Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Saurdaukar on April 15, 2009, 12:44:23 PM
-
I know what some of you are thinking: GREAT idea!
Thanks.
I know what the rest are thinking: OMG WE HALF TWO MANY!!!1 BRING US TEH (Insert hanger-queen here)!!!11!one
Just over 900 FW 190 A-9s were built in late 1944 and early 1945. Focke-Wulf at Cottbus was responsible for most of these aircraft. Blocks built by this factory ranged from 202 360 to 207 240 (including a number of gaps). Focke-Wulf, Aslau built aircraft from W.Nr 490 020 to 490 050. An unknown manufacturer produced 560 020 to 560 030. Mimetall at Erfurt built 750 070 to 750 160. Finally, Norddeutsche Dornier at Wismar built three blocks, with aircraft from W.Nr 980 150 to 980 590 (with gaps).
(P. Rodeike, Focke-Wulf Jagdflugzeug - FW 190A, FW 190 "Dora", Ta 152H, Struve-Druck, Eutin, 1998, p.269; Note: Rodeike seems to have missed a block built by Focke-Wulf, ranging from 202 550 - 202 590.)
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.
(Janowicz, Krzysztof. Focke-Wulf Fw 190, Volume 1. London: Kagero Publications, 2001. ISBN 83-89088-11-8.)
So its not a simple "A8 port" but would actually required some redesign.
However, I think its a shame that such a significant gap in performance (and role) exists between the Anton's and those "other" FW's.
We all know that the only "real" 190's are powered by BMW radials so the only question is this:
Would you like the last and best short-nosed 190 to be modeled...?
Or do you NOT like boobs? :aok
(http://www.bobmodifiedbmw.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/bmw-m-girl.jpg)
-
:rock
But even an A-5 that doesn't fly like its got speedbrakes deployed would make me happy...
-
I like boobs... :aok
-
A9...... Well, heck, that's never been asked for before. :P
What would really be cool is if there was a "R&D" tab on the website. Then we could go see what may or may not be upcoming.
-
A9...... Well, heck, that's never been asked for before. :P
What would really be cool is if there was a "R&D" tab on the website. Then we could go see what may or may not be upcoming.
What are the specs on the A9, I hope its as sweet as the A5 though I find the A5 lacking a little in the speed department. :aok
-
Boobies! :O
Oh, yea back on topic. :D Aye for the A-9. Hell, A4 & A6 as well while we're at it. :cool:
-
What are the specs on the A9, I hope its as sweet as the A5 though I find the A5 lacking a little in the speed department. :aok
Can't find any info, if I had to guess, I'd say 365mph on the deck.
-
Can't find any info, if I had to guess, I'd say 365mph on the deck.
I have been looking too, and everything I find it shows it's compared to the A8, so I don't think they were much different, they seem to even had the same gun packages. And only one site that I found showed all the A models with the same speed, climb rates a even the same gun packages, so I doubt its right.
-
I've noticed that too today.... Kind of makes it not as sexy.
I have been looking too, and everything I find it shows it's compared to the A8, so I don't think they were much different, they seem to even had the same gun packages. And only one site that I found showed all the A models with the same speed, climb rates a even the same gun packages, so I doubt its right.
-
:aok
-
I know what some of you are thinking: GREAT idea!
Thanks.
I know what the rest are thinking: OMG WE HALF TWO MANY!!!1 BRING US TEH (Insert hanger-queen here)!!!11!one
(P. Rodeike, Focke-Wulf Jagdflugzeug - FW 190A, FW 190 "Dora", Ta 152H, Struve-Druck, Eutin, 1998, p.269; Note: Rodeike seems to have missed a block built by Focke-Wulf, ranging from 202 550 - 202 590.)
(Janowicz, Krzysztof. Focke-Wulf Fw 190, Volume 1. London: Kagero Publications, 2001. ISBN 83-89088-11-8.)
So its not a simple "A8 port" but would actually required some redesign.
However, I think its a shame that such a significant gap in performance (and role) exists between the Anton's and those "other" FW's.
We all know that the only "real" 190's are powered by BMW radials so the only question is this:
Would you like the last and best short-nosed 190 to be modeled...?
