Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Kweassa on December 12, 2001, 02:14:00 AM
-
Did anyone notice that the charts of 190A8 and 190F8 at Planes, Vehicles and Boats section are identical??
I've noticed some errors concerning infos about loadouts and etc. (ie. F4U-1D listed as armed with 20mm cannons), but I think this is the first time I've noticed two different planes have identical charts. (except of course, F4U-1D and F4U-1C)
What does this mean? Does this mean a) AH 190F8 and 190A8 performs the same, or b) wrong chart is up there??
Can anyone clarify? I definatelt don't think the speed and climb of A8 and F8 should be the same...
-
The A8 and F8 certainly don't perform the same in the game.
-
who is best for furrballs?, A8 or F8?.
I usually fly the d9 or f5, but never really tried a/f8 in a furrball
-
Either of them are bad news in a furball, they are not turners - you gotta have lots of alt, lots of speed, and don't turn. The A8 is pretty potent buff killer though.
-
Fw190A8 does good in places where isn't too many people, but still more than one on one fight.
Though, with advantage theres chance to go 1 on 1 in Fw190A8 against any plane and do couple bounces before forced to run away or try your luck in closer fight with the enemy.
If there isn't enough people around, it might mean you'll just get stuck in 1 on 1 fight and then reinforcements can be enemy sided - then you're in trouble.
If theres many people, it usually means theres those "hawks" at 20-25k floors, who might get fixated at you.
Since you can't really afford to fly above 20k in A8, theres more reasons to avoid those.
If its situation where your side is fightning around enemy field, then you have pretty good chances in A8.
Since you don't have to be afraid of "hawks" and theres fairly constant friendly force coming to the field.
One important thing to remember is to not go too low, where you can't dive to run.
Something like 3000-6000 feets... it can vary alot on situation around the area and terrain.
okey, theres some things that will keep A8 alive for while (assuming he don't need to be told how to fight the fights :))
..with the experience of 278 kills without deaths.
-
What I wonder is if the charts for the 190s are correct at this point. I seem to notice these small errors (such as the F8 and A8 charts being the same..) and getting suspicious about it. Combine it with posts of 190A-5 sea-level speed charts RAM posted and.. well.. I'm sure it's not some sort of doofy anti-LW conspiracy, but it would be reassuring if somebody could clarify these things.
I own a little Korean AH site to help out Koreans new to AH, and I was putting up plane screenshots+little history+performance charts provided by AH.. now I'm not sure how much of those charts I can trust and put on.
Sort of dumbfounded now.. it's been sometime since I've pointed out other sorts of errors, such as the A6M5 listed with only one machine gun, or F4U-1D listed with 20mm cannons... but these stuff, which are so obviously wrong, still goes by uncorrected.
I'd really appreciate it if HTC took time to correct these matters. Small things count as much as the big things, and naturally, as a trusting customer, I expect the best.. both the game AND the web pages..
Sorry if this was a ranting.. :( I don't want to pressure anybody in HTC who are probably busy already.. :)
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Sorry if this was a ranting.. :( I don't want to pressure anybody in HTC who are probably busy already.. :)
Im sure they are ok with it :)
-
There is a common misconception that the F series and A series performed the same. They did not.
The FW-190F8 externally is no different from an FW-190A8 jabo-einsatz's (outboard cannon removed).
Internally there is a big difference. The F series is a speciallized ground attack varient. Internally if carries a lot more armour and speciallized ground attack systems. It also has extra drag from external hardpoints.
The F and G series just do not develop the performance the A series does in the air due to this weight and drag.
Crumpp
-
The F seemed to climb a tiny bit better than the A8 when I was playing around offline.
I usually don't fly the F-8 at all, so other than that I couldn't tell you much about the performance other than that I find it markedly poor, without the firepower to make up for it.
-
oh. :) :)
-
I usually don't fly the F-8 at all, so other than that I couldn't tell you much about the performance other than that I find it markedly poor, without the firepower to make up for it.
IMO the F8's performance is right on. Only thing I would suggest for HTC is to increase the variety of ordinance it could carry so it can have it's true capabilities.
Maybe more correctly model the "Grossebombenelectrik". This would give the pilot the ability to set fuse delays and drop patterns for up to eight weapons at a time.
As for the Antons, Pyro is going to redo the FM on them using Luftwaffe data.
Crumpp
-
is this the time to mention the timline of these posts :)
i dug it up from along time ago, but maybe they still apply :cool:
-
They do in regards to the F8.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
There is a common misconception that the F series and A series performed the same. They did not.
The FW-190F8 externally is no different from an FW-190A8 jabo-einsatz's (outboard cannon removed).
Internally there is a big difference. The F series is a speciallized ground attack varient. Internally if carries a lot more armour and speciallized ground attack systems. It also has extra drag from external hardpoints.
The F and G series just do not develop the performance the A series does in the air due to this weight and drag.
Crumpp
I agree Crumpp.
