Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
klebor

FW190A8/F8 - engines, racks and canopies

Recommended Posts

Hi,

1) do we know what engine FW190A8 used? With C3 injections or without?

2) Did F8 use some other low alt ATA like F3?

3) Which canopies were used in A8 and F8 variants?

4) Was racks ETC501 permenently mounted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) 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.)

2) Yes, F8's supercharger was geared differently, at least 1.65ATA at low alt like F3 we already have, but i don't know the details.

3) A8 used clasic "fighter" canopy in most cases. Most F8's received blown canopy, similar to D9 model we have seen in DD.

4) In case of A8? No. It reduced performence.

Focke-Wulf Flugleistungen Normaljäger Fw 190 A-8 (Flight Performance) sheet from 25 October 1944 gives the speed loss with ETC 501 drop tank rack as follows:
    Sea level 7.5 mph (12 km/h)
    19, 685' (6 km)

9 mph (15 km/h)

 

F8/R1 (the most popular variant) had racks for 50kg bombs under the wings, like F3.

 

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a8.html

cheers:salute:

Edited by bies
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 216_Yakdriver said:

BUT is this Also what we are getting.
?

We are going to know with the next patch ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC the Ground-attack Fw 190s retained the "Ausreishilfe" (aka the system we have in our Fw 190 A-5/U17) with C3 injection to be used under 1000m of altitude.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The canopies were interchangeable (duh!) and therefore, damaged units were often replaced by the other part-number, when available.

Does anybody know if the "blown" canopy was actually blown? The more I look at it, the more it seems like it didn't offer any sideways headroom-improvement.

Headroom isn't exactly on tap in the 190 (shoulder-room, is plenty, though). Thor Maybe - the old 190-nut you are :)

 

Some sources (Ernst Schröder) claim that even engines were swapped occasionally - which is hard to come by historically (unless proof can be found in technical documents, which I doubt, given the chaos of the final weeks of the war).
 

This is one of the reasons, why externally telling-apart an A-8 from an A-9 is no simple task, unless the right things (e.g. lower exhaust-stacks*) are visible.

Unlike often mentioned, the propeller (narrow VDM metallic design vs broad Schwarz wooden design) is another false-friend when identifying A-8s and A-9s, as it could be used on either airframe.

 

*BMW 801D: Stacks 9 and 10 are one combined unit.

*BMW 801Tx: Stacks 9 and 10 are separate stacks.

 

Erhöhte Notleistung (C3 injection) was available on airplanes marked with a little yellow circle/ ring on ther L/H gun-cowling. The diameter of the ring was 50mm, with a thickness of 10mm.

 

Most, if not all A-8s had the ETC501 rack installed. The only ones I remember not having the 501 installed are birds of JG 26 that had their own jury-rigged "Erla" drop-tank rack (which couldn't mount bombs).

 

What I have seen in the first dev-update screenshot was an airplane equipped with a Werfergranate 21 tube, attached to the Panzerblitz fittings.

That's obviously incorrect.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am concerned of another downgrade like between the A3 and A5 maneuvering wise. Less control surface authority. I just cant pull as nice and hard in the A5 like i can in the A3. I need way more stick travel with less punch i would say. It feels like a downgrade in precision and maneuverability. I think this will get worse then the A5. But we will see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ishtaru said:

I am concerned of another downgrade like between the A3 and A5 maneuvering wise. Less control surface authority. I just cant pull as nice and hard in the A5 like i can in the A3. I need way more stick travel with less punch i would say. It feels like a downgrade in precision and maneuverability. I think this will get worse then the A5. But we will see.

 

The A-8 is definitely going to feel a bit heavier, but it will be quite a bit faster, and facing also-quite-heavy P-47s and Tempests, rather than feather-weight Yaks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ishtaru said:

I am concerned of another downgrade like between the A3 and A5 maneuvering wise. Less control surface authority. I just cant pull as nice and hard in the A5 like i can in the A3. I need way more stick travel with less punch i would say.

It can be due to different CoG, A5 has longer nose to maintain balance with a bomb. But CoG further ahead gives him less pitch authority. A8's CoG should be similar to A5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The differences in CoG between the A-3 and A-5 are about 2 cm. This would have an effect on the handling, but then flying the fuel tank dry causes a change of 13 cm. So in terms of pitch authority, there should be little to chose between A-3 and A-5, even if the A-3 is slightly less stable / shows a higher elevator response. With the A-8 the question is if you take the extra fuel tank in the fuselage behind the pilot. If you do, when it's full, the A-8 will be borderline unstable, CoG being another 4 cm back, when it's empty, it will be between A-3 and A-5. If you don't take it, you'll be another 1 cm forward with the CoG compared to the A-5.

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious if CoG is changing in IL2 during the flight when fuel in tanks is being consumed.

Developers told they want to take care of this matter in Bodenplatte.

With planes with big fuel load it will be far more important to manually switch fuel tanks being used.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get your hopes up, going from previously released BoBP planes.. they don't always get what they should hehe 🙄😜 

Edited by Bullets
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Erhöhte Notleistung (C3 injection) was available on airplanes marked with a little yellow circle/ ring on ther L/H gun-cowling. The diameter of the ring was 50mm, with a thickness of 10mm.

