Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: MANDOBLE on February 13, 2002, 10:33:56 AM
-
Aside the initial model (4x20mm), R6, R7 and R8 kits were mainly used being the R8 the most popular at the end of the war.
Having the ETC 501 mounting the external fuel tank and the Mk108 guns it seems that we have just an A-8/R8 version.
The problem is that R8 kit also involved 200 Kg of extra armour plating (R7).
R8 was basically R2 + R7. R2 alone (2 Mk108) was found ineffective due the short range of the Mk108 guns, much more armour was needed to ensure the survival of the plane until rdy to fire at the bombers. The solution was the R7 kit with the additional armour and the optional external drop tank attacked to the ETC 501.
Is our 190A-8 performance based on a 190A-8/R8 or R7 instead the standard one?
Is our 190A-8 getting 400 lb more of armour plating when using Mk108?
Do we have these 400 lb all the time whatever we select?
R6 (WGr21) plus R2 (Mk108) didn't exist, so, this combination should not be enabled.
-
AH speed and climb curve are a very close match for curves from the Focke Wulf manual that Gatt sent me. The curves are for standard armament and armor and no bomb rack. The curves are so close that I am convinced they are what HTC used to build the FM.
-
Does that book describes clearly the differences between basic A8 and A5/U9 ? AFAIK, U9 is a basic A5 with the standard A8 armament and without the aux fuel tank.
-
You mean A-8/U9 right?
All the curves in the manual were for full internal fuel including the fuselage tank behind the pilot.
I don't have the full manual with me right now but I remember there are performance curves for the clean airplane, for an airplane with a centerline bomb, with a drop tank, and with WGr. 21 rocket.
I don't recall any performance data for the aircraft with the additional Sturm armor package.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
You mean A-8/U9 right?
Neg, 190A5/U9, AFAIK, was equivalent to a basic A8 without "aux" fuel tank. 190A5/U9 have 2 13mm Mg and 4 20mm Mg151/20 instead of 2 7.7mm and 2 MGFF. Small wing modifications were needed to acommodate the pair of 151/20 on the outerwing.
I've not seen any reference about extra armour of A8, A6 or A7 over A5 unless with R7 or R8 kits.
In the other hand, the small fuel tank behind the pilot was not a standar for A8, some had it, some hadn't.
-
Ahhh this one!
Fw 190A-5/U9 - experimental plane with heavier armament, it was fitted with 2x1 MG 131 13 mm machine guns in place of MG 17 guns in the fuselage; in the wings the MG FF canons were replaced by MG 151/20 E cannons. Only two were built (W.Nr. 150812, and 150816). The W.Nr 150816, BH+CF plane was later used as test bed for more powerful BMW 801 engine versions.
I concur that R7 and R8 were the only A-8 versions with extra armor.
I think the fuselage tank was supposed to be standard on A-8 (which is supported by the manual) but with the chaotic production situation (8 factories building 190s) I definitely believe that some of them could have been built without the tank.
-
IMO, that means that a 2x20 A8 should have almost same performance, turning, etc than a 4x20 A5.
While a Mk108 armed A8 should be penalized by 400 lbs more but adding the effect of a lot of more armour plating.
-
IMO, that means that a 2x20 A8 should have almost same performance, turning, etc than a 4x20 A5.
Well two things are different, the engine and the weight.
The Fw 190A-8 in the manual (and presumably in AH) uses a boost control override system that gives it something like 300 more HP than the A-5 engine when using WEP.
The normal loaded weight of the AH A-8 is 9682 lb which conforms with the normal loaded weight in the manual. But the AH A-5 weighs 8583 lb. Even if you account for the difference in armament, this A-8 would still be heavier.
BTW the 8583 lb weight precisely matches the weight of the USAAF's Fw 190G-3 which had all armament, ammunition, and bomb racks removed. A-5 and G-3 shared airframe, engine, avionics, etc, so I think the A-5 in the game is something like 500-700 lb underweight. I did some more precise calculations on this forum a long time ago, maybe I can find them with the search feature...
The A-5 performance in AH very closely matches the USAAF's performance curves for the G-3, so closely that I think the USAAF curves were the source for the plane's performance in the game. I had a copy of some pages of this report on the web but they are lost now. I will try to put them back online soon.
-
Looking at the Fw190 Pilots Manual that Funked sent me, the difference in armor between the A8 and the A8/R8 is exactly 111 kg or 234.8 lbs.
There is an excellent chart that shows exact armor components, and the weight of each. It also details the same information for the R2 and R3 varients.
