Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Hristo on February 27, 2003, 01:29:09 PM
-
It seems that the new 190 star in FB is not the Dora, but another A series - the A-9.
According to beta testers, it is faster than D-9 down low, better accelerating and better climbing, as well as obviously better armed. Given the slightly higher agility of A series over the Dora, it will most likely be more popular late war 190 choice than the Dora.
The A-9 history is pretty much unknown. Somewhere I read about 400 were made, whenever the engine was available. Strangely enough, Western sources almost ignore the A-9 in favor of the D-9, while Eastern data has several mentions of it.
IMO, the A-9 is the ultimate 190, not the Dora. D-9 is just an intermediate plane between 190 and 152.
-
Is the engine an 801F?
-
p.22
" The FW 190A-9 was, a proposed Rammjager, was built in 6 prototypes and incorperated the BMW801F-1 powerplant with heavely armored wing leading edges."
From Focke Wulf 190 by Robert Grinsell
-
Hi Hristo,
>According to beta testers, it is faster than D-9 down low, better accelerating and better climbing, as well as obviously better armed. Given the slightly higher agility of A series over the Dora, it will most likely be more popular late war 190 choice than the Dora.
The Fw 190D-9's Jumo 213A could achieve 2140 HP at sea level, the BMW801TS of the Fw 190A-9 2200 HP. Though the D-9 was a bit lighter than the A-9, the difference probably is down to the wing armament only. (The Dora could carry wing armament just like any Fw 190, but it appears that only later subvariants like the D-13 were thus equipped.)
In low-speed climbs and turns, there'd be little difference between the A-9 and the D-9, but when it comes to high speed flight the low-drag inline layout of the D-9 of course translates into immediate superiority.
In fact, I don't know where the assumption that the D-9 was a step backwards in manoeuvrability comes from. The D-9 was an A-8 airframe with a more powerful engine and a smaller frontal area - quite obviously, it had to be superior in everything.
The A-9 has an engine of equal power, but still with a large frontal area - it's not going to beat the D-9 in anything.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Well, the fact is that, actually, our AH 190A8 has better hi/lo speed handling than D9. They are only on par at med speeds. Based on that and the superior weapon set and armour, AH A9 may be a better choice for combats up to 10k than D9.
And, about Jumo vs 801TS, what would be the power output at sea level and NO WEP of each engine?
-
They are both dweeb.
"It's wabble inside"
:D
-
The problem with wabble planes was they both had to fight high alt superiour american fighters and low alt superiour russian planes.
They never could made up their mind
-
Hi Mandoble,
>Well, the fact is that, actually, our AH 190A8 has better hi/lo speed handling than D9.
It has always been that way since Air Warrior :-) However, I can't imagine what the reason would be. The airframes hardly differ, after all.
>And, about Jumo vs 801TS, what would be the power output at sea level and NO WEP of each engine?
2200/2140 was "wet" WEP, the next step down would be "dry" WEP at 2000/1900. I'm not quite sure about the combat power of the BMW801TS, but the projected BMW801E of which the TS was a simpler implementation had 1800 HP compared to the 1700 HP of the Jumo 213A.
So the difference at most power settings seems to be in the region of 100 HP, but the Jumo 213 yields more exhaust thrust, pretty much closing the gap. And the D-9 in any situation gets the same performance from less power anyway :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
From "Combat Legends Focke Wulf 190" by peter caygill
"Fw 190A-9
The A-9 varient was powered by a BMW 801F engine of 2000hp but only one machine, v-34 werke Nr 410230, was produced.Intended as a ramming fighter, it featured armoured wing leading edges and production examples would have carried a single MK 108 30mm cannon in each of the outer wings and been powered by a BMW 801TS engine with turbo-supercharging.The proposed R11 and R12 sub-variants were all weather fighters equiped with PKS-12."
I would have thought armoured wing leading edges and their added weight would have reduced its manouverability, plus the extra weight of the mk108s over the doras mg151/20's .I cant see this aircraft out manouvering the 190D-9 and if it did out perform in every area as you claim why build so few?
I think it was decided partly to do with a lack of engines but more likely because performance wasnt what was hoped for or expected. Another thing is an aircraft can hardly be the definative version if it didnt actually fight could it?:D
-
There were many FW190A9 produced. I dont remember the exact number but I remember that I was shocked at how large it was - way up in the multiple 100s.
