The Fw-190A8 Thread

[GP*]

I'm sure it seems ridiculous already thinking about BoBP aircraft, given that a huge portion of BoK is about to become available, but I can't help considering some of the aircraft in the former's planeset. And hey, we already have a (very informative) thread about the Spit IX, so I figured I'd start this one. I'm sure the Dora will steal the show for the 190s since most pilots tend to prefer it (perhaps I should leave it at "many prefer it"), but I've always preferred the look of the Antons. With that in mind, one question to start this off:

 

The A8 (as well as the A9) in IL2 FB through 1946 seemed to be modeled after the ground attack / bomber attack version of the aircraft (correct me if I'm wrong). Visually, the bomb rack was always present, although I'm not sure if this was actually taken into account by the FM. Was the A8 only produced as a more heavily-armored aircraft? Was there a more "pure" version, i.e. an A8 intended for air superiority (with regard to fighters)? Any idea which version we'll be getting in BoBP?

 

I'm looking forward to learning more about this variant in particular (most of the books I have focus on the early Antons through A5, and then gloss over the A8 and A9, and focus on the Dora after that). In case this thread has been a complete waste of time so far, here's a nice picture:

 

[Asgar]

the A-8 is actually my favorite 190. i like the llok of the BMW 190 and the A-8 is really cool i think. 2 13mm MG 131 and 4 20mm MG 151. What more do you want 

[Danziger]

I've also preferred the look of Antons. I'm also wondering about what loadouts will be available. I'm not as up on German planes as I need to be but I believe it was the A8 in 46 that had an available 30mm cannon armament that was a true bomber shredder.

[I./JG62_Lord_Efe]

Well as in every german Plane, there were a lot of Modifications. 

1. FW 190-A8 Normaljäger (default fighter) armament: 2 MG131(475 rounds each) + 2 MG151/20 wing root (230 rounds each) + 2 MG151/20 outer wing (140 rounds each) , + GM1 Injection ( still a default fighter) 

2. FW 190-A8/R2 default fighter + 2 30mm MK108 internal in the wing (55 rounds each)

3. .../R3 default fighter + 2 30mm Mk103 mounted under the wing (35 rounds each) 

4. .../R7 unarmored default fighter ,same armament

5. .../R8 is R2+R7 

 

no special designations ( or i can't find them right now) 

- ETC 501 Bombrack -> 1 SC500 or 1 SC250

- one WGr21 (Werfer-Granate 21cm) under each wing Edit: that would be a /R6

-1 300l Droptank, I think on the Bombrack / Droptankrack

Edited January 22, 2018 by [I./JG62]Lord_Efe

[Asgar]

the nice thing is, with some simple mods they could basically bring the F-8 into the game, similar to how the A-5 with the U-17 mods is basically a F-3

edit: oh and the A-8 was the first 190 with a new canopy, it was differently shaped an provided more room for the pilots head giving him a better ability to look around

Edited January 22, 2018 by 6./ZG26_Asgar

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I'm a Dora driver at heart.

 

That said, in '46 I think you had to fly the A9 to get the 30mm guns but it's been a while.

 

I'd say about 70-75% of pictures feature the A8 with a centerline rack but there are pics where she is slick down there........................

 

I think the OP pic is a Flugwerk A8-N but she is lovely nonetheless. I'd build one if I had a mil just laying around somewhere

[Asgar]

IIRC the A-8 came with the centerline 501 rack fitted out of the factory, but that could of course be removed by mechanics in the field

 

so i guess, mods that i would like to see on the A-8 would be:

- the improved canopy
- ground attack modification to make it an F-8

- MK 103 gun pods? because who doesn't love those   
- WG 21 rockets

I'm wonder how they will model MW-50, since it's gonna be important on the 190 and 109

Edited January 22, 2018 by 6./ZG26_Asgar

[I./JG62_Lord_Efe]

I can't find anything about a factory added ETC501, yeah im wondering about that aswell, IIRC because the F4(very late)/G2/G4/G6 should normally have the GM1 ...

[GP*]

I'm a Dora driver at heart.

 

That said, in '46 I think you had to fly the A9 to get the 30mm guns but it's been a while.

 

I'd say about 70-75% of pictures feature the A8 with a centerline rack but there are pics where she is slick down there........................

 

I think the OP pic is a Flugwerk A8-N but she is lovely nonetheless. I'd build one if I had a mil just laying around somewhere

Slick down there...I see what you did .

 

Keen eye. It is a replica indeed. Like you said, still a beaut.

[FuriousMeow]

Nothing to add except these three (originally two) photos.

