PDA

View Full Version : The Focke Wolf 190A8 & 9 request/fantasy



XyZspineZyX
04-03-2007, 06:31 PM
Has anybody ever requested that the above planes have clean undersides, (bomp droptank rack removed) when involved in standard air to air missions. Or is this rack part of the original model & cannot be removed. With the A4 to A6 series the racks are only placed on the models when doing jabo missions or when you need drop tanks.

I am assuming that with the removal of the rack the A8/9 would get a speed & manouverability increase due to less weight

XyZspineZyX
04-03-2007, 06:31 PM
Has anybody ever requested that the above planes have clean undersides, (bomp droptank rack removed) when involved in standard air to air missions. Or is this rack part of the original model & cannot be removed. With the A4 to A6 series the racks are only placed on the models when doing jabo missions or when you need drop tanks.

I am assuming that with the removal of the rack the A8/9 would get a speed & manouverability increase due to less weight

JG53Frankyboy
04-03-2007, 07:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dasriech:
Has anybody ever requested that the above planes have clean undersides, (bomp droptank rack removed) when involved in standard air to air missions. .................... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you mean the last 5 years ? naaaaaaa, never http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

anyway, Oleg said in the past, that the ETC is only visible in default - it does not count in drag and weight than.

XyZspineZyX
04-03-2007, 08:16 PM
Oh
OK then
Thanks for the reply,

KG26_Alpha
04-06-2007, 01:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I am assuming that with the removal of the rack the A8/9 would get a speed & manouverability increase due to less weight </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was never modelled to cause drag just for visual effect.

RegRag1977
04-06-2007, 03:22 PM
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g308/RegRag1977/Prillb.jpg

RegRag1977
04-06-2007, 03:29 PM
Many guys here told me that the A8 and A9 had always the etc bombrack for center of gravity purpose:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/4011051615/p/2.

But as you can see on this photograph the A8, in western front didn't have it by default.

This machine is a Fw190A8 Werk Nummer170346 piloted by Priller over Normandy front in 1944.

No crappy bombracks plus the possibility to have a fuel droptank by the mean of the light Erla type device. We should have this one in IL2, what a pity, the Focke Wulf pilots really deserve to have a Western A8 version in IL2.

RegRag1977
04-06-2007, 03:34 PM
My question to expert is now: was it possible to have central auxiliar droptank with the ETC bombrack. And if no, was that why the other FW190A8 version had an extra 300l internal fuel tank?
Could this be a reason of Oleg modelling the A8 as a really heavy fighter that is no match for opposition?

M_Gunz
04-07-2007, 08:59 AM
The A8 was heavier because it had added armor. It was for attacking bombers.
If the fighter you chase is going to need a hard enough turn to cause you to bleed speed then
do not follow it. Fly some other path that lets you get another shot in 2-3 moves.

Brain32
04-07-2007, 09:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Many guys here told me that the A8 and A9 had always the etc bombrack for center of gravity purpose </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What many guys? One guy only, the one that is usually full of BS when it comes to German planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Brain32
04-07-2007, 09:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The A8 was heavier because it had added armor. It was for attacking bombers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's generalizing, not EVERY A8 had tons of armour, there were specially armoured A8's that went after bombers, I think those were called Ramjagers or something like that.
FockeWulfs were not so heavy as many people would like to believe, but everybody is always looking at the heaviest possible version, that's the curse of being so good in multi purpose I guess http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

RegRag1977
04-07-2007, 11:15 AM
Thank you Brain http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ,

Yes, i over exagerated http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif, only one guy...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif but can you tell me if it was possible to carry a fuel droptank under the ETC rack? Or was the erla light device the only way to have it?

RegRag1977
04-07-2007, 11:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
[QUOTE] The A8 was heavier because it had added armor. It was for attacking bombers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's generalizing, not EVERY A8 had tons of armour, there were specially armoured A8's that went after bombers, I think those were called Ramjagers or something like that.

Were'nt they called Sturmbock?

Jaws2002
04-07-2007, 04:44 PM
On the A8 the bombrack was used to balance the center of gravity when the auxiliary tank was filled.

In the A9 the problem was fixed with the thicker armor ring in front of the engine. No reason to have bomb rack on the A9.

Ratsack
04-12-2007, 08:33 PM
The standard A-8 did not carry extra armor. It was heavier because of the extra radio gear and because of the extra fuel tank in the rear fuselage. This tank was needed to carry the extra fuel used with erhoerte notleistung power (EH). The EH modification to the BMW 801 D-2 engine was pretty much standard on the A-8. Some of the early production aircraft may not have had it.