-
So my source was incorect.....?
p.22
" The FW 190A-9 was, a proposed Rammjager, was built in 6 prototypes and incorperated the BMW801F-1 powerplant with heavely armored wing leading edges."
From Focke Wulf 190 by Robert Grinsell
-
More about 190A9:
BBS (http://pub73.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessage?topicID=15.topic)
Werk numbers (http://www.geocities.com/bookie190/Werkn.htm)
JG 301 flying with A9s (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/neilpage/JG301.html)
Probably there was a single prototype of 190A9 equipped with 801F engine, but any modified 190A8 with BMW801TS and bubble canopy may be consider as a 190A9 aswell. add to these all the natively magnufactured 190A9 airframes with 801TS engines.
-
According to FB beta testers, BMW/Kommandogerat is better than Junkers/Kommandogerat combination. Similar for 109s, where their equivalent of Kommandogerat is inferior to one of the 190A.
A-9 is lighter than A-8, with more poweful engine and same weapon package. Not sure about bomb rack. Also, it uses different prop, with wider blades than rest of A series.
A-9 was produced and delivered, the number is about several hundred (depending on the source).
-
damned annoying when different books give totally different figures.Especially here where books say anything from only 1 produced to up in the 100's!
where do these fools get their info? from the junior enciclopedia of paper aeroplanes? :D
Im beginning to think the russian sources are probably way more accurate, and it seems truthfull, than the western ones.If ours say only one made and russians then show that hundreds were fighting them on the eastern front, with pictures turning up of them actually flying maybe its time to take their word for it! :D
I hope the '100's' figures are correct because then theres room to add it to AH!!! :) A 190a8 type weapons load with handling of a 190a5(ish!! :)) and high alt performance better than the 190d9.
GIMME GIMME PLEASE :)
-
What the heck is FB?
-
Originally posted by eddiek
What the heck is FB?
Forgotten Blattles (IL2 cont).
-
The realy interesting this is that a lot of info has flooded west since the end of the cold war, and some of my books are from the 80's and earlyer, So their apears to be so interesting revalations coming forth. I beleave Cotobus was captured by the Russians and If the 190A-9 was produced thier and those planes went toward the east it is likely that those earler sources were not compleat in their finding's. Heck we may find that 100 Ta 154's were realy made and flown in the east some day(well I can dream huh:) ).
-
>>The D-9 was an A-8 airframe with a more powerful engine and a smaller frontal area - quite obviously, it had to be superior in everything. <<
Ho-Hun:
The D-9 was referred to as the "Longnose" by allied pilits. It's nose , or frontal area, was longer due to the engine it used.
It was also designed for hi alt work versus allied buffs and fighters. It was extremely fast but, not as manueverable versus the allied P-51's, P-47's and Spitfires which it met in combat.
-
>>I think it was decided partly to do with a lack of engines but more likely because performance wasnt what was hoped for or expected<<
Hazed:
Of greater importance here is the frame of mind of the Germans. The Nazis were frantic to come up with a suitable counter to the P-51, which was able to escort allied buffs to the heart of Germany and back. The P-51 was THE plane to beat and/or deal with at the time.
It came as a shock to them, and they were losing many a/c and fighter experten with every allied raid over the German homeland.
They developed the A-8 as a Ram fighter and, used 109s a hi cover for them as they got in position to hit the american B17s.
But it was slow and less manueverable because of the hvy armor required; including armaments.
Again, a lot of desperate experimentation was going on, to stem the flow of the allied bomber attacks. And the german people were getting fed up with the Nazis for seemingly allowing it to happen. I am not surprised (no matter how obscure) about the A-9 varient; there were many such "experiments" developed at the time.
-
I am aware of the many experiments and have many books (some 50 WW2 books in total ;)) about them but if you are suggesting the 190A-9 was designed to counter the P51(?) im pretty sure youre mistaken in that assumption if this is what you mean. They produced the 190D-9 after all and this has no armoured wing leading edge or option to include 30mm in the outer wings.I think this was more tailored to anti-fighter role along with the 109g10 etc.
