Hi there. We need a new Focke Wulf. How about the A9?

[Motherland]

I didn't know about the 152 tail being used like that. I don't know if it'd have to be exactly like the 152's rudder authority, but it was most likely a very useful improvement if it didn't move the CG too far back (esp if it was the wooden type).. That and the cowl gun delete package.. It would make a very nice bird.
The powerloading figures for people used to seeing them in this metric:

(HP/k lbs)		A8		A9		D9
MIL		184		216		182
WEP		215		236		218

Note that's better thrust to weight (30hp short on wep and a couple hundred pounds lighter) than a "loaded weight" 190D9.  All planes actually perform better than that if you account for more typical MA fuel loads etc.

What's the weight you used for the Dora?

[moot]

From wiki, a couple hundred more than the A9's ~9klbs.  What does a 100 fuel AH D9 say on the E6B?
AH E6B gives 8.6klbs for the A5 and 9.4 for the D9.  So those would look like:

	weight	MIL	WEP	mil/w	wep/w
A5	8.6	1677	1953	195	227
A8	9.1	1677	1953	184	215
A9	9.2	1973	2170	215	236
D9	9.4	1750	2200	186	234

So the A9 might not have the highest top speed, but it could be the best accelerating 190.

[Motherland]

I'm not sure. According to Focke-Wulf the gross weight of a loaded Fw 190D-9 in standard configuration w/ an empty Aux. tank (well, 'residual fuel') is 4250 kg.

[moot]

Yeah that's about what I got from the e6b. I updated the table. The A9 is ahead of everything in both mil and wep. It's quite a lot better at mil power.
The A5's got the same power output as the A8, right?

[Motherland]

Dietmar Hermann's 'Fw 190 D Long Nose' has Focke Wulf Technical Description No. 268: Fw 190D9 translated into english. This report has a weight table.

Fuselage-325kg
Undercarriage-278kg
Tail assembly (no ballast)-124kg
Control linkages-32kg
wing-453kg
Airframe-1212kg

Powerplant + 115l fuel tank (40 KG)-1878
'Normal' Equipment-180kg
'Special' Equpiment-220kg
Equipped weight 3490kg


Pilot-100kg
Fuel-525l-410 kg
Residual fuel in empty aux. tank (90kg)- --
Oil-40kg
Ammunition MG131 (475 ea)- 80kg
Ammunition MG151 (250 ea)- 110kg
Ballast-20kg
'Normal load' 760kg
Gross wight- fighter with standard armament and empty auxiliary fuel tank-4250kg

It doesn't have the weight for aircraft w/ full aux. tank listed.

There's also a report that says every aircraft should leave the factory with an ETC 504 rack and 170l or 300l tank installed. I'm not sure if the ETC 504 is included in the fuselage weight.

Yeah that's about what I got from the e6b. I updated the table. The A9 is ahead of everything in both mil and wep. It's quite a lot better at mil power.
The A5's got the same power output as the A8, right?

No

[moot]

That aux tank should be the mw50 tank.. They sometimes used it as a fuel tank when MW50 wasn't.  I did the table with the AH D9 weight, which is the number we care about, for this comparison, anyway

I figured the A5 didn't have the same power output. IIRC the AH A8's faster. Any idea where to find the A5 engine's output?  Or maybe we can deduce it from its top speed in AH. I don't know the equation for that, but it ought to be valid on the assumption that the A8 and A5 both have the same drag coeff., and knowing their weight from the E6B.

[BnZs]

That aux tank should be the mw50 tank.. They sometimes used it as a fuel tank when MW50 wasn't.  I did the table with the AH D9 weight, which is the number we care about, for this comparison, anyway

I figured the A5 didn't have the same power output. IIRC the AH A8's faster. Any idea where to find the A5 engine's output?  Or maybe we can deduce it from its top speed in AH. I don't know the equation for that, but it ought to be valid on the assumption that the A8 and A5 both have the same drag coeff., and knowing their weight from the E6B.

In AHII, the A8 is faster very low, but the A5 is faster higher.

[Xasthur]

Ohhhh yes! Please!

