Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: 1K3 on August 08, 2005, 11:53:51 AM
-
This has been talked about for years...
Originally posted by Crumpp
On the FW-190A5, according to the pilots who flew the FW-190A5 it was worst performing of the Antons. The design gained weight with no power gain. This is backed up by the technical history of the design. Some late production FW-190A5's benefited from some engine and prop changes.
I disagree on the performance changes. Properly modeled the FW190 will get it's high best climb speed and shallower angle climb. The performance specs our FW190A5 is modeled off is EB-104. An FW-190G the USAAF tried to ballast back to an FW-190A5. The G series has a higher drag profile than the FW-190A so it climbs at a steeper angle and much slower speed. It lacked the engine setup of the Antons and it's performance is not representative of the type.
All the best,
Crumpp
HTC, anyt thoughts on revisiting and changing the 190 lineup in the future?
-
Pyro said he was going to redo them at some point. I think he was still collecting data, but you'd have to ask him for sure. I would imagine they want to get some other things done before worrying about tweaking the FW flight model.
-
I'd rather have A4.
-C+
-
I think Pyro is considering the following FW190 lineup:
FW190A3
FW190A6
FW190A8/A9
FW190F3
FW190F8
FW190D9
Ta152H
A few weeks ago I called him when I was at the Garber Facility. I have a mound of flight test's on the A's and F's to send him along with the CG/weight reports. Just been too busy to worry about AH lately. When I get back from this business trip, I will drop him a hard copy in the mail.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Cool! Thanks for the info Crumpp!
-
thx for the info Crummp!
imo 190A-8 would be more representative in the late war 190 lineup. A-9 would be nice but only saw few months of action till war ends.
-
I'm glad to see the F-3 in there. I'm hoping they further expand the line of ordnance available to the German Jabo planes too.
-
Well first of all, the A-3 had engine problems. It overheated and was unreliable at times. And it was a minor minor version, numbers-wise. Sure we could use an early one, but I just wanted to point that out. You might get decreased engine ratings to simulate the engine problems. Said engine problems were fixed in the A-5, by extending the nose 6 more inches, or some such distance.
Why would you want the A-6? For simple firepower reasons? Bah! The A-5, if I remember properly, was far more numerous, and they're both going to fly the same, so asking for the A-6 is basically just asking for better guns in the A-5 (and then we get into the whole "LW guns are porked" "are not!" "are too!" debate).
No reason for an A-9. The advantage would be minimal to say the most. They were relatively scarce and very late war. If they're rare and almost identical to a 190a8, just put the a8 in and have done with it!
As for scenarios and setups, there is little to no reason to include an F-3 unless you want limited ordanance and weaker performance from the F-8. Keep in mind that, while slightly heavier, the A-8 had a stronger engine than the A-5, and seeing that the F-8 is a re-winged A-8 (with slight modifications here and there), you'd essentially get a less powerful plane. For most scenarios the fully loaded F-8 is still a sitting duck, and replacing it with an F-3 wouldn't help much.
The 190s did have a lot of different weapons packages. What were you thinking of? We recently got the panzerschrek rockets. I think HTC would be open to adding more options.
-
Shockwaveproductions (http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/store/fw190/aircraft_source_data.htm) web site has some flight tested charts on Fw 190.
gripen
(http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/store/fw190/aircraft_source_data_files/image005.jpg)
(http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/store/fw190/aircraft_source_data_files/image009.jpg)
-
Well first of all, the A-3 had engine problems. It overheated and was unreliable at times. And it was a minor minor version, numbers-wise. Sure we could use an early one, but I just wanted to point that out. You might get decreased engine ratings to simulate the engine problems. Said engine problems were fixed in the A-5, by extending the nose 6 more inches, or some such distance.
An earlier A series would be nice, but im leaning to 190A-4 for dual use on west/east fronts.
Why would you want the A-6? For simple firepower reasons? Bah! The A-5, if I remember properly, was far more numerous, and they're both going to fly the same, so asking for the A-6 is basically just asking for better guns in the A-5 (and then we get into the whole "LW guns are porked" "are not!" "are too!" debate).
The 190A-6 would be a nice addition for ToD ETO 1943. One note: The A-6 had lightened wing structure
No reason for an A-9. The advantage would be minimal to say the most. They were relatively scarce and very late war. If they're rare and almost identical to a 190a8, just put the a8 in and have done with it!
Same here :)
As for scenarios and setups, there is little to no reason to include an F-3 unless you want limited ordanance and weaker performance from the F-8. Keep in mind that, while slightly heavier, the A-8 had a stronger engine than the A-5, and seeing that the F-8 is a re-winged A-8 (with slight modifications here and there), you'd essentially get a less powerful plane. For most scenarios the fully loaded F-8 is still a sitting duck, and replacing it with an F-3 wouldn't help much.
190 lineup needs a mid war "jabo" version.
-
But what would need to be "mid war" about it, that the F-8 couldn't fill in? In fighters usually the emphasis is on performance... well we're talking ground pounding 190F's here, they didn't have much performance! Especially not when loaded. So bomber-wise, I think the F-8 can fill in for the F3, and if need be the A-5 can fill in with its centerline bomb. Just a thought.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
No reason for an A-9. The advantage would be minimal to say the most. They were relatively scarce and very late war. If they're rare and almost identical to a 190a8, just put the a8 in and have done with it!
No reason for A9 is like no reason for D9, both entered into service at the same time. And A9 is not almost identical to A8, it is like saying than A8 is almost identical to A5. Performance-wise it is between A8 and D9, while being better armoured and heavier than both, A8 and D9.
-
a2
a4
a5/a6
a8/a9
But we really need the lower powererd 190 A2, unless AH sticks with the uber Spit V 16lbs which at least in AH makes you wonder what the RAF fuss was about the early 190s was all about...
-
LOL all those 190s and I can't have a Spitfire XII to fight em in?