Or do you NOT like boobs? :aok
(http://www.bobmodifiedbmw.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/bmw-m-girl.jpg)
ya sure it's all fun and games till someone looses an eye!!! :devil
-
IIRC many A8s were updated to A9 cfg, in the last year or so.
-
I've noticed that too today.... Kind of makes it not as sexy.
Ive done my best to compile a short list of preliminary data. It *is* hard to come by data and, in fact, Ive read some lesser sources that simply seem to "copy and paste" the A8 info into the A9 while only changing the engine designation (not even the power!).
Engine
The primary difference between the two, in reality, is that the A8 was powered by variants of the BMW 801D while the A9 was powered by the BMW 801S (also called the 801TS). The 801D was rated at 1,677HP at military power and 1,953HP with MW50 while the 801S/TS was rated at 1,973HP at military and 2,170 with MW50.
There is a lot of confusion regarding the S, TS, etc radials produced during the end of the war - from what I read - and designations alone have little uniformity. It appears that the TS designation was given to S engines installed in 190's (as opposed to bomber applications) which required enlarged oil coolers. That said, all of the "power egg" engines were born of the 801F program, which never saw installation into aircraft (to-be-built 190A10) due to the war's end.
Beyond that, the use of either the VDM 9-112176A wooden propeller, at 11' 6" in diameter or the VDM 9-12067A metal propeller would further change performance. According to most sources, the A8 "could" use the improved propeller but the A9 was designed with it in mind.
Weight
Again, here, sources vary but weight is another factor worthy of mention. Per the majority of documents, the A8 weighed 7,652lbs empty, 9,100lbs loaded and had a maximum allowable weight of 10,800lbs.
After a brief search, I could not find specific A9 weights. However, it is known that the leading edge armor never made it past the design stage. Lets just add 100lbs to account for the upgraded cooling system for general purposes and arrive at a loaded weight of 9,200lbs.
Armament
The A9 was fully customizable, from a weapons standpoint, on the ground, by the crew, prior to each sortie. By that I mean not only could the outboard 151/20's be removed BUT several sources also state that the 13mm cowl guns could ALSO be deleted at the pilot's discretion!
Backing up into weight, someone (like many of us in this thread) who adores the 2 cannon A5 configuration but would rather blow off the weight of the worthless MG17's would be excited by this.
Airframe
Two items of significance come into play here which would not make the A9 a simple "A8 port" in the game. The nose would have to be elongated, as previously stated, to account for the somewhat larger engine and cooling system but, more importantly, MANY of the A9's were used as field test beds for the tail section ultimately installed on the TA152. See? Your eyebrow is raised. That much rudder authority in a short nosed 190? Tell me more!
The Summary of the VERY, VERY Basic, Took Me 15 Minutes to Look This Stuff Up Post
In very simplistic terms, here is how I would see the 190A9 fitting into AH. Ill use the A8 as my benchmark since we all understand what it is and is not.
Take a 190A8 and increase its military power by 296HP and its MW50 power by 217HP. So, In fact, the A9's 801S makes more power on military settings than the A8's 801D makes on WEP settings.
Oh but what about the increase in weight? True - and I wish I could find more info in the short time Ive dedicated to this post. But, lets just say that 100 pounds for an upgraded cooling system is about right.
That would give P:W ratios as follows (Loaded weighs of 9,100lbs and 9,200lbs used):
190A8 Military: 5.42lbs per HP
190A8 MW50: 4.65lbs per HP
190A9 Military: 4.66lbs per HP
190A9 MW50: 4.23lbs per HP
Thats a significant improvement.
Coupled with that the ability to not only remove the outboard 151/20's but ALSO the 13mm cowl guns and suddenly the power to weight ratio even looks "fighter-like."
Finally - should HTC model the 190A9 with the TA152 tail control surfaces and the improved propeller, we suddenly have an aircraft which, although resembles the 190A8 in appearance, flies drastically differently.
I think it would make an awesome addition and I think it would see significant use in the MA.
If there is a high level of interest, Ill spend to time to go digging for more detailed information.
-
Mazz, excellent research so far!
