p
-
I have read pilot accounts that say that the 190 A series (in 1944) could give a Mustang a hard time in a turn.
Interesting.
-
Angus that would be late '44 and be the A-9. The A-9 was as good, and some say better, than the D-9. That is just not turn.;)
-
Here are the a8 diagrams Batz was talking about, although I don't have the F ones. I'd like to see them, if anyone has them.
(http://www.msu.edu/~mccar130/FW190armor1.png)
(http://www.msu.edu/~mccar130/FW190armor2.png)
-
Yup thats it i had I image just like that for the F8, I am still trying to locate it.
FYI the 190a8/r8 is the "sturmbock" variant.
-
Crumpp, while flakbait gave you some good tips about that effect, some offline tests are enough demostrate there is not much difference between engine on and engine off turns:
190A8 50% fuel, 2x20mm, 4k, 200 mph engine on, wep on:
Inmediate tip stall with 3.1 - 3.4 G turn losing about 25 mph.
190A8 50% fuel, 2x20mm, 4k, 200 mph engine off:
Inmediate tip stall with 3.1 - 3.4 G turn losing about 50 mph.
190A8 50% fuel, 2x20mm, 4k, 250 mph engine on, wep on:
Inmediate tip stall with 4.9 - 5 G turn losing about 40 mph.
190A8 50% fuel, 2x20mm, 4k, 250 mph engine off:
Inmediate tip stall with 4.9 - 5 G turn losing about 100 mph.
-
How come your diagram for the R7/R8 Rustsatz is missing the characteristic side armour plate AND the side armoured glass?
Are you sure this is a list of the FINAL R7 kit? It clearly DOES NOT show the same armour plates that are present on IV/JG 3 Sturmstaffel FW-190A8/R7 and R8's. These Operational photos show a distinct armour plate on the side of the cockpit fuselage AND a framed out somewhat square shaped piece of armoured glazing on the side of the canopy. Additionally Armour was added that encased the entire engine compartment and GM-1 tank.
It is confusing cause it is labeled standard A8 armour yet clearly points to R7 components and has them listed. I don't think it is the final Rustsatz 7 list though. Unfortunately the RLM lost many records in the turmoil of defeat AND the German insistance on overengineering cause's lots of confusion to the postwar historian.
I would attach a picture from "Luftwaffe Aircraft in profile" but I cannot post attachments!! What club do I have to join to be able to do that??!!
Crumpp
-
Looking into the "canopy" of the F8 I can only find where it was widened to improve forward vision. The bulged canopy was a late war addition to all FW-190's including the Dora's and the Ta-152.
Just bought "The Luftwaffe profile Series No 4 Focke-Wulf FW 190" by Manfred Griehl. It has a nice chapter on the Friederich including many photos of the FW-190F8's. Only one of them has a bulged canopy.
It also list's ALL the F varients as having the extra armour EXCEPT the last late war production FW-190F8's. These it does state as being A8's with extra hardpoints and bombing instrumentation. BTW each Hardpoint adds to the drag and reduces performance. The ETC 501 rack alone reduced speed by 10-15mph W/O the Droptank. An A8 will outperform an F8 just because it is aerodynamically cleaner EVEN if they weigh the same.
GODO not quite sure what to make out of your test other than to say mmmmmmmmmm
Seems to me 1700/2100 hp should make more of difference in pulling an A8 thru a turn.
Crumpp
-
Fw 190 A-8/R8 "Sturmbock" was modified with bolt-on 5 mm armor plates called "Panzerplatten" on side of the cockpit. 30mm armored glass panels were added on the sides of the canopy. 30mm was armored glass panels were added to the windshield quarter-panels as well.
The R7 had 4 x 20mm. The R8 The outboard 20 mm wing guns were replaced by HK 108 30 mm cannons. This combination was the Fw 190 A-8/R8 "Sturmbock". See the image posted above where it shows the additional armor around the mk108 ammo box.
Now some Pilots didn’t like the side glass and removed it, some removed the armor from the sides of the cockpit. Some removed their mg131's as well.
