Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: MANDOBLE on February 06, 2002, 07:36:30 AM
-
This would be a nice addition to the planeset.
Better armoured than 190A8, same weapon options, more powerful engine (BMW 801TS 2000 hp) and a 190F8 style canopy.
Looking at the pictures, 190A9 seems identical to the 190F8, so the 3D modeling work is already mainly done.
-
Never proceded past the prototype stage.
The A-9 was designed to be a bomber-interceptor, thus it was up-armored and had a max t/o weight of 9.7k lbs.
-
JG300 used it as well as 190A8. Thas was with the TS engine, the one that never passed prototype stage was the original design with a even more powerful engine (about 2450 Hp) and the 190A10 (using same engine). The production began in autumm 1944.
No idea about production numbers, but much more than a single prototype by sure.
-
I'd rather see a Fw190A-1, Bf109G-6 with MW50 and/or a Spitfire F.Mk XIVc. I think both of those would fill more significant gaps than the Fw190A-9.
An Fw190A-1 would be very nice for the CT as it would allow a proper Fw190 in 1941 scenarios. The Fw190A-1 would give pretty good coverage of the Fw190 series in AH, start (Fw190A-1) to finish (Ta152H-1).
The Bf109G-6 with MW50 would fill in a performance gap in the AH Bf109 series representation. There gap between the Bf109G-2 and Bf109G-10. We have a Bf109G-6, but without MW50 boost it is not as good against fighters as the Bf109G-2.
The Spitfire F.Mk XIVc would give a late war Spitfire that would, although perked, be useful for 1944/45 scenarios in the CT and give Spitfire fans something to spend perks on to get 1944 performance.
-
Yeah, I would want a 109G6/ASM before any 190A9, or A1... it would simply be a much more useful MA aircraft, and since that's where all the fussin' and a fightin' is...
-
Oh ok, I looked it up more thoroughly, 2 or 3 were MAYBE built.
According to "The History of German Aviation: KURT TANK: FOCK-WULF'S DESIGNER AND TEST PILOT" by Wolfgang Wagner ©1998 Schiffer Publishing,
"A series of prototypes were made available for testing the new Fw 190A-9 series and its more powerful, improved BMW 801 engine. These included V34(410230, V 35(816, BMW 801TU), V36, V72(170727, BMW 801TS), V73(733705) and V74(733713). Work on these aircraft had been completed by September 1944. Neither the BMW 801TS, 801TU nor the 801TH were equipped with exhause turbochargers, as has often been erroneously assumed, but was initially planned to utilize the BMW 801F for the A-9, but this engine was not completed until the final days of the war--and even then only a single example was available. The TS, TU and TH engine were completely interchangeable with theand could be swapped with the BMW 801D. Performance had increased to 1470kw/2000hp for take off and ermgency power at 2700 rpm, 1.65 atas boost pressure at fuel consumption rate of 290g/hp/hr. The motor evidenced changes to the oil cooler, plus the armor for the cooler and oil tank had been increased to 10 and 6mm, respectively. The exhause system also now made use of single pipes."
"Production of the Fw 190A-9 was to have begun in Septemeber/October 1944. Two versions were planned: and A-9/R11 with the TS engine for all-weather combat and an A-9/R8, also with the TS, as a Sturm-jeager with thicker armor. It cannnot be determined with certainty wether the A-9 ever entered full scale production in any great numbers. According to Focke-Wulf documents, a specific deadline had been set for production to begin. In additiion to the previously mentioned conversion kits, it was also planned to have the airplane make use of the R1, R2, R3 and R12. However, RLM files covering actual production numbers make no mention of the A-9. It is just as likely that production was dropped in favor of the F-series, particularly since the anticipated BMW 801F never materialized and the BMW TS and Tu enginse were only delivered in small quanitities."
The BMW801TS/TU or TH wre deliberatly laid out as interim stages toward the planned 801F. The BMW 801TS caused many accidents in its early operational stages because the Kommandogeraet's servo valve often became stuck; as a result, the engine would not respond when throttle was applied on landing approach or during missed approaches. A provisiional solution to this aggravating tendency was the fitting of a so-called "primer" which the pilot could pull it such cases.
The single BMW 801F was installed in an aircraft during the last days of the war for testing purposes. It had been designed as a replacement for the 801D and attained an output of 1764 kw/2400hp.
-
What Nath said.
-
Nath hit the nail on the head.........NOPE to the A9 is my vote.
-
"particularly since the anticipated BMW 801F never materialized and the BMW TS and Tu enginse were only delivered in small quanitities."