I couldn't agree more with the addition of any LW aircraft.
The german planeset is sorely lacking in high alt A/C.
1 question for you Mazz,what's the FTH for the A9?
-
I didn't know about the 152 tail being used like that. I don't know if it'd have to be exactly like the 152's rudder authority, but it was most likely a very useful improvement if it didn't move the CG too far back (esp if it was the wooden type).. That and the cowl gun delete package.. It would make a very nice bird.
The powerloading figures for people used to seeing them in this metric:
| (HP/k lbs) | | A8 | | A9 | | D9 |
| MIL | | 184 | | 216 | | 182 |
| WEP | | 215 | | 236 | | 218 |
Note that's better thrust to weight (30hp short on wep and a couple hundred pounds lighter) than a "loaded weight" 190D9. All planes actually perform better than that if you account for more typical MA fuel loads etc.
-
I didn't know about the 152 tail being used like that. I don't know if it'd have to be exactly like the 152's rudder authority, but it was most likely a very useful improvement if it didn't move the CG too far back (esp if it was the wooden type).. That and the cowl gun delete package.. It would make a very nice bird.
The powerloading figures for people used to seeing them in this metric:
| (HP/k lbs) | | A8 | | A9 | | D9 |
| MIL | | 184 | | 216 | | 182 |
| WEP | | 215 | | 236 | | 218 |
Note that's better thrust to weight (30hp short on wep and a couple hundred pounds lighter) than a "loaded weight" 190D9. All planes actually perform better than that if you account for more typical MA fuel loads etc.
What's the weight you used for the Dora?
-
From wiki, a couple hundred more than the A9's ~9klbs. What does a 100 fuel AH D9 say on the E6B?
AH E6B gives 8.6klbs for the A5 and 9.4 for the D9. So those would look like:
| weight | MIL | WEP | mil/w | wep/w |
| A5 | 8.6 | 1677 | 1953 | 195 | 227 |
| A8 | 9.1 | 1677 | 1953 | 184 | 215 |
| A9 | 9.2 | 1973 | 2170 | 215 | 236 |
| D9 | 9.4 | 1750 | 2200 | 186 | 234 |
So the A9 might not have the highest top speed, but it could be the best accelerating 190.
-
I'm not sure. According to Focke-Wulf the gross weight of a loaded Fw 190D-9 in standard configuration w/ an empty Aux. tank (well, 'residual fuel') is 4250 kg.
-
Yeah that's about what I got from the e6b. I updated the table. The A9 is ahead of everything in both mil and wep. It's quite a lot better at mil power.
The A5's got the same power output as the A8, right?
-
Dietmar Hermann's 'Fw 190 D Long Nose' has Focke Wulf Technical Description No. 268: Fw 190D9 translated into english. This report has a weight table.
Fuselage-325kg
Undercarriage-278kg
Tail assembly (no ballast)-124kg
Control linkages-32kg
wing-453kg
Airframe-1212kg
Powerplant + 115l fuel tank (40 KG)-1878
'Normal' Equipment-180kg
'Special' Equpiment-220kg
Equipped weight 3490kg
Pilot-100kg
Fuel-525l-410 kg
Residual fuel in empty aux. tank (90kg)- --
Oil-40kg
Ammunition MG131 (475 ea)- 80kg
Ammunition MG151 (250 ea)- 110kg
Ballast-20kg
'Normal load' 760kg
Gross wight- fighter with standard armament and empty auxiliary fuel tank-4250kg
It doesn't have the weight for aircraft w/ full aux. tank listed.
There's also a report that says every aircraft should leave the factory with an ETC 504 rack and 170l or 300l tank installed. I'm not sure if the ETC 504 is included in the fuselage weight.
Yeah that's about what I got from the e6b. I updated the table. The A9 is ahead of everything in both mil and wep. It's quite a lot better at mil power.
The A5's got the same power output as the A8, right?
No
-
That aux tank should be the mw50 tank.. They sometimes used it as a fuel tank when MW50 wasn't. I did the table with the AH D9 weight, which is the number we care about, for this comparison, anyway :)
I figured the A5 didn't have the same power output. IIRC the AH A8's faster. Any idea where to find the A5 engine's output? Or maybe we can deduce it from its top speed in AH. I don't know the equation for that, but it ought to be valid on the assumption that the A8 and A5 both have the same drag coeff., and knowing their weight from the E6B.