Also need the PANZERBLITZ rockets with AP & HE heads and the centerline rack that will carry the 4 small 110lbs bombs.
-
Agreed Jester,
the F8 usually configured with 8x 110lbs
Bombs (4x in a centerrack and 2x under
each wing). The G variants usually have
the bigger 250 or 500 bombs we can load
in AH.
The Panzerblitz are 3 to 4 rockets mount
on each wing with AP /HE load to kill tanks.
We need it in addition to the Soviet
IL2 Sturmovik for scenarios.
-
I want to see the AB500/250 with SD-4 HEAT bomblets!!
Tanks in the open = PanzerPanik!!
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1103459934_ab250.jpg)
Weapons used by the 190 Series:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1103459883_190waffen.jpg)
Crumpp
-
Wow very nice :aok
I want all these loadouts for the 190 :D
-
The F series is a speciallized ground attack varient. Internally if carries a lot more armour and speciallized ground attack systems. It also has extra drag from external hardpoints
Only later production F-8s had the extra armor removed. We had this discussion before Crumpp. I posted diagrams with weight break of FW 190F-8 armor.
Early production F-8s had additional armor (same as the F-3). To reduce weight the additional armor was dropped from production.
On the underside of the engine starting from the oil cooler armored ring moving aft to under the engine, pilot seat and ending under the aft fuel tank ran either 5 or 6mm plate. Along the engine area it "wrapped" up a bit on the sides. Other then that it had the same armor as the non-Sturmbock FW 190A-8.
The FW 190F-8 is my most favorite plane of World War 2 flew it quite a bit in AH over the Antons.
Here's an account a FW 190 pilot, Hauptmann Erhard Jähnert Staffelkapitän of 2./Schlachtgeschwader 3, recounting his 599th mission flying a FW 190F-8 over of the Kurland Bridgehead:
On 16 February 1945, I attacked enemy armor in my Focke Wolf 190. It had already gotten quite close to our main line of resistance in foggy weather about 10 kilometers southeast of Tukkum.
Three of my comrades closed up with me when I designated the target. We dove on the group of armor and fired our rockets. I was fortunate enough to knock out three enemy tanks in three passes. Three more were crippled by my comrades. Since I expended my rockets, I tried to destroy the remaining tanks, which had already turned back, with my on-board weapons. In the process my aircraft took one or two hits in the lubrication system and also in the compass connections.
Orientation was no longer possible. Vision forward was prevented by the oil film that built up on the front windshield. The cockpit canopy was also stuck, so I sat in my aircraft as if I were in a coffin.
When the engine oil ran out and the engine temperature rose, I had to make an emergency landing. I could only see to the rear, so, with a “look back” I landed on an open field near an abandoned artillery position about 30 meters from a farmstead and 80 meters from a high-tension electric line.
I am certain that my landing rates as a most extraordinary piece of good luck in aviation.
I had neither pistol nor identification with me. When I saw several soldiers in camouflage parkas draw near I grabbed the flare pistol from the cockpit and waited.
Again my luck held. They were Latvians from one of the two Latvian Waffen-SS divisions. They took me to their battalion command post.
I was well received in the grenadiers’ bunker and fed. Soon I was driven back to my airfield.
Incidentally, Erhard Jähnert received the knights cross on 18 May 1943 as a Leutnant flying Stukas while attached to Stukageschwader 4.
Later as Staffelkapitän of 9./Stukageschwader 2, he took part in that squadrons greatest success when it sank 3 soviet destroyers in the Black Sea south of the Crimea.
He was later removed from combat duty and assigned as an instructor. In the fall of 1944 at his own personal request he was transferred to the Kurland Bridgehead and made Staffelkapitän of 2./Schlachtgeschwader 3.
He destroyed 25 Soviet tanks while flying the FW 190F-8 over Kurland. On the day of surrender he took what passengers he could and flew out of Kurland and landed at Flensburg. He was put up for the oak leaves but in the hectic days just prior to German capitulation the award never went through.
While the load out chart that Crumpp posted shows the load outs for the entire 190A / F and G series not all those load out saw operational service. PB rockets were rare and never part of a 'standard load out option'.
The load out for the F-8 is same load out as carried by the F-8 in FB/AEP/PF and is the standard load out for the F8 variant we have in AH. I would love to see rockets (be they PB or others) modeled for the F-8, and along time ago Pyro indicated he would was considering modelling them as well. However, let's not pretend that PB's or rockets were a standard or even an 'important' load out that is missing for the F-8. They maybe more important in terms of an internet game like AH but not in the context of history.
If anything a larger array of bomb types would be more 'appropriate' or 'common' then the more rare PB rockets.
Performance wise the A-8 and the F-8 are indentical in AH and should be.
They are basiaclly the same plane:
AH Normal loaded weight:
F8 weight 9849 lbs.
A8 weight 9682 lbs.