AFAIK, the TS version (not T) was used only by 190A9 and 190F9, if these "small numbers" are only 2 or 3 units, then you probably are right. If the "small numbers" are 100 or more units, then we are talking about some level or real production.
Also
"The BMW 801TS caused many accidents "
One per 190A9/F9? How much are "many"?
The 190A9 equipped with 801F was certainly a single prototype and the proposed 190A with 801F as standar engine was designed 190A10 (only in drawing boards).
-
What Karnak said seems much practical and needed
-
Originally posted by eddiek
Nath hit the nail on the head.........NOPE to the A9 is my vote.
LOL that source could have said that 10,000 were built and you would have still said no.
I agree with Karnak, those are better choices to fill in the planeset.
-
karnak is on the money.........
-
the A9 was definitivly build in greater quantity than 2-3 planes.
The squad history of JG301/302 "Wilde Sau" list many lost A9 Typ FW.
I think the quantity can be in the range of 150-250 aircraft build.
But anyway, i think there are better additions to the planeset.
I still vote the FW 190 D13 Yellow 10
-
Looking at plane strength reports, few units list "A-8/A-9" for gruppes not operating D-9 or 109. Musta been more than what Nath said I would gather.
// fats
-
Hey all, I usually reley more on books then on internet sources, however, in this case I don't get a clear answer from Nath's post, all it says is that it can not be determended wether it enetered full scale production or not. I don't know, I found a nice internet page about it though.
It is a combat report from 26:th november 1944, Fw190 A9 being one of the planes participarting.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/neilpage/JG301.html
-
There definitely were lots of A-9's in use!
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bjagd.htm
For example, check out JG 301.
Those numbers are from original strenght reports that I would think are trustworthy. Many A-9's have even their rustsatze listed.
-
According to Rodeike 910 Fw 109A-9 airframe were produced, personnaly after studying late war BMW deliveries, i believe that the actual number of aircraft produced and fitted with an engine might be around 600.
The A-9 definitely saw service and some picture are known but since it's really hard to tell the difference between an A-8 or A-9, the most obvious difference being the number of blades of the cooling fan, i suspect that some pictures captionned as A-8 might actually be A-9s.
-
It is clear that 190A9s were served since September 44, mainly since October 44. In the Wilbus link there is a direct reference to the Cottbus production line.
While the Jochen link list 0 190A9s assigned to JG300, I've seen several pictures of JG300 190A9s ("bubble" canopies are clearly visible).
Definitively this plane was in production line and served in combat and it covers the performance gap between 190A8 and 190D9.
Kratzer and Karnak, the topic of this thread is not "what AC do you prefer to play with, my childs?"
What about, "nah! I want an A6M2!!!"?
Anyway, 190A1 had an awful armament and your wep time will be minimal. If you want an early 190 model, go for 190A2 or 190A3.
butch2k, any idea about 190F9 production numbers?
-
A-9 airframe isn't going to fill any performance gaps with a BMW801D engine, which most A-9s probably had, considering. Furthermore, 200hp won't make a difference since the A-9 weighs more.
-
Cc, 190 A1 only served very early, and not in very many numbers, it suffered from engine problems (engine caught fire) and from poor armement, was like 4x7.9mm?
The A20 and 2x7.9mm + 2x20mm MG151 and it showed up shortly after the A1, mainly to fix the engine problem but allso to give its pilots a good firepower.
-
The bubble canopy is not distinctive enough as late production A-8 also had them AFAIR. I'll check the F-9 production numbers when i'm back home.
The A-9 could not be fitted with a BMW801D-2 engine due to differences in engine mounting, wiring and piping. Nonetheless due to the few differences between the late prod A-8 and the A-9, an A-9 with a BMW 801D-2 would have been called an A-8.
Personnaly i'm not sure the T series of the BMW-801 were very reliable due to shortage of various stategic materials and skilled manpower. I won't be much surprised if engine had to be derated in order to preserve some service life. Keep in mind that the overall quality of German production dropped a lot in 1944/1945. Serious defects were common, and some piece of equipment like the engine were particularly affected, as an exemple the service life of a 1945 DB605D was about 20 hours...
-
Nath,
1 - Where do you read about 190A9s equipped with BMW801D? As far as you knew til yesterday, there were ony 2 or 3 prototypes...
2 - 190A8, WEP ON, is getting about 1990hp at sea level, even less than a 190A9 WEP OFF. For the entire weight of the 190A8, when WEP is ON you are getting about 150 extra hp, and the difference is very noticeable, so, 200hp extra are something to be considered. Do you have data about the power of the 801TS using WEP? Did that engine use same WEP system as 801D?
