Focke Wulf 190 A 3

[Redwulf__1]

Iam interessted to know what historical datas are used in this sim for the winf of the FW 190 A 3 ? Is the wingtwist included and what polars are under use?

As you maybe know the Focke Wulf Wings, even up to the Dora Wings are based on the same Wing, called V5g.

What are the CG settings for this aircraft?

 

 

[ImPeRaToR]

 

As you maybe know the Focke Wulf Wings, even up to the Dora Wings are based on the same Wing, called V5g.

You are asking for specific data while spreading such vague misinformation? Starting with the A-6 an updated wing was used - the basic shape was the same but the panel lines and the mass distribution and total mass of the wing itself changed, which would require modeling them differently. So your information is rather misleading.

Edited December 5, 2013 by ImPeRaToR

[Redwulf__1]

Thats what Iam saying........It was in all specs the same wing.... the V5g ( für gross, i guess you understand german ). In developing the Versions some changes

were made ( weapon bulks i.e. ), but the wing specs itself didnt change. ( like 18,3 qm or wingtwist ) BTW Iam researching the Fockes since 15 years now and I own some original sheets from Focke Wulf and got assistance from Flugwerke in my research.

 

So back to my question. Is the wingtwist included and what polars are under use in the displayed FW 190 A3 ?

[JtD]

Which polars do you know / have? Would you share them with the community?

Edited December 5, 2013 by JtD

[bivalov]

well, i have question too - fw 190 a-3 had... hmmm... "adjustable louvers" instead "gaps", or it's only for late a-4, and a-5? and it's - around 20 kph with opened louvers, right? and it's why with same settings fw with gaps (540/1.42 ata) slower than fw with louvers (567 kph/1.42 ata)?

 

thx in advance...

 

hope, someday, some publishers will publish translated late variants of books about fw 190, too much simple and sometimes silly questions from me and other guys...

[Redwulf__1]

@ MK.Bivalov

 

well I hope I can answer some of your questions. The A 3 was a development of an A 2. Both planes had no adjustable Louvers, but 3 cooling slots or as you said gaps behind the exhaust pipes. ( in german they were called Kühlschlitze. ) The difference between the A 2 and A 3 was the engine. The engine BMW 801 D2 was built in until Spring 1942. Because an used compression Loader the takeoff power setting was 1700 PS @ 2700 rpm with 1.42 ata.  This engine used C 3 fuel with 96 Oktan ( later 100 ). But Focke Wulf found out that in combat the engine had still cooling problems. With March 1942 the outcome of these engine got limited at the emergeny power setting of 2450 rpms with 1.35 ata. Again after Modifications of the engine ( i..e. cromed Valves, reinforced starter shaft etc ) the full emergency power got approved back to settings above. ( Date was around October 1942 ). The first plane using the adjustable louvers like you call it was the A 5, iam not aware of any A 4 with adjustable Louvers. It might be possible that some A 4 had em during the development process for the A5, but thats my speculation.

I dont know the speeds you are reffering to, but to me it looks like you are talking about two planes. The A 4 with cooling gaps and an A 5 with adjustable cooling louvers. Therefore the difference between speeds would make sence. 

 

@JtD

 

Iam calling about the original polars of the V5g Wing from Focke Wulf plans, dated 22.01.1940 ( Sheet Nr. 4 conception 5 d ). I dont know if I can display it here because possible copyright, but if you write me an PM I can send you this sheet in a copy if you like.

 

 

But Iam still interessted to know if the developers did use the wingtwist of 2 degrees ( wingroot ) and what polars they are using

Edited December 6, 2013 by Redwulf__1

[Redwulf__1]

BTW the right german therm for these "gaps" was Kiemenspalten, free translated gillcleaves ( I dont know if an english word like this exists,lol )

[ImPeRaToR]

There are quite a few pictures showing A-4s on the eastern front with - probably retrofitted - adjustable louvers.

[Redwulf__1]

Iam not aware of these. Can you refer to these pictures?

On the other hand I have pictures displayed from an A 3 and A 4 without adjustable louvers. It is possible as said that they maybe adjusted some things later.

 

But take a look to the pictures:

 

A 4 ( left ) and A3 ( right picture )

 

In both you see the gaps only

 

Reference: Book Heinz Nowarra Die deutsche Luftrüstung Band 2 page 76. He referes also that the A 3 got the Kiemenspalten ( = gillcleaves  )

No further reference to adjustable louvers for the A 4.