In FB/PF/AEP (according to the object viewer:
FB take off weight:
F8 4,150 kg, 4270 (9414 lbs) with the 115-liter interanl tank
A8 4,250 kg, 4,360 kg (9612 lbs) with the 115-liter internal tank
-
Only later production F-8s had the extra armor removed. We had this discussion before Crumpp. I posted diagrams with weight break of FW 190F-8 armor.
You need to post that again. The FW-190F8 had the extra armour.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1103468522_190f8armour2.jpg)
Some sights on the internet have taken the statement:
"Was indistinguishable from the FW-190A8" and taken it to mean it was the same plane.
It was not.
Early production F-8s had additional armor (same as the F-3). To reduce weight the additional armor was dropped from production.
Now some late war FW-190F8's were converted back to A8 standards. This is the case with "White 1". The Armour was removed as well as the Grossebombenelectrik. This was not a factory modification.
It is very possible that some of the new built FW-190F8's late war were made to A8 standard. These were ground attack varients in name only. Just like White 1, they were intended to supplement the fighters and fulfill the fighter role.
They would have had the universal wing with the outboard cannon bulges, no belly armour, and no Grossebombenelectrik.
There is nothing out there I have found, with the exception of a few internet sites, that say anything about the F8 armour being removed on the production line. The Luftwaffe documentation I have denotes the additional armour as part of the varient, list production dates, and design changes, but lists nothing about removing the extra armour from production series.
Crumpp
-
The side plates were removed from SG3 and SG4 in kurland, they flew ground attack exclusively. Pilot accounts state the F-8 coming from the factory were without the added armor and noted the comparison with the older F8s and the few F-3s they had.
So no the later production F8s, without added armor, were not just 'F-8s in name only'.
In fact the F-8 data as used by Oleg in FB (take off weight; no bombs) the F-8 is slightly lighter the A-8 due to the removal of the out board cannons.
FYI,
JG 5 did fly ground attack missions. 13./JG 5 (White1 W.Nr. 931 862 originated in 13./JG 5 before being re-assigned to 9./JG 5).They flew out of Petsamo in aid of German ground forces. After Germans were expelled from Finland there was no reason (except anti-shipping) for ground attack missions.
You can read about that here:
http://www.white1foundation.org/white1_history2.htm
IV./JG 5 had a collection of aircrafts form G-6s and G-2 to A-3s and A-8s and F-8s. At one point (see 8.44 in the link below) they were using 109Ts etc...
Folow the link below:
http://www.ww2.dk./oob/bestand/jagd/bivjg5.html
JG 5 was a back water and received what aircraft that could be spared and these would be pressed into in service be it in the fighter role, anti-shipping or ground attack as the situation required..
-
I will have to dig through discs to find the F-8 armor diagrams I don't seem have it on my HD any more. I am sure I saved umm...
-
The side plates were removed from SG3 and SG4 in kurland, they flew ground attack exclusively. Pilot accounts state the F-8 coming from the factory were without the added armor and noted the comparison with the older F8s and the few F-3s they had.
All Geschwader level mods, Wotan. That does not mean it is not applicable in AH.
Additionally they removed only the SIDE Plates. A smart mod IMO if you had to remove some armour. They did not remove the belly armour.
Now the Pilot anecdotes may or may not point to the factory removing the armour. Did you hear this first hand?
Are they the ones picking the Aircraft up from the factory or depot?
There is no way to know and although I very much believe the pilots' sincerity, mistakes are common.
Again, according to the Luftwaffe documentation I have does not show the armour was officially removed.
JG 5 did fly ground attack missions. 13./JG 5 (White1 W.Nr. 931 862 originated in 13./JG 5 before being re-assigned to 9./JG 5).They flew out of Petsamo in aid of German ground forces. After Germans were expelled from Finland there was no reason (except anti-shipping) for ground attack missions.
Yes I know. I am the Membership Director for the White 1 Foundation.
JG 5 is a poor example for intended use of the FW-190 for just the reasons you state. There where many "non-doctrinal" modifications and uses of equipment in the Luftwaffe and it is very easy to support almost any argument.
Going by Luftwaffe doctrine and official modifications then my information is correct.
What occurred in the field is not always going to reflect this just as many Western Militaries do not follow their own doctrine to the letter today. Which supports your argument.
Crumpp
-
That is an early production F-8 you posted the armour diagram for Crumpp.
quote: "Just like White 1, they were intended to supplement the fighters and fulfill the fighter role."
We can now add some more 190s to that 15,000.:)
Since you like to use einsatz so much, you can use Kraft-Eier instead of "power-egg".
-
Milo says:
That is an early production F-8 you posted the armour diagram for Crumpp.
You made the statement, Milo. Prove it.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
You made the statement, Milo. Prove it.
Crumpp
Your the 190 expert:rolleyes: Crumpp, so it should be no problem for you to know why.:) It is very obvious.:aok
-
That is an early production F-8 you posted the armour diagram for Crumpp.
I have stated what I know based on original documentation, Milo.
