The Fw-190A8 Thread

[Sgt_Joch]

p.s.: Thank you for taking the time to go through the materials before posting and posting in the constructive manner you did.

 

it is fascinating stuff. The BMW 801 ECU was really ahead of its time in terms of engine management. 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Sgt_Joch

[GP*]

IL/2 was great in it's day, but it had some real warts too.

 

The real life power loading for the late 8/9 series Antons was actually pretty good - they were commented on as being the most maneuverable and best handling of the series by guys like Addi Glunz and Pips Priller.

That’s my biggest question about the A8 in BoBP — the A8 in ‘46 was a bit of a dog (in some respects...handling was still great). There was always the controversy of the 190 possibly being modeled to ground attack variants (bomb rack, armor, etc).

 

I’m hoping we’ll get the pure fighter variant, with the ability to mod for A/G strikes etc.

[JtD]

There was always the controversy of the 190 possibly being modeled to ground attack variants (bomb rack, armor, etc).

Yes, but that rumour was false.

 

(I know that first hand because I worked on the FM of the Fw190, so I can state that as a fact.)

Edited January 30, 2018 by JtD

[SJ_Butcher]

DO you guys know what is the maximun speed of this bird? Some sources claim a low value others a higher value, since I dont know German I cant figure out which one is the pure figther...Iremember in the old IL-2 the A8 was porked and slow compared with the A5-A6, A9 was a great figther

Edited January 30, 2018 by SJ_Butcher

[JtD]

There is no absolutely true value, it depends on the source. Even official Fw figures differ. But at altitude it's about 610-620 at combat power 1.32ata, 640+ at emergency power 1.42ata and 650+ at special emergency power 1.65ata.

 

The addition of a bomb rack reduces these speeds by about 20km/h, so it should be fairly easy to tell nominal performance figures for clean fighter and fighter bomber apart.

 

Individual planes, as tested, can of course vary a lot more.

[SJ_Butcher]

There is no absolutely true value, it depends on the source. Even official Fw figures differ. But at altitude it's about 610-620 at combat power 1.32ata, 640+ at emergency power 1.42ata and 650+ at special emergency power 1.65ata.

 

The addition of a bomb rack reduces these speeds by about 20km/h, so it should be fairly easy to tell nominal performance figures for clean fighter and fighter bomber apart.

 

Individual planes, as tested, can of course vary a lot more.

 

So this plane is undoubted slow compared with previous 190s.. What were the Germans thinking?

 

EDIT: in ww2aircraft performance I found this, at 1.42 ata@6.5k max speed of 645kmh and other test shows 652, so I think thats because some different conditions, But at 1.65 ATA should be higher then

 

Focke-Wulf's Technical description No. 284 Fw 190 A-8 Fighter from 30 November 1944 notes the following:

Increased emergency power:

 Starting from July 1944 all Fw 190 A-8 aircraft will be equipped with "increased emergency". By overridding the supercharger boost regulator, boost pressures are increased at take-off and emergency power in low supercharger setting from 1,42 ata to 1,58 ata and at the high supercharger setting from 1,42 to 1,65 ata. Thus an increase of speed up to 13.6 mph (22 km/h) is obtained with low supercharger operation and up to 15.5 mph (25 km/h) with high supercharger operation. The maximum operating time for increased emergency is limited to 10 minutes due to thermal reasons. 

(Ab Juli 1944 werden sämtliche Flugzeuge der Baureihe Fw 190 A-8 mit "erhöhter Notleistung" ausgerüstet. Durch Eingriff in den Ladedruckregler wird der Ladedruck der Start- und Notleistung im Bodenladerbetrieb von 1,42 ata auf 1,58 ata, im Höhenladerbetrieb von 1,42 ata auf 1,65 ata heraufgesetzt. Hierdurch wird ein Geschwindigkeitsgewinn bis 22 km/h bei Bodenladerbetrieb und bis zu 25 km/h im Höhenladerbetrieb erzielt.; (sich Flugleistungen Bl. 15). Die höchstzulässige Betriebsdauer für erhöhte Notleistung ist aus thermischen Gründen 10 Minuten begrenzt.)

Edited January 30, 2018 by SJ_Butcher

[JtD]

Longer range, bigger guns, better navigational equipment, cheaper production, higher versatility.

 

It may be a worse performer in some ways, but it is definitely a better war machine than any previous model.