190a9 with armoured wing leading edges and 30mm cannon replacing 20mms points clearly to an anti-bomber role (or possibly jabo) plus its always mentioned as a ramming aircraft.Its the same mindset that developed the 190a8 R7 'sturm' with its extra armour and heavier caliber weapons.With this in mind you have to think, if like was said the 190a-9 is so much better than the 190a8 in the anti-bomber role or the 190D-9 or 109 etc in the anti-fighter role why send them all to the eastern front (if indeed they ever were)? wouldnt they use them on the western allies? wouldnt they build and use 190a-9s instead of 190a8s and d9s on your (so called) instrumental P51? ;) If it was better, like i said before, only a lack of 801F/TS engines would have stopped their production as airframes they would have just converted from older models(a common practice).
As for the p51 if you have read Adolf Gallands 'the first and the last' or Heinz Knocks 'I flew for the fuhrer' you would see that the sheer number of enemy aircraft was the biggest problem, not a single type. Sure the P51 was instrumental in increasing survival rates on deep bomber penetrations and Galland mentions it was a good fighter AMONG OTHERS :) but much like the spitfire in the Battle of Britain it did not win the war alone. Im sure theres plenty of P47/Spitfire/tempest/typhoon/p38 etc etc pilots that would agree with this. ;)
From what ive read about JG301 in the link those so called 190A-9s could well have been 190a8s with a hood conversion.Without some way to prove the DB801F/TS was installed too you cant rely on a story with a mere mention of A9 in it. They probably were 190a-9s but I'd like to see some records or evidence of some sort first.Going back to the weight issue one thing ill always remember is Zemke on a tv interveiw saying if you add 10lbs of weight to a fighter you need 100hp added to make up for it, because of this he prefered the earlier lighter p47s. so if hes right and whos gonna say he isnt? and the 190 went from 1750hp(190a8) to 2000hp(190a9) but then added weight of armour to the wings the chances are it wasnt a huge improvement.(that and the fact we havent heard much about the a9 in the west)
see why i think the way i do? sort of makes sense right?
I think the 190D# were by far the best of the 190s in terms of performance and because it was so good it has been remembered that way. As much as i love the idea of an even better 190 varient that we somehow missed Im struggling to beleive the hype here.
hazed
-
The A9 wasnt some up armored ramming plane. It was an A8 with a new engine, new prop, 14 blade vs 12 blade cooling fan, and a standard blown canopy.
-
Everything I've read, and heard (from interviews - we got to interview a LW pilot with decent Fw 190D-9 time for SSIs 'LW Commander' - yeah the game sucked but some of the interviews were really interesting) stated that the Fw 190D-9 was superior in handling to the Fw 190A-8, etc.
Too many guys in WB treated the D-9 like a 'really fast Fw 190A'. That's not the case. I've never had a problem getting a tracking gun solution on a Fw 190A, in WB or in AH, when I was in a Fw 190D-9.
No gun weight in the wings, more power, far, far less frontal area (about 1/10 of 1 square foot more effective frontal area than a P-51D), etc.
From:
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190d.html#RTFToC1
"At first, Luftwaffe pilots were somewhat suspicious of their new fighter, since the Jumo 213 was thought to be only a "bomber" engine. However, it soon became apparent that they had a winner on their hands. The "Dora" could out-climb and out-dive its BMW 801-powered predecessor with ease, and it possessed an excellent turning rate at speed. An experienced pilot could pull a tighter turn in a D-9 than he could with the BMW-powered FW-190A. The general opinion of the pilots who flew the FW 190D-9 was that it was the finest propeller-driven fighter available to the Luftwaffe during the entire war. In fact, many of its pilots considered it more than a match for the redoubtable P-51D Mustang."
(Note the comment about how an 'experienced' pilot could out turn a Fw 190A in a Fw 190D...much like the P-47, P-51, etc. of AH - an experienced stick can get more alot more out of certain aircraft...also plays into my comment about people flying/treating/thinking of the Fw 190D as a 'Fw 190A with more HP, 2 cannon, and better high altitude performace', as opposed to an entirely different aircraft).
I don't know where some would get the idea that the Fw 190D-9 wasn't more agile than most of it's opponents.
It had noticably better power to weight ratio than the P-51D at all altitudes (look at the power curve vs. altitude for the P-51D's engine, then look at the engine for the Fw 190D-9, boosted and unboosted, to see what I mean), which more than made up for the 10% wing area advantage the P-51D had. A laminar flow wing like that on the P-51D is great for speed, much less efficient than a normal wing (in terms of energy retention) in medium-high AoA situations.