The position of the ETC rack was changed on the A-8 as part of the centre of gravity fix. It was a standard fitting on the A-8. In addition, from the A-6 onward the standard wing weaponry for the Fw 190 A was 4 x MG151/20. This was therefore standard on the A-8 also.

However, there were some lightened A-6, A-7 and A-8s that had the outer guns removed, and in the case of the A-8 the ETC rack replaced with the small version visible on Priller's plane. If you look closely at that pic (or a larger version of the original) you can see that there is no bulge in the upper wing for the outboard MG151/20. This bulge was on all A-8s with the 4 x MG151 loadout.

I don't have figures for it, and nor have I seen any, but I would suppose that the lightened A-8 would have performance better than the A-5, given similar weight and drag, but an extra few hundred HP. The A-8 in any configuration has better power loading than the earlier types.

cheers,
Ratsack

RegRag1977
04-14-2007, 02:50 PM
Thank you Ratsack http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif , for your interesting post!

You answered clearly some questions i asked myself many times.
I saw another photograph of this Fw190A and it looks like it indeed had the "only two" 20mm. What i noticed too was the difference in canopies between Prillers A8 and the one we have in game (same for the D9).

I hope you don't mind me asking you two other questions:

1) Was it possible to have a central droptank with ETC bombrack;

2) Were the A8 lightened common, or were they only exceptions. (Did Priller have his kills against Four-engined bombers with the lightened version?)

I hope you can answer my questions, anyway thanks for posting infos! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Daisan1981
04-15-2007, 04:33 AM
The Focke-Wolf 190A8&A9 request

U3: Outer MG 151/20 Removed

RegRag1977
04-15-2007, 09:36 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Bump!

Ratsack
04-25-2007, 06:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RegRag1977:
Thank you Ratsack http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif , for your interesting post!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No worries. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I hope you don't mind me asking you two other questions:

1) Was it possible to have a central droptank with ETC bombrack; </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
2) Were the A8 lightened common, or were they only exceptions. (Did Priller have his kills against Four-engined bombers with the lightened version?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The short answer is, I don't know. I've not seen many photos of A-7s or A-8s without the outer wing guns. However, I have seen quite a few more of late war A-8s with no ETC rack. Again, in the absence of data I can only speculate as to what the performance might have been like, but I understand the ETC adapter rack cost quite a bit in terms of drag.

cheers,
Ratsack

faustnik
04-25-2007, 10:14 AM
When you consider of the firing time the Fw190A8 pilots had against 8th AF heavies, I can't think of a good reason to remove the outer cannon. Two MG151 is a considerable amount of firepower. The belly tank was a required item for heavy bomber intercept as well, giving the Fw190s the time to climb and gain position.

In very late 1944, the Jagdwaffe switched in part from intercepting B-17 raids to intercepting low altitude Allied jabos. In this role, removing the outer cannon would make sense. Two Mg151 would be enough to cripple or kill any fighter with one pass. Without the required long climb time, the belly rack would not be required either.

Ratsack
04-25-2007, 10:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
... The belly tank was a required item for heavy bomber intercept as well, giving the Fw190s the time to climb and gain position.
.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it most certainly was.

The requirement was to gather a largish formation of fighters in the right spot, at the right altitude. Given that a Gruppe might be operating from several airfields, this meant the various elements had to rendezvous, and this sometimes meant circling a beacon. This cost fuel, and it also explains the requirement for the radio navigation gear that became virtually standard on German interceptors in 1943. The other point with the nav. gear is that the formation would be directed by ground control to a position in front of the bombers, at high altitude. From a height of 20,000 feet, a little bit of under-cast or haze could render landmarks nearly invisible, so the interceptors needed radio nav. gear to be able to navigate reliably. Similarly, they also required Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) radio gear so that the controllers could distinguish between friendly and enemy formations.

All of this added up to a load of extra radio gear that weighed quite a lot, remembering that they ran on valves in those days, and would've required the associated transformers (with lot's of heavy copper windings) and power supply. They also required aerials, which added drag. When you add the adapter rack as well, the whole bundle must've knocked quite a bit off total performance.