The A9 would be fantastic..... King of the short-noses!

[Saurdaukar]

The A5's got the same power output as the A8, right?

They were both powered by variants of the 14cyl 801D, but the Aces High version of the A8's 801D has a higher power output (altitude details not havent been looked at prior to this post) due to a higher ATA on MW50.

Still doesnt change the fact that the A5 flies like it has a parachute attached to it.

Fester's comment is valid (in the other thread) regarding the A5 introduction and its vertical performance.  It was excessive (which was simply awesome for fighting Niki's which were, at that time, helicopters).  However, the "fix" nerfed the AC to the point where, as we see, performance is lesser than the historical counterpart.

Either way, its surprisingly tough to nail down engine configurations for the late war BMW radials.  Ive read, when researching, more than once that neither BMW nor Focke Wulf really have a 100% handle on what engines were installed in what aircraft and in what numbers.

Thats what happens when you lose the war and all the buildings housing your documents are bombed to the ground, I suppose.

[Motherland]

That aux tank should be the mw50 tank.. They sometimes used it as a fuel tank when MW50 wasn't.  I did the table with the AH D9 weight, which is the number we care about, for this comparison, anyway

The auxiliary tank wasn't used in place of the MW50, it was used in place of the GM1.

[Cajunn]

wasn't the the Armour of the A9 increased also I thought I seen somewhere it was changed from 9mm on the A8 to 10mm on the A9.

[Saurdaukar]

wasn't the the Armour of the A9 increased also I thought I seen somewhere it was changed from 9mm on the A8 to 10mm on the A9.

The armor around the oil cooler was increased from 6mm to 10mm.  Not a big deal.

And, although the A9 wing was designed with armored leading edges (to ram buffs believe it or not), they never made it to production.

[Cajunn]

The armor around the oil cooler was increased from 6mm to 10mm.  Not a big deal.

And, although the A9 wing was designed with armored leading edges (to ram buffs believe it or not), they never made it to production.

Rgr! 

[Cajunn]

Found this don't know how accurate it is......



Specifications: FW 190 A9
Length 8.95m (29' 4")
Wing span 10.52m (35' 6")
Wing area 18.61sqm (200sqft)
Empty weight: 3530kg (7766lbs) depending on equipment
Gross weight: 4410-5000kg (9,700-11,000lbs)
Max speed at SL: 575-595km/h (357-370mph)
Max speed at 18,000ft: 690-700km/h (428-435mph)
Climb and combat power: 1650Hp @ 2400rpm, 1.45ata (43.5 InHg)
Take off and emergency power: 2000Hp @ 27000rp, 1.65ata (49.5 InHg)
Special emergency power: 2300Hp @ 2700rpm, 1.75ata (52.5 InHg)
Climb to 5000m (16,500ft) 5.45min (at Climb power, 1650Hp)
Initial climb rate: 18.5m/s (3650ft/min)
Service ceiling 11,400m (37,500ft)
Range 665km (413sm), without external tanks

[BnZs]

We could probably count on at least 360mph if it got modeled...sweet...

Sea-level ROC would probably be over 4000fpm at typical MA fuel loadings.

Found this don't know how accurate it is......



Specifications: FW 190 A9
Length 8.95m (29' 4")
Wing span 10.52m (35' 6")
Wing area 18.61sqm (200sqft)
Empty weight: 3530kg (7766lbs) depending on equipment
Gross weight: 4410-5000kg (9,700-11,000lbs)
Max speed at SL: 575-595km/h (357-370mph)
Max speed at 18,000ft: 690-700km/h (428-435mph)
Climb and combat power: 1650Hp @ 2400rpm, 1.45ata (43.5 InHg)
Take off and emergency power: 2000Hp @ 27000rp, 1.65ata (49.5 InHg)
Special emergency power: 2300Hp @ 2700rpm, 1.75ata (52.5 InHg)
Climb to 5000m (16,500ft) 5.45min (at Climb power, 1650Hp)
Initial climb rate: 18.5m/s (3650ft/min)
Service ceiling 11,400m (37,500ft)
Range 665km (413sm), without external tanks