It had better power to weight and wing loading when compared to the P-47 (any 'C' or 'D' model, I don't know the #s on the post 'D' models very well) - the P-47 was a great aircraft no doubt. It was also heavy as my sch-, well, you get the idea I think. :)
The Spitfire XIV could out sustained turn it. People seem to forget that that higher wing loading often means better instantaneous turn (which is likely why the P-47 was more feared by LW pilots than the P-51...great diving speed, great performance at altitude, great inst. turn, 8 x .50 BMG to use on the deflection shots the inst. turn gave the P-47, etc.).
I was ME/AE in college. Back in the WB days I 'built' NACA 'simulation models' of most of these aircraft. The Fw 190D-9 is one of the most underrated/misunderstood aircraft of WW2.
DISCLAIMER: I am biased. The Fw 190D-9 has been my favorite aircraft since age 4 or so. Don't forget this means that I've spent more time learning about it than most.
Mike/wulfie
(edit: clarified that P-47/Fw 190D-9 comparison applied to 'C' and 'D' P-47s)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The A9 wasnt some up armored ramming plane. It was an A8 with a new engine, new prop, 14 blade vs 12 blade cooling fan, and a standard blown canopy.
So why has it been listed in every book i have as having armoured wing leading edges? please post your reference Grunherz.Damn i really hope youre right as ive always wanted a faster 190a8 :) only problem is ive never seen a spec for the 190a-9 that doesnt mention the armoured wings.
that includes a book i have quoted in here that was published in 2002.
-
From:
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190.html#RTFToC11
"FOCKE-WULF 190 A-9
Next and last production series of the A version aircraft was the Fw 190A-9. Previously, it was thought this plane would have been powered by a 1765 kW (2400 hp) BMW 801 F engine. But the BMW factory had not started production of these engines in time and, as a replacement, the 1470 kW (2000 hp) BMW 801 S engine was used with a more efficient, 14 blade fan. These engines were delivered as a power unit BMW 801 TS because of their need for a more efficient radiator and bigger oil tank mounted side by side. Both were in the form of a ring ahead of the engine under an armor cover with thickness increased from 6 to 10 mm. Large area, three bladed wooden propeller with constant speed mechanism should have been used as a standard, but for unknown reasons the majority of the A-9 planes (as opposed to F-9) had the metal VDM 9-12176 A propellers, as used in the previous version. One difference in the airframe between A-9 and A-8 model was a larger cockpit canopy, adapted from the Fw 190F-8 version. A few planes got tail sections with an enlarged tail as provided for Ta 152 fighters. Armament and Rustsatz kits were the same as in the A-8 version, but in many cases, on the pilot's request external part of the wing mounted MG 151/20 E cannons were removed.
Production of the plane started in the end of autumn 1944 and continued parallel to A-8 version. Monthly output depended on limited deliveries of BMW 801 TS engines. Also developed was a project for a highly modified Fw 190A-10 fighter powered by a BMW 801 F engine, but it was not completed because of the end of the war."
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Is the engine an 801F?
Pongo, read the link I posted above to the A-9 data. It looks like the BMW 801F was 'used' on a prototype only.
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by Don
It was extremely fast but, not as manueverable versus the allied P-51's, P-47's and Spitfires which it met in combat.
Dude crunch the numbers. Get an AE text and read about what/how wingloading, power/weight, etc. is.
The P-51 was great because it was fast (very fast for the comparitively low HP of it's engine) and had the range to fly all the way into Germany.
A Fw 190D could out maneuver a P-51D with ease. It had more power, was lighter, roughly the same frontal 'wet' area, etc.
But if you have 48 P-51Ds and 6 Fw 190D-9s... trouble for the bad guys.
Mike/wulfie
-
thnx for link wulfie but its a little bit annoying that the page doesnt list its source. Do you know where it was copied from?
-
Originally posted by hazed-
thnx for link wulfie but its a little bit annoying that the page doesnt list its source. Do you know where it was copied from?
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190di.html
Sources:
Warplanes of the Third Reich, William Green, Doubleday, 1971.
Famous Fighters of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday 1967.
