Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: PanzerIV on September 03, 2007, 01:00:17 PM
-
Fw190A6 was given a larger, lighter wing.
Share your thoughts on the Fw 190A-6
-
Why do we need another 190?
-
Anything that is Axis is needed.
Except Vengeance rockets and kamikazes.
-
Originally posted by PanzerIV
Fw190A6 was given a larger, lighter wing.
Share your thoughts on the Fw 190A-6
Could you supply a source for the "larger, lighter wing" statement? Something based on a primary source, please. (*not* the History Channel, more along the lines of RLM documents, Focke-Wulf design drawings, etc.)
Thanks!
-
Originally posted by PanzerIV
Anything that is Axis is needed.
Except Vengeance rockets and kamikazes.
We need more Italian/Japanese planes.
-
Here ya go Bino!
Wikipedia.
Anyway I misunderstood the statement, it was a larger wing, not longer wing.
Anyway the earlier Fw190A5 had a wing area of 197sq ft.
http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id91.htm
And Fw190A6
Basically, these sites describe it as getting a larger, bigger, lighter wing.
I am not sure but by larger it must mean by wing area as the span is the same as the A5, but the wing structure was modified to accommodate more guns.
These just say a larger wing and stuff like that, when I find something with the exact wing area of the the A5 compared to the A6 I will post it.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/focke-wulf_190.htm http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=119323
-
Wing area didn't change. I've seen the lighter wing thing a few places, but I'm skeptical of it without any evidence to back it up. Regardless, the A-6 shouldn't weigh significantly more than an A-5 with the outboard 20mm. I'll see if I can find some weight data somewhere when I get a chance.
I do agree that the A-6 would be an excellent addition, and we could also get an A-3 or A-4 for the early war arena. Maybe convert the A-5 we have now to an A-6 with 2 and 4 cannon options to give us early, mid, and late war versions of the 190A.
Edit: check this thread for some weight data http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=170529&perpage=25&highlight=109g14&pagenumber=2
-
yes ideally we would have the 190A3 then the A6. the A5 was the worst performing of the 190 series.
-
Originally posted by PanzerIV
Here ya go Bino!
...
Thanks for the links, some great stuff, especially that Pax River test of the FW-190A-5 against the Corsair and the Hellcat!
But I'm still puzzled by the "larger, lighter" statement about the A-6 wing. I have read that since the A-6 was the first to replace the outboard MG-FFs with the better (and heavier) MG-151/20s, that the wing structure was "revised." What I would like to find is a comprehensive listing of wingspan and wing area for the various versions of the FW-190A.
-
Before we get 190A-6...
- 190A-5 must be changed to 190A-6
- Add 190A-3
-
Originally posted by Bino
Thanks for the links, some great stuff, especially that Pax River test of the FW-190A-5 against the Corsair and the Hellcat!
But I'm still puzzled by the "larger, lighter" statement about the A-6 wing. I have read that since the A-6 was the first to replace the outboard MG-FFs with the better (and heavier) MG-151/20s, that the wing structure was "revised." What I would like to find is a comprehensive listing of wingspan and wing area for the various versions of the FW-190A.
Random tid bit about the cannons on the 190 a company by the name orlekon (i probably mis spelled it) made them, now a days that company still has a weapons division but also makes Hi-Vac tools that I work on (I work on their LAPECVD systems). I know this only because while researching the 190 I read about the guns and their manufacture, then the next week I had a class taught by the field rep for orlekon and like a dork asked him during class. Which as it turned out he was a Luftwaffe nerd too (he likes the Microsoft sims) so he was glad to chew the fat with me on the matter of their 20MM cannons.
-
Taken from wikipedia:
"The Fw 190 A-6 was developed to fix the shortcomings found in previous A models when fighting US heavy bombers. Modifications to the type to date had caused the weight of the aircraft to creep up. To combat this and to allow better weapons to be installed in the wings, a larger, bigger, lighter wing was designed. This new wing was introduced into production with the A-6. The normal armament was increased to two MG 17 machine guns and four MG 151/20E cannons. It is believed the MG 17s were kept because their tracer rounds served as a targeting aid for the pilots. New armor plates were added to the canopy in order to fit the new canopy fittings, as well as a new FuG 16ZE radio navigation system. The A-6 was outfitted in numerous ways with various Rüstsätze (field modification kits) sets, including a 30 mm thick transparent armor plates added to the canopy and windshield to better protect the pilots from tail gunners of the heavy bombers. More flexible than the factory upgrade kits for previous versions, these field upgrade kits allowed the A-6 to be refitted in the field as missions demanded. About 1,055 A-6s were built between May 1943 and March 1944.[15]"
-
I'm almost certain that all of the 190As and the Dora had a wing area of 196.98 ft^2. Some of the early prototypes had a smaller wing, the Ta 152C had a somewhat larger wing, and of course the Ta 152H had the long-span wing.
The A-6 having a larger wing is just one of those incorrect "facts" that get perpetuated on the internet just like the Bf 109K having mg 151s in the cowl.
Edit: check out this thread http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=167320&highlight=190a6
it's got some good info if you can sift through the bickering. One poster is mistaken on the wing dimensions of the A6 vs. A5 and just flames everyone who proves him wrong. The drawings are pretty definitive proof that the wing size stayed the same.
-
All models after the A-3 had the same wing until the Ta152s messed around with different wingsizes (the C-0 was a bit larger than the D-series). I say "all after A-3" because one of the early models started prototype stages with a slightly different wingsize, and it was changed, but I can't remember which version. Nothing that saw combat, to be sure.
This is as common a false claim as cowling-mounted 20mm cannons on the 109K-4.