-
That aux tank should be the mw50 tank.. They sometimes used it as a fuel tank when MW50 wasn't. I did the table with the AH D9 weight, which is the number we care about, for this comparison, anyway :)
I figured the A5 didn't have the same power output. IIRC the AH A8's faster. Any idea where to find the A5 engine's output? Or maybe we can deduce it from its top speed in AH. I don't know the equation for that, but it ought to be valid on the assumption that the A8 and A5 both have the same drag coeff., and knowing their weight from the E6B.
In AHII, the A8 is faster very low, but the A5 is faster higher.
-
Ohhhh yes! Please!
The A9 would be fantastic..... King of the short-noses!
-
The A5's got the same power output as the A8, right?
They were both powered by variants of the 14cyl 801D, but the Aces High version of the A8's 801D has a higher power output (altitude details not havent been looked at prior to this post) due to a higher ATA on MW50.
Still doesnt change the fact that the A5 flies like it has a parachute attached to it.
Fester's comment is valid (in the other thread) regarding the A5 introduction and its vertical performance. It was excessive (which was simply awesome for fighting Niki's which were, at that time, helicopters). However, the "fix" nerfed the AC to the point where, as we see, performance is lesser than the historical counterpart.
Either way, its surprisingly tough to nail down engine configurations for the late war BMW radials. Ive read, when researching, more than once that neither BMW nor Focke Wulf really have a 100% handle on what engines were installed in what aircraft and in what numbers.
Thats what happens when you lose the war and all the buildings housing your documents are bombed to the ground, I suppose.
-
That aux tank should be the mw50 tank.. They sometimes used it as a fuel tank when MW50 wasn't. I did the table with the AH D9 weight, which is the number we care about, for this comparison, anyway :)
The auxiliary tank wasn't used in place of the MW50, it was used in place of the GM1.
-
wasn't the the Armour of the A9 increased also I thought I seen somewhere it was changed from 9mm on the A8 to 10mm on the A9.
-
wasn't the the Armour of the A9 increased also I thought I seen somewhere it was changed from 9mm on the A8 to 10mm on the A9.
The armor around the oil cooler was increased from 6mm to 10mm. Not a big deal.
And, although the A9 wing was designed with armored leading edges (to ram buffs believe it or not), they never made it to production.
-
The armor around the oil cooler was increased from 6mm to 10mm. Not a big deal.
And, although the A9 wing was designed with armored leading edges (to ram buffs believe it or not), they never made it to production.
Rgr! :salute
-
Found this don't know how accurate it is......
Specifications: FW 190 A9
Length 8.95m (29' 4")
Wing span 10.52m (35' 6")
Wing area 18.61sqm (200sqft)
Empty weight: 3530kg (7766lbs) depending on equipment
Gross weight: 4410-5000kg (9,700-11,000lbs)
Max speed at SL: 575-595km/h (357-370mph)
Max speed at 18,000ft: 690-700km/h (428-435mph)
Climb and combat power: 1650Hp @ 2400rpm, 1.45ata (43.5 InHg)
Take off and emergency power: 2000Hp @ 27000rp, 1.65ata (49.5 InHg)
Special emergency power: 2300Hp @ 2700rpm, 1.75ata (52.5 InHg)
Climb to 5000m (16,500ft) 5.45min (at Climb power, 1650Hp)
Initial climb rate: 18.5m/s (3650ft/min)
Service ceiling 11,400m (37,500ft)
Range 665km (413sm), without external tanks
-
We could probably count on at least 360mph if it got modeled...sweet...
Sea-level ROC would probably be over 4000fpm at typical MA fuel loadings.
Found this don't know how accurate it is......