The Focke-Wulf 190--A Famous German Fighter, Heinz Nowarra, Harleyford, 1965.
You can also email him. He responds to emails fairly well.
Mike/wulfie
-
wulfie is this guy an amature historian? as in is he published? not being picky but this part of the write up got me remembering a kurt tank interveiw:
'RLM management was dominated by in-line water-cooled engines adherents, who did not share his vision of the new project'
and this is what kurt tank says in a 1975 interview quoted in a book called:
Focke wulfe fw190 in combat by alfred price isbn 0-7509-2548-5
'Some have suggested that i had to fight a battle with the German Air Ministry to get them to accept the idea of radial engined fighter.That might make a good story but it is not history.In fact there was quite a large body of official opinion in favour of such a fighter for the Luftwaffe.'
A lot of older books say this kind of thing, makes you wonder if they are correct in their information.
also the newer books dont seem to mention the 190a-9 as being in production and id really like to know who is right. Damn annoying isnt it! who knows maybe the 190a9 was produced in great numbers without this armoured wing leading edge but it makes you wonder why it isnt in all the books.
-
Hi Don,
>The D-9 was referred to as the "Longnose" by allied pilits. It's nose , or frontal area, was longer due to the engine it used.
You're confusing lateral area and frontal area here. Lateral area forward of the centre of gravity was increased (and lateral moment even more, as the geometric centre of gravity moved forward), which was countered by the elongated fuselage and the larger rudder.
The frontal area was decreased.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Hazed,
>From what ive read about JG301 in the link those so called 190A-9s could well have been 190a8s with a hood conversion.Without some way to prove the DB801F/TS was installed too you cant rely on a story with a mere mention of A9 in it.
A Focke-Wulf memorandum dated 20.10.1944 states on the production of Fw 190 Sturm aircraft:
"The power plant assembly BMW801TU resp. TS is to be used instead of the BMW801D whenever possible.
Reason: Strengthened armour for radiator and reservoirs."
(From Rodeike: Focke Wulf.)
The TU power plant assembly used an engine identical to the BMW801D. I'd say that all aircraft equipped with TU engine were designated A-8 and all with TS engine A-9. That's in line with Focke-Wulf practice with earlier versions being produced from the same airframe with different engines.
Reschke's "Jagdgeschwader JG301/302" lists quite a few A-9 losses (complete with Werknr.) from November 1944 on, so it's evident the type was produced and saw combat. They were designated R11, which includes the Sturmjäger-type 30 mm cannon installation as well as all-weather avionics.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi again,
Rodeike concludes that the production of Fw 190A-9 aircraft amounted to at least 910 examples produced by 5 different factories. (As Fieseler is not included, the list may not be complete.)
The aircraft of JG301 came from Focke-Wulf Cottbus, the second factory to commence production (in September 1944) and according to Rodeike mostly turning out A-9/R-11 variants. In fact, from the Werknrs. it seems that JG301 had received the complete initial batch of 90 A-9s for its re-equipment (along with aircraft from other batches.) They also had a few Fw 190A-8s, but the A-9 seems to have been predominant. (The first A-9 losses already occurred during conversion in October 1944.)
Production by Focke-Wulf Cottbus amounted to an average 160 A-9s per month, in addition to another 120 A-8s per month at the same factory (which seems to have consisted of three different plants).
However, just by quickly skimming the loss summary I already found 5 examples of Werknrs. listed by JG301 that are not on Rodeike's list, so it's quite probable that even more A-9s were produced than the 910 he points out.
(The first factory to produce the A-9 had been Mimetall at Erfurt, producing 80 aircraft in August/September 1944.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by hazed-
wulfie is this guy an amature historian? as in is he published? not being picky but this part of the write up got me remembering a kurt tank interveiw:
'RLM management was dominated by in-line water-cooled engines adherents, who did not share his vision of the new project'
and this is what kurt tank says in a 1975 interview quoted in a book called:
Focke wulfe fw190 in combat by alfred price isbn 0-7509-2548-5
'Some have suggested that i had to fight a battle with the German Air Ministry to get them to accept the idea of radial engined fighter.That might make a good story but it is not history.In fact there was quite a large body of official opinion in favour of such a fighter for the Luftwaffe.'
