Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: oakranger on February 06, 2009, 01:28:00 PM
-
Fw 190 A-9
The Fw 190 A-9 was the last A-model produced, and was first built in September 1944. The A-9 was fitted with the new BMW 801S, called the 801 TS or 801 TH when shipped as a “power-egg”, or Kraftei, engine (an aircraft engine installation format embraced by the Luftwaffe for a number of engine types on operational aircraft, in part for easy field replacement) rated at 2,000 PS (1,973 hp, 1,471 kW); the more powerful 2,400 PS (2,367 hp, 1,765 kW) BMW 801F-1 was not available. The armour on the front annular cowling, which also incorporated the oil tank, was upgraded from the 6 mm on earlier models to 10 mm. The 12 blade cooling fan was initially changed to a 14 blade fan but it consumed more power to operate and did not really improve cooling thus BMW reverted back to the 12 blade fan. The cowling of the A-9 was also slightly longer than that of the previous Anton's due to the use of a larger, more efficient annular radiator for the oil system. The bubble canopy design with the larger head armour was fitted as standard. Three types of propeller were authorised for use on the A-9: the VDM 9-112176A wooden propeller, 11' 6" in diameter, was the preferred option however many A-9s were fitted with the standard VDM 9-12067A metal propeller and some had a VDM 9-12153A metal propeller with external, bolt on balance weights.[21] The A-9 was also designed originally as an assault aircraft, so the wing leading edges were to have been armoured; however this did not make it past the design stage in order to save weight. The A-9 was very similar to the A-8 in regards to the armament and Rüstsätze kits. A total of 910 A-9s were built between April 1944 and May 1945, mostly in Focke Wulf's Cottbus factory.[22][14]
I know that there where only 17 develop with only 11 in used. But this would be a nice addition.
Fw 190 D-11
17 Fw 190 D-11s were known to have been manufactured. This version was fitted with the uprated Jumo 213E series engine which was also used in the Ta-152 H series. Changes over the D-9 were the enlarged supercharger air-intake on the starboard side cowling and the use of a wooden, broad-bladed VS 9 or 10 propeller unit utilizing three 9-27012 C-1 blades with a diameter of 3.6 meters. The 13 mm fuselage guns were removed, and the cowling redesigned and by omitting the gun troughs was changed to a flat profile. Two 30 mm MK 108 cannons were installed in the outer wings to complement the 20 mm MG 151s in the inboard positions. Of the 17 Dora-11s delivered, three can be accounted for. One, the best-known, was Rote 4 (red 4) of JV 44's Platzschutz unit. Another, white chevron, was found at München-Riem, and may have served with JV 44 after serving at the Verbandsführerschule General der Jagdflieger (Training School for Unit Leaders) at Bad Wörishofen; it is not known if it was actually used operationally. A third, "white <61," was also found after the war at the Verbandsfuehrerschule General der Jagdflieger.[37]
While the D-11 was under manufacture, work started on the Fw 190 D-12 and D-13 models. The D-12 and D-13s were based on the D-11 design, however the D-12 and D-13 were fitted with Motorkanone nose cannons firing through the propeller hub (the D-12 would be fitted with a MK 108 30 mm cannon and the D-13 would be fitted with a MG 151/20 20 mm cannon). There were three test aircraft built for the D-12 line, V63, V64 and V65 but no production aircraft were built.
-
The A9 seems acceptable.
The D11 is out there. It had combat service and saw squadron strength (to a point).
-
<-- All in favor of a new Anton with production numbers approaching 1,000.
Dora-11? Long shot, I think.
-
<-- All in favor of a new Anton with production numbers approaching 1,000.
Dora-11? Long shot, I think.
+1
-
I think we have enough 190s for now, but should definately be added in a few years maybe. I think HTC should expand on the Yak series for example first.
(Along with the laundry list of planes that need to be updated)
-
well the thing is that the fw190's got updated already, so no chance they introduce a new variant anytime soon.
Even so It would be cool, I like 190's :aok
-
What we really need is an earlier Fw190, not a later one. Right now we don't have any Fw190 from the period when it dominated the Spitfire Mk V. Our Spitfire Mk IX is an earlier aircraft than our Fw190A-5.
-
What we really need is an earlier Fw190, not a later one.
+1
How about an A-3?
-
+1
How about an A-3?
Sounds good to me.
-
You know, the funny thing about these requests is the public perception that a 190A-3 would be superfluous. "Not another 109!" "Not another Spitfire!" etc.