There are also performance curves for the x4 gun A8 with aux tank (which exactly matches the AH charts as funked said), performance curves for the x4 gun A8 with GM1, and performance curves for the A8/R2.
-
I've asked HTC this before, it takes as little dammage with 30mm as without, and no more dammage then the A5. It should be heavier even without the extra armor though.
The A8/R8 was the version used by Sturmgruppen.
-
Funked, I'vew been trying to find the 190 Manual for years, both on the net and as a book(paper form atleast). Where can I find it???
-
Wilbus, Sturmgruppen used first R2 (2 Mk108), then R7 (AFAIK, about 400 lb more of armour, not 200, some of them including also heavy reinforcements in the cockpit glass), then R2 + R7 (R8).
Vermillion, can u scan performance curves of R4 and standar A8? Not sure about how many R4 where in action, at least 66 were registereded as converted to R4 standar.
funkedup, where is that 1100 lb difference in weight between A5 and A8 baseline?
-
The 1100 lb difference is not real, it's only in AH. I don't think standard A-8 was more than 700-800 lb heavier than an A-5.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
BTW the 8583 lb weight precisely matches the weight of the USAAF's Fw 190G-3 which had all armament, ammunition, and bomb racks removed. A-5 and G-3 shared airframe, engine, avionics, etc, so I think the A-5 in the game is something like 500-700 lb underweight. I did some more precise calculations on this forum a long time ago, maybe I can find them with the search feature...
I just read this forum and don't use to post too much any more, but I have to answer this kind of statements wich are clearly not correct:
(http://people.freenet.de/nik_mc/fw190_A5_s.gif)
AH's "normal load" A5 weigths 8600lbs, around 3910kg if my maths are correct.
The 190 in that chart, fully loaded (and with 90 round drums for the MGFF) weights 4000kg. Around 8800lbs, and that weight is clearly rounded anyway.
I would ask the exact difference of the MG-FFM weight with a 90 round drum instead of the 60 round one, but anyway the final difference would be around 100-150lbs. Not the 500-700 lbs you say, funked.
Thats all.
'later.
-
funkedup, my point is that even 800 lb is too much, unless more armour plating was involved.
A small extra fuel tank, some wing reinforcements to acommodate the Mg151/20 and a pair of Mg131 instead the Mg17 would justity 1100 or 800 lbs?
Based on Wilbuz post, do we have an overweighted 190A8 with no extra armour really present?
Is our A8 carrying the ETC 501 extra weight even when no drop tanks nor bombs are loaded?
These 300hp extra with WEP are translated into a much lower climbing performance at any altitude than the 190A5 but 12 mph more at sea level.
Looking at the performance charts of HTC, A8 is faster than A5 only at sea level, and A5 is noticeably faster than A8 above 20k. Same engine and better wep for A8 at sea level would justify that? Have our A8 much more drag coeficient than our A5 without using the R7 kit?
I cant understand the actual difference in performance between a baseline A5 and a baseline A8.
-
Funked, where can I find the 190 manual? PLEASE....
Ram, where did you get the chart? I NEED THESE THINGS!
I think the R8 was the one used most though, having both 20mm and 30mm, and some of them had 13mm, heavy armor. Will need to get more books about my favorite airplane.
-
Wilbus, my understanding is that originally Gatt found the manual in Italy I believe (english version) and sent it too Funked. Funked sent me a copy, and I made a copy for R4M just to shut him up on how a 190's electrical arming system worked ;)
Mandoble I'll try to scan those pages in the next few days and post them. I use to have them all scanned and stored on my website, but my hosting company had a meltdown and lost all my stuff, so I have to go back and re-scan it all.
What do you want too see? The speed/climb charts for the standard A8 and the A8/R2 (the only other performance chart is for the A8 with GM1) ? At least with those, you can tell if the 30mm equipped A8 is the A8/R8 or the A8/R2.
Oh and Wilbus, I have a ton of stuff on 190's (like the page that R4M posted) on my hard drive at home, if your interested. But its gonna take a huge amount of storage and broadband to get it all too you.
Edit: Mandoble, the total weight difference betwen a A8 and a A8/R8 may have been 800lbs (I haven't checked that fact), but the chart I have says that the actual armor/protection system difference is 234 lbs. There may have been other things that weighed more that were added. But the actual armor difference was 234lbs (at least according to the chart, I'll try to scan and post it as well).
-
Verm, I am VERY interestead, if you have time to send them, PLEASE DO!! :)
I have all the time in the world my self when it comes to the 190 :)
If you happen to find time, the e-mail is "rasmus@avita.se"
-
Thanks RAM, 4000 kg makes sense. It's quite close to weights I have for A-3 and A-4.