It ain't fair I tell ya! :)
Dan/CorkyJR
-
A4
A8
F3
F8
D9
TA152
-C+
-
Originally posted by Charge
A4
A8
F3
F8
(or a G model, MGs deleted)
D9
TA152
-C+
Hah, stupid me quoted myself :mad:
-
ahem, you're missing one ;)
stick with the most representative (190)
A-3 (1942-43)
A-6 (1943-44) same as 190A-5 but lightened wing structure and MG FF is replaced with MG 151s
A-8 (1944-45)
F-3 (1943-44)
F-8 (1944-45)
D-9 (1945)
Ta-152 (1945)
-
Originally posted by 1K3
A-6 (1943-44) same as 190A-5 but lightened wing structure and MG FF is replaced with MG 151s
I think you will find that the A-6's wing was heavier.
-
Why are you all debating 190s, anyways? They've alreay been done. They won't be revisited for some time!
Pyro said he didn't like the 190s, but when they were redone so was the flight model. Don't you remember the big changes right after they were updated? You can actually turn them now without instant snap-roll-stalling. It was a major change for all 190 pilots, and there were even quite a few posts on the forums here. I presume *THAT* is what Pyro changed.
So they're already been redone (sans the 152) and the FM has been changed for the better. Why are you listing your "hopefuls"? We're not gonna see any new 190s for a lnog long long time! :)
-
No reason for an A-9. The advantage would be minimal to say the most. They were relatively scarce and very late war. If they're rare and almost identical to a 190a8, just put the a8 in and have done with it!
Actually the FW190A9 begins showing up the Geschwaders as early as July '44.
Nice test flight on Lufterrad 035 on that Shockwave sight.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Why are you all debating 190s, anyways? They've alreay been done. They won't be revisited for some time!
Pyro said he didn't like the 190s, but when they were redone so was the flight model. Don't you remember the big changes right after they were updated? You can actually turn them now without instant snap-roll-stalling. It was a major change for all 190 pilots, and there were even quite a few posts on the forums here. I presume *THAT* is what Pyro changed.
Krusty, the 190's were only updated graphicly, HT did not alter the flight model at all, its unchanged from before the graphic update. He told me that himself. Any changes percieved were purely placebo, and were not real.
What Pyro has said, and they have not gotten around to doing yet, is that the 190's flight models need some work, and that it was going to happen sooner or later, probably later.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Nice test flight on Lufterrad 035 on that Shockwave sight.
So you are saying that there was BMW 801D2s with 14 blade cooling fans?
gripen
-
Yes Gripen.
The BMW801D2 recieved the piston sleeves and valves of the BMW801D2V15 from the 1942 test's. That TO is referenced on the Horsepower chart listed on shockwaves sight and found all over the internet.
The BMW801D2, TS, TU, and TH motors could all be found with the Luft 039, 035, and various combinations of props. There are also fuel pump and exhaust changes to the BMW801D2 which also added performance to the FW-190A8.
Powerwise there is little difference between the BMW801TS-1 and the BMW801D2. In the 2nd gear supercharger of the BMW801D2, there is no difference in power output at all.
There are flight test's that go from this to quite a bit faster depending on the motor set up.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
The 190s were changed. The way they stall was greatly enhanced, so they are no longer like in AH1. They flew horribly until they were redone. After being graphically redone they also received a FM redo, which made them the powerhouse that they are today. That is, before they were enhanced, they sucked and weren't popular. Now I see a lot of them.
-
I asked HT directly if the flight model's of the 190's were changed or was it as I suspected and it was all plecebo. He said they have not changed since AH1. HT said it so himself. Any change in the 190 you detect is purely your imagination.
-
Originally posted by Grits
I asked HT directly if the flight model's of the 190's were changed or was it as I suspected and it was all plecebo. He said they have not changed since AH1. HT said it so himself. Any change in the 190 you detect is purely your imagination.
Uhh...
In AH1, I remember the 190's rolling much slower than they currently do. They also stalled more easily.
-
All I can tell you is the 190's were not changed when they did the graphic update or after that. At the time of the graphic update everyone thought they redid the flight model too, they were attributing all kinds of new traits to the 190's. I did not think they were changed (primarily because it was not listed in any release notes for any patches) and I asked HT to clarify it. When I asked HT if they were indeed changed, or it was as I suspected and it was all players imagination he said, "You are correct".
Seems clear enough to me.
There were some changes in the behavior of the 190's (all planes really) as a result of the move from AHI to AHII, but the specific details of the 190's flight model were not changed, it was a result of the global changes in AHII's flight model.
-
I think you will find that the A-6's wing was heavier.
I am traveling but when I get home in the next few days I will post the exact differences in weight (and why) according to the CG worksheets.
The advantage of the A6 is better armament and while some FW-190A5's benefited from BMW 801 design changes, all FW-190A6's benefited.
For TOD the FW-190A3 could be used until late 1943. The FW-190A6 would fill from late 1943 to mid-1944.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Fruda
Uhh...
In AH1, I remember the 190's rolling much slower than they currently do. They also stalled more easily.
it may be in all our imaginations but the 190 does play way better now than in AHI or the early AHII.
-
The Dora in AHII got a female circumscition compared to AH1 . The thing can't run away from a Machi on WEP.
Heck even a Zeke last time I flyed could keep up with you in a dive and remain there taking pot shots while you try to run away.
Defently the AHII 190s have some quialities that are better but overwhelmingly they have some of its better attributes from AHI taken away.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
The 190s were changed. The way they stall was greatly enhanced, so they are no longer like in AH1. They flew horribly until they were redone. After being graphically redone they also received a FM redo, which made them the powerhouse that they are today. That is, before they were enhanced, they sucked and weren't popular. Now I see a lot of them.
No flight modells were changed for AH2 for any plane.
What was change was the overall flight modell of AH and that is why some planes perfom much different and some planes perform just a little bit different. Atleast that is the answer I've been given.
190 perform different but that is not due to the fact that the 190 FM has been changed. It hasn't.
As for A8/A9 the A9 used later quite a bit more powerfull engines than the A8. A9 was a low level monster. Using 2200 HP engines (BMW TS or TH).
Why would they make two identical planes and name one A8 and one A9?