Pick yourself up a copy of:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1103474334_pursuit190.jpg)
It cover the F varients under the "Assault Ship" enclosures. The document is a translation of a Luftwaffe document detailing all the design changes, production dates, service dates, etc.. for each varient of the FW-190 thru the Ta-152. You can find it in Wright Pattersons Archives.
Now back up your statement. Show us this is just an early production F8. Your full of it, Milo. The FW-190F16 was produced with the armour so why would the F8 suddenly lose it? And yes, over 760 F16's were delivered before the war's end.
Crumpp
-
So much for you being the Fw190 expert Crumpp.:rofl
Then, there is the outer Mg151/20s in your illustration.:eek:
To help you, compare
(http://users.cybercity.dk/~dko4098/0405454.JPG)
and
(http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/images/fw190f8cs_9.jpg)
Got any W.Nr. for those F-16s?
-
Then, there is the outer Mg151/20s in your illustration.
What are doing here?? Your losing it, Milo.
The illustrations come out of Alfred Price's book. They are based on the ones in the manual which does not show the wings. Now the armour is accurate. If you have an issue with Price because his generic drawing to illustrate the armour includes outer MG's take it up with him.
Got any W.Nr. for those F-16s?
Yep.
Crumpp
-
They did not remove the belly armour.
Now re-read what I wrote and tell me exactly what I said about the 'belly armor':
Here I will quote if or you:
On the underside of the engine starting from the oil cooler armored ring moving aft to under the engine, pilot seat and ending under the aft fuel tank ran either 5 or 6mm plate. Along the engine area it "wrapped" up a bit on the sides. Other then that it had the same armor as the non-Sturmbock FW 190A-8.
I also said that the 'cockpit' err side plates were not installed during production, not that they were removed in the field (at least according to SG3):
The side plates were removed from SG3 and SG4 in kurland, they flew ground attack exclusively. Pilot accounts state the F-8 coming from the factory were without the added armor and noted the comparison with the older F8s and the few F-3s they had.
I said all along that the only added armor the F-8 had beyond the A-8 was underside plate.
If you are the membership directory for white 1 then they must be desperate. The last time we had this discussion you hadn't even heard of umm...
But whatever you used white 1 as an example of an F8 that wasn't 'really an F8' (at least in the context of ground attack).
I just pointed out the unique situation JG5 was in and because white 1 flew regular fighter missions doesn't mean that all F-8s with out side armor were there to supplement fighter strength.
just like White 1, they were intended to supplement the fighters and fulfill the fighter role.
In Kurland they didn't...
-
The side plates were removed from SG3 and SG4 in kurland, they flew ground attack exclusively.
Exactly, as you wrote it sounds like a Geschwader level modification.
Pilot accounts state the F-8 coming from the factory were without the added armor and noted the comparison with the older F8s and the few F-3s they had.
Sounds like Anecdotal evidence that all the extra armour was not added at the factory.
Your post was not as clear as you think it was when you wrote it, Wotan.
So to recap.
Now it stands that only the side plates were removed at the factory according to the anecdotal evidence?
And these were not used as fighters?
Is that correct? We obviously have to nail down the problem before we can discuss it.
Because the discussion was NOT about just the side armour plates, it was about the EXTRA armour period.
Wotan says:
Only later production F-8s had the extra armor removed. We had this discussion before Crumpp. I posted diagrams with weight break of FW 190F-8 armor.Early production F-8s had additional armor (same as the F-3). To reduce weight the additional armor was dropped from production.
Which is NOT the same as:
Wotan:
I just pointed out the unique situation JG5 was in and because white 1 flew regular fighter missions doesn't mean that all F-8s without side armor were there to supplement fighter strength.
White 1 had ALL of it's extra armour removed.
If you are the membership directory for white 1 then they must be desperate. The last time we had this discussion you hadn't even heard of umm...
Nice Cheap Shot. Running out of facts?
We had this discussion a LONG time ago. Before I spent a lot of money, time, and effort in research, traveling to various archives, interviewing Luftwaffe personnel, and writing a book. Things are obviously different now.
Crumpp
-
Me losing it?:rofl :rofl You were the one that posted the bogus illustration without noting that the outer MG151/20s should not be in the illustration.
It is you, the Fw190 expert:rolleyes:, Crumpp that needs to get a new pair of 'coke bottle' glasses. Even with 2 photos posted you still can't see the difference. Hint, it has nothing to do with the armour fitted.
The F-8, White 7, of the Smithsonion shows no indication that the external side armour was ever fitted.
So if you have the W.Nr. why did you not post them? They must have produced those F-16s like so many hot cakes for F-16 production was not to start til March 1945 by Dornier.
Wotan, your post was VERY clear. It was only Crumpp that it was not clear for.:eek: Crumpp expects us to believe his anecdotal evidence, but sluffs off the anecdotal evidence of others.:rolleyes:
-
he F-8, White 7, of the Smithsonion shows no indication that the external side armour was ever fitted.
The side armour is internal on the F series Milo.