Looks like at least one of my contradictory statements was correct! :)
The 1100 lb difference is not real, it's only in AH. I don't think standard A-8 was more than 700-800 lb heavier than an A-5.
So it's more like 800 lb difference.
800 lb of what? I dunno, ask Kurt Tank! Seriously, I think it is the new wing structure, the weight of the fuselage fuel, the fuel tank, and the tank's support structure, the extra weight of outboard MG 151/20 and ammo, weight of MG 131 and ammo and strengthened support structure, upgraded avionics, etc. Maybe there were some changes in the standard armor thickness too.
-
Hi Funked,
>Thanks RAM, 4000 kg makes sense. It's quite close to weights I have for A-3 and A-4.
Could you post some absolute weights here? This kind of data seems to be hard to find for most Focke-Wulf versions.
>The 1100 lb difference is not real, it's only in AH. I don't think standard A-8 was more than 700-800 lb heavier than an A-5.
I think the difference mainly was due to equipment and the weight of the additional fuel.
According to Geust's "Under the Red Star" the Russians captured a Fw 190A-8 (W.-Nr. 580967) configured as interceptor (no outer wing cannon, no rear fuselage tank, no bomb racks) which weighed in at 3986 kg.
By comparison, the standard Fw 190A-8 is listed by Focke-Wulf at 4300 kg without ETC501 bomb rack. 150 kg of the difference is from the wing guns, about 90 kg from the fuel. The remaining 74 kg difference probably can be (at least partly) attributed to the the tank and the fuel lines.
The detailed weight breakdown of the armour shows that the standard Fw 190A-8 had 137.8 kg of armour, while the A-8/R8 had 248.8 kg. Of the 111 kg increase, 27.5 kg could be attributed to a greater thickness of oil tank and cooler armour, 46.5 kg to the canopy protection, 28 kg to additional and strenghtened plates for pilot protection and 9 kg to the armour for the MK108 ammunition.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Definitively, it is a hell to find out what a 190A8 really was.
As an example, most late manufactured A8 were without extra fuel tank while most of the first ones had it. In the other hand, most of the first ones had no ETC while most of the late ones had it. Some sources said only R4 kit included GM1, while others said that was an standar for ALL 190A8 to make them able to deal with the usual 25k buff raids. Only some of the R7 equipped had additional "armoured" canopy glass, while most of the photographed R2 were, in fact, R8s. Also, a lot of late war fotographed 190F8 and A8 where in fact 190A9.
THIS IS CRAZY!!!
In any case, I, personaly, want the BT700 torpedo bomb available for 190A8 (U11) and 190F8(U2), and the LT950 torpedo for the 190F8 also (U14). :D
-
Hohun thanks,
I don't have the exact weight because they are in a book that is in some boxes in storage right now. It shows weight breakdowns for several Fw 190 versions. IIRC A-2 is around 8600 lb, going up to about 8800 lb for A-4, then about 9500 lb for A-8.
You might have a copy, and if you don't have it you should get one. :)
The book is "Kurt Tank, Focke-Wulf's Designer and Test Pilot" by Wolfgang Wagner, ISBN 0764306448. I have the English version and the original is in German, "Kurt Tank - Konstrukteur und Testpilot bei Focke Wulf' ISBN 3763761020.
Mandoble:
Yes it is crazy! They were building them in many plants under difficult conditions, and the production variations are quite large. I have pretty much given up on trying to understand them all. Maybe if I learn to read German someday. :)
-
Just ask, funked:
From the book funked mentioned:
Weights (pg. 106)
Fw 190A-3 (BMW 801D2) 8.Takeoff and emergency power blocked; figures are therefore as the A-2 with emergency boost.
Weight, empty.... 2845 kg
Fuel..................... 396 kg
Oil....................... 40 kg
Crew................... 80 kg
Load.................... 634 kg 9. A3 payload (2 MG 17, 850 rounds 86 kg. 2 MG 151, 250 rounds 134 kg. Other loads 414 kg) Total 634 kg.
Max permissible load.. 1150 kg
Take off weight........... 3995 kg
Fw 190A-5/U8 (BMW 801D2)
Weight, empty..... 2950 kg
Fuel..................... 820 kg 10 Normal fuel load was 396 kg + 2x 295 liters drop tanks = 590 liters (424 kg), totaling 1140 liters or 820kg carried)
Oil........................ 40 kg
Crew.................... 80 kg
Load.................... 470 kg11 Payload: Armament 220 kg, Ext. ordnance 250 kg. Total: 470 kg)
Max permissible load.. 1410 kg
Take off weight.... 4360 kg