The mistake is that variations on some aircraft are just as important as a totally different aircraft. That's easy to see when you compare our Spitfire VIII to the XVI; the latter might as well be a different airplane.
-
+1
How about an A-3?
Agreed I'd like to see earlier versions of the 190 A1, A2, or A3.
-
What we really need is an earlier Fw190, not a later one. Right now we don't have any Fw190 from the period when it dominated the Spitfire Mk V. Our Spitfire Mk IX is an earlier aircraft than our Fw190A-5.
+2 ummmmm 190A-2. The A-3 came out in 1942.
-
I'm all for it.
-
That's easy to see when you compare our Spitfire VIII to the XVI; the latter might as well be a different airplane.
And yet... Their performance curves are 99.9% identical. They only diverge slightly as alt increases. The only major difference being roll rate for the spixteen.
I'd like an earlier model 190A, don't get me wrong! I'm just saying it's not "that" much different from a 190a5. Remove the WGrs and it's pretty close, save for skinning options.
-
I'm sorry guys. Yeah yeah, I can say we need an He-111, an Oscar, etc, in the same way I can say I need to eat my vegetables...but a 190A variant heavier armed than the A-5, less piggish than our A-8, and capable of nearly 360mph on the deck, generally more competitive in the MA, is something I can say I want in the way I want some BBQ ribs. And more exciting to me than plugging an early war hole.
-
The A-9 wasn't some super-plane. It was an A-8 frame, had all the A-8 weapons rutsatz, the majority of them had the same prop and same tail (only some had wooden props and ta-152-style tail fins), but it had 10mph more on the deck.
It's even pretty hard to find specs for the A-9s performance. Some say from 355-360 on the deck, some say 359. Keep in mind our A-8 already in-game does 350MPH on the deck (clean).
Not really much of a performance boost. It will still turn pretty much the same as the A-8 does.
Of the 21,000-or-so (not counting Ta's) Fws only about 900 were A-9s.
Maybe the reason you'd like the A-9 is because our current A-8 is modeled quite a bit over-weight? It's almost 300lbs heavier than most documents list it, and this could be why you feel it's "piggish" -- because it is!
If we had some major weight checks on the 190 line, we probably wouldn't need the A-9 at all. The A-8 and F-8 are identical, for example, in climb, and speed, despite being 500lbs heavier (armor plating) -- which SHOULD reduce speed, acceleration, or climb rate, but does not. I think the 190 series needs to be rechecked. THEN we'd probably feel the A-8 is a bit more nimble, and the F-8 a bit more piggish.
-
300lbs less and more power wouldn't make for negligible differences.
-
To me what makes the 190 series seem tough is the AoA restriction compared to other aircraft. Even at 300mph ias, the 190s (to varying degrees depending on the model) reach critical AoA with only modest elevator input.
-
300lbs less and more power wouldn't make for negligible differences.
Whatever the weight of our current A-8, the same airframe weight applies to the A-9. So "if" HTC fixes the A-8, the relative performance between it and any A-9 model would be slight.
It's not as if we'd get an A-9 at the proper weight and an A-8 some 250+ lbs overweight. I think HTC would be consistent between the two models.
-
Isn't the A8 that heavy because of extra armor? Having the A8 as the armor model might be a good thing to leave as is, so we'd get the punchiest possible A8/9.
-
If we had some major weight checks on the 190 line, we probably wouldn't need the A-9 at all. The A-8 and F-8 are identical, for example, in climb, and speed, despite being 500lbs heavier (armor plating) -- which SHOULD reduce speed, acceleration, or climb rate, but does not. I think the 190 series needs to be rechecked. THEN we'd probably feel the A-8 is a bit more nimble, and the F-8 a bit more piggish.
Well, the F8 actually does have performance hits compared to a a A8 with the same gun loadout loadout. It looses about 10% in acceleration, climb and turnrate. the max AoA does suffer also. I dont see why the speed should be lower, unless the armor plating would cause more drag. In this case the extra weight is negligible.
-
300lbs less and more power wouldn't make for negligible differences.
Disagree, personally.
Weight is (to me) particularly noticeable with the 190 airframe. A 2x20mm A5 feels like a completely different A/C when compared to a 2x20mm A8.
-
Read the quote again. He said "would not make for negligible differences." It's a double negative. :D
-
Read the quote again. He said "would not make for negligible differences." It's a double negative. :D
Opps. :D
-
Disagree, personally.
Weight is (to me) particularly noticeable with the 190 airframe. A 2x20mm A5 feels like a completely different A/C when compared to a 2x20mm A8.
+1