 

 

Edited January 23, 2018 by FuriousMeow

[Dakpilot]

 

"Fw 190 A-8

A new model with different equipment. Most important were parts of the MW 50 injection system, used for short term engine power boost. A cylindrical tank of 118 litres capacity was mounted in the rear fuselage. In an emergency, it could be used as additional fuel tank.

The MW 50 tank installation shifted the centre of gravity backward and, as a cure, the under-fuselage mounted ETC 501 bomb rack was moved 20 cm forward. This rack became a standard from the A-8 model."

 

 

Perhaps the rack was a standard fitment for CoG , ?   in just about every WWII photo it, or drop tank is fitted

 

Am no expert,and the info is from a modelling site so no guarantees

 

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2004/11/stuff_eng_fw190_01.htm

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Danziger]

Nothing to add except these two photos.

IMG_20130601_114514_966.jpg

IMG_20130601_114521_632.jpg

IMG_20130601_112542_032.jpg

Three?

[Hirachi]

Well by heavy armor do you mean like bomber interceptor  Sturmbocke models

Edited January 23, 2018 by Simba

[MiloMorai]

MW50 wasn't used on the A-8. There was a system for using extra fuel instead.

 

The bulged canopy was used on the F model and adopted to the A-8.

The MK103 was trialed but was never a standard weapon option.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

I love the D9 because I love inlines!

 

What is funny is that all the really late prop fighters were radials. Another DOH for the axis!

 

What they didnt do or could not have done due to the low relative power of the radials is give them the form factor of the inlines. Hence the A series always looks ugly to me. Later prop fighters like the Sea Fury look like an inline but are radials!

 

The reason the JUG was soo good was because it was soo big, i.e its form met the size of its engine!

 

It was all to do with size and power!

 

That is why all the pro trainers of the modern age are turboprops but have the inline look!

 

D is sexy A looks too nose big!

Edited January 23, 2018 by AeroAce

[FuriousMeow]

Three?

I added a third one that I found later.

[I./JG62_Lord_Efe]

MW50 wasn't used on the A-8. There was a system for using extra fuel instead.

 

The bulged canopy was used on the F model and adopted to the A-8.

The MK103 was trialed but was never a standard weapon option.

 

Do you might have a source for me ? 

[GP*]

Well by heavy armor do you mean like bomber interceptor  Sturmbocke models

 

Yes thank you, that is what I meant .

 

I'm sure this was discussed a lot when the A3 was announced for BoS, but which was more common -- no outer wing cannons, or flying with the outer wing cannons?

[ShamrockOneFive]

Did the A-8 even have a no outer wing cannon option?

 

I know the earlier fighter-bomber versions did and that's pretty reasonable to see them on the eastern front flying fighter-bomber and fighter missions. But on the west front where the Bodenplatte action is setup I'm imagining we'd see a typically equipped A-8 for that scenario.

 

The MK108 wing cannons seem like a reasonable option along with hopefully a F-8 equivalent modification for fighter-bomber missions. I flew the A-8 ton in the original IL-2... It's going to be fun to fly this version again. And the D-9. Psyched about both

[Field-Ops]

I think the MG151/20 in the outer wings were removed when fitted with the Mk103 cannons.

[=X51=VC_]

I would expect sturmbock armour and bubble canopy to be modification options but I'm not expecting a lot from this plane even in a pure fighter configuration. Doesn't it have basically the same issues as G-6 vs G-2 in that it's heavier and better armed at the expense of a bit of performance? And it's flying against Mk.IXs...

[Asgar]

MW50 wasn't used on the A-8. There was a system for using extra fuel instead.

 

The bulged canopy was used on the F model and adopted to the A-8.

 

The MK103 was trialed but was never a standard weapon option.

wrong, you're talking about C fuel injection, which is not what was used on the A-8

 

 

Neben dem leistungssteigernden MW-50-System wurde die A-8 ab Juli 1944 serienmäßig mit einer erhöhten Notleistung ausgestattet. Dadurch konnte der Ladedruck in Bodenhöhe von 1,42 ata auf 1,58 ata und in größeren Höhen auf 1,65 ata gesteigert werden. Diese Maßnahme führte – je nach Flughöhe – zu einer Erhöhung der Spitzengeschwindigkeit zwischen 22 und 25 km/h, wodurch zum Beispiel die Höchstgeschwindigkeit der Fw 190 A-8 in Bodennähe von 548 km/h auf 578 km/h und in 6300 m Höhe von 644 km/h auf 652 km/h anstieg. Im Gegensatz zu dem C-3-Einspritzsystem war hier keine zusätzliche Einbringung von Kraftstoff mehr erforderlich. Wie bei allen Systemen für die Sonder- und Notleistung des Motors war seine Verwendung zeitlich auf zehn Minuten begrenzt (allerdings konnte es nach dem Abkühlen des Motors mehrmals pro Einsatz verwendet werden).