That said, the A9 played a small part of WW2 and should not really be at the top of the list. Then again, I would imagine it would be easy to add. Same as A8 but with a bubble canopy and a bigger engine.
-
There were also A8s using these engines and, as far as I remember, F8s were the first to receive the TS engines. A9s had also more armour and Ta152 style vertical stab.
-
Hey Guys,
Here is the weights for the FW901A3 through FW190A6 air superiority fighter version:
FW 190A3
Leergewicht = 2900 kg
Rüstgewicht = 3141
Type II (outboard MGFF's mounted) Fluggewicht = 3978 kg
FW-190A5
Leergewicht = 2960 kg
Rüstgewicht = 3312kg
Fluggewicht = 4088 kg
FW190A6
Leergewicht = 3000 kg
Rüstgewicht = 3365 kg
Fluggewicht = 4189 kg
The FW-190A5 gains 110 Kg over the FW-190A3 with no gain in power.
The FW-190A6 gains 101 Kg (about the same) but gains power as well. It gains an effective weight increase over the FW-190A3 of 211 Kg's (465lbs) with about a 100 hp power gain.
To put it in perspective and not start a "comparision" thread we can examine the gains of another aircraft whose design remained similar but gained weight and power as well. The Spitfire works well and does not have the reputation for "excessive weight creep" that the 190 does either.
Spitfire Mk V (Merlin 45) weighs between 6450lbs - 6525lbs.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitv.html
Spitfire Mk IX weights between 7,234lbs - 7.480lbs.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9.html
Horspower varies among the Merlin powered Spits but comparing the weight and power gains one can see they are comparible to the FW-190A's with the 190 gaining less weight and equal power over it's lifespan.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1125760707_merlinpower.jpg)
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Hi,
i fly mainly FW190A8 in AH and i dont found a different between the AH1 and AH2 FM, i only have the feeling that after one patch the MG151/20 provide a better hitprobability(more similar to the Hispano), if this observation is right, this would explain why specialy the 190A8 seems to perform much better.
Maybe my skill with the MG151/20 did grow up, but in AH1 i had to use the 30mm heatseaker to be successfull with the A8, now the 4 x 20mm and even 2 x 20mm do the job!
The A9 was a absolut common plane from mid 44 onward. It was much more powerfull than the A8(look to the JG301/302 lost list).
Greetings,
-
"190A-9 absolute common from mid 44 onward"
190A-8/F-8 made up more than half of the late war 190 family lineup and was more common from mid 44 onward. The A-8/F-8 production was @ ~1,500+ while A-9 production was only @ 700+ (the same as the D-9s)
-
Hi,
is it true that the production of 190´s in 1944/45 (mainly 190A8,F-8, A9 and D9´s) was only around 3000??
Anyway, if the A9 got produced same often like the D9 its worth to include it, both was main fighters in 1944/45.
Btw, they should make a different between the early D9´s and the late one!
Greetings
-
Hi again!
bump to the question of number of produced 190A9´s(and A8/D9´s) in late 44 +45.
Here are some sources which give a hint that the A9 was a common fighter from late 44 onward.
Next to this i have some books, where it get mentioned regular in the lostlists.
http://www.jagdgeschwader301.de/code/geschw3.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg26.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bstjg52.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bstjg2.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biiijg2.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bstjg3.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bivjg3.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bstjg4.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg6.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg6.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bstjg11.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg11.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bivjg54.html
According to this lists all this units had the A9 already in November/Dezember 44, some already in Septermber/October.
I dont found any sources regarding 'Flugzeugbestand 1945', but i guess the number of A9´s in 1945 did grow up in relation to the A8.
So i would consider the A9 a common late war plane!
Greetings, Knegel
-
VERY Nice Knegel, thanks for the links!
I knew the A9 saw combat but didn't know that it was active in such numbers. Very nice, this is one plane I've been longing for for a long time in AH but never really expected. Don't know if we'll get it but would be nice. A Perk A8 :)
-
I knew the A9 saw combat but didn't know that it was active in such numbers.
Yep, Been saying this for a while now. :)
Wait until some of the discoveries we have made at White 1 become public about the engines.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
are you "rewriting" history? :D
-
My whole point wasn't that the A9 didn't see service, or that it wasn't around (it did both) but what's the point if it's only [EDIT: Hypothetically] 5 mph faster and flies exactly the same as the A-8? That's just nitpicking, folks!
"Why not include it if the D9 had as many planes built as the A9? Add it because they had the same numbers"
That doesn't work. The reason to add the D9 is that it is 3 classes, a leapfrog, and a longjump ahead of the A8 in performance. The A8 and the D9 aren't even in the same league of performance. One totally blows away the other, and here's a hint: the better one isn't the A8. That's why the dora is there. Who cares if the A9 was made in approximately the same numbers as the dora was? That doesn't mean it's worth adding. The performance is all but identical to what we already have.
New name, but nearly identical. Just fly the A8 and have done with!
My $0.03 (this one's worth more)
-
My whole point wasn't that the A9 didn't see service, or that it wasn't around (it did both) but what's the point if it's only [EDIT: Hypothetically] 5 mph faster and flies exactly the same as the A-8? That's just nitpicking, folks!
It is quite a bit faster, especially with the BMW801TS-2 motor when equipped with Erhöhte Notleistung. This set up outperforms the F8F-1 Bearcat that saw service in the closing days of WWII. Before the Grumman fans rise up in anger, that is not the more common post war F8F-2.
The BMW801TS-1 is significantly faster at certain altitudes than the BMW801D2.
Both the BMW801D2 and the BMW801TS-1 developed the exact same horsepower at 1.65ata. The BMW801TS-1 used 1.65ata for "Start u Notleistung" for 5 minutes from sea level to max altitude. The BMW801D2 could only use 1.65ata at the changeover at first gear supercharger FTH and above. Both motors are 2050PS at this rating. The FW-190A8 is faster though at higher altitudes.
IMHO an 801S1 equipped FW190A9 would be a great match for a Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 66 (+25) or a Spitfire Mk VIII down low.