[Sgt_Joch]

By 1944, the FW 190 A was no longer the LW's premier fighter, you had newer designs coming on line. The FW 190 was also increasingly being used as a ground attack plane, replacing the Ju87 and HS129.

 

The role of the LW was also increasingly to shoot down Allied heavy bombers.

 

You look at a typical bomber interception in late 44, you would often have 109s playing cat-and-mouse with the escorts keeping them busy, while the 190s, Me-110/410 would go after the bombers.

 

So the A8 is really a multi-role platform, no longer a pure air superiority fighter.

Edited January 30, 2018 by Sgt_Joch

[SJ_Butcher]

By 1944, the FW 190 A was no longer the LW's premier fighter, you had newer designs coming on line. The FW 190 was also increasingly being used as a ground attack plane, replacing the Ju87 and HS129.

 

The role of the LW was also increasingly to shoot down Allied heavy bombers.

 

You look at a typical bomber interception in late 44, you would often have 109s playing cat-and-mouse with the escorts keeping them busy, while the 190s, Me-110/410 would go after the bombers.

 

So the A8 is really a multi-role platform, no longer a pure air superiority fighter.

 

Well I thought that too and thanks god Doras came out

[JtD]

Early versions of which only outperformed the A-8 above 6000m, and that half a year after the A-8 entered service. By the time the D-9's performance by the use of MW50 was finally clearly superior to that of the A-8, the BMW801 had been updated and the latest A model was the -9.

[GP*]

Early versions of which only outperformed the A-8 above 6000m, and that half a year after the A-8 entered service. By the time the D-9's performance by the use of MW50 was finally clearly superior to that of the A-8, the BMW801 had been updated and the latest A model was the -9.

So for a D9 which is the A8’s contemporary, it should only outperform the Anton above 6k meters?

[SJ_Butcher]

Doub it. Let me check my focke wukf long nose book, but if you only focus on design, the dora is more aerodynamic than anton

[JtD]

Afaik:

The A-8 entered service in April, 1944.

The D-9 entered service in September, 1944.

The A-9 entered service in October, 1944.

 

The early D-9 was powered by the early Jumo213A, which had no special emergency power or MW50 available, and in combat could use 1600/1500PS at combat/climb and 1750/1600PS at emergency (1st/2nd charger gear).

The late A-8 was powered by the late BMW801D-2, which had 10 minutes of special emergency power available, and in combat could use 1500/1300PS at combat climb and 1900/1600PS at special emergency (1st/2nd charger gear).

 

These figures show, that the Jumo generally was the superior engine with the higher rated power (combat rating) - in particular as it provided the power given above to about 1km higher than the BMW801 did. However, due to the availability of the special emergency power, the BMW squeezed superior performance out of their engine down low and got about the same power out of it in second charger gear. Since the aircraft weight was similar (difference in favour of the D-9 being smaller than the two extra MG151 on the A-8), the performance of the aircraft was fairly similar between 1-6km. On the deck, the A-8 was the better performer, above 6km the D-9 was.

 

The D-9 received an engine upgrade that allowed special emergency power. Which added about 150PS to the Jumos emergency output. This happened over the course of 1944. According to what I've read, by the end of 1944, this was the typical configuration. All D-9's had at least gotten the special emergency power, some had already gotten the MW50.

 

With this special emergency power, the D-9 was as fast as the A-8 on the deck, slightly faster on most other altitudes, and climb rate was similar, too. Only at altitudes where the higher full throttle altitudes came into effect, the D-9 was the better performer already (500-2000m for 1st gear, 5500m+).

 

The next upgrade was the MW50 injection, which boosted power output of the 213A by another 250PS (2100/1950), and former emergency power 1750/1600PS was cleared as new combat power. The first MW50 D-9 might have gotten to the front in October already, but as said above, it doesn't seem to have become standard before 1945. Some D-9's apparently flew without MW50 to the wars end.

 

At that power, the D-9 had more power available at all altitudes and under all engine regimes than the A-8, and outperformed it in climb and level speed at all altitudes.

 

About aerodynamics, one would need to consider the actual condition of the aircraft in service. While Fw projected level top speeds at sea level in excess of 600km/h, according to Dietmar Herrman, the aerodynamic quality of the D-9 on the fronts did not allow these speeds even in top condition. So realistic sea level top speeds might have been 550/570/590km/h at 1750/1900/2100PS, where the design speeds were easily 15-20km/h faster.