A lot of older books say this kind of thing, makes you wonder if they are correct in their information.
also the newer books dont seem to mention the 190a-9 as being in production and id really like to know who is right. Damn annoying isnt it! who knows maybe the 190a9 was produced in great numbers without this armoured wing leading edge but it makes you wonder why it isnt in all the books.
I don't think he's 'published' per se. But he's very well respected. Read thru all his write-ups - he tries to provide sources, and usually goes into great detail.
Email the guy. :)
Mike/wulfie
-
A slight problem since only goes to Dec. 1944 but this site list the a/c 'on strength' by LW units. The Fw190A-9 is listed.
http://www.ww2.dk/
here is the listing for II/JG301
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg301.html
-
--- hazed-: ---
So why has it been listed in every book i have as having armoured wing leading edges?
--- end ---
The whole armored wing leading edge makes it sound as if the whole leading edge was armored. Somehow I suspect the armoring to be the same as with earlier sturmm planes which had armor around the 30mm ammo boxes.
// fats
-
910 A-9's ? I think I would have to be very very skeptical of that. That would mean there were as many A-9's as there were D-9's. Come on guys, your getting into some serious wishful thinking here.
-
The number of FW190A9 produce lies somewhere in the 200 range.
But not all A9 did get the BMW801F, they introduced some small changes to the A8, but kept the BMW801D.
i.e. JG1 was completely equited with A9 at the end of the war.
Also in "Greenhearts - 1st in combat with the Dora" you can find a comparison flight of an A9 of JG1 and a D9 of JG54.
The D9 was slighly faster and turned slightly better.
Also noone should forget that according to FW documents the D9 was the fastest low-medium altittude fighter of the whole FW190-TA152 series.
The real high alt engine was the JUMO213E not the JUMO213A. But as the 213A had a better high alt performance than the BMW801 Series, it was used as an interims solution until the 213E was available in numbers.
D9 outperformed any late war A-Series (A-7,8,9) in all performance aspects. Earlier A-Series (A-2,3,4,5) might have had a better substained turn due to their relative low weight. But in all other categories (speed, climb, dive) they all fell short.
Even a TA152C or H was slower at altittudes up to 18k.
Edit: The problem with IL2:FB might be that they are still using 426mph (685km/H) as the topspeed with MW50, this is completely wrong and was proven time and time again. But the designers of IL2 showed no interest to look into other sources than their own.
-
Hi Vermillion,
>910 A-9's ? I think I would have to be very very skeptical of that. That would mean there were as many A-9's as there were D-9's. Come on guys, your getting into some serious wishful thinking here.
Who's afraid of the big bad Wulf? :-)
Rodeike is a modern author who has done some serious research on the topic, probably going deeper into detail than anyone before. He's identified the Werknr. blocks associated with the Fw 190A-9 production quite clearly, and the JG301 loss reports from Reschke's book which I used to cross-check Rodeike's data indicate that they had their aircraft from several diferent blocks listed by Rodeike, occasionally even from blocks Rodeike didn't even list. If anything, I'd have to consider the number of 910 as too conservative judging from the data I have available.
With regard to wishful thinking: I don't think the A-9 was a particularly hot fighter in a 1945 context. I'd be more excited about a hundred D-11 aircraft than about a thousand A-9s :-)
>I think I would have to be very very skeptical of that.
Modern skepticism is based on the principles of rational analysis. That implies that you have a factual basis for your disbelief. Even William Green's "WW2 Aircraft" would be better than nothing - which is what you have now :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Naudet,
>The number of FW190A9 produce lies somewhere in the 200 range.
What's your source?
>But not all A9 did get the BMW801F, they introduced some small changes to the A8, but kept the BMW801D.
Actually, no BMW801F was ever used in series production aircraft, instead they employed the BMW801S, a (slightly) less powerful stopgap engine losely based on the BMW801E (von Gerstorff et. al.).
>D9 outperformed any late war A-Series (A-7,8,9) in all performance aspects.
I agree absolutely :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
great thread :) Wulfie thnx for those names of authors,I have a few of williams greens works and ive often looked at some of those listed.After seeing it yet again i thought ahh to hell with it I'll just buy some! :)
Im looking forward to receiving 'Warplanes of the Third Reich' by william green in the next few days (one of the 3 references quoted).I even managed to get it for half the price i usually see it for which is great.The high price always put me off buying it but now i should get it cheap ;)
First thing I'll be looking at is the 190a-9 i think :)
Also ordered some pretty seldom seen booklets by one of the authors in wulfies link's sources. These are 'Messerschmitt 109' and 'Russian Fighters 1920-41' by Heinz J. Nowarra. A couple of cheapies ;) if they seem competant references i may order the book mentioned in the link written by him which is very expensive even second hand.Must be a sought after book?.