Cheers,
Ratsack

Daisan1981
04-26-2007, 07:06 AM
The Focke-Wolf 190A8&A9 request

Option:

U3: Outer MG 151/20 Removed

Ratsack
04-26-2007, 10:07 PM
I would like a purely cosmetic change to the Fw 190 A-8. I want the one with the original flat canopy, instead of the one we have with the 'blown' hood. The vast majority of A-8s had the flat hood, while the blown hood was only introduced on fighters quite late in the piece.

But most importantly, the A-8 with flat canopy looks the shizznit!! MG131 bulges, four great big MG151 barrels stickin' out of the wings: it looks like it wants to kill something.

cheers,
Ratsack

XyZspineZyX
04-27-2007, 08:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daisan1981:
The Focke-Wolf 190A8&A9 request

Option:

U3: Outer MG 151/20 Removed </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Ratsack
04-28-2007, 08:09 AM
I'd rather have an option to remove the outer MGFF cannon on the A-4 & A-5 without adding that bloody ETC rack.

To me, removing the outer MG151s on the A-8 and A-9 makes no sense, since it's got the ETC rack anyway. You'd save a little bit of weight, but the contemporary pilots don't seem to have thought it was significant. I have a nasty suspicion the ETC rack made more difference than the outer wing guns.

cheers,
Ratsack

JG53Frankyboy
04-28-2007, 09:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
I'd rather have an option to remove the outer MGFF cannon on the A-4 & A-5 without adding that bloody ETC rack.

................ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

at least the Fw190A-5/-6's Sealevel speed doesnt suffer much, if at all, in the "clean" -/U3 armament option........ i have no idea how/if handling or climb changes to the default setting.

i have not tested the Fw190A-4's clean -/U1 option.

RegRag1977
05-01-2007, 10:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daisan1981:
The Focke-Wolf 190A8&A9 request

Option:

U3: Outer MG 151/20 Removed </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
with of course machine guns and canons firing separately (like in D9, F8), and not this strange thing we have now.

Canons should fire together (4 20ies together while pressing button 2, and MG with Button 1, otherwise the canon gondolas key is nonsense....)

And central droptank option of course!

Ratsack
05-01-2007, 04:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RegRag1977:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daisan1981:
The Focke-Wolf 190A8&A9 request

Option:

U3: Outer MG 151/20 Removed </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
with of course machine guns and canons firing separately (like in D9, F8), and not this strange thing we have now.

Canons should fire together (4 20ies together while pressing button 2, and MG with Button 1, ....


</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. The way it is now is historically correct.

The Fw 190 A-1 to A-3 had a single gun button and a selector lever on the the control column. The lever could select MG17s and MG151s, or all weapons. This meant that the gun button could fire either the MG17s and MG151s, or all six weapons at once. The MG17s and the MG151s in the wing roots always fired together.

There was, however, a gun arming panel where particular weapons could be disarmed. This meant it was possible for a pilot to turn off his Mausers allowing the MG17s to be fired on their own. I can't think why one would do this.

From the Fw 190 A-4 onward, the selector lever was deleted in favour of a second firing button for the outer pair of wing cannon. Again, the fuselage machine guns and the MG151s in the wing roots always fired together (i.e., 'button 1').


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
And central droptank option of course! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree completely.

cheers,
Ratsack

RegRag1977
05-02-2007, 09:06 AM
Sorry for my request, of course just keep the firing mode historical!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif I didn't know it was in game, shame on me! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif
Anyway, at least i learned something...

@Ratsack

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Thanks for precisions about the Fw190A firing mode, very interesting!

I suppose that the firing mode on F8 and D9 (MG and 20ies not together) were possible just because the outer guns were remove? Or are they wrong in the game?

Thanks for good information http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

JG14_Josf
05-02-2007, 09:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">From the Fw 190 A-4 onward, the selector lever was deleted in favour of a second firing button for the outer pair of wing cannon. Again, the fuselage machine guns and the MG151s in the wing roots always fired together (i.e., 'button 1'). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it possible to get some form of documentation backing up the above statement?

Any mechanic can add/subtract a button and switch a wire or two from an electrical switch.

A factory made version of anything leaves the factory - then what happens?

Please note that I am merely trying to learn what is or is not factual concerning history (the game is a game).

Ratsack
05-03-2007, 06:49 AM
The A-1 to A-3 button arrangement is described - and criticized - in the Beauvais / Gollob report. You've got links to that elsewhere.

The A-4 and later button arrangement was described on this forum by Butch2k on the basis of FW documentation. He gave part numbers.

cheers,
Ratsack

Daisan1981
05-05-2007, 11:50 AM
Request

1.42ATA&2700rpm for FW-190A-4