Edited January 31, 2018 by JtD

[Frenchy56]

That’s my biggest question about the A8 in BoBP — the A8 in ‘46 was a bit of a dog (in some respects...handling was still great). There was always the controversy of the 190 possibly being modeled to ground attack variants (bomb rack, armor, etc).

 

I’m hoping we’ll get the pure fighter variant, with the ability to mod for A/G strikes etc.

Did you ever fly the Fw 190 A-5? There's no way they would do this to us.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Frenchy56

[CUJO_1970]

That’s my biggest question about the A8 in BoBP — the A8 in ‘46 was a bit of a dog (in some respects...handling was still great).

 

I liked the A8 in '46 and flew it quite often. Real A8 was never described by it's own pilots as lacking agility, on the contrary was praised for it's excellent handling, especially at high speeds.

 

The A-9 was much better though because of it's more powerful engine and damn I wish we were getting one of those.

[GP*]

Did you ever fly the Fw 190 A-5? There's no way they would do this to us.

 

Of course I've flown it. I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said previously. 

I liked the A8 in '46 and flew it quite often. Real A8 was never described by it's own pilots as lacking agility, on the contrary was praised for it's excellent handling, especially at high speeds.

 

The A-9 was much better though because of it's more powerful engine and damn I wish we were getting one of those.

 

The A-9 was my plane of choice back in the day...

[ShamrockOneFive]

I flew the A-8, A-9 and D-9 back in IL-2: 1946 quite a lot. The Dora was always my favourite but the A-8 I liked quite a bit too. I flew the A-9 but usually the D-9 was available at the same time and I enjoyed that more. TBH, the differences that I noticed between the A-8 and A-9 were fairly small. I don't know if it was really quite a lot better from memory (as far as actual performance numbers) but I flew both of them the same way and essentially with the same results.

 

I'm still excited that we're getting a late A series FW190 and that maybe we'll see both fighter and perhaps fighter bomber configurations (F-8?). BoBP does seem to be the battle of the fighter bombers.

[Mac_Messer]

Did you ever fly the Fw 190 A-5? There's no way they would do this to us.

I`m not sure what you`re talking about. The A5 is already far from a fighter when compared to the A3, let alone Bf109 of all types. If sticking to the official BoX plane specs, it`s closest in terms of raw fighter performance to the Bf110.

 

From here it only gets  worse. 

[Eicio]

I'm still excited that we're getting a late A series FW190 and that maybe we'll see both fighter and perhaps fighter bomber configurations (F-8?). BoBP does seem to be the battle of the fighter bombers.

In BoK they kinda did this for the A5 so they'll probably do the same for BoBp and we'll get a F8.

It'll be "almost" battle of fighter bomber since the typhoon will show up later (maybe sooner since the first BoK plane we get was the yak-1b?).

[ShamrockOneFive]

In BoK they kinda did this for the A5 so they'll probably do the same for BoBp and we'll get a F8.

It'll be "almost" battle of fighter bomber since the typhoon will show up later (maybe sooner since the first BoK plane we get was the yak-1b?).

 

Indeed they did for the A-5 which is what gave me the idea.

 

Every aircraft in BoBp has fighter-bomber potential which is what I was referring to. The Yak-1B (and Ju52) filled the space between BoM and BoK development as the La-5FN and Bf109G-6 are at the end of BoK development and the beginning of Bodenplatte. There could be room at the end of Bodenplatte development... purely hypothetical as the devs haven't said either way.

[Wulf]

I`m not sure what you`re talking about. The A5 is already far from a fighter when compared to the A3, let alone Bf109 of all types. If sticking to the official BoX plane specs, it`s closest in terms of raw fighter performance to the Bf110.

 

From here it only gets  worse. 

 

 

How do you mean the A-5 was "far from a fighter"?  Yes, the  length of the aircraft was increased by 6 inches or so, to optimize the aircraft's bomb carrying capacity, but that only increased the overall utility of the design; it didn't radically transform it's underlying flight characteristics.  To suggest it had the "raw fighter performance" of a 110, as you do, is at best a gross distortion of reality.  It may be what we have in the game, (and perhaps that's what you meant - and if you did I apologize) but the game and 'reality' aren't necessarily the same thing.

Edited February 2, 2018 by Wulf

[GP*]

How do you mean the A-5 was "far from a fighter"? Yes, the length of the aircraft was increased by 6 inches or so, to optimize the aircraft's bomb carrying capacity, but that only increased the overall utility of the design; it didn't radically transform it's underlying flight characteristics. To suggest it had the "raw fighter performance" of a 110, as you do, is at best a gross distortion of reality. It may be what we have in the game, (and perhaps that's what you meant - and if you did I apologize) but the game and 'reality' aren't necessarily the same thing.