3 - Can you post weight of 190A9? AFAIK, it only had 4mm of extra armour in the armoured ring protecting the engine (6mm 190A8, 10mm 190A9).
In any worst case, if extra armour compensates the extra engine power, we would have a very resistant 190A8 with the canopy of a 190F8, and (not sure of that) the tail of a Ta152H.
-
Mr. Wagner seems to think the 801Ts were interchangeable with 801Ds and both engines could be fitted on an A-9, this is futher evidenced by the fact that in his book(read up, I posted an excerpt) he lists the 801TS and 801Ds length, width and height which are all idenitical. If you have sources confirming that these two powerplants aren't interchangeable please post it.
To respond to Mandoble, it ostensibly been evidenced that there were more A-9s built that I originally though--however half or more of the A-9s built could have easily been equipped with 801D powerplants because of the well-known shortage of 801T powerplants, there aren't even detailed performance documents of it that I can find.
It is also written that the 801TS was apparently evaluated for its high-altitude performance in conjunction with the GM 1 system.
So as we see, the 801TS could be used with GM1 and MW50 just as the 801D can.
However, in terms of boost pressure:
801D-2
0 meteres -- 1.42
700 m -- 1.32
etc.
801TS
0 meteres -- 1.65
The D-2 is just about 300 or so hp below the TS across the board, there are several charts in this book but I can't scan them right now.
It is also noted that with MW50 2700hp was gained with the 801F during a flight in Apr-May 1945. Base HP for the 801F was 2400 hp at takeoff.
-- all info from Wagner's above mentioned work.
Here's an old chart back from the Ta 152 performance/numbers debates awhile ago.
http://www.beatdownposse.com/images/old/bs/chrta.jpg
-
Nath, according with butch2k's study of 801TS and airframe deliveries we have about 600 801TS equipped 190A9s plus 300 airframes waitting for an engine or using earlier BMW engine models. Using heavier airframes with less powerful engines seems a not very good idea, supposing that 190A8 airframes were availabe in greater numbers than 190A9 ones.
According with your chart and the performance of the 801TS, we have a plane 70Kg heavier than 190A8 and about 250 Hp more powerful at take off.
801D-2 performance drop above 10k is well known but 190A9 was designed as a hi alt buff heavy armoured interceptor, so, even not using GM-1, 801TS probably had better hi alt performance than D-2. AFAIK, the first 801TS was tested in a 190A6 and one fitted a prototype of 190F8.
Personaly, I havent read anything about MW50/GM1 usage in 190A9/F9.
-
I should have a bit clearer regarding the mounting of a 801D-2 on a A-9 airframe. It was indeed possible to do this but only at the factory level due to the differences i mentionned above, for some reasons i was initially thinking of "in the field" modifications.
Is a BMW 801D-2 equiped A-9 still an A-9 ??
Yes and No :
Indeed The 801D-2 equiped A-9 were virtually identical to the late A-8 with modified armor and canopy, the only way to tell them apart being the Wk.Nr. So it depends if what you consider is a distinguishing feature between series the Wk.Nr. or the equipment.
At best there were 600 TS equiped A-9s, probably much less (200-300) it depends on how many of the T series engines were put on hold for repair workshop and how many were actually delivered to factories. Those numbers are very difficult to evaluate due to missing documents from FW factories.
AFAIK the MW-50 was only tested and never used operationnaly on the Fw 190A, contrary to the GM-1 which was in use.
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
[iIf the "small numbers" are 100 or more units, then we are talking about some level or real production.
IMHO we have enough "odd ball" AC that were produced in few numbers (F4U-C, TA 152, etc)
Here we discuss a variant that may have been produced to the tune of a few hundred whilst we have AC types that were produced in their thousands and in use through 44 and 45 yet not represented in AH at all.
Tilt
-
Tilt, quantity may be a factor for historical events and even the CT, but not for MA. The fact that a country industry was being anihilated at the end of the war doesn't mean we should punish the planes that effectively fight in these final days.
The efforts needed by Germany to build 200 Fw190A9 may be the same needed by USA to build 3000 P51D.
-
I don't get, all you guys say 150 and 200 is a LOW number! IT IS NOT!
Sure, compared to the 109 in all its different modells and the IL2 200 is a low number, but don't compare to planes wich were produced over many many years (so was most US and Brittish fighters although they never reached 33,000). 200 of one type of plane sure is alot, specially today, was alot during WW2 aswell so don't try and not get a plane because it "only" 200 of the ever flew, that is more then enough to add it!
-
Another point about numbers.