Especially since the power egg was lighter than some of BMW801D2 set ups.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Crumpp, this may be asking a lot, but guesstimate if necesary:
Can you give us a speed arc for the A8 superimposed over the A9? A comparison?
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126751861_fw190a8_a9vsta152speed.jpg)
Here you go, enjoy!
This is not the fastest FW190A8. Some of the FW-190A's, F's and G's went 580kph on the deck using C3-Einspritzung but only under 1 KM in altitude.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Looks like it's only about 25mph or so (~40kmh) faster. But that's something. Looks best between 2km and 3km alt (6k and 9k, common AH altitudes). I'm also interested in seeing the ta152 speed charts :P How many 152C's saw action?
-
Hi,
in AH 6-9k ft is common = 1,8-2,7km !!
The A9 was better than the early D9, dont forget, the displayed A9 had 4 x 20mm, instead of the 2 x 20mm of the D9.
I guess 250HP more than the 190A8 will make a huge different, so the A9 could fight a La7! At highspeed this power will be less important than while the slowspeed acceleration.
btw, what power the AH D9 shal have??
Greetings,
-
OK, will post in here.
No Ta 152 C's saw action as far as is known.
The Ta152 C was suposed to have the engine on the chart above, DB 603 LA but also flew with the DB 603 L and E. E was the least powerfull and used during the testings of the C together with the L in some planes.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/blueknights_pictures/userfiles/Wilbus/190ta152etc.jpg)
(http://www.furballunderground.com/blueknights_pictures/userfiles/Wilbus/DaimlerBenz.pdf)
(http://www.furballunderground.com/blueknights_pictures/userfiles/Wilbus/Finalproductionspeed.jpg)
(http://www.furballunderground.com/blueknights_pictures/userfiles/Wilbus/Speedchart.jpg)
OK, there are some charts. It's important to check which kind of engines they use, what they use with them, fuel, emergency boost such as MW50 or GM1 etc.
-
Check the last chart. The engine there wouldn't really be representative for the Ta152 C (spelling????!!!!)
The L and LA would've been the engines used in production planes with the possibility to install the Jumo 213 E as in the H versions.
Problem with deciding what planes would representative lies in the number of engines some planes used. The A) for example used BMW 801 T, TS and F (any more?). Not sure if the F was ready by and installed before the end of the war, anyone know?
The chart above showing the A9 with the F engine gives a deck speed of 550 km/h without MW50 injection.
It also shows two version of the Ta 152 C, L and E engines. 576 and 590 km/h using MW 50 at the deck.
Looking at the middle chart the C has a max speed of 702 km/h at 9500 and 736 at 10 000 using MW 50.
Not sure where I got the higher deck speed of the C over the H from but it doesn't look as if it was faster down low.
Guessing acceleration would've been better though thanks to shorter wing, as would roll rate have been.
I've seen some charts for the A9 giving it a speed in excess of 600 Km/h at the deck, wether this would be estimated or tested or actually used I am not sure, don't have those charts.
The A9 and A8 were not the same though, quite a big difference in the engines. There would have been no real use to have a plane be the same and rename it A9 nor would it have been any real reason to make a new plane and name it A9 if it had the same performance and stats as it's predecessor.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/blueknights_pictures/userfiles/Wilbus/Speedchart.jpg)
-
Not sure if the F was ready by and installed before the end of the war, anyone know?
The BMW801F refers to the BMW801TH or TS engine.
Both used the "F" designator.
There were two BMW801TS motor's. The BMW801TS-1 and BMW801TS-2.
I guess 250HP more than the 190A8
Actually the BMW801TS-1 and the BMW801D2 produce the same amount of power at 1.65ata.
The BMW801D2 produces about 1970PS (rammed) at 1.58 ata or 1870 (unrammed), about 80PS more.
Add in the Erhöhte Notleistung of the S-2 motor, and the FW-190A9 has a large horspower difference.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by 1K3
"190A-9 absolute common from mid 44 onward"
190A-8/F-8 made up more than half of the late war 190 family lineup and was more common from mid 44 onward. The A-8/F-8 production was @ ~1,500+ while A-9 production was only @ 700+ (the same as the D-9s)
Crumpp, I think it is time you posted that Fw production list again. Iirc the Dora production was ~1800.
-
Found Bookies Fw 190 page again.
Here is a link to the A9's built, unfortunalty, only one part is finished (showing some of the ones built at Cottbus).
http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/a-9.htm
and here for the other 190 A's, same thing there, A-0 to A-4 only ones covered so far and not all of them.
-
And another list, more complete it seems like.
http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/werkn.htm
-
Wilbus,
those are the WNr blocks assigned to the Fw. It does not mean the whole block was constructed.
-
DUH!
:)
Maybe I should check the site more before posting it!
-
Wilbuz, I'm not entirely sure, either, but I read a comment on one of these forums that the C-0 saw action but was never put into production (the test versions may have been pressed into service, perhaps?)
Considering there were only about 12 serving Ta152H-1s, and we have it, that might be grounds for a C-0 at some later date, no?
-
Well there were more then 12 serving Ta152 H's.
The C-0 is pre-production (0) planes handed out to test squads so it may very well have seen action. Not sure if HTC (or even I) consider it a valid plane though.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Well there were more then 12 serving Ta152 H's.
The C-0 is pre-production (0) planes handed out to test squads so it may very well have seen action. Not sure if HTC (or even I) consider it a valid plane though.
For sure there was more than 12 serving 152Hs. The disposition of 150 001 - 150 0040, 150 167 - 150 169 are known.
-
well, going by a post just above yours (scroll up a bit) you can't just use wrk no's. Could be unused airframes. Could be blocked out but never built. Could be waiting for engines.
Not going by wrk no's, how many actually were distributed to squads?
-
Originally posted by Krusty
well, going by a post just above yours (scroll up a bit) you can't just use wrk no's. Could be unused airframes. Could be blocked out but never built. Could be waiting for engines.
Not going by wrk no's, how many actually were distributed to squads?