From reveiws of Heinz Nowarras books it would seem they are a little outdated but still very good.A Norwegian reveiwer mentions several contradictions, and newer books which have a different veiw to that in his book but still recommends it.
Ho Hun I must admit it sounds like good news for any 190a-9 enthusiast ;) With this new material found maybe its time for a new book on the 190 varients? ;) seems if this material is correct peter Caygill has missed it in 2002 when he produced his combat legends book. Perhaps you should write one ho hun? :D
-
Hi Hazed,
>These are 'Messerschmitt 109' and 'Russian Fighters 1920-41' by Heinz J. Nowarra. A couple of cheapies ;)
My impression of Nowarra is that he has done only very sloppy research though he wrote a lot of books. There might be a few nuggets of good information in there, but they're buried beneath a heap of not-so-good information.
On the other hand, William Green's books are quite well researched considering their age! :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
HoHun, have the production numbers from Driehl/Gressel, they have a part containing Werknummer-Blocks etc. (Seite 87ff).
-
Originally posted by HoHun
On the other hand, William Green's books are quite well researched considering their age! :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Was it not Green who started the myth of MG151s in the cowl of the Bf109K-4? One must also watch Green's books just like Nowarra's but not as carefully.
-
Naudet you just answered one of my questions I jsut posted about one of his books and I was thinking of buying on the 190/152. SO they are no good?
-
Originally posted by hazed-
Im looking forward to receiving 'Warplanes of the Third Reich' by william green in the next few days .I even managed to get it for half the price i usually see it for which is great.The high price always put me off buying it but now i should get it cheap ;)
First thing I'll be looking at is the 190a-9 i think :)
Ok recieved 'Warplanes of the third reich' by william green, basically 672 pages packed with info.Its gonna take quite some time to plow though all this info but let me first give you what william green says in here about the 190A-9.......
'The prolific A-series was intended to continue with the Fw190A-9, initially conceived as a rammjager with heavily armoured wing leading edges and a BMW 801F engine (similar in general construction to the BMW801D-2 but having different super-charger gear ratios and offering 2,000hp for take-off and emergency), but this failed to procedd further than the prototype stage (Fw190 V34 Werk Nr 41 0230), and the BMW 801F in this aircraft was eventually supplanted by a BMW 801TS which featured an improved and simplified master control, and an exhaust-driven super-charger.For some inexplicable reason, the A-series sub-type numbers were continued by the D series fighters, the first production version of which accordingly became the Fw190D-9 as development of the fw190A-9 had been abandoned.'
as you can see in this book it totally agrees with the latest 'combat legends:Fw190' book by peter caygill. Seems one of the other 2 books in the sources must have the 190a-9 info on that web page? or do you think just maybe he has found a single source that claims they were built?
Im of the opinion that the internet is full of information which is highly dubious in nature.From so called pilot stories to info on aircraft, theres a lot of made up stuff out there. Perhaps one of the 3 sources does mention many 190a-9s being built but every book ive ever bought, including now one of this guys quoted sources says different.
Also where is this so called russian source that gives production numbers in the hundreds? Is it an original document? Have IL2 got it? or as i suspect is it something produced by a rather clever internet forger? Until I see the original or at least a decent copy of it I'll stick with what i read in the books.At least theres some chance that these authors are controlled by the publishers and might be more truthfull.
shame really.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Was it not Green who started the myth of MG151s in the cowl of the Bf109K-4? One must also watch Green's books just like Nowarra's but not as carefully.
It wasn't Green's book really, it was an understandable and easy to make misassumption.
Alot of German aircraft guns were electrically fired. In alot of the later-war (probably '43+) German fighters you'd have a 'standard cable bunch' found near the rear of the engine in a Bf 109 for example. The 'standard cable bunch' would have leads (with descriptions) for all electrically fired weapons (i.e. MG 131, MG 151, MK 103, MK 108, etc.).