On the R7/R8 it is external. Hence the "Rustsatz's" designation. It was kit you put on an FW-190A8 fighter NOT a factory produced varient like the F series.
So if you have the W.Nr. why did you not post them? They must have produced those F-16s like so many hot cakes for F-16 production was not to start til March 1945 by Dornier.
Exactly. Dornier is a subcontractor of Focke Wulf. If you want to know the WNr. and production runs at which factory then buy the book. NDW is listed has having their first delivery scheduled for April '45. Production began in December '44 at the first factory contracted. Dornier was not the first.
Crumpp expects us to believe his anecdotal evidence
Please point that out.
Never have I claimed anecdotal evidence is the "end all". Once again you have opened your mouth without facts and made stupid assumptions.
It is evidence and certainly weighs in the absence of documentation. In this case though there is documentation.
Why don't you stop with the childishness and simply post the evidence of your original contention.
Milo says:
That is an early production F-8 you posted the armour diagram for Crumpp.
Post the evidence and two things will happen:
1. We will all learn something, as the documentation does not support the "early" production theory that has evolved from misquoted original statements on Internet sites.
2. You will have been proven right and gain a measure of credibility.
Crumpp
-
I can't help it if you are not bright enough to see the difference between early and late production F-8s Crumpp.:aok Take your horse blinders off. Actually it is you that is loosing credibility by not noticing the obvious difference, oh 190 expert:rolleyes:.
At what factory did production begin in Dec 1944? Afraid to state it? Bookie, who I consider an expert on the Fw190, lists no Fw190F-16 W.Nr on his very comprehensive Fw190 web site.
Do you mean your book? Nope, will copy what I want from it at the library.
Being internal, proves what Wotan says about the side plates not being installed at the factory. It would be major undertaking to remove them in the field. No doubt you will claim it was only just a 5 minute job.
-
At what factory did production begin in Dec 1944? Afraid to state it? Bookie, who I consider an expert on the Fw190, lists no Fw190F-16 W.Nr on his very comprehensive Fw190 web site.
Bookie does have an excellent site. You will notice the disclaimer at the top of his WNr. Page.
I will jet him the Werknummers when I publish the book.
Being internal, proves what Wotan says about the side plates not being installed at the factory. It would be major undertaking to remove them in the field.
They take the fuel tanks out at the Geschwader. In fact the Luftwaffe ground crews were very good. I have the minutes from one meeting where they are complaining about having to modify the ETC 501 racks in an open field in Russia. Took them 6 hours to mount bombs because they did not have the correct length bolts supplied in the kits.
It would not be that hard to remove the armour.
Here is some F series pilot anecdotes:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1103487524_eastjabotext.jpg)
Crumpp
-
Take the fuel tanks out??? The fuel tank compartment was closed off from the cockpit by the cockpit floor, that was riveted to the fuselage sides. Lets be more detailed on the removal of the side armour.
We can only conclude you have your shovel out, again, since you are being Scrooge. Then there is the question of why more reputable Fw190 historians than you, have not found any F-16 production.
Tell me why if sorties only lasted 1/2 hour did they need the 'excess baggage' of the 115l tank you have claimed they needed? There was lots of fuel in the main tanks, even when using C-3 boost.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Take the fuel tanks out??? The fuel tank compartment was closed off from the cockpit by the cockpit floor, that was riveted to the fuselage sides. Lets be more detailed on the removal of the side armour.
Fromwhat I saw it might acually be pretty simple to remove the main fuel tanks, the ones under the cockpit, by taking them out from beneth the aircraft. All you have to do is remove a single big panel. The tanks are above it and I belive held on to the plane by straps..
-
Yes, for sure, GRUNHERZ, but it is the side armour removal that is being discussed.
Yes, I already stated the tanks were held in by straps. Though I did make an error, the forward tank was also held in by 4 straps, not 2 (2 going across and 2 going fore/aft).
-
We can only conclude you have your shovel out, again, since you are being Scrooge. Then there is the question of why more reputable Fw190 historians than you, have not found any F-16 production.
Oh but they have Milo. Just not on this side of the pond. Over here we still think all FW-190's are the same and are powered by the same motor.
it is the side armour removal that is being discussed.
What would be hard about it Milo? Compared to say..Changing an engine? Or removing the main fuel tanks? Both are basic maintenance task's.
Are you saying that Luftwaffe ground crew were not capable of servicing their aircraft?
You seem to think field mods are impossible. Look at Pappy Gun's work.
In fact it is not even an issue except in your mind. JG 5 removed all the armour from White 1 and the "Grossebombenelectrik".
As for the cockpit on the 190. It could be stripped very quickly. Examine this side console. Notice the PLUGS and tabs for the latches on it? It popped out with spring loaded latches like a tool box and the entire wiring harness connected with few plugs. Niether a difficult nor time consuming task.
http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/console_2a.jpg
http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/console_2b.jpg
And here is the Zusatzbehalter in Rumpf:
http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/Zusatzbehalter_MW502.jpg
The one you keep claiming was an impossible task to remove as well.