 

Err, no. You're mixing two different systems here. C3 injection was limited to below 1000m and was used only on ground-attack Fw 190s. The small yellow ring denominates a different System used on fighters starting in July 1944 but that was not based on injecting additional fuel but merely done by refining the BMW 801. That allowed for higher manifold pressure values, 1.58ata in 1st supercharger gear and 1.65ata in the higher gear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, csThor said:

 

Err, no. You're mixing two different systems here. C3 injection was limited to below 1000m and was used only on ground-attack Fw 190s. The small yellow ring denominates a different System used on fighters starting in July 1944 but that was not based on injecting additional fuel but merely done by refining the BMW 801. That allowed for higher manifold pressure values, 1.58ata in 1st supercharger gear and 1.65ata in the higher gear.

 

Only before January 1944, then it was also usable above 1000m and used on fighter variants, until July 1944 when as you said the 801D got refined, so finally no need for C3 rear tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Dr_Molem said:

Only before January 1944, then it was also usable above 1000m and used on fighter variants

 

Please provide a (transcription of a) primary source. There's nothing about that in any document I know.

 

22 minutes ago, Dr_Molem said:

so finally no need for C3 rear tank.

 

 The rear tank was standard on the A-8. And as a matter of fact, all tanks of BMW801D powered Fw190's were C3 tanks. It's just fuel. So I don't get what you're trying to say with that statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bullets said:

Don't get your hopes up, going from previously released BoBP planes.. they don't always get what they should hehe 🙄😜 

 

I believe they will improve fuel management with Bodenplatte. Maybe not right now, but it is surely in the schedule.👍 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MicEzo said:

I believe they will improve fuel management with Bodenplatte. Maybe not right now, but it is surely in the schedule.👍 

It was mentioned on this forum by both Jason and Han. And during stream Q&A half year ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My comment was in jest with a dash of reality aha, the poor spit is going to be pretty redundant once the full BoBP plane-set is released. Although to be fair the red side should be used to that haha 🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If good pilots can make I-16s and P-40Es dominate on a map with Fw-190s and Bf-109Gs then I'm sure the Spitfire fans will survive

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, csThor said:

 

Err, no. You're mixing two different systems here. C3 injection was limited to below 1000m and was used only on ground-attack Fw 190s. The small yellow ring denominates a different System used on fighters starting in July 1944 but that was not based on injecting additional fuel but merely done by refining the BMW 801. That allowed for higher manifold pressure values, 1.58ata in 1st supercharger gear and 1.65ata in the higher gear.

 

You're correct - I misquoted.

 

Anything on the supposedly "blown" canopy and why it was introduced (other than improved head-armor)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

More headroom was important for ground attack pilots and improved their downward view.

Wouldn't that be true of any pilot?  Was there a performance penalty associated with the blown canopy or was it just time and existing production lines that kept the traditional version on fighters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original cockpit hood was smaller, as such an aerodynamically advantageous smaller cross section. Also possibly lighter, if so, then marginally. However, the larger canopy had a more aerodynamic shape, and it's really hard to tell if there was any effect on performance. If so, it would have been beyond the computing capabilities of the day, and also inside of measurement accuracies of the testing possibilities back then. All in all it should be pretty much performance neutral.

 

It's been said already, the new canopy shape was also used on fighters as the war progressed. Reasons for slower installation there were the demand from ground attack units, with no real complaints coming from the fighter pilots. I can see that the advantage would be bigger for ground pilots, given there focus on things below and ahead - as opposed to above and behind. So lack of demand, with limited availability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Wouldn't that be true of any pilot?  Was there a performance penalty associated with the blown canopy or was it just time and existing production lines that kept the traditional version on fighters?

 

Fighters also used blown canopies, as they became available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might be imagining it but Iread a thread where sombody seem to be saying the razor back jug was a little quicker than the bubble version for simular power states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2018 at 3:24 PM, =621=Samikatz said:

If good pilots can make I-16s and P-40Es dominate on a map with Fw-190s and Bf-109Gs then I'm sure the Spitfire fans will survive

 

Or we could just represent the planes as they actually flew in history... 🤷‍♂️

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2018 at 8:15 AM, sereme1 said:

It can be due to different CoG, A5 has longer nose to maintain balance with a bomb. But CoG further ahead gives him less pitch authority. A8's CoG should be similar to A5.

 

I thought the enlargement was done because of a CoG shift to the rear due to some new radio equipment behind the pilot? But im not sure and of course no expert.

 

On 7/3/2018 at 9:37 AM, JtD said:

The differences in CoG between the A-3 and A-5 are about 2 cm. This would have an effect on the handling, but then flying the fuel tank dry causes a change of 13 cm. So in terms of pitch authority, there should be little to chose between A-3 and A-5, even if the A-3 is slightly less stable / shows a higher elevator response. With the A-8 the question is if you take the extra fuel tank in the fuselage behind the pilot. If you do, when it's full, the A-8 will be borderline unstable, CoG being another 4 cm back, when it's empty, it will be between A-3 and A-5. If you don't take it, you'll be another 1 cm forward with the CoG compared to the A-5.

 

Thanks for your explanation. If i understand correctly, we should have no possibility removing the center bombrack in the A8. How would the CoG shift when we could remove it? Would it make the plane have more or less elevator authority? Or is it just unstable and would behave like the A3 before the FM fix?

 

I hope the CoG shift will be modeled at least when you fill up that extra tank or not. Like in the P40 if i remember correctly? Where you have some better meneuverability when taking 40% of fuel or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...