[ImPeRaToR]

These two could be considered a bit of an exception as JG5 operated A-3s for a long time

 

 

However as you can see, JG51 and 54 also had A-4s with adjustable cooling louvres, the latter is even supposed to be from early '43

 

This one is believed to be from early autumn 44!

[Redwulf__1]

Edit:

 

On the other hand I found a reference ( Rodeicke ) that states that a few A 4 had ajustable Louvers, but I doubt that this was a series production. I dont have further reference about it

[ImPeRaToR]

Especially if you have a plane in service as long as Autumn 44 you are bound to have to replace some parts, and if all your other planes on strength at that time have the adjustable louvres why search for the older parts if you can just install the never ones.
I've also read about SchlG1 and its successor units upgrading older A/F/G series models with MG131 making them sort of hybrid models and hard to distinguish from the F-8 and G-8s also on strength at the same time.

Edited December 6, 2013 by ImPeRaToR

[Redwulf__1]

Thank you ImPeRaToR for these pictures.

 

The first two pictures are very interessting for me. I know that JG 5 has flown A 2´s and A 3´s in Norway.  They have flown it with " Modifications".Iam not aware of a detailed explaination of these modifications, but maybe one of these modifications is adjustable louver, that can be. Iam not sure about the other pictures. The A 4 had as distintive feature an Antenna on its tail.In special the picture No 4 I cant see this Antenna, nor do I see clearly adjustable Louvres. To me it looks like the Kiemenspalten of an A3.

As said Iam not aware of a series production with adjustable Louvres in A 3 and A 4, but it is like you stated, possible that later some modifications were made with these planes.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Redwulf__1

[MiloMorai]

It is possible that some of the a/c with the adjustable gills were late production a/c since the A-5 would have been in the design stage.

[ImPeRaToR]

If you zoom in on picture 4 you can see more than 3 gaps

 

 

doesn't really matter if it's an A-3 or A-4 as long as it is clear that it is not an A-5 if you ask me, either way it proves that they were retrofitted with the adjustable louvres.

 

For BOS it doesn't matter either as the default A-3 shouldn't have and I am not sure it is worth adding them as a field mod other than for cosmetic purposes.

Edited December 6, 2013 by ImPeRaToR

[bivalov]

BTW the right german therm for these "gaps" was Kiemenspalten, free translated gillcleaves ( I dont know if an english word like this exists,lol )

ok, i understood...

 

 

thx for answers, guys, i see here confirmation of my guesses and what i read/understand...

 

and in fact, main question - what about correct performance of fw 190 a-3 1.42 ata at end of 42, with or without Kiemenspalten/mg-ffs?

 

i have "my" opinion, what in fact late a-3 = a-4/5 ie ideal plane in good condition with 540-545 kph at sl at 30 min. 1.32 or 1.35 ata (in manual 1.35 for high alts, huh?)/565-567 at 1-3 min. 1.42 ata (looks like we get exactly not de-rated late version?), 15 mps at sl with 3978-4000 kg of full weight and steig und kampfleistung/ 16.4 with 3850 kg, around 21-22 sec of turmtime at 1000 m for 3978 kg or little worse, etc, but i need opinion of native speakers and fw lovers, about 109s at least have Kurfurst site etc...

 

just if we will understand this, we could say, fighting against luftwaffe will be very hard or not so, although, no any information about series of planned la-5, while it's very important (530 or 550 kph at sl with forsazh), like fw/f-4/g-2 with 1.3 or 1.42...

[JtD]

Fw 190 with gills sometimes had them covered in winter, before the gills were replaced with adjustable flaps. In winter cooling was sufficient even with gills covered. While the aircraft with open gills was considerably slower (~20 km/h) than with closed flaps, the covered gills pretty much lead to equal speeds. I'm aware of several A-4 tests leading to speeds of 540-550 km/h at sea level and 640-650 at altitude, flown at Kampfleistung (1.32ata/2400rpm), in clean condition. However, Fw 190 on the eastern front weren't always flown in factory test condition, most noticeable would be the absence of full wheel covers. These modifications could easily reduce speed by 20 km/h. So if (worst case) we're getting an A-3 with open gills and removed wheel covers (which, looking at Bf 109 and LaGG, I don't expect), we'll be flying around at 510ish at sea level, 600ish at altitude, with combat power. Emergency power would add another 20 km/h. With open gills, it shouldn't ever overheat.