Crumpp
-
You sure have trouble with English Crumpp.
"The one you keep claiming was an impossible task to remove as well."
I NEVER said the tank was impossible to remove, only that the oxygen spheres would make it more difficult than what you claim it was.:rolleyes: You have yet to describe how the tank went by the oxygen spheres, partially blocking the hatch opening, easily. You should also note the the spheres were monted on a bracket that were further inboard than the outside edge of the hatch.
Again, having trouble with English Crumpp? :eek:
"Are you saying that Luftwaffe ground crew were not capable of servicing their aircraft?"
"You seem to think field mods are impossible."
Get a grip Crumpp. You sure read 'the nothing' between the lines. :rolleyes:
Make up your mind Crumpp. First you say the side armour was removed through the fuel tank compartment and now you say it could easily(???) be removed through the cockpit. Another indication you don't know wether you are coming or going.:eek: Then there is the question of how the armour that went from the frame behind the instrument panel to the line at the back of the seat was lifted out. The word major was used in comparison to your claim the 115l was easily removed.
You are in a London fog on the procedure for removing the side armour.
Where does it say the side armour was removed by JG 5? Maybe I missed it your diarreha.
BTW, where does Rodieke, Wagner and Prien, to name some, live? Their books were first published in German since they are German.
-
First you say the side armour was removed through the fuel tank compartment and now you say it could easily(???) be removed through the cockpit.
Just point out where I said that it came out the fuel tank compartment please??
Where does it say the side armour was removed by JG 5? Maybe I missed it your diarreha.
You missed it because you do not read what others write.
Why do you digress to name calling Milo? Can't handle facts?
You can throw all the smiley faces you want in your post's. Does not change the fact your wrong.
You have yet to describe how the tank went by the oxygen spheres, partially blocking the hatch opening, easily. You should also note the the spheres were monted on a bracket that were further inboard than the outside edge of the hatch.
I said it does not mention having to remove them in the Flugzeug-handbuch and the guys who removed the tank at White 1 do not remember having to remove them either.
And you do not Milo. The cylinders are mounted with quick release buckles, two per bank. Pop those and the bracket clips into the section span. Lift it up and move it and set the O2 clylinders out of the way (the line is flexible and still attached). Remove the Aux tank. That is if you have the rubber coated self sealing sleeve. The bare metal just slides right out.
About as complicated as mounting the ETC 501 rack and removing the doors.
Crumpp
-
Lets see Crumpp.
I said:
"Being internal, proves what Wotan says about the side plates not being installed at the factory."
You come back with:
"They take the fuel tanks out at the Geschwader." .... snip ...... "It would not be that hard to remove the armour."
What other conclusion can be reached? Or, is this another case of your inability with English?
Name calling??? You are dreaming Crumpp.
"White 1 had ALL of it's extra armour removed."
But, White 1 says 'it thus spent a considerable time at Anklam awaiting it allocation to an operational unit' so the armour could have been removed before going to JG 5. Pure conjecture on your part that JG 5 removed the armour. White 1 seems to have been used more as a fighter than a 'jabo'. JG 5 was a fighter unit so the armour could have been removed at the depot.
Oh I would not mention not reading what others write. You are a prime example of that.
LOL, finally, after how many post, you give some sort of description. Now, was that so hard to do? Why did it take you so long?:eek:
"And you do not Milo." what?
Figured out why your illustration is of an early F-8 yet?
-
"They take the fuel tanks out at the Geschwader." .... snip ...... "It would not be that hard to remove the armour."
You claim this is easily confused yet Wotan post was crystal clear?
I say you just have a hard on for me. You show up in every thread I post in and no matter what I post, you dispute it.
But, White 1 says 'it thus spent a considerable time at Anklam awaiting it allocation to an operational unit' so the armour could have been removed before going to JG 5. Pure conjecture on your part that JG 5 removed the armour. White 1 seems to have been used more as a fighter than a 'jabo'. JG 5 was a fighter unit so the armour could have been removed at the depot.
And a great piece of conjecture on YOUR part. Which you seem to have NO trouble laying before us!
Except for couple of things Milo.
1. White 1's pilot....
2. White 1's pilot....
You can throw all the smiley faces you want in your post's. Does not change the fact your wrong.
LOL, finally, after how many post, you give some sort of description. Now, was that so hard to do? Why did it take you so long?
You had the BBS version of a tantrum over it.
You did not ask for a description Milo. Had you done that I would have immediately responded. If I did not know I would have found out for you.
Instead you attacked and said I was wrong. You claim it was impossible for them to remove the tank mission by mission.
1. First argument you used was that it not removable.
2. Then you claimed it was not an optional piece of equipment for the unit/pilot. Since it was factory installed, it had to stay.
3. Then you said the O2 made it impossible to take out or was some massive obstacle.
Do I need to link to the other threads you have chased me around the BBS over this?