What did you not understand about disposition? To help you, the listing for the WNr given above shows where the 152s went and what happened to them. You can go through the list on pg 113 of Hermann's 152 book and see that there was at least 19, which is ~44%. :)
-
Could be unused airframes.
Yes. Milo has point that WNr. is important.
However there was a conversion program of FW190A8's to FW-190A9's. While it is a little more involved than just swapping the power egg, the differences were small enough a depot level maintenance shop could handle it.
Additionally there was an airframe reconstitution program which took obsolete or damaged airframes and converted them as well.
All in all, around 700 FW190A9's were built.
You can cross reference the subcontractor with the WNr. Block and make a very good ballpark figure. WNr. Blocks are issued by contract. Those blocks that appear after an incomplete run were most likely never built. Those blocks that list a subvariant conversion such as the R11, most likely were built. The major wildcard is the FW-190A5 factory conversions. Most of the NDW production is FW-190F9.
Whatever the case, the type showed up in strength in the summer/fall of 1944. Incidently that is when Focke Wulf contract states factory production was to begin in August. It is obvious though, as FW-190A9's show up in the Geschwaders before then that the conversion program was underway as ordered in July.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Hmm, from what I`ve seen from unit strenght reports in December 1944, A-9s were pretty rare compared to Doras and Kurfurst, not to say the more ordinary types.
-
Hmm, from what I`ve seen from unit strenght reports in December 1944, A-9s were pretty rare compared to Doras and Kurfurst, not to say the more ordinary types.
While the Dora was to replace the Anton, the distinction is that in December of 1944 a large number of the Antons in service were FW-190A9's. This contradicts the generally held belief that the FW190A9 was a "rare bird".
Many of the FW-190A9's served until the end.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Hmm, from what I`ve seen from unit strenght reports in December 1944, A-9s were pretty rare compared to Doras and Kurfurst, not to say the more ordinary types.
Not as rare as 1.98 K-4s. :D
-
Hi,
Kurfürst, if you look to the 'Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen' in the links above, you will take notice that the A9 did appear more early and in greater numbers than the K4.
Crumpp, D9 wasnt made to replace the A´s, it was made to give the 190´s a better high alt and fighter vs fighter peformence, but in the east this wasnt needed and in 1945 the high alt bomberstreams also got rare.
The A9 had two 20mm´s more but was only 70kg more weight than the D9.
Milo,
you realy think the german engine development did stuck from mid 1944 onward at the same stage??
Greetings,
-
Crumpp, D9 wasnt made to replace the A´s, it was made to give the 190´s a better high alt and fighter vs fighter peformence, but in the east this wasnt needed and in 1945 the high alt bomberstreams also got rare.
I don't think your correct on that. It was a replacement for the FW190A. While the early Dora's were not as good a performer as the Antons, the Dora quickly surpassed the Anton.
According to the OKL, Lw.-Führüngstab, Nr. 937/45 gKdos.(op) 20.03.45 all FW-190A's in fighter service were to be replaced by D9's. Some D9's in service were to be replaced D12's.
The FW-190A series was going to continue to be produced but only as ground attack variants.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
For sure there was more than 12 serving 152Hs. The disposition of 150 001 - 150 0040, 150 167 - 150 169 are known.
In Reschke's book he wrote they never had more than 16 Ta-152s at one time. The largest number flown in one sortie (staffel strength) was 12 took place on 2 Mar '45.
JG301 were ordered where to fly top cover for FW 190A-8s and FW190A-9s. The mission ended when the 152s were attacked by Bf 109s. The Ta-152s could easily climb away from the attacking friendlies and the staffel did not suffer any losses.
Also see the strength report of 11.04.1945:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/334_1125275579_1_jg_400.jpg)
Easier to read and found on the web here:
Einsatzbereitschaft im Bereich Luftflotte Reich (http://www.ww2.dk/articles/elflr1.html)
Scroll to the bottom.
What this tells us is that of 11.4.45 there were a total of 6 serviceable Ta-152s. 3 assigned to Stab./JG 301 and 3 assigned to III./JG 301.
The translation of the chart is as follows:
Flgz = Aircraft
Besatzung = crew or pilots
Soll = number of aircraft (equipment) assigned
Ist = actual amount, usually this figure differs from the upper
eins = einsatzbereit = serviceable/ working. Can either be given in actual number or percentage. Here its clear the 3 is actual number.
So we can conclude as this date Stab./JG 301 had 7 Ta-152s but only 3 serviceable.
III./JG 301 had 6 Ta-152s and only 3 serviceable.(13/6)
Here is the production figures with work numbers for the Ta152H´s:
Ta152H-0 Work Number: 150001 to 150020: production by Focke Wulf at Cottbus. (19)
Ta152H-1 Work Number: 150021 to 150040, 150167 to 15169: production by Focke Wulf at Cottbus. Many more Ta152 H-series planned but not build., although possible one Ta152H-2 build at Cottbus. (21/1)
Source: "Focke Wulf 190, Production Line To Frontline" by Malcolm V. Lowe
19 Ta152H-0´s,
21 Ta152H-1
1 Ta152H-2.
How many of each saw 'service'? Who knows but if we believe Reschke then JG 301 had no more then 16 (unsure whether they were H-0s or H-1s or a mix) and a max of 12 flew on one sortie. After that serviceability problems effected the majority as seen in the strength report I posted above.
-
Originally posted by Knegel
Milo,
you realy think the german engine development did stuck from mid 1944 onward at the same stage??
Greetings,
Stuck no. But they did have QA/QC problems. You can read of the problems with the engines for 1.98, that is the comments in German documents, not censured out by Kurfie in his posts.
Yes Bruno only 16 at one time but that is not what I understood Krusty was saying. Thanks for documents.:)
-
Hi,
Crumpp, the D9 was made as fighter with reduced weapons, while most A´s got used as heavy fighter. There was no D9 with the needed 4 x 20mm, therefor i doubt it was a replacement of the A´s, rather a replacement of the 109G´s which was the former topcover of the A´s, to fight fighters.