Specifications: FW 190 A9
Length 8.95m (29' 4")
Wing span 10.52m (35' 6")
Wing area 18.61sqm (200sqft)
Empty weight: 3530kg (7766lbs) depending on equipment
Gross weight: 4410-5000kg (9,700-11,000lbs)
Max speed at SL: 575-595km/h (357-370mph)
Max speed at 18,000ft: 690-700km/h (428-435mph)
Climb and combat power: 1650Hp @ 2400rpm, 1.45ata (43.5 InHg)
Take off and emergency power: 2000Hp @ 27000rp, 1.65ata (49.5 InHg)
Special emergency power: 2300Hp @ 2700rpm, 1.75ata (52.5 InHg)
Climb to 5000m (16,500ft) 5.45min (at Climb power, 1650Hp)
Initial climb rate: 18.5m/s (3650ft/min)
Service ceiling 11,400m (37,500ft)
Range 665km (413sm), without external tanks
-
Yes the A9 ; they upgraded it with better armor around the nose to protect the motor.
-
Currently the German plane set has 15 variants of 61 total, just fighters, no bombers tallied.
US has the largest set at 20 of 61.
Japanese and Russian each have 4 of 61.
So to break it down, US fighters account for 1/3 of the planeset.
German fighters account for 1/4 of the planeset.
RAF at 13 is just under 1/4 of fighters available.
Russian and Japanese have 1/15th each.
And you want another German plane? I think the Russian, Japanese, and Italian sets need it much much worse.
And I'd love to see more emphasis on early and midwar planes.
Not that it wouldn't be used, or enjoyed, just that I think we need to look at where the biggest gaps are in the planeset.
-
At this point I'm pretty sure everyone would do with any half dozen planes HTC picks for next patch :)
-
Currently the German plane set has 15 variants of 61 total, just fighters, no bombers tallied.
US has the largest set at 20 of 61.
Japanese and Russian each have 4 of 61.
So to break it down, US fighters account for 1/3 of the planeset.
German fighters account for 1/4 of the planeset.
RAF at 13 is just under 1/4 of fighters available.
Russian and Japanese have 1/15th each.
And you want another German plane? I think the Russian, Japanese, and Italian sets need it much much worse.
And I'd love to see more emphasis on early and midwar planes.
Not that it wouldn't be used, or enjoyed, just that I think we need to look at where the biggest gaps are in the planeset.
While I don't think we'll be seeing A-9 any time soon you really can't compare a plane which basically has the art and most of the flight model done to a work load it takes to do a completely new fighter from scratch. But, yes hopefully we'll be seeing Japanese, Russian and Italian aircraft during the next year or so. :)
-
Yes, the Germans have multiple variations upon the theme of 109 and 190, as well as the perked jet and the perked pocket-rocket. Unfortunately, these variations do not include a 190A anyone but a masochist willingly flies in the LW MA. :devil
The Russians have 4 fighters yes, but 3 of those are among the most competitive fighters in the LW MA, period. The same is clearly true for the Japanese N1K and Ki-84. The Zero is not a performer by LW standards but you can't call the best turning fighter in the game non-competitive either.
Early and Midwar planes you say? Well, I'd almost rather see a fix for the 12mph too slow 190-A and/or give us a 190 A-6 than have an A-9 for my part.
Currently the German plane set has 15 variants of 61 total, just fighters, no bombers tallied.
US has the largest set at 20 of 61.
Japanese and Russian each have 4 of 61.
So to break it down, US fighters account for 1/3 of the planeset.
German fighters account for 1/4 of the planeset.
RAF at 13 is just under 1/4 of fighters available.
Russian and Japanese have 1/15th each.
And you want another German plane? I think the Russian, Japanese, and Italian sets need it much much worse.
And I'd love to see more emphasis on early and midwar planes.
Not that it wouldn't be used, or enjoyed, just that I think we need to look at where the biggest gaps are in the planeset.
-
Given that an A9 wouldn't be a big deal in terms of development time/effort (correct me if I'm wrong), I don't see why it couldn't be all three instead of having to pick one over the rest - fixed A5/8, and A6 and A9 added. Unless there's some expensive time cost for any new or slightly different old plane to be run thru their virtual wind tunnel to compile the FM from.. But the A4, A6, A7 and A9 don't seem like really big projects on their own. Admittedly I have no idea how many of these add up to the same workload as one brand new plane.