In one of them I even translated the Flugzeug-Handbuch for you!
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
You had the BBS version of a tantrum over it.
You did not ask for a description Milo. Had you done that I would have immediately responded. If I did not know I would have found out for you.
Instead you attacked and said I was wrong. You claim it was impossible for them to remove the tank mission by mission.
1. First argument you used was that it not removable.
2. Then you claimed it was not an optional piece of equipment for the unit/pilot. Since it was factory installed, it had to stay.
3. Then you said the O2 made it impossible to take out or was some massive obstacle.
Crumpp
Tantrum??? More of Crumpp's vivid imagination. Don't come down on me for your inabilities.
1. I never said it was not removable.
If it was not removable, then if it had been damaged it would be excess bagage. Common sense says it has to be removable, never mind that a hole was cut in the bottom of the fuselage. A rather dumb thing to do if it was not removable.
2. I never said it had to stay in the a/c.
I only questioned the multitude of removals/insertions you claimed. You even changed your story on who gave the order. You have yet to supply a mission profile for when and when it not would be in the a/c or if some JGs did it more than others.
3. I never said the oxygen bottles made it impossible to remove or a massive obstacle.
I said the placement of the oxygen spheres would make it difficult to remove and then asked how the tank got past the spheres. But then your were not bright enough to supply a description in the first place, were you?
And he is writing a book? Have you found a professional writer for your book yet? You require one.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
You claim this is easily confused yet Wotan post was crystal clear?
Crumpp
quote:"They take the fuel tanks out at the Geschwader." .... snip ...... "It would not be that hard to remove the armour."
Why did you mention fuel tanks and then side armour in the same statement? Was fuel tanks part of the discussion about the side armour?
Wotan is very clear in what he says, unlike you, who meanders all over the place.
-
There's no doubt that at the Geschwader and Gruppe level modifications were made to their aircraft but none of these modifications equate to 'standard'.
Of course the 115l tank was sometimes removed, The the Soviets captured a lightened FW 190A-8 (W.-Nr. 580967) that weighed in at just 3986 kg as compared to the 4300kg normal take off weight.
The NASM F-8 was converted from a damaged A-7 to early F-8 production standards:
From this page:
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/focke_190f.htm
The NASM FW 190 left the production line in late 1943 as a FW 190A-7 fighter. After suffering damage during operations it was repaired and remanufactured into an FW 190F-8 fighter bomber. The conversion involved fitting a new wing and bomb racks to the original fuselage and adding armor plate around and beneath the cockpit. Reissued to the Luftwaffe, the aircraft flew on the Eastern Front during late 1944, probably on strength with SG 2 (Schlachtgeschwader or Ground Attack Wing 2) based in Hungary.
However, later production F-8s left out that "added armor plate around the cockpit".
Pilots flying F-8's in Kurland (From SG3 and some SG4) stated there was a difference in the early F-3s and F-8s which still had the armor and early canopy and the later F-8's they got as replacements. In fact 10.(PZ)/SG 3 who traded their Ju-87G's in for F-8's late in the war (late '44) also say that the only 'extra armor was the plates underneath the engine and fuel tanks.
If Crumpp is the community director for the White 1 foundation then he should be able to ask if White 1 had the cockpit armor and find out for himself.
But the only point I care to discuss is what constitutes 'standard'. Early F-8s had the added cockpit armor as standard, later variants did not. Later F-8's with out the added cockpit armor where not just fighters with an F-8 designation.
-
Later F-8's with out the added cockpit armor where not just fighters with an F-8 designation.
Good Post Wotan.
Do you have documentation directing the factory to remove the side armour?
I have documentation saying the armour was left exactly as the FW-190F3 throughout the FW-190F series. They all say it:
Armour as per FW-190F3.
You have pilot anecdotes that some of the F8's had the side armour removed. I have anecdotes that the F8 pilot loved the side armour.
Serious question:
What sense does it make for the factory to remove the side armour in a dedicated ground attack platform?
I don't think there is an "early production vs. late production" according to the Luftwaffe.
As for the claim of "F8 in name only". It was clear in my post that this is a speculation and I tend to agree with you Wotan on this. Since I don't discount pilot anecdotes this seemed the best explanation given the shortage of fighters and your evidence.
Crumpp says:
It is very possible that some of the new built FW-190F8's late war were made to A8 standard.
Until documentation surfaces showing otherwise, the whole "early/late" F8 production looks like an Internet revision of History to me.
Now for Milo's tantrum:
Milo says:
I never said it was not removable.
Milo says:
2. I never said it had to stay in the a/c.
BS. You even quoted the Luftwaffe technical description ordering the 115 liter tank to be included with the delivery of the aircraft as proof it was not removable!!