 

from Jet und Prop 1/2010, „Die Leistungssteigerung beim BMW 801 D in der Fw 190“, S. 28.

 

the A-8 was the first model with successful implementation of MW-50

Edited January 23, 2018 by 6./ZG26_Asgar

[JtD]

wrong, you're talking about C fuel injection, which is not what was used on the A-8

 

the A-8 was the first model with successful implementation of MW-50

No, it wasn't. Jet & Prop is wrong, Milo is right. Feel free to dig through the manuals or any original historical records. MW-50 was not used in serial production with the BMW801D on the Fw190.

 

The A-8 had a "erhöhte Notleistung", which followed the same mechanics C3 injection did to increase the boost, but without any extra injection. Neither C3, nor MW50. They just increased boost and cleared it for 10 instead of 3 minutes. "Erhöhte Notleistung" was available in both supercharger gears, C3 injection was only cleared for first gear.

Edited January 23, 2018 by JtD

[Asgar]

ah ok...so the book is wrong because you say it? show me the sources and i believe you instead of just saying no

[Archie]

I added a third one that I found later.

Might want to put the third pic in spoiler tags because of the tail.

[SJ_Butcher]

ah ok...so the book is wrong because you say it? show me the sources and i believe you instead of just saying no

 

I think he is right, let me check my books too, I am pretty sure that I have read that somewere in dietmar hermman books(best and more accurate 190 books)

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Factory built was flown directly to its airfield, often with as many Rüstsätze as possible. It was the most convenient way to bring it to the frontline, which is obvious. So, if the A8 flew into intercept mission afterwards, the EC was dismounted which explains why in the wartime pictures of them it is often not there. Why would you want a bomb rack when you have a stabilizer that shifts weight (instead of just trimming), and want to have a good altitude Performance to meet those bombers up there?

 

The thing is highly customizable and should be treated as such. Get off that "it left factory this way" train, it makes no sense.

 

JtD, there were various versions that left factory, depending on which factory. There were dozens of them. So yes, Jet & Prop isn't wrong because your assessment is right. You're both right. The whole time demanded to build planes with what was available. They could be a patchwork, or have this, or that.

 

Germany didn't have mass production assembly lines like the Americans, and for the few there were, one bomb onto a train delivering parts to a factory, and you might be out of injection systems for a run - or out of tail fins, like it happened with the Me109, hence mounting Friedrich tails to Gustavs, etc.

Edited January 23, 2018 by SCG_Fenris_Wolf

[JtD]

ah ok...so the book is wrong because you say it? show me the sources and i believe you instead of just saying no

I've already shown you all existing records on MW50 use on serially produced Fw190A's. None. It's up to you to provide any, since you claim it existed. How would I show something does not exist?

 

But, from a technical point of view, it does not make sense. MW50 use on Fw190A's would only be beneficial if they were operating on B4 fuel, to compensate for the insufficient quality of the fuel. However, there's no indication that this was ever permitted or done operationally, all available records, right down to photographs of individual aircraft, exclusively show use of C3 fuel.

 

Can you tell me any reason why the Fw190 would use MW50 in the first place? What would motivate the Germans to make an aircraft more complex and use a "Sparstoff" (~restricted resource) by installing the MW50 injection?

Edited January 23, 2018 by JtD

[JV69badatflyski]

All A-8 were delivered with the ETC501, secondary fuel tank in the back and weights on the propeller.

The weights acted as counter weight to get the CoG right, just as the displacement of the ETC 15cm forward, because of the new fueltank at the back.

A-8 used 1.65 ata standard in both supercharger stages. Some FW official records mention the use of 1.98Ata by the JG2 and JG300 , showing no special engine damage.(just anecdotal as we'll never get this anyway) and other reports showing planes being delivered with 1.8Ata .

Never used MK103 in Pods as it wrapped the longeron.

Never used GM-1 or MW-50, just been tested. The use of it would be stupid as the same power output could be achieved by overpressure. it wasn't simply worth of flying with dead weight.

Removal of the ETC501, rear fueltank and propeller weights were done as field mods (replacing the ETC501 by an Erla-ETC for underbelly jetissonable fuel tank, ), removed some weight without any CoG issues.

The 801 used from end43 on FW's wasn't the same as before, as it received parts from the abandoned 801F (pistons, rods, valves and other stuff i don't remember, should have this at home) allowing higher compression and load.

Don't think the A8 is just a fatter A6/7, it's not, the 801 evolution compensated the weight increase and even then the weight could be removed if wanted much easier than on previous models.