At Dec 44 the front lines were really small compared to 1942 front lines. So, a single density calculation will tell us that at Dec 44, 200 190A9 were equivalent to 2000 109G6 at Dec 43. Same may be applied to anyother "rare" plane.
I agree with Wilbus, 200 is not necesary a "small" number, it is equivalent to the actual spanish frontline fighters quantity.
Just imagine 200 identical planes parked side to side ...
I've found a source pointing that about 350 190A9 were built til Apr45. Still waiting for a more reliable source cause that one do not specity detailed characteristics of the plane and all the listed performance numbers seem rounded up.
-
Out of curiosity what's your source ?
Griehl only give >200 and Rodeike 910, 350 pretty well fits my own researchs.
Btw the 801TS was 120Kg heavier than the 801D and the direct fuel injection boost was not available on this engine (only on D and TU). This is one of the differences that made exchange of engine not possible on the A-9 except at construction time.
Weight with ammunition and fuel of the A-9 was 4419Kg while the A-9 weighted 4272Kg.
-
butch2k, check
http://www.acepilots.com/planes/specs.html
400 built?
-
>The fact that a country industry was being anihilated at the end of the war doesn't mean we should punish the planes that effectively fight in these final days.<
Well IMHO because these few planes can not represent what was generally in action compared to the bulk that were .....yes they should be as you put it "be punished" and put to the back of the queue.
>The efforts needed by Germany to build 200 Fw190A9 may be the same needed by USA to build 3000 P51D.<
What has Germany's efforts got to do with any thing............
Tilt
What was Germany's highest production year for fighter aircraft?
-
I won't trust this data very much, just check the production numbers for the other German aircraft...
The only reliable source so far has been Rodeike's book as he had access to production list of every Focke Wulf factories including those of subcontractors (Arado, Dornier, etc...)
-
Is it too difficult to post what "Rodieke" book you are referring to?
What happened to the good old days when people would post facts & sources in A&V threads... now it's just a quagmire.
-
Sorry, here it is :
Focke Wulf Jagdflugzeug - Fw 190A, Fw 190 "Dora", Ta 152H, Peter Rodeike.
-
TIlt,
'44
// fats
-
It seems there were a lot of operational 190A9s:
http://www.geocities.com/bookie190/Werkn.htm
Here is even a list of the data sources used by Rodeike:
http://www.geocities.com/bookie190/Docs.htm
Here you will find an excelent dicussion about 190A9 with some performance data:
http://pub73.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessage?topicID=15.topic
-
The Wk.Nr. ranges were serial numbers alocated to various factories. Some factories could have been allocated a 500 airframe range while building only 23.
So from those range we could make out that the A-9 was planned for mass production, but it does not give any indication on the actual number produced.
-
Bingo, Butch.
-
butch2k, for a single factory like Cottbus, why to alocate so many blocks if the first ones are still uncompleted? I can understand a planning with 3 or 4 blocks, but since Setp 44 we have 9 blocks with near 2000 fighters only at Cottbus.
202126 – 202319 (194)
202360 – 202450 (91)
202565 - 202590 (26)
205001 – 205100 (100)
205180 – 205300 (121)
205901 – 205999 (99)
206031 – 206200 (169)
207160 – 207800 (641)
208378 – 209913 (535)
Do you have an aproximate number of efectively manufactured 190A8s since Sep44? 190A9 production may have been similar and depending only of the availability of 801TS/TU engines.
-
Several production orders must have been delivered over a few months, each one allocating a couple of Wk.Nr. blocks raher than a single one. Most probably :
First order :
202126 – 202319, 202360 – 202450, 202565 - 202590
Second order :
205001 – 205100, 205180 – 205300
Third order :
205901 – 205999, 206031 – 206200
Subsequent orders (probably early 1945)
207160 – 207800, 208378 – 209913
Several blocks were allocated for each order, so as to disrupt the ennemy intelligence. The last two blocks were probably never used, i'm away from my sources so i can't verify right now.
-
Originally posted by butch2k
Btw the 801TS was 120Kg heavier than the 801D
Do you compare a engine set to a plain engine? TS is afaik an engine set that includes a 801E or F (Power egg). The set includes cooling mechanism, cover plates etc. so this could be the explanation for the higher weight.
niklas
-
No the TS is basically a D with elements from the TH engine, the later proving too troublesome to product. To sum up they fitted the parts of the TH that were working fine on the sound D-2 engine.
-
checked my book. It says the TS was equipped with the 801S engine what resembled the E while the engine set resembled the TU.
From ´45 on it was cleared for 2200PS
niklas