(http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/Dekker4.jpg)
FW 190 A-8/R8 W.Nr 961 076 'Black 10 + -' of Obgefr. Aksel M. Kessler, 6.(Sturm)/J.G.4, Sweden, 19 April 1945
Notice no armor of the sides of the canopy or cockpit.
(http://papaguy.hihome.com/plateshtml/plates4/fw190091.jpg)
Fw 190 A-8/R8 of Maj. Walter Dahl Geschwaderkommodore JG 300, Lllesheim 1944
Notice the side armor and side canopy armor
(http://www.beuliland.com/html/perfiles/PICS/FW190072.JPG)
Fw 190 A-8/R8 of Uffz. Willi Maximowitz IV. Sturm)/JG 3, Salzwedel 1944.
No canopy armor and mg131s faired over.
Heres Dahl's (Kommodore of JG 300) from early summer 190A8/R7 (notice 4 x 20mm) and lack of armor.
(http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/neilpage/dahlblue13profile.jpg)
Here’s Willi Ungers (Sturmgruppe IV./JG 3) A8. You can easily spot the armor.
(http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/neilpage/ungercockpitviabrown.jpg)
From my understanding later most of the side armor (from the cockpit and canopy) were abandoned. That’s what that diagram shows. I have will better scans in the next few days of both the a8 and f8 armor.
Incidentally the Soviets captured a "lightened a8" (W.-Nr. 580967) that weighed just 3986kg (normal take-off weight of 4360 kg). Find documentation of that variant :p
Here's something I learned were researching VVS aircraft
While there are murky points in the documentation for almost every aircraft, trying to track down some odd details for Soviet (German?)aircraft is an exercise in frustration and contradiction.
As the A8 came with the ETC 501 bomb rack as well (drop tanks) and yes these racks caused drag.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Looking into the "canopy" of the F8 I can only find where it was widened to improve forward vision. The bulged canopy was a late war addition to all FW-190's including the Dora's and the Ta-152.
It was??? The only bulging was vertical. Check Aero Detail #2. On pg 19 there is a photo of yellow 10, a D-9 fitted with a "bulged canopy". The sides are 'flat'. Pg13 has other view angles. Even photos in the book about the NASM's restoration of the F-8 shows no side bulging.
The diagram and armour list comes from a Fw publication, technical description # 284, part of D.(Luft)T.2190 A-8.
-
Look at the images above you clearly can tell which is the "bulged" or "blown" canopy.
-
(http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/Fw190A8_armour.jpg)
(http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/Fw190F8_armour.jpg)
images from Fw 190 in Combat by Alfred Price
-
To quote the most plagerized information on the web! Just do a search for FW190 and you will come across several dozen sites which have simply cut and pasted the same info.
This is the standard armour package the ENTIRE F series was given:
"From the beginning, the most serious problem was large air plane weight increases. This came about not only as a result of the additional bombs load, but due to the need to introduce additional armor to protect the plane from ground fire. This armor consisted of plates protecting the fuel tanks, engine and undercarriage firings from below. Previously planned armor plates in the cockpit side walls were abandoned. This decision was made because the worsening overweight condition lead to a marked performance reduction."
And to quote the same information found on about 20 different websites dealing with the F8:
This deals with the canopy modifications:
"In the second half of 1944, a widened rear cockpit canopy was added with the F-8 plane. The purpose of this modification was to improve the pilot's side-forward visibility, important during fighterbomber missions. Armament consisted of two 13 mm MG 131 machine guns mounted in the fuselage and two 20 mm MG 151/20 E cannons in the wings. Most of the early production series F-8 planes had the additional armor used since the F-3 airframes. For weight reduction and improvement in flight characteristics it was not used in later F-8s. These planes had only the standard Fw 180 A-8 armor."
Read it and you will see...
Now as to the Sturmjager Rustsatz's.....
Sturmjager, Sturmbrock, and Ramminjager all refer to 3 different A/C configurations. I knew the Ramminjager was a different varient however I always assummed the Sturmbrock and the Sturmjager were the R7/R8 Rustsatz's and were flown by select "Sturmgruppe" such as IV / JG3 which was the test unit.