The A-6 had the SAME wing size and wing function. The only difference was that a larger "bay" was opened up inside the wing to house the MG151/20 cannons, or the Mk108 cannons, or the specialty cannon pods. Perhaps removing a few braces and struts made it "lighter" but we're talking almost nothing.
The problem with requesting an A-6 is that is has ALL the armament of the A-8 but none of the drawbacks. You put it in-game and the A-5 instantly is never used again, and the A-8 is instantly never used again (it's the best of both). Now you either pick "slightly better handling" or "better guns" -- you want to kill the bombers with ease you have to pay for it in performance. You want to dogfight, you have to take the lesser-armed plane. There's a balance, a trade-off. With the A-6 there is neither, and there is no choice, you get all the guns and all the performance and none of the flaws. Poor choice to add to this game, IMO.
I'm against a A-6, because it's identical to the A-5 in EVERY way except armament.
I'd rather have the A-3. That had less armament options AND different performance. It would be a separate plane, but the A-6 wouldn't.
EDIT: P.S. Citing wikipedia is about as valuable as citing the History Channel, FYI.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
All models after the A-3 had the same wing until the Ta152s messed around with different wingsizes...
Everything I can find gives 10.5 meters as the wingspan for every FW-190A, B, C, & D variant built after the test plane #5 (versuchs 5, or V5) had its earlier, smaller wing replaced in early 1940.
The only mention I can find (in anything that cites primary sources, i.e. not wiki) speaks of the "revision" of the "wing structure" beginning with the A-6 to counter the increase in weight brought on by replacing the outboard MG-FF cannons with MG-151/20 cannons.
Anyway, I'm all for more Wuergern! Let's just get them modeled right. ;)
-
Krusty, the A-6 will probably draw pilots away from both the A-8 and D-9 for fighter vs. fighter combat in the LW arenas. A-8 will still be used for buff hunting and attack since it packs the 30mms. A-8 also carries more fuel than the A-6, which is very useful at times. There aren't many A-5s in LW anyway so that's a moot point. Converting our current A-5 to an A-6 and adding an A-4 would give us 190As for EW and MW.
IMO the ideal 190A lineup would be:
A4
A6
A8
I'd love to see an A9 too, but would much rather have an A6 first.
-
The spitty folks got that beast of a machine the 16 so why not give us the A6?
Glenn
-
Best Fw190 is likely the D9, show me the turn radius of the A6 and it might shut me up if it isnt anything exceptional for a German fighter, I love the 190s and 152, just how they look and their fierce reputation as fighters, bomber-destroyers,and ground-attack.
-
Yeah the D9 rocks. Im a BIG fan of the F8 as well
-
D9 was supposed to turn best of all 190s, but in this game it doesn't seem to.
I'm against the A4/A6 pair. I've said "why" regarding the A6. A-4 is still almost 99.9999% identical to the A-5.
FYI the gas tank in the 190a8 is what destabilizes it so horribly. The CoG is too far back because of this. Historically they countered it with the ETC rack. Here that doesn't help at all (no weight to the rack!). Historically they flew with the racks even if they didn't carry anything on them! Here it doesn't even work.
My "best" lineup for the 190As would be:
190A-3 (first major combat variant, as early as it gets and still being realistic)
190a5 (can sub for an A4 as it's almost identical)
190a8 (what we've got now, but make the ETC rack permanent, and move the COG forward to reflect this!)
190a8/R-whatever (STURM unit, heavier, but heavily armored, can withstand bombers' defensive fire)
Perhaps make the last one a sturm version of the 190A-9 for naming purposes (and differentiation).
With that list you get the best early model (sorely lacking in scenarios) the best middle version (more ammo than the A-3, more power than the A-3, less ammo and power than the A-8, but less weight than the A-8, perfectly balanced mid-way between the A3 and A8), the "late" version we have now, and a "late" version highly specialized that could be seriously used in scenarios.
Take the Der Grosse Schlag scenario, for example. Historically the 190a8s were heavily armored and were able to make dead 6 attacks straight in, losing "only 1 or 2 out of the squadron" and shooting down droves of bombers. If any allied fighters sneeze at 'em they die, but against bombers they would be a terror. Instead, we're using non-specialized, UNARMORED 190a8s in this game to simulate the same thing -- guess what? They don't last half a second against the bombers they supposedly terrorized. Oh sure there's ways around it, but it's totally not a historical matchup or a recreation of what happened.
So that's why I'd like to see a sturm unit. Perk it in the MA if needed (although it'll be so heavy and slow I doubt it'll need it), but in scenarios it'd be a massive gift to all axis planners doing an ETO setup with LW vs USAF bombers.
-
Originally posted by Krusty "...190a5 (can sub for an A4 as it's almost identical)..."
The major change from the A-4 to the A-5 was the lengthening of the engine mount and fuselage ahead of the wings by nearly six inches, to move the center of gravity forward.
"...Take the Der Grosse Schlag scenario, for example. Historically the 190a8s were heavily armored and were able to make dead 6 attacks straight in, losing 'only 1 or 2 out of the squadron' and shooting down droves of bombers.... "
I agree, the FW-190A-8/R8 is what the DGS "Sturm" units should be flying.
At the very least, the A-8/R7, which included all the extra armor & armor glass.
-
Originally posted by SpikesX
We need more Italian airplanes.
We do.
as most people know that I am a 190 dweeb, I like to fly the A-8, I truly belive that, that is the hardest fighter to fly. it will be great in DGS with those 30mm. but anyways, I will have to decline another 190 in the game because we have about 5 190's and only 2 italian aircraft.