[ImPeRaToR]

The wheel covers might be removable via alpha channel on the skin, but this would make it entirely cosmetic of course.

[bivalov]

wow, thx for good answer with very interesting for me details...

 

 

 

Fw 190 with gills sometimes had them covered in winter, before the gills were replaced with adjustable flaps. In winter cooling was sufficient even with gills covered.

ok, it's important...

 

la-5, in this context, almost all times had some problems with cooling=more opened створки (adjustable flaps) + совок (flap? of oil cooler), looks like it's "forced" design of aircraft, and design of cylinders... exactly yak-1 with PF had overheat at max. power too, because not really good design of coolers and tunnels, although in game winter and some planes had cooler of yak-7...

 

i just write this for realistic comparing of aircrafts...

 

While the aircraft with open gills was considerably slower (~20 km/h) than with closed flaps, the covered gills pretty much lead to equal speeds.

really ~20 kph? looks like because external aerodynamics + air flows inside etc? well, 20 it's big number, but looks not wrongly...

 

I'm aware of several A-4 tests leading to speeds of 540-550 km/h at sea level and 640-650 at altitude, flown at Kampfleistung (1.32ata/2400rpm), in clean condition.

exactly 550? never saw this, but in total i not have objections, especially for various tests aircrafts with qualified testers (i read a bit about this) or calculations...

 

However, Fw 190 on the eastern front weren't always flown in factory test condition, most noticeable would be the absence of full wheel covers. These modifications could easily reduce speed by 20 km/h.

i glad to see these reasonable words, i hesitated to insinuate on age, conditions of EF and other realistic stuff...

 

if i'm not mistaken, for la-5 not full cover of main wheels give - ~5-7 kph, and you mean field mods like attached pic? + these little caps for 2 mg 151 etc, and condition of aircraft in total...

 

but Viks clearly said what "we will do new aircrafts without defects" or something like this, on russian forum, and this very good, at first and exactly for soviet planes/weapon/equipment with many various, little or sometimes serious defects, problems etc...

 

although, sometimes it's страшилки ("scary stories") from NII VVS and not so critical for combats and pilot's work...

 

So if (worst case) we're getting an A-3 with open gills and removed wheel covers (which, looking at Bf 109 and LaGG, I don't expect), we'll be flying around at 510ish at sea level, 600ish at altitude, with combat power. Emergency power would add another 20 km/h. With open gills, it shouldn't ever overheat.

530 at 1.42?! looks like captured russian fw 190 with 510 kph at sl/at SuKL... but in total very reasonable, i understood, and personally i wait almost "ideal" fw 190, MAYBE, only later will be some corrections for realistic EF...

 

well, it's around 520 (-530?)/540 (-550?) without problems with cooling...

 

not bad, similar with la-5 after 9 serie (at dec'42 - 518 at nominal/550 at 1140 mm rt st, 3220 kg, 3 fuel tanks, 170 shells per shvak etc, i guess around 19 mps at forsazh, 20 sec of truntime, and this is still m-82a with 5 min. maximum power or little more by real practice, max. 13 min = m-82f a bit later, with little changes)...

 

plus N.Egorov writes about series, in regiments and lists of losses at least have 10 series, how i think it's exactly planes as i described above...

 

and what about time for 1.42? in report of NII VVS, russian fw 190 had 1 minute for max. power (i guess this for end'42-early'43 like with other german engines, later 3 min. from a-5/6 manual)...

 

 

and if this not problem, what about ammo for plane? personally i saw - 1 900 rounds per mg17, 200 per mg151/20 for UK fw 190... 2 900 per mg17, 280 per mg151/20, 60 (most likely it's assumption) per mg-ff for our fw 190... and similar other numbers of shells...

 

which more realistic, or it's just wishes of pilots/needs in concrete situations and full capacity it's around 300 shells for each mg151/20? plus, interesting, 100 schuss trommel (with real capacity=90 shells, like 55 for 60 schuss trommel?) it's serial thing for fw 190, not only prototype? a-3 could have this new trommel or it's for 43 and a-4/5?

 

and wherefore these "odd" 2 mg-17 with 1800-2000 rounds, it's ranging? insurance in case of failure of main weapon? or...? for players, even of realistic sim, it's strange, agrees...

 

SORRY for these question blahblahblah etc... just this really interesting questions, i think, although no matter if i not got answers...