Basically, someone saw the wiring for MG 151/15s alongside wired MG 131s that were serving as cowling weapons, and made the assumption that MG 151/15s were an 'applicable option'. This could be the reason for some of the 'MK 103 spinner weapon' rumors as well.
Don't slam Green - the reason every mistake he made is so well known is because 80% of the books on LW aircraft over the next 20 years did no research of their own - they basically reworded what he wrote. This is a 'syndrome' of more than WW2 LW aircraft books as well.
I think there were some technical drawings that showed MG 151/15s as cowl weapons on one type of fighter or another as well, but these were prototype tech. drawings...nothing else.
Mike/wulfie
-
Another area where you have to be very very careful is when someone is referencing werk numbers.
The RLM and the factory assigned many blocks of werk numbers, to aircraft that were never built. For example you might see information that XXX - XXX were Focke Wulf 190 E-57's (made up varient so it doesn't look like I'm pointing fingers.). Then someone else references those "blocks of assigned werk numbers" and then starts quoting them as actual assigned werk numbers, which are entirely different. I've seen that mistake several times in the past 8 years in these discussions.
-
Any idea about the number of 801TS produced?
-
Hi Hazed,
>and the BMW 801F in this aircraft was eventually supplanted by a BMW 801TS which featured an improved and simplified master control, and an exhaust-driven super-charger.
Actually, the BMW801S engine (TS as complete engine assembly) did have a mechanically driven supercharger.
The turbo-supercharged engine was the BMW801J of which only few were built. It seems these engines mostly went into the Junker Ju 388.
>Im of the opinion that the internet is full of information which is highly dubious in nature.
Reschke's book "Jagdgeschwader 301/302 'Wilde Sau'" lists dozens of A-9 losses complete with Werknr., pilot, fate of the pilot, and cause and date of the loss.
>Until I see the original or at least a decent copy of it I'll stick with what i read in the books.At least theres some chance that these authors are controlled by the publishers and might be more truthfull.
Read "Focke Wulf Jagdflugzeug Fw 190A, Fw 190 'Dora', Fw 190, Ta 152H" by Peter Rodeike. He quotes 910 A-9s built.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Vermillion,
>Another area where you have to be very very careful is when someone is referencing werk numbers.
I spent 53 min (check the time stamps: 03-03-03 08:00 am and 08:53 am) cross-referencing the loss lists from Reschke's book with the Werknr. lists from Rodeike's book before I quoted the production figure.
They matched well, and I wouldn't have quoted it if it had been different.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
My top list of this breed of books's is
Green (Germany)
Francillon (Japan)
Swanborough and Bowers (US Navy)
Swanborough (1909)
Haven't found a favorite for UK planes.
-Blogs
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Hazed,
>These are 'Messerschmitt 109' and 'Russian Fighters 1920-41' by Heinz J. Nowarra. A couple of cheapies ;)
My impression of Nowarra is that he has done only very sloppy research though he wrote a lot of books. There might be a few nuggets of good information in there, but they're buried beneath a heap of not-so-good information.
On the other hand, William Green's books are quite well researched considering their age! :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
The real prejudice against radials was in the UK and in the US Airforce.
This had to do in part because many engineers in the mid 1930s felt that a radial could not take as much supercharging as a liquid cooled engine (i.e. the deabte over the Curtiss Hawk). By 1940 that gap had been nearly closed.
-Blogs
Originally posted by hazed-
wulfie is this guy an amature historian? as in is he published? not being picky but this part of the write up got me remembering a kurt tank interveiw:
'RLM management was dominated by in-line water-cooled engines adherents, who did not share his vision of the new project'
and this is what kurt tank says in a 1975 interview quoted in a book called:
Focke wulfe fw190 in combat by alfred price isbn 0-7509-2548-5
'Some have suggested that i had to fight a battle with the German Air Ministry to get them to accept the idea of radial engined fighter.That might make a good story but it is not history.In fact there was quite a large body of official opinion in favour of such a fighter for the Luftwaffe.'
A lot of older books say this kind of thing, makes you wonder if they are correct in their information.
also the newer books dont seem to mention the 190a-9 as being in production and id really like to know who is right. Damn annoying isnt it! who knows maybe the 190a9 was produced in great numbers without this armoured wing leading edge but it makes you wonder why it isnt in all the books.