According to The Luftwaffe profile series #4 FW-190 on pg 29 under the FW-190A8 varients chapter:
"The Fw-190A8/R7, initially designated "Sturmjager" (assault fighter) later recieved the designation A-8/R8. Fixed Armament for the A8/R8 consisted of two MG151's in the wing roots and two Mk 108's in the outer wings. The armour of the A-8/R2 was added to the windscreen and triangular side panels of the R7.
Many of the FW-190A8's flown in the assault fighter role featured welded, supplementary armour plates of 5 to 10 mm thickness on each side of the cockpit. These are called "Sturmbrocken". " Rougly translates to "battering rams".
I know that Maj Dahl's FW-190A8/R7 had additional armour around the entire engine compartment and extra armoured glass. Hope this clears up some of the confusion.
-
Nevermind...
Your diagram from Price's book shows exactly what I was saying about the R7/R8 armour and the F8 armour. Picture is worth 1000 words.
Thanks Batz
NOW Why does the A8 air superiority version flown in a clean configuration stall quicker than the F8 version which even "clean" has the ETC 501 racks and ETC 50 wing hardpoints??
That is assuming HTC modeled a late war production F8 with NO additional armour over the A8. My original hypothesis still stands about the alierons being out of adjustment and skewing the USAAF data.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
NOW Why does the A8 air superiority version flown in a clean configuration stall quicker than the F8 version which even "clean" has the ETC 501 racks and ETC 50 wing hardpoints??
My 190F stalls quicker than 190A8 4x20mm.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
And to quote the same information found on about 20 different websites dealing with the F8:
This deals with the canopy modifications:
"In the second half of 1944, a widened rear cockpit canopy was added with the F-8 plane. The purpose of this modification was to improve the pilot's side-forward visibility, important during fighterbomber missions.
Read it and you will see...
As they say, a pic is worth a 1000 words. Yellow 10 does not have a widened blown canopy.
A side bulged canopy is like what is seen on the Spit and P-51, known as the Malcolm Hood.
The real live F-8 (W.Nr. 931 884) in the NASM in Washington DC with a blown canopy does not have a widened rear cockpit canopy.
I have gone through the dozen or so of my Fw190/Ta152 books and can find no images with the blown canopy that shows a width increase. Even the specific drawing by A.L. Bentley comparing the non-blown to blown canopy, with sections, shows no widening.
As for the flight of the Fw190, look at the wing twist. In certain flight attitudes the outer wing would stall before the inner wing. Not good. This could happen at as low asin a 2G banking turn. The a/c's departure was always left, no matter if it was in a right or left turn.
-
OK Milo!
Think what you want and type what you think. Facts are the info I'm putting out is there and in numerous references dealing with the FW-190F series stating specifically that the cockpit was widenend to improve forward and side visibility.
GODO your right, I misread your post.
Either way the issue was never anything having to do with the F series or the R7/R8. That has just become an interesting side discussion.
The most complete flight test data to have survived the war on a late war FW-190A type is the USAAF flight data. In this test the A8's turning characteristics are specifically mentioned as the SAME characteristics as a FW without properly adjusted alierons. NONE of the other allied OR axis flight test's note this characteristic. In fact the RAF flight says "The FW 190's stall is sudden and visicous giving the pilot little to no warning". It makes no mention of difficulty turning or a nasty vibration combined with easy stalling.
The RAF test pilot even outturns a couple of P51B's. Below 350 mph IAS he had to struggle to keep from overshooting them in a turn. Keep in mind though he was flying a FW-190A3.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
OK Milo!
Think what you want and type what you think. Facts are the info I'm putting out is there and in numerous references dealing with the FW-190F series stating specifically that the cockpit was widenend to improve forward and side visibility.
Well all you have produced is some text, from questionable sources > the web(and no links provided), while mine are viewable and touchable. :) You have yet to produce a link or a source that has a viewable canopy that shows a horizontal widening of the canopy.
You have shown confusion on other 'points' of the Fw190.........
"The FW190F8 carried around 895 KG of extra armour and added drag from hardpoints"
The armour added to the F-8 did not weigh 1973lb(895kg). It was ~360kg(793lb).