 

[ImPeRaToR]

Very interesting to read about the La5

 

 

and wherefore these "odd" 2 mg-17 with 1800-2000 rounds

they do seem redundant, I have no answer for the question. Especially when you take pilot armor into consideration it is questionable how useful they were. It can't be a COG or balance thing either to keep them because the 190G series and some of the Sturmjäger configurations did not have machine guns either, and with their additional bomb racks, additional armor and/or heavier guns their COG was probably moved even further back than it would be on a regular A series without machine guns.

 

Might be a nice field mod to remove the MG17, can somebody provide some pictures to prove that it was actually a common practice? There are many that show deleted MG FF/M.

[bivalov]

Very interesting to read about the La5

ok... personally for me it's not hard like for germans write about fw/bf, here only problem what in history of la-5 not have normal official description of end'42 - beginning'43, in fact, and could be little errors with starting of production of late series, and which planes have which performance, and when...

 

but think on 75-85 percents i right, because mainly it's info from official documents...

 

It can't be a COG or balance thing either to keep them because the 190G series and some of the Sturmjäger configurations did not have machine guns either, and with their additional bomb racks, additional armor and/or heavier guns their COG was probably moved even further back than it would be on a regular A series without machine guns.

 

Might be a nice field mod to remove the MG17, can somebody provide some pictures to prove that it was actually a common practice? There are many that show deleted MG FF/M.

oh, really, forgot about COG, but and your words are reasonable for me at this moment... but looks like this is not mass practice or just practice, i never saw any pictures with normaljaeger without mg-17...

 

maybe, it was not really needful? or for fw was another priority = schlachtflugzeug or something like this, although, i checked now in manual, only ammunition for MGs = 54 kg, almost half of mg-ff + 2 trommel = around 17 m/s instead 16.4, but i fear what developers not will give for us things like above, sometimes very questionable things... especially at moment iof realese...

[Redwulf__1]

Well Gentlemen, before we start a discussion about performances. I think we need to concentrate on the developmewnt of the A3. Due my research for the D Series and TA Series  I had to learn as well that the available Focke Wulf sheets showing us calculated results. Most but not all.....

As a fact the A 3 had Kiemenspaltenbleche, no further info on standart planes with adjustable louvres. A Standart A 3 had 2x MG 17 7,92 mm, each of them 900 rounds above the engine ( Bulk ), also in the wingroot 2 x MG 151 /20E 20 mm with each 250 rounds and at least in the outer wing 2x MG 151/FF-M with each 90 rounds.

Maximum Takeoff weight ( without MG 151FF-M ) was 3.850 kg. That makes a calculated climbrate of 1.250 m per minute.  The amor had a weight of 109 kg.

Original flown datas from Focke Wulf sheets, dated 26.11.1942: ( without MG 151/FFM )

Takeoff and emergency setting

SL: 540 km/h

1000 Meters: 570 km/h

6400 Meters: 660 km /h

 

Climb and Combat setting:

SL = 520 km/h

1200 m = 555 km/h

3000 m = 560 km/h

4000m = 590 km/h

5700 = 630 km/h

7000 = 620 km/h

 

Climperformance in SL: 16,0 Meter per second

Climptimes from SL to:

2000 Meters in 2,3 Minutes

4000 Meters in 4,8 Minutes

6000 Meters in 7,6 Minutes

8000 Meters in 11,5 Minutes

 

Max ceiling 10,500 Meters.

 

Interessting is that Focke wulf made details about tolerances of about

 

3 % in Speed

10 % for clibtimes to 2000 Meters

and 400 Meters for max. ceiling.

 

In my opinion the tolerances WITH built in MG 151 FFM.

 

Some variants were built, mostly prototypes as follows:

 

Fw 190 A-3/U1: engine adjustment 15 cm longer  (only one prototype; Werknummer 270, same engine adjustment in A 5 )

Fw 190 A-3/U2: Prototype for RZ-65-rockets, only 1 prototype Werknumber 386 without MG 151/FFM

Fw 190 A-3/U3: Recon Prototype for serveral Cameras, only 1 built Werknumber 511 without MG 151 FFM but with rack ETC 501 ( for A 6 )

Fw 190 A-3/U4: recon plane with 2 cameras for high alt flights, only 12 built, no werknumber available. IMO status not realised.