Iam unsure about the definition of fighter in that Luftwaffe order, but i guess they was talking about fighters to fight fighters, not about the 'Schwere Gruppen'. I realy would like to know if the A9, with 2050-2200HP and with only 2 x 20mm(therfor less weight than the D9), wasnt the better fighter in low to medium alt. Even if the HQ was up to replace the A, they didnt stop the development and the production of the A´s, cause they was happy about every plane, therfor i doubt that the A´s got more rare in relation to the D´s in 1945. In the 'Verlustliste JG301 1945' (Reschkes book) this are the lost numbers:
18 x FW190A-8
74 x FW190A-9
19 x FW190D-9
3 x Ta152H
16 x Me109G-10
The 1st lost of a FW190A-9 in the JG301 was, according to Reschkes list, the 09.October 1944, from Novermber onward the number of lost A9´s already was greater than A8´s!
Nov-Dez 1944
52 x FW190A-8
67 x FW190A-9
4 x FW190D-9
I dont know lostlists of other units in 1945, but the JG301 already show around 141 FW190A-9 losts
Dont looks like the A´s got replaced by the D9.
Milo, sure they had problems, but they was with the 'back to the wall', they did develop and brought the Me163 and the Me262 to service, althought they both was not nearly reliable.
I guess every german pilot in 1945 better took off with possible 1.98ata, maybe only as emergency, than without and i guess the HQ and mechianics saw it in the same way. Who did care about a possible damaged engine, if the pilot dont have any odds to survive without the extra power??
In BoB the british HQ did the same and allowed to use the 12lb boost under special circumstances, althought they did know it can damage the engine very fast, who care if there are no other odds?? In most books and on most pages we still can read that the Spit1a only had the 6lb boost while BoB.
Regards,
Knegel
-
I realy would like to know if the A9, with 2050-2200HP and with only 2 x 20mm(therfor less weight than the D9), wasnt the better fighter in low to medium alt.
When the Dora first appeared the FW190A equipped Jagdgruppen were skeptical and with good reason.
The initial Dora's were not equipped with any boost system and did not perform as well at lower altitudes. When Dr. Lichte ordered the Junkers TAM to begin installing the "Oldenburg" system they outperformed the FW-190A series.
The lack of wing cannon was not a jagd-einsatz from the FW190A5 and later. It was however locally done by some of the "Old Hares" in the JG's. I imagine it would have made the FW-190A9 even more formidable at low altitudes but I do not think it would have outperformed the FW-190D9.
Even if the HQ was up to replace the A, they didnt stop the development and the production of the A´s, cause they was happy about every plane, therfor i doubt that the A´s got more rare in relation to the D´s in 1945. In the 'Verlustliste JG301 1945' (Reschkes book) this are the lost numbers:
You are correct in that production of the FW190A's did not stop at all. The Anton’s were being built to fulfill other jobs such as ground attack or the R7/R8 Sturmjager variant. The FW-190D9 was taking over the air superiority fighter role the Anton’s filled. While the Anton was still a capable fighter, the Dora simply had better performance.
AH would need the FW-190A9 because it is the most representative mid to late 1944 FW-190A IMHO after reviewing the facts.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Wait wait wait wait wait....
To quote Shrek, "Hold the phone!"
I just realized that while the A9 seems to have a 25mph speed boost over the A8, that's only because of the MW50 (or whatever boost it has). Aside from the boost the engine is the same, somebody said.
That means that unless you're running WEP all the time (which would run out, and you'd slow down every time you turned it off), you'd be performing exactly like an A-8 without WEP.
What good is a top speed boost of 20+mph if you lose it seconds after you turn WEP off? (*Note: 190As lose speed fast, it's one of their best forced-overshoot traits*)
I think it might boost acceleration, and sure it might have better top speed with WEP, but the underlying (non-WEP) engine is almost identical, right?
If that's the case I don't know if it's worth an entirely new flight model.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Wait wait wait wait wait....
To quote Shrek, "Hold the phone!"
I just realized that while the A9 seems to have a 25mph speed boost over the A8, that's only because of the MW50 (or whatever boost it has). Aside from the boost the engine is the same, somebody said.
It depend of the block number.
Btw it won't be honest to ask for a A9 when the RAF fan still don't have any suitable spit to face it.
Plus the A8 is already survivable in the MA exactly like the D40 and other "not very" late-war-wonder.
-
I just realized that while the A9 seems to have a 25mph speed boost over the A8, that's only because of the MW50 (or whatever boost it has). Aside from the boost the engine is the same, somebody said.
It does not have a boost system Krusty on that graph.
Adding in the simplified MW50 system will add an average of 15kph to that curve and raise the boost to 1.82ata.
Btw it won't be honest to ask for a A9 when the RAF fan still don't have any suitable spit to face it.
I think if HTC adds in the Spitfires under discussion then it would be needed. This should be a mutually supporting request. Bring on the new Spits and Focke's. The FW-190A9 would fit nicely against the Spitfire Mk IVX now in the game as well.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Hi,
the A9 was a bit more heavy than the A8 with same weaponset and the current A8 already is lost without WEP, who will fight without need much alt to escape. Since the current 190A8 is only worth to make a bit more close combat with WEP, the more power of the A9 would help much. +20mph is less important than the slowspeed acceleration and climb gain with WEP.
That the 190A lost speed that much while turning is a joke anyway.
Crupp, i only did read about comparisons A8 vs D9, and here i only saw the quote that the early D9 just was better at high alt. Regarding the comparison between the A9 with MW50 vs D9, i never saw something. Most people still think that the A8 was the last 190A which saw service. I dont have any idea, why a 190A9 with 2000-2000HP, but only 2 x 20mm, which would be around 100kg more light than the D9, shouldnt be same good or better, specialy in low alt? Same like the late D9, the A9 brought back the poweradvantage over most enemys planes, which the 190A4 had in 1943, at least in low alt. Even the A9 w/o MW50 (graphic above) show much better results than the A8 w/o erhöhter Ladedruck. Even the climb with combat power was better than that of the A8 with combat power, althought this A9 with 4 x 20mm was more heavy.