It's a shame the old LEMB doesn't exists anymore, it was a gold-mine   
 

[MiloMorai]

Did the A-8 even have a no outer wing cannon option?

 

I know the earlier fighter-bomber versions did and that's pretty reasonable to see them on the eastern front flying fighter-bomber and fighter missions. But on the west front where the Bodenplatte action is setup I'm imagining we'd see a typically equipped A-8 for that scenario.

 

The MK108 wing cannons seem like a reasonable option along with hopefully a F-8 equivalent modification for fighter-bomber missions. I flew the A-8 ton in the original IL-2... It's going to be fun to fly this version again. And the D-9. Psyched about both

 

The removal of the outer cannon was not allowed according to an ex member here. A search should show several threads where this is discussed.

[Mac_Messer]

The Jaeger-only field mod is what I`d be after as a BoBP customer.

 

I`m more concerned however, about the availability of the modset that would make it a full blown 190F-8, especially the additional bombracks, armament options and additional armour.

 

 

[I./JG62_Lord_Efe]

I´m sorry to be the super correct German, but...

1. The ETC 501 was moved 200 mm not 150mm ( from Baubeschreibung 284, Page 2, 27.11.44) 
2. on low altitudes its cleared to 1.58 ata and 1.65 in gear 2 ( from Baubeschreibung 284, Page 3, 27.11.44) 
3. on the A5 at least there was a no outer canon modification: it is called Verwendungszeck II, (from D (Luft) T.2190 A5/A6 Teil 0 "Flugzeug-Handbuch" Chapter 1.B.4 Page 11.)

I have screenshots on that, but I´m to stupid to upload them right know

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Bada,

 

I like your info and how it is presented. Can you list some sources to avoid the "no it's nots," that are about to be posted? Would be helpful to DEV's as well. I see a few of them peeping this thread

[MiloMorai]

Sorry about the large images but you want to know about the Fw190 then read these books.

 

[JtD]

I have screenshots on that, but I´m to stupid to upload them right know

Don't worry,

 

The handbook is available here.

Baubeschreibung 284 is available here.

 

Also there, a summary about power increase methods on the Fw190, which are C3 injection, erhöhte Notleistung and GM-1. Interesting for Asgar, maybe, is that it also notes that MW50 wasn't implemented ("nicht verwirklicht").

Edited January 23, 2018 by JtD

[I./JG62_Lord_Efe]

Don't worry,

 

The handbook is available here.

Baubeschreibung 284 is available here.

 

Also there, a summary about power increase methods on the Fw190, which are C3 injection, erhöhte Notleistung and GM-1. Interesting for Asgar, maybe, is that it also notes that MW50 wasn't implemented ("nicht verwirklicht").

 

Oh cool! did`t knew about that page =) 

[MiloMorai]

Fw190A-8 manual

 

https://issuu.com/joete6/docs/pilot_manual_-_flugzeug-handbuch_-_

[CUJO_1970]

ah ok...so the book is wrong because you say it? show me the sources and i believe you instead of just saying no

 

You might do well to listen and learn what JtD and Milo wrote because they are both quite correct.

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

This is very interesting, got something to read for the evening

 

 

Already went through the performance curves.

 

The fighter (Jäger, C)

1.42ata continuous combat power.

Emergency 10minutes, 1.58 ata gear 1 / 1.65 ata gear 2. Without needing any tricks, impressive indeed.

The GM3 I was for higher than 8km and could be flown for 20minutes. "Fitted by factory as often as available".

 

The Schlachtflugzeug (B), aka Butcher Bird, shares with the ground attack version G8 (A), both had C3 injection: Giving them 1.65ata for gear 1. 3x10minutes, 10 minutes cooldown inbetween (cooldown at full combat power 1.42 ata).

 

So the babe did have a powerful engine, much more than the A5 we have right now, that's for sure. Imagine you fly the A5 at 1.42ata continuous combat power. And boost to 1.65 at 3000m for 10 minutes. Sexy.

 

... A5 can't even hold its combat power for more than 30minutes.

Edited January 23, 2018 by SCG_Fenris_Wolf

[Asgar]

Don't worry,

 

The handbook is available here.

Baubeschreibung 284 is available here.

 

Also there, a summary about power increase methods on the Fw190, which are C3 injection, erhöhte Notleistung and GM-1. Interesting for Asgar, maybe, is that it also notes that MW50 wasn't implemented ("nicht verwirklicht").

see, THAT is a source. 

 

You might do well to listen and learn what JtD and Milo wrote because they are both quite correct.

why [Edited] should i BEFORE any source is presented, if i have a source that says otherwise?

Edited January 23, 2018 by Bearcat
Profanity