Fw 190 A-3/U7: weight reduced high alt fighter, only MG 151 / 20 mm and outside mounted air intake, 3 built Werknumbers 528, 530 and 531

Fw 190 A-3/U8: rebuilt A-3/U1, only 1 built no Werknumber, no further details here

 

60- 70 FW 190 A 3 were built for Turkey, but these planes had only MG 4 MG 17 and 2 MG FF. This plane was called FW 190 Aa3, you need to look to your sheets very closely. There are some sheets in the Net pointing to that plane.

 

Well at least the wing as once said was a V5g, I still have the question to the developers if the wingtwist of 2 degrees is displayed here or not. ....and Iam still interessted...if not, what polars are they using?

Edited December 11, 2013 by Redwulf__1

[bivalov]

Due my research for the D Series and TA Series  I had to learn as well that the available Focke Wulf sheets showing us calculated results. Most but not all.....

yes, but looks like they accurate and most likely confirmed in RL? moreover, in total, SOME tests of captured planes confirms calculations too, if i'm not mistaken...

 

As a fact the A 3 had Kiemenspaltenbleche, no further info on standart planes with adjustable louvres.

ok, yep, we stopped exactly at this version above, as standart for many a-3s was "Kiemenspaltenbleche"...

 

Original flown datas from Focke Wulf sheets, dated 26.11.1942: ( without MG 151/FFM )

Takeoff and emergency setting

SL: 540 km/h

 

Climb and Combat setting:

SL = 520 km/h

 

Climperformance in SL: 16,0 Meter per second

hmm, sorry:), but exactly in this page from 26.11.42 personally i clearly seen typical performance of a-5 with 1.42 ata ie 567 kph, and 16.4 mps of plane with 3850 kg... 520/540 it's speed from test of turkish Aa-3, and similar in some handbooks where 526/537 or i here little mistaken...

 

all this one of main reasons why i asked, but mainly i sure what in total correct performance for a-3 1.42 it's around 55x-56x/54x, 15, 3978 kg etc, 540 it's for de-rated version or without flaps... although, i not absolutely sure of course, and in 20 km loose by flaps, and other things... and i heard and about new compressor or something like this...

 

well, all types of rumors here... 

  

Interessting is that Focke wulf made details about tolerances of about

 

3 % in Speed

10 % for clibtimes to 2000 Meters

and 400 Meters for max. ceiling.

 

In my opinion the tolerances WITH built in MG 151 FFM.

thx for reminder, 540 +/- 16.2 kmph and 15 mps +/- 1.5 etc, but sadly what for game now this not need...

 

60- 70 FW 190 A 3 were built for Turkey, but these planes had only MG 4 MG 17 and 2 MG FF. This plane was called FW 190 Aa3, you need to look to your sheets very closely. There are some sheets in the Net pointing to that plane.

interesting, how much different this version, in fact? i mean could we have this plane without any serious changes? it seems, changes only in weapon, radio and some equipment probably on turkish...

[JtD]

Original flown datas from Focke Wulf sheets, dated 26.11.1942: ( without MG 151/FFM )

Takeoff and emergency setting

SL: 540 km/h

1000 Meters: 570 km/h

6400 Meters: 660 km /h

Please note that this is with adjustable cooling flaps, not with gills.

[bivalov]

it's offtop in some sence, and i feel myself little foolish... i really not saw all this stuff from reports, meanwhile, here i clearly see one of prototypes, or something like this, of la-5 9 and other late series (at least, it's new tailwheel and new hmm, "visor" with bulletproof glass like for lagg of "66 series"), looks like this is answer, huh? moreover, 2 captured fws including a-4 with adjustable flaps, etc...

[Redwulf__1]

@ JtD it is noticed as Kiemenspaltenbleche. Thats a difference. It may look for you as adjustable Louvres, but it is just a piece of metal around the opening. Some notes of adjustable louvres point on a A 3 AND A 4 sheet. Its a calculated sheet. As said Iam not aware of an A 3 or A 4 with adjustable cooling

 

@MK.Bivalov

The turkish Aa3 is showing a use  with 100 Oktal fuel, that means C3 fuel. Only the weapon and radio equipment had changed compared with a "german" A 3. The "german" engine got during development a free use of 2700 rpm with C3 fuel and 1.42 ata, that means before that date of the sheet. ( see my post above from October 1942 ). Therefore the performance is nearly equal to an early A 5 you talking about.

 

The FW A3/U1 was a testbed for a 15 cm longer engine adjustment that got later established in the A 5. In my opinion an A 3 without the MG 151 FFM has these perfomances.  I know the russian tests and the RAF tests, imo these thest can be guidelines only.