Of course, if i talk about A9 ( 2 x 20mm) same good or better than the D9, i talk about the game, where wingload seems to be a important factor. In reality speed was probably much more important.
Regards,
Knegel
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
While the Dora was to replace the Anton, the distinction is that in December of 1944 a large number of the Antons in service were FW-190A9's. This contradicts the generally held belief that the FW190A9 was a "rare bird".
Many of the FW-190A9's served until the end.
All the best,
Crumpp
That`s nice and all, Crumpp, but little more than wishful thinking, for I have just checked and the number of A-9s (inc. various Rustzustand variants) were less than a hundred in December 1944. Both Doras and Kurfurst amounted 200-200 each, other the other hand.
Makes arguing of such a rare bird a bit pointless IMHO.
Originally posted by Knegel
Kurfürst, if you look to the 'Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen' in the links above, you will take notice that the A9 did appear more early and in greater numbers than the K4.
Already did a many months ago, summerizing the list of all daylight fighters for my 109K project. In fact the 109K appeared at a steady 200 from the first month it entered service, raising to 300+ in January 1945, whereas the Dec 1944 'Flugzeugbestand' shows less than a hundred A-9s around. Will dig up the exact numbers tomorrow.
-
Btw it won't be honest to ask for a A9 when the RAF fan still don't have any suitable spit to face it.
The Spit wasn't the plane an A-9 would 'face' as a common foe. A-9s (und F-9s) served from Kurland fighting the VVS to Bodenplatte and over Germany etc...
There's no need to suggest because there is an 'A-9' there must be a 'Spit XX' or vice versa.
Not even in the AH do 190s face 'Spits' as a common foe. In ToD at least with an 8th AF theater 190s won't be facing 'Spits' as a common opponent either.
Knegel no A series 190 used 'MW-50' as standard with the exception of a few odd ball A-4s for vengeance jabo raids against England. The A-9 like the the A-8 utilized C-3 injection.
The D-9 went through several boost types. From the Oldenburg low pressure MW-50 system and eventualyl a higher presure system (B4 fuel+ MW50) as well as C3 injection (C-3 fuel) etc...
The A-9 was a significant improvement over the A-8 as you point out out. Initially the D-9 wasn't much better then the A-8. However, even in its optimal form the Dora was never a 'high alt fighter' or substantially better at high altitude then the late series As.
It's true that the D-9 was designed to face Ami fighters and to provide cover for Sturmbocks etc... It was not designed as a replacement for the A series but was going to replace some A series in various gruppes. I have read where the D-9 was more or less an attempt at a stop gap while Kurt Tank developed the 152. A DB603 FW would have been the 'high altitude version'. But too bad they never pursued it.
Lutz (Naudet) has made numerous posts on various forums describing the development of the D-9. He posts on Butch's AAW2 forums but last I heard he was busy with RL and not much time for the Internet. He has done considerable research along with folks like BBury on the Dora.
-
Bruno , as I see you're new to this BBS (at least with this handle).
You need to know my post is a symetric of several thousand LW Taliban posts made here.
If we follow the will of those Talibans, the game we will end with a Spit I and all the secret weapon of the luftwaffe.
sarcasm
PS : You should not ignore the complete inexperience of htc when it come to modelling correctly a LW plane.
/sarcasm
-
That`s nice and all, Crumpp, but little more than wishful thinking, for I have just checked and the number of A-9s (inc. various Rustzustand variants) were less than a hundred in December 1944.
Sure Kurfurst. Only one factory, Focke Wulf, was producing FW-190A9's from September 1944 until December 1944. In December three more companies began rolling the type off the productions lines GFW, NDW, and Arado.
NDW being the most difficult to track down. Their production was a closely guarded state secret. It actually caused a bit of political spat between Norway and Sweden when the Foundation discovered some of NDW production documents in an Eastern European Archive. Planes were being manufactured in Sweden!
Knegel no A series 190 used 'MW-50' as standard with the exception of a few odd ball A-4s for vengeance jabo raids against England. The A-9 like the the A-8 utilized C-3 injection.
No it did not. The BMW801TS1 was specifically forbidden to use any boost system at all. Once more, none was under development for it. From the BMW801S installation and operation manual:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126911087_801slimits.jpg)
The BMW801TS2 could use MW50 and was tested in Jan'44. That same month a directive come down to begin installing an emergency Alkohol-Einspritzung on the FW-190.
C3-Einspritzung was used on ground attack variants starting with the FW-190A5. It gave excellent performance but could only be used below 1 KM in altitude. It also was a different system from the "Erhöhte Notleistung" used in 1944 by the fighters.
That system is here:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1121288972_emergencypowerforfighters.jpg)
Alkohol-Einspritzung was tested by simply did not perform as well and added the additional weight of antiknock agent tank.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126911758_mwc3results.jpg)
I believe the emergency MW system ordered into use in Jan 45 had more to do with fuel shortages than perofrmance increases. While "Anlage für Erhöhte Notleistung" used a different injection rate from C3-Einspritzung, it was still a fuel thirsty system.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Hi,
Kurfürst, only the JG301 already had 67 190A9 losses in 1944, do you realy think there was only 100 in 1944 all over??
Do you have autentic sources regarding the available planes ?
Alone in the few links of "Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen" i did post some posts above, i can count around 200 new FW190A-9(mainly November/December), while there is NO 109K listed.
If you wanna see which plane got used more often, you need to look to the 'new planes' and 'losts' not to the 'Flugzeugbestand'.
Since the 109A´s in late 1944 got used mainly as 'Schwere Gruppen' and cause the K4´s could compare better with the enemyfighters, i guess the 190A´s had the highest losses and therfor a relative low 'Flugzeugbestand'.
Greetings, Knegel
-
I see Crumpp is back to claiming MW-50 use as standard on the A series again..
No A series 190 used MW-50 as 'standard' with the exception of a few A-4s.
A past claim of his:
190A5 was the first Wurger produced that came with MW50 standard.
He went on and on how he prove this or that but never did.
No 190A series used MW-50 as standard. Every one knows there were tests with MW-50 systems on the 190s As but they never saw standard service.