Milo says:
Crumpp, if you were not so pig headed, you would have noticed that Technical Desription No 284 is dated Nov 1944 while your D.(Luft) T. 2190 A-7 bis A-9 is dated Stand, Marz June 1944, Ausgabe, Juni 1944. The TD 284 is in the D.(Luft) T. 2190 A-8, dated Effective July 1944, Issued Sept 1944.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/defaultframe.html
Milo says:
The Fw TD 284 of Nov 44 lists the aux tank, not as an option, but as a standard fit. Do you see any 190s with the /R5? This is the R for the aux tank.
Then when Butch2K chimed in:
Butch2K says:
The tank was absolutly not optional and could not be removed after being installed. As a matter of fact i own the factory drawings covering the additions of this tank to an aircraft while on the construction line.
Then Milo says:
Glad to see that you say the aux tank is not removable in the Ta152. That section of fuselage is the same as on the Fw190As and Ds.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/defaultframe.html
So there we have it.
Crumpp
-
What would be hard about it Milo? Compared to say..Changing an engine? Or removing the main fuel tanks? Both are basic maintenance task's.
Because you did not read this sentence earlier in the thread, Milo.
You launched off on a side tangent because of your confusion at any further reference to other much more difficult maintenance tasks the Luftwaffe Geschwader routinely performed.
"They take the fuel tanks out at the Geschwader." .... snip ...... "It would not be that hard to remove the armour."
Why did you mention fuel tanks and then side armour in the same statement? Was fuel tanks part of the discussion about the side armour?
Wotan is very clear in what he says, unlike you, who meanders all over the place.
If you would read what people post it would eliminate this kind of confusion.
Crumpp
-
Just an observation, from someone who has no stake in this argument.........
In the time I have spent reading posts on this board, under this name and under others, I have had the opportunity to read many posts from both Crumpp and Wotan on many issues. Several FW 190 threads have come and gone, and I always find both of them to be knowledgable and polite, and almost always have references to back up what they have to say.
I never saw that Crumpp really disagreed with Wotan's post, he merely asked for something more than pilot statements to back it up. A pilot writing that the factory made a change to a series of planes (in this case the F-8 variant), and actual factory specifications stating a change was made are two very different things. I think that is all Crumpp was trying to say.
As for Milo, you need medication. You confused posts from different people, exagerrated statements and then denied responsibility when people were led to obvious conclusions of what you meant to say, resorted to name calling and character attacks when your opponent remained calm and polite, and as a topper have not quoted even one source to back up your statements.
I will not say I have never disagreed with a statement Crumpp has posted about the FW 190. However, I admit that the majority of my "knowledge" is secondhand, and questionable in its origins, while Crumpp almost always has data to back up his statements, often from more than one source. I respect that he takes the time to look up those sources and put them in his post.
Milo, perhaps you should re-read all the posts in this thread by both Crumpp and Wotan. If you still havent learned anything about the topic by the end, maybe you will at least have an idea of how to act like an adult instead of a 12 year old ADD poster-child.
-
.with the experience of 278 kills without deaths.
I remember that run of yours when you would utilize your teamates as fodder only to scoop in for the kill while the enemy was fixated on your pawns... (Im going "fishu wtf are you doing engage.." only to get no response.. then i get banged on 3 to 1 while fishu comes in scoop them up.. BTW i survived but a harrowing experience to say the least..) (and note i wasn't looking for him to suicide himself just take a damn swipe at them.. but no... Ill wait until teamate is in trouble then proceed to attack as your SOP... muahaha"
I was there and I say false advertisement.... Still a good run.. but with fodder lemmings and limited plane set back then.. I would equate it to some of the old NFL records and the new league parity we have in the MA with la7 galore...
190 or any other plane can be used with great effect with lemming shield around it..
2 cents
DoctorYo
PS and you thought we might forget this.....
"Nevar forget....."
:aok
-
Just to confirm about the 115 liter tank being removed. Not only have I read the Flugzueg-Hanbuch instructions, interviewed pilots and ground crew none of which do mention having to remove the O2 tanks but Bob, our structure man, did not remember having to move them either. This conversation took place months ago and to confirm I asked Dr Timken again. Dr. Timken is a really great guy and I encourage anyone interested in the FW-190 to join the Foundation.
The O2 Tanks did not interfere with the removal of either tank at all.
I said it does not mention having to remove them in the Flugzeug-handbuch and the guys who removed the tank at White 1 do not remember having to remove them either.
Here is Dr Timken's answer:
============================
Well, you ask tough questions....
We have the tank and mounts. They are easy to remove. The tank is held in a halter with a typical German style steel strap...same as battery. These can be loosened in minutes.
The top has one screw on electric connection for fuel pump and I believe two hose connections. Another 10 minutes. Bottom Hatch on fuse ...a few minutes.
The O2 bottles seem pretty tucked in out of the way on the sides. I do not believe they would interfere at all. A vertical line from the edge of the fuselage opening would come nowhere near the bottles, or lines.
All the best,
Mark
============================
So consider this matter laid to rest. I have asked Milo to join the Foundation on numerous occasions so he could get answers to some of the "tough" questions on the FW-190. I have to wonder from his behavior if we would not be better without him.
Crumpp