My native language is german, what I really dont get is the tolerances notes.

 

With data sheet, dated 29.11.1942 the details are as follows: engine BMW 801 D    N= 1730 PS @ 2700 rpm @ 1.42 ata and C3 fuel. Its noted also that the MG 151 FFM is not mounted. This performance sheet is for the A 3 AND A4.  In my opinion that means, that these both planes are equal in performances at least. The note adjustable cooling flaps points to me that these datas are calculated. ( Development of A 5 was on its way at that time )

 

If you compare it now with data sheets of an A 5 ( dated October 1943 ) you will see the same setup in weapons, and the same engine setup, too. 2700 rpms with 1.42 ata; 2400 rpm @ 1,32 ata and 2300 rpm @ 1,20 ata, but a high polished and sealed wingsurface and with adjustable Louvres. This plane has a Vmx of around 670 km/ at around 6400 Meters, so the sheet. ......and to my knowledge the first A Series with adjustable Louvres.

 

Thats much faster then an A 3 and A 4. The weight for this A 5 was named with 4000 kg. The A 3 in this equal configuaration is named with 4070 kg.

To mount the MG FFM means a plus of weight of 98 kg ( weapon ) and 37 kg ammunition. . Therefore my thinking is that the Tolerances notes are based on a mounted MG FFM.

 

One last thing. The turkish and german aircraft had the same in wing, performance settings and engine. Just the weapons, radio equipment changed without an effect on flown speeds and climbrates. ( MG FFM and MG 7,92 mm are nearly same in weight ).

@ Full wheel covers. I remember that the full wheel covers got canceled because it failed a lot. Since A 2 full wheel covers for the A Series was not mounted anymore. That also means that the test were flown without wheel covers. If they had it mounted they would note it on the sheet, like they did in trials with the D9.  In german its called Fahrwerkabdeckung. No proof for that

 

Edited December 11, 2013 by Redwulf__1

[JtD]

@ JtD it is noticed as Kiemenspaltenbleche.

Interesting, that's way faster than any Fw 190 with gills I have seen so far. Except for the ones running them closed. I mistook it for another test.

 

Regarding adjustable flaps, these were undergoing testing in the first half of 1942 already, and several A-3 and A-4 were fitted with them. It wasn't standard fit, but considering that the A-4 was being produced in parallel with the A-5 well into the summer of 1943, you can be certain that some A-4's left the assembly lines with it. There are plenty of tests with these as well.

 

Performance tolerances are there to take production tolerances into account. Not every aircraft is the same. 3% is just 15-20 km/h and these differences did exist.

[ImPeRaToR]

Full wheel cover in this case refers to the extending inner wheel door though, right? the gear leg itself would have a cover unless airfield conditions required removal, i.e. snow and mud. Afaik, those inner wheel doors only posed a problem when the ETC501 was mounted, do you have further info on this?

 

For example on the Eduard plastic kits, the inner wheel doors are present on the A-5, on the A-6 the kit contains both options for the retracting door and the non-moving rounded off cover iirc.

[Redwulf__1]

@ JtD   Youre right, wrong interpretation on my side then, maybe language barrier. I thought we are talking about a standart A 3, beside tests. Unfortunately the A 3 documents are very rare.  I studied my original drawings here, date 16.4.1942. The whole drawings of the Standart A 3 showing these gills only... I know that some tests saying something about the adjustable cowling, but Iam not aware of production line aircraft fittet with them. But it can be possible that some got fitted with it for tests. I have to Admit the A Series is not my main research object, Iam focused on the D Series mainly.

 

@ ImPeRaToR. The main gear leg had always on the outside a cover. The inner cover was removed because failtures, it wasnt only a problem because a mounted ETC rack. If the rack was mounted the inner wheel cover was not mounted, because the inner cover would open enough for the gear..

I´ve read it somewhere in my documents, but it will be a hughe search to find this text again, but I will take a look after it.  As I said to JtD above, my main focus is on the D Series and Iam aware of Langenhagen and Rechlin Test for the D9 that used the inner wheel covers ( Text in this test flights was " mit Radabdeckung und vesiegeltem Motorspalt ) = inner wheel cover and sealed engine gap. But a standart D9 never used this in combat nor in the field airfields. Never heard about that they disambled the outside wheel cover..

[Redwulf__1]

I uploaded also in post above a data sheet that shows flown results from A 3 up to A 5 in brakets. Watch the speeds here. It mentioned that these are testflights from Rechlin.