Butch2k has said this:
There was no serialized installation of MW-50 system on the 190A, but tests were made on some prototype though.
Crumpp has also made claims that GM-1 was standard on A-8s etc. as well as a whole host of other nonsense.
Posting irrelevant documents does nothing at all to prove or support anything he says. In fact it often contradicts what he claims like the above.
His claim that the A-9 was forbidden to use C-3 injection is incorrect as well. In fact as you can the handbook scans he posted cover:
zur Fw 190A-7 bis Fw 190A-9, Teil 7
The scan he provides from 'BMW801S installation and operation manual' is unreadable on my end.
-
I see Crumpp is back to claiming MW-50 use as standard on the A series again..
Feel free to point that out, Wotan. If anything that was made years ago based off what I had read in Barnes and Noble history books. I will be the first to admit that I have learned an enormous amount about the aircraft since I began visting archives and sitting on the Board of Directors for the "White 1 Foundation".
Just because your pissed that I denied your request to join the FW190 discussion group is no reason to make things up.
If you read my post, MW was not used until very late in the war.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126916806_bmw801d2mw.jpg)
Your statements about GM-1 are also untrue. I made no statements about how common it was, just that it was used.
I have the GM-1 installation manual as referenced in the Flugzueg-Handbuch.
As for the FW190A9, please get a copy of the handbuch. That portion is specific for the BMW801D2 which the FW-190A9 could also use.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
I made no statements about how common it was, just that it could be used.
You claimed on numerous forums (including this one) that GM-1 was standard and when I mentioned that it was not you replied something like 'maybe not by your definition of standard. Your other line of lie was something like it was ''used more then one would imagine'. I can quote you if you like...
You keep saying you have 'proof' but much like your 'MW-50 was standard on the A-5' you never provide any...
In fact Butch replied to you in one of those threads where you make claims about GM-1:
First the GM-1 tanks while being referred in the A-7/A-8/A-9 manual of which i own two different versions, was never fitted.
Just because your pissed that I denied your request to join the FW190 discussion group is no reason to make things up.
I only asked that to join that forum to follow up on what Naudet had been posting recently on the D-9. I have no interest in the A series or any any of your fairy tails. In fact I hadn't realized that Butch set that forum up at your request until I went back and read that thread after seeing your reply here. Had I known prior I wouldn't have bothered.
I also have or had no way of knowing if I was given access or not until your tough man stance here in this thread. After all butch is AFK...
Anyway with a man of with such an important position as a member of the "Board of Directors for the White 1 Foundation" or in charge of "running the membership for the museum" one would think that you would be mentioned some where on their site, or at least able to post on their forums as someone other then 'guest', ey Gene?
-
You claimed on numerous forums (including this one) that GM-1 was standard and when I mentioned that it was not you replied something like 'maybe not by your definition of standard.
Please post it.
As for the "White 1 Foundation" I encourage you to join, we could use the support. Contact numbers and how to join are on the sight.
Naudets findings are on the main board, BTW. He did a great job.
As for "fairy tales", given the fact that over 30,000 documents on the FW190 are finally recorded and many are on a computer searchable database with more being added everyday, chances are that new discoveries are going to come to light. Combine that with the fact we are restoring an FW190 to authentic condition and going to fly it, you think we might be in a position to bring to light many details about the design.
Why don't you prove your allegation, Wotan? If I am "creating" fairy tales, it should be very easy to dispute.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Facts are that GM-1 WAS serialized for production in the 190A8...
GM-1 was not rare on the 190A8. It was a standard kit ...
GM-1, MW-50, and C3 "emergency power" were ALL used on the FW-190A.
GM-1 and MW-50 were more common than we would believe.
The above are all quotes from Crumpp in different replies. These are just the most recent posts I found in quick search. I am not going waste my time filling this thread with the tales of Crumpp but they are on record for anyone to see.
Anyone wanting more proof of Crumpp's fairy tales just search this forum.
As for 'White 1' I wouldn't join any club/foundation that would have you as a member. In fact with your reputation for fairy tales going around the net telling folks you are involved with 'White 1' can only hurt them in the long run.
That's the problem with Foundations that rely on volunteers. They are forced in many cases to except the most eager beaver without much regard initially to integrity.
Naudets findings are on the main board, BTW. He did a great job.
That's good to know, I feared I had missed something...
-
The above are all quotes from Crumpp in different replies.
Why don't you link the replies so people can read?
Facts are that GM-1 WAS serialized for production in the 190A8...
True statement. The aircraft was set up for the installation of the GM-1 tank during production. Here is a picture of the mounting hardware:
http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/mw50behalter.jpg
GM-1, MW-50, and C3 "emergency power" were ALL used on the FW-190A.
True statement. All three systems were used on the aircraft. I have already provided documentation.
GM-1 was not rare on the 190A8. It was a standard kit ...
It was a standard kit.
Here are the instructions for it:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126965094_gm-1anlage.jpg)
Here are the installation and inspection regulations:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126965128_gm-1inspection.jpg)
On the use of C3 Einspritzung with GM-1, an interesting note I just through in for the enjoyment of all:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126965176_gm1mitc3.jpg)
GM-1 and MW-50 were more common than we would believe.
They certainly were more common than I thought. Especially in the late war as an emergency “primitive” system was ordered into use. In December 1944 Oscar Boesch says he used "Ribben-nol" to escape attacking P51's.
As for the White 1 Foundation, again we could use the help and I encourage you to join. You probably learn some things about the air war.
All the best,
Gene
-
I have seen in some books where the d9 also had a 30mm and 2 20 mm, was this the beginning of the ta 152 C as far as experimenting with gun packages? I have read where the ta 152c had 4 20mm and 1 30mm(licks chops):aok
-
Teufl, yes, that was the beginning of the 152. The later 190Ds sort of became the 152 (there's a difference, yes, but I believe the 190D was a stand-in until the 152 was ready/completed, so it stands to reason they'd try new setups on it.)
-
Prototype 152's Teufl. I belive the D11 used 2x20mm and 2x30mm.