"In fact 400 kg of weight was saved by removing the outer cannons and ammo."
The MG151/20 only weighed 42.3kg. The ammo DID NOT weigh ~360kg. The MG/FF weigh 36.7kg. In fact, the weight of 150 rds of 20mm MG151/20 ammo is 56kg.
Did the above statements come from your web sources?
Someone is having trouble with their Fw190 facts.:eek:
-
Blown canopy
(http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/Canopy1.jpg)
Standard canopy
(http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/Canopy2.jpg)
The blown canopy is the same width (it has to be to fit in the rails) as the standard.
Neither the cockpit nor the the windscreen were widened in the F8 or in any of the 190s (including the Tanks) to accommodate the new blown (bulged, bubble canopy; which ever you want to call it).
You can clearly see the the Blown canopy in this image
(http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/Dekker4.jpg)
Compared to this one
(http://papaguy.hihome.com/plateshtml/plates4/fw190091.jpg)
Later version of the a8, F8 The D9 and Ta152 all had the blown canopy.
Later versions of the F8 had the armor on the side of the cockpit removed. Same with the a8/R8. In fact individaul pilots made modifications to their own aircraft and removed armor and in some cases the mg131s.
-
Batz, nice plexiglass pics.:)
Where are they from, please?
-
http://www.white1foundation.org/
This page bottom left
http://www.white1foundation.org/restoration.htm
-
Crump, the data charts that HTC have published of their 190A8 matches exactly the data published in an english translation from the Luftwaffe's 1944 Flight Manual of the 190A8. The table further up in the thread comes from that manual as well.
I'm pretty sure they used the German data for their plane.
-
Hey MiloMori...
Your right as I can't POST any attachments in this forum! The BB won't let me. lol
I thought you might have figured that out since I mentioned it before.
As to the weight of an MG 151...
400 KG for both weapon, fittings, and ammo is probably about right for a 20 mm. The barrel on an M2 .50 cal alone weighs 50 pounds. The whole weapon empty weighs around 85 lbs. The ammo is pretty hefty too. Yeah it makes perfect sense that a 20 mm gun, ammo, hopper, feed mechinism, with firing system weighs 200 kg each.
Crumpp:aok
-
Originally posted by Batz
(http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/Dekker4.jpg)
It may turn bad, but it is definitively the most beautiful ride.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Hey MiloMori...
Your right as I can't POST any attachments in this forum! The BB won't let me. lol
I thought you might have figured that out since I mentioned it before.
As to the weight of an MG 151...
400 KG for both weapon, fittings, and ammo is probably about right for a 20 mm. The barrel on an M2 .50 cal alone weighs 50 pounds. The whole weapon empty weighs around 85 lbs. The ammo is pretty hefty too. Yeah it makes perfect sense that a 20 mm gun, ammo, hopper, feed mechinism, with firing system weighs 200 kg each.
Crumpp:aok
You can still post URLs. You did say you took info off the net. :eek:
As for the 2 cannon weights,
2(42.3) + 56.0 = 140.6kg or 310lb
Now the ancillary equipement that goes with the cannons does not weigh ~130kg(286lb)/cannon.
400kg = 881lb
LOL, even the 2 H-S 20mm with ammo in the Spitfire only weighs 201.4kg or 444lb
50lb = 22.68kg
85lb = 38.56kg
oops :o that should be lb = kg (fixed) but that should have been obvious.:p
-
MiloMorai,
First of all you are correct I got the weight wrong. According to Dietmar Hermann's "Focke Wulf FW 190 Long Nose: An illustrated History of the Fw190D series" on page 81 under the table of weights:
Outer wing armament - 2 x MG151 with 140 rounds/gun = 175 Kg
2 x Mk 108 with 55 rounds/gun = 240 Kg
I didn't see the 2 x and assumed it was for one gun. Honest mistake.
As for the weights of the M2HB I didn't quote exact weights but the approximate. HOWEVER I firmly stand by my estimates as being within a few pounds IF not light. I make my living behind an M2HB. One is mounted on my GMV at work. The barrel sure as H--l doesn't weigh 20 lbs.