I think the Document is from 1944, because the A 8 is present. Iam not sure about copyrights, so be carefull with it. I got it, if Iam right, from the Museum of the Luftwaffe Berlin.

They are beside the specs I wrote above in an other post, but you will also see the weight without mounted MG FFM ( 3850 kg )

This document also states: ( free translated ) errors of the airspeed gauge due the compressibility of the air is withhin not included.

Maybe thats the reason why we have different speeds.......

Edited December 12, 2013 by Redwulf__1

[ImPeRaToR]

Do you have some sources regarding the issues with the inner wheel doors? The way I saw it they only abandoned them when the ETC 501 was basically a factory default for the Reichsverteidigung, which (talking about the ETC 501) was usually removed by Eastern Front fighter units  but I doubt they would've rebuild the wheel cover to include the inner doors - that's why I thought they disappeared on the A-7 and beyond. Tomorrow I will try to find some A-5s and A-6s on the eastern front that show the complete gear cover.
 

 

The main gear leg had always on the outside a cover.

Hmm nope

 

Yes it is basically a "field mod" but we are talking about practical application here. In this case though, imo like on all aircraf such a field mod should simply be done via alpha channel imo, without impact on performance. Would be way too much work to have different drag values for every single plane so gear covers and wheel spats can be removed.

 

And I know those are F-3s but that's beside the point.

 

As I said, I will gather some pictures that show the inner door on eastern front planes, here is a quick one. Not an A-5 or 6, just proving the following point: keep in mind that those inner doors could be pushed into the gear well while on the ground so if you don't see them hanging down they might still be present.

 

Edited December 12, 2013 by ImPeRaToR

[MiloMorai]

Was the removing of the wheel covers authorized or was this a local field modification to the aircraft?

[JtD]

It's not that hard to account for changed drag with wheel covers gone. Every load out you pick needs to change the aircrafts overall drag, so would every bit of damage you take - removing covers could do the same.

[Redwulf__1]

OK, nice pictures, but are we talking about standart?

[ImPeRaToR]

It's not that hard to account for changed drag with wheel covers gone. Every load out you pick needs to change the aircrafts overall drag, so would every bit of damage you take - removing covers could do the same.

this sort of field mod was done to basically all planes though from what I can see, not much of an expert on Russian planes but I've seen it on 190s, 109s, Hs123, Ju87 so probably all of them. Making this a seperate field mod would mean every single loadout would have to be done with and without wheel covers, and then you could even go further and also do both types of inner wheel covers.

 

Anyway, as promised, some Fw190A-5 and 6 with inner wheel door, mostly on the Eastern Front:

 

Two A-5s from 5./JG54, Black 5 and 7

 

 

 

 

Two A-6, again part of JG54 (Gefechtsverband Kuhlmey 1944):

 

 

 

 

 

And an A-6 in Sturmjäger config in Germany, Sturmstaffel 1:

 

 

 

 

 

And an A-4 for good measure, this time part of JG51 at Orel probably around the time of Zitadelle:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now I did see quite a few A-6 without the inner wheel doors but they were in Germany and many of them already had the new rounded inner wheel covers and the small leg extension. They were most likely delivered with ETC501s, too. In case you are wondering what I am talking about, A-3 top and A-6 bottom respectively:

 

 

 

 

 

So many A-6 I found weren't delivered with inner wheel doors, but a large portion of them also had ETC 501. This was primarily Reichsdefense though, as you can see above, A-6 in the east usually had those doors. On many pictures you can't really tell but if you can see that leg cover extension it is probably the new rounded fixed version.

In case you are wondering wtf I am talking about :D

 

 

 

OK, nice pictures, but are we talking about standart?

I am talking about practised standard Eastern front configurations.

 

 

So concluding, if they keep retracting wheel doors in Russia into 1944, I doubt they were any problematic at all and the main reason they were discontinued was the wide-spread use of the ETC501 and 504 in the case of the Dora - which weren't used much in the East due to shorter distances, and perhaps to help with performance.

Edited December 12, 2013 by ImPeRaToR

[ImPeRaToR]

Oh and VikS says both A-4s captured by the Russians had inner wheel doors mounted as well.

[bivalov]

Regarding adjustable flaps, these were undergoing testing in the first half of 1942 already, and several A-3 and A-4 were fitted with them.

on russian modelling forum i read that this a-3 from JG5 with adjustable flaps it's exactly "prototype"...