I’m fairly certain he means in-game.

[=420=Syphen]

it is fascinating stuff. The BMW 801 ECU was really ahead of its time in terms of engine management. 

 

Is there a write up on the ECU system and how it worked? I'm assuming it was mostly a mechanical system?

[CUJO_1970]

Is there a write up on the ECU system and how it worked? I'm assuming it was mostly a mechanical system?

 

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19930093290

[=420=Syphen]

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19930093290

 

Thanks! Nerded out while reading that one.

[Fran13]

So finally we got the Butcher ...May I know how C3 works?

[Gamington]

Loved it omg loved it just flew it for like 30 minutes. The black skin with the hypno prop and the 2 additional guns is so bad ass. Im a big fan of the fw190 prob my favorite german fighter gonna lose my mind though when I get that P-51.

[Ehret]

Just now, Gamington said:

Loved it omg loved it just flew it for like 30 minutes. The black skin with the hypno prop and the 2 additional guns is so bad ass. Im a big fan of the fw190 prob my favorite german fighter gonna lose my mind though when I get that P-51.

 

I could use a mod to remove outer pair, thought. (probably unhistorical, right?)

The firepower would be elevated anyway thanks to MG131s. With that many cannons, especially with the 30mm, I get hard to avoid showers of debris...

[Gamington]

Ive been using the a3 a lot in my career and really trained myself alot on that thing as im not as skilled as alot of other people on here im prob inermediate now. I have about 2 years of experiance flying this sim. The thing about the a3 i loved was the speed and the big bad guns. Im about to start kuban on both my soviet and german pilots so im about to start uaimg the a5 which Ive only flown like twice. But wow the power diffrence on the a8 was a pretty big upgrade for me.

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, Fran13 said:

So finally we got the Butcher ...May I know how C3 works?

 

Just with like any other boost system, the parameters are explained on the Specification tab.

[SCG_OpticFlow]

Is there any chance for a mod that removes the outer wing cannons on the A-8? Or even the rear fuel tank and the ballast? I'd rather have something lighter, like the A-5 but with improved engine, in the fighter role.

[CUJO_1970]

The rear tank is not an option.

 

The outer guns probably could IRL but it's not currently an option in the sim as a fighter.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

If you load 520 liters (81%) you get the same amount of fuel as the regular A-5, so you mitigate some of the weight of the extra fuel tank (95 Kg) . If you load up the F-8 modification and then remove the MG 131 you save 50 Kg, with the cost of 17 km/h with the added drag (you only end up with the two wing root 20mm). If you select the Sturmjäger mod and the MG 131 removal you save 36 Kg with 5 km/h speed loss.

[blitze]

On 2/1/2018 at 5:43 PM, Mac_Messer said:

I`m not sure what you`re talking about. The A5 is already far from a fighter when compared to the A3, let alone Bf109 of all types. If sticking to the official BoX plane specs, it`s closest in terms of raw fighter performance to the Bf110.

 

From here it only gets  worse. 

 

A5 in BoK in fighter config is more than a match for La5's and Yaks.  Even in Fighter/Bomber role with the additional low down boost you can do a bit with it against the VVS.  Just have to watch engine temps and not try to turn and burn with them.  Play to it's strengths and at least in career you can hold your own.  Hopefully flight mates will get a brain boost at some stage so they can be useful flying with you as my previous A5 career - they were quite useless and dead.

[JonRedcorn]

On 1/30/2018 at 12:30 PM, Sgt_Joch said:

 

it is fascinating stuff. The BMW 801 ECU was really ahead of its time in terms of engine management. 

BMW has always had excellent ecu's use to own a few 80s 3 series. E30s, the ecu's were far ahead anything vw Mercedes or Porsche were doing at the time. 

[III/JG53Frankyboy]

if the later  Fw190As were good fighter or not......Keep in mind, the reality is different in comparison to online Dogfightservers.

[HandyNasty]

I've found the current A-8 versus Jug and Spits MkIX matchup very nice.

 

The A-8, however, is even more dependent on flying together on comms than previous FW's to get most out of it.

[blitze]

It would be nice to remove the outer wing cannons though for the fighter variant.  The price I suppose for it becoming bomber destroyer focused.