As for the Fw-190F8 canopy: If you go to Batz's white one site you can see the Widened rear portion. Just compare it to any rear picture of a Fw190A. It's not the glass but the triangular piece the canopy itself is mounted in. This could be effectively widenend without modifiying the fuelage Nor the tracks the canopy rides in.
Here are some of the sites I got this information from:
On the FW-190F8 questions
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190.html#RTFToC13
And I found a nice site that list's the flight test's of a 190A3 against several marks of spitfire.
http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/VBv190.htm
Crumpp
-
This image right here is a side by side comparison of the 2 types of canopy:
(http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/Canopy2.jpg)
Here's the caption of these images from White 1
The above photos show a direct comparison of our original early and bubble style canopies. We have overlaid one side of the bubble canopy onto the earlier style canopy so you can see there is quite a difference. We have the early style available, and the bubble style will be available soon. All are remade with the correct thickness plexiglass and all features as original.
On this image you can see the older canopy throw the bulged canopy:
(http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/Canopy1.jpg)
Now what is it you are saying is wider? The canopy rails haven't changed. So the blown canopy can't be wider. As you can plainly see it is "taller".
-
I don't think they are talking about the clear portion of the canopy. If you read the information on the first link I provided it cleary states the RLM made the cockpit wider. On the White 1 site there is an excellent view from the rear of the triangular shape portion of the canopy the clear glazing is mounted in. The piece that actually rides in the rails mounted to the fuselage. It appears wider than a standard Anton canopy. This could have been done and the same clear portion used as on a standard Anton. It would be mounted much higher (more metal) than a normal canopy frame and with the bulged canopy the pilot could rise even higher in the seats adjustments.
The text I've read about the F series clearly states the canopy was made wider AND in later models a bulged canopy was added. It also states that not all F8's were made to the same standard. Some were just A8's with hardpoints.
Crumpp
-
The 109f8 didn't have a "widened" cockpit.
Heres pics of white 1
(http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/reilly/reilly-12.jpg)
(http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/reilly/reilly-11.jpg)
Notice no side armor
From the owner, Dr.Mark Timken
Presently we are proceeding with manufacturing parts for the 190 and for the 801 engine. The canopy has just been formed-in fact we are doing both styles, and the bubble canopy will be made next. The canopy magnesium attaching bracket is being recast in Germany, and all related hardware is finished for the reassembly of the canopy. It is virtually an exact duplicate of the original canopy.
Both canopies fit in the existing rails
Early canopy
(http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/reilly/reilly-10.jpg)
(http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/reilly/reilly-09.jpg)
(http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/reilly/reilly-02.jpg)
-
See the wedge shaped piece of metal the clear portion of the canopy sets in...THAT is what I think they are talking about on the website link I posted when they say the cockpit canopy was widened. PLEASE read my posts before you dispute them outright. Thank you though for posting the picture of white 1 from the rear. I had trouble finding it after I posted the link.
I don't think its talking about the clear portion of the canopy! The Bulged canopy was a late war canopy that both the ALL 190's could use.
No side armour points to White 1 being an A8 with hardpoints as some of the 190F8's were or the pilot had the armour removed.
Crumpp
-
All f8s were based on the a8 airframe, F-3s on the a5, early F's on the a4.
But white 1 was not a converted F8 from an earlier airframe like the NASM F-8
As one of the authors of the history and service life of White 1 I can assure you that W.Nr. 931862 ws originally built as an F-8, as evidenced by original manufacturers sheets.
F-1 through F-8 versions had been designed, but only the F-1, F-2, F-3, and F-8 were built in any quantity, with the largest share consisting of F-8's. In all, around 550 of the F series were built. Approximately 385 were the F-8 variant.
F-8 production began around March 1944. Defining features are typically based upon the A-8, with 115 liter fuselage tank, outboard pitot, FuG16ZY or ZS and possibly an FuG 25 radio, ETC 501 center fuselage stores rack, and the added ETC 50 or later ETC 71 under wing stores racks, with either standard or later style bubble canopy. Outboard cannon were deleted.