 

Oh and VikS says both A-4s captured by the Russians had inner wheel doors mounted as well.

 

...I am talking about practised standard Eastern front configurations.

by only my experience with photos, early fws with these doors almost all time had at EF, moreover doors not opened when plane at earth, and another deal it's ETC, late fws or these really field mods for famous conditions of our country, "генерал грязь" or something like this, which practiced by all sides (check this, but mainly with german examples and i hope too what this not illegal, so, just check this if what... )...

 

@MK.Bivalov

The turkish Aa3 is showing a use  with 100 Oktal fuel, that means C3 fuel. Only the weapon and radio equipment had changed compared with a "german" A 3. The "german" engine got during development a free use of 2700 rpm with C3 fuel and 1.42 ata, that means before that date of the sheet. ( see my post above from October 1942 ). Therefore the performance is nearly equal to an early A 5 you talking about.

good, so, can we request this 4 mg-17 + 2 mg-ff, like for lagg not really historically correct VYA/rockets or 20mm barrel for f-4? although, i think we not have chances for Aa-3...

 

russian tests and the RAF tests, imo these thest can be guidelines only.

russian tests in total are very correct and informative, for example 280 shells per each mg-151/1 minute for 1.42 ata ie interesting mentions, although of course performance of fw are not ideal, but it's normal if reader understood this...

 

for example, la-5fn which tested by Lerche lose similar numbers, 520 or 540 at forsazh instead 587 of best serial plane...

 

by the way, exactly in new scans of report about russian f-2 with db-601n and 510 kph at sl, have very interesting details, if i'm not mistaken, about power settings and time limits - something like "now no limits with 1 min. for max. power" (confirmed what writes Kurfurst at his site, i think) and mentions about "forsazh with 2800 revs" (ie if i'm not wrong here, it's 2800 revs at short time for little more speed, from manual for f-1 and 2, right?) - although, report tangled and 3 min. instead 1 min. can be for 601E engine, but mentions what this "from tables in cabine" hints exactly on f-2 with 601N...

 

I uploaded also in post above a data sheet that shows flown results from A 3 up to A 5 in brakets. Watch the speeds here. It mentioned that these are testflights from Rechlin.

 

This document also states: ( free translated ) errors of the airspeed gauge due the compressibility of the air is withhin not included.

Maybe thats the reason why we have different speeds.......

if i'm not mistaken, it's mainly for high altitudes, at sl almost not need corrections...

 

thx for your posts, and personally i know about this table, well, and in total now we have - some early rare tests without 1.42 ata, calculated performances and tests of fws with note "a-3 bis a-5" (567 kph at sl with 1.42/15 mps at sl with 3978 kg and combat power, etc), and reasonable theory what in performances of early or all a-3/early a-4 need minus loss due to no adjustable louvres (if closed - no air flow inside and little external resistance)? if no any serious changes in engine besides confirming of 1.42, if i'm not mistaken...

 

sorry for FAST conclusions/summary, it's hard to understand quickly with 3 languages...

[bivalov]

With data sheet, dated 29.11.1942 the details are as follows: engine BMW 801 D    N= 1730 PS @ 2700 rpm @ 1.42 ata and C3 fuel. Its noted also that the MG 151 FFM is not mounted. This performance sheet is for the A 3 AND A4.  In my opinion that means, that these both planes are equal in performances at least. The note adjustable cooling flaps points to me that these datas are calculated. ( Development of A 5 was on its way at that time )

oh, sorry, of course i mean 29.11.1942 with typical a-5 speed, not 26.11 with Aa-3...

[JtD]

this sort of field mod was done to basically all planes though from what I can see, not much of an expert on Russian planes but I've seen it on 190s, 109s, Hs123, Ju87 so probably all of them. Making this a seperate field mod would mean every single loadout would have to be done with and without wheel covers, and then you could even go further and also do both types of inner wheel covers.

This would only be necessary if BoS maintains the stupid and long outdated loadout-list approach of Il-2. It has been suggested numerous times on this board to use hard point based load outs (weapon stations, bomb stations, ...). Wheel covers would just be another hard point. I sure hope the developers have picked up the concept, and don't repeat a solution that has proven insufficient 10 years ago.

[ImPeRaToR]

I was talking about FMs, not the GUI

ROF already has "toggles" for field mods that either are added to the stock plane or replace other field mods so I am pretty sure we will see a similar approach in BOS.