When the luftwaffe gave up on the G version of the FW some G-8s were converted to F-8s. Some F-8s were rebuilt from damaged and older airframes (like NASM). So there was some variety.
You have made several claims about a "widened cockpit".
the reason the 190F's had the bulged canopy. It was needed to accomodate the additional pilot armour!
the F8 canopy to improve FORWARD vision that was so important to ground attack missions. Bulging the canopy doesn't do that much for your forward vision. This was done to make room for the pilots larger/higher armour plate.
The bulged canopy is somewhat similiar to the bubble canopy on some allied planes had late in the war. If you look at the early canopy the sides lean in as they go up then angle. The bulged canopy had less of the inward lean and went up higher. So it was higher and wider in terms of head room but it fit into the same rails as the early canopy. There was no side bulging like in some RAF canopies.
I don't think its talking about the clear portion of the canopy!
Yes it is, as I explained it above.
-
Darn Batz!!
All f8s were based on the a8 airframe, F-3s on the a5, early F's on the a4.
All 190's were designed to use as much of the same components as possible. Kurt Tank designed them this way.
You seem to think I am disputing that some FW-190F8's were the exactly like A8's. Again read my post's I say multiple times that late war F8's were exactly like A8's. Yes they were purposely built as F8's. Just as every Dora was built from an A8 frame but roll out of the factory as Dora's!
When the luftwaffe gave up on the G version of the FW some G-8s were converted to F-8s. Some F-8s were rebuilt from damaged and older airframes (like NASM). So there was some variety.
The Luftwaffe gave up on the G series with the G10 development due to the military situation. You've got it backwards....FW-190F8's and FW-190G-3 airframes were converted to FW-190G8's. At least according to "Luftwaffe Profile series Number 4 Focke-Wulf FW-190".
The bulged canopy had less of the inward lean and went up higher.
It's obvious you haven't even looked at the link I provided. It doesn't say the canopy was made higher. It does say it was made wider.
Crumpp
-
Wrong again, when the G series were brought to an end, the F8/U1 took the long-range deep penetration jabo role from them, having the same load out variety as the G-8. When the G series were brought to an end, many G8s were converted to F8/U1s.
The G series was discontinued because the long-range jabo role wasn't a priority by 1944 due to the strategic situation not because of the g10.
White 1 being an A8 with hard points as some of the 190F8's
It is you who are differentiating between A-8s and F-8s by claiming the above. "an A-8 with hard points".
I have read your web link and I have also traded emails with few folks. When White 1 says they are going to do both canopies (as I quoted the owner as saying above) they will use the same attaching bracket and rails. It would stand to reason if your most recent claim is correct that the 2 canopies would require 2 different attachments and/or rails. Neither is the case. In fact the "widening" comes from just as I described in my last thread.
You can look at the side images of the 2 canopies and see one is clearly taller.
-
I am only about 3 hours from Kissimmee (where white 1 is being restored) As soon as I have time I will take tour and get deffinitive answers.
-
Do you have "The Luftwaffe Profile series No. 4"? If you do then please look on page 37-38 under the G8 paragraph.
If you don't have it give me your email addy and I will scan it in and send it to you.
Crumpp
-
When will HTC give us the "Grosse Bombenelektrik" for our F8's??
Be nice to be able to release all our stores at once or be able to carry both a drop tank AND two 250 kg bombs on the center hardpoint.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Be nice to be able to release all our stores at once or be able to carry both a drop tank AND two 250 kg bombs on the center hardpoint.
Crumpp
And what R or U was that?:rofl
centreline options were:
1- ETC501 and bomb
or
2- ETC501 and drop tank
or
3- ETC501/504 with ER-4(4-50kg)
-
FW-190F8 - Umrustsatz 1.......
Correction:
Drop tanks on the wing and 250 Kg bomb centerline.
Still would like to the see the ability to drop all stores at once.
Crumpp
Sleep better now?
:aok
-
The F-8/U1 was the F-series equivalent to the G-8. There are some sources that claim the F-8/U1 was a trainer.
-
Yeah I read that too thanks.
Again though the ability to drop all it's stores at once was a standard feature on the F8.
Crumpp