Fw190 A8

[InProgress]

Also isn't tempest going to outdive fw190? I think I saw interview with raf pilot who said that many 190 pilots thought that diving away will always save them and tempest could easy catch up with them.

 

Even found it 1:34

https://youtu.be/fQTfXVqNo9A

[LuftManu]

15 minutes ago, InProgress said:

Also isn't tempest going to outdive fw190? I think I saw interview with raf pilot who said that many 190 pilots thought that diving away will always save them and tempest could easy catch up with them.

 

Even found it 1:34

https://youtu.be/fQTfXVqNo9A

It should but I doubt we will find Tempest at 25,000 feet. Anyway, this is a on tactical sceneario. Planes on paper always lie. The A8 is something you would love to have on a campaign like TAW where the pilot life matters. You can go after bombers in that armor, you can go and take out a bridge, even bomb some convoy. You can stand on your own too. Try that on a 110 or an Stuka.

 

As many commented the plane is an important factor but if you meet a Fw pilot who hasn't killed himself getting on your sights after some minutes, he know how to play his cards. Many Fw pilots online like to trhow themselves into the enemy sights and dive with the guy at 100m. Of course he is going to go down.

Edit: Here are some things about the A5 vs the A8 with the increased pressure
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/BMW-VB-126.html

Edited July 22, 2018 by LF_ManuV

[JV69badatflyski]

5 minutes ago, LF_ManuV said:

But it is not a dogfigther. In good hands it can dogfight but it won't be as good as a ligther A3/A5. Energy fighting is the best thing here. You have superior weaponry, loadouts, range, armor, cockpit instruments and boost than before.

 

Combat here is more think before act than ever before as your energy management must be better. Climbing is a thing you won't do even in a A3

 

The Fw 190 are machines hard to employ in combat, A8 being the most difficulty I think. I won't recommend this plane to anyone who has low ammount of experience on a A5. People used to fight on A5 will definetly welcome (as myself) those advantages that come with the A8. I might miss the agility of older models but heck, agility at low speed/horizontal turn and climbing were things to do with extra care on a FW to begin with.

 

I would take any day a Dora for fighting against fighters but you can still hold your own on a A8 as you would do with A5 but with better enemy aircraft.

 

Also, thank you for starting this thread and all the comments! Lots of tips for everyone!

What is a dogfighter? a Fokker DR? a spitfire? a poney? a dogfight is an empty expression, it's a definition that change with time and the technical evolution.
what a dogfight  in 44 (and already before actually) was, that's  what men call energy fighting. (Lf manu, do not take it personally pliz, i just jumped on your words here, thanks)
now:
the A8 had the same weight to power ratio as the A3.
Maneuvrability should be just the same as the roll rate seems to be the same as the previous models, aven with the Mg151 in the wings...ooh wait, the A6 has those already and there is no report to be found about rollrate loss(and rollrate acceleration!). how comes? the made a new wing structure for the A6... to accomodate the mg151 and to get more rigidity, what compensate the roll rate with higher weight in the wings because there is no (much less) flex on the wings...pesky german engeneers...?
Power: 1850Ps in1.42 and 2050Ps in 1.65Ata... I've heard the engine is still limited in the game to 3min in 1.42Ata  but allows 10min at 1.65...?.so funny...
Anyway, this power gives you enough what you need to overcome the 300kg penality.
Now, looks like the devloppers didn't search enough as it seems the ETC 501 wasn't mandatory and could be removed if not needed (see FW charts from 25/10/1944) thus less drag(+/-15kmh)
then there is the field-mod when the rear tank +ETC+ proppeler counterweights were removed  and where an Erla EtC was used if external tank was needed (there are pictures from the JG26 with this config on the web)....
then there is the outer wing MG151 removal (-176.5kg)...
as for the acceleration, let it be in the air or on the ground, the physics are the same: a "standard "A8 (4490kg) took off in 780m (able to clear a 20meters obstacle, standard RLM procedure),  could someone build a mission with a house of approximatively 20m height in the middle of the runway and test it???
 

[LuftManu]

4 minutes ago, JV69badatflyski said:

What is a dogfighter? a Fokker DR? a spitfire? a poney? a dogfight is an empty expression, it's a definition that change with time and the technical evolution.
what a dogfight  in 44 (and already before actually) was, that's  what men call energy fighting. (Lf manu, do not take it personally pliz, i just jumped on your words here, thanks)
now:
the A8 had the same weight to power ratio as the A3.
Maneuvrability should be just the same as the roll rate seems to be the same as the previous models, aven with the Mg151 in the wings...ooh wait, the A6 has those already and there is no report to be found about rollrate loss(and rollrate acceleration!). how comes? the made a new wing structure for the A6... to accomodate the mg151 and to get more rigidity, what compensate the roll rate with higher weight in the wings because there is no (much less) flex on the wings...pesky german engeneers...?
Power: 1850Ps in1.42 and 2050Ps in 1.65Ata... I've heard the engine is still limited in the game to 3min in 1.42Ata  but allows 10min at 1.65...?.so funny...
Anyway, this power gives you enough what you need to overcome the 300kg penality.
Now, looks like the devloppers didn't search enough as it seems the ETC 501 wasn't mandatory and could be removed if not needed (see FW charts from 25/10/1944) thus less drag(+/-15kmh)
then there is the field-mod when the rear tank +ETC+ proppeler counterweights were removed  and where an Erla EtC was used if external tank was needed (there are pictures from the JG26 with this config on the web)....
then there is the outer wing MG151 removal (-176.5kg)...
as for the acceleration, let it be in the air or on the ground, the physics are the same: a "standard "A8 (4490kg) took off in 780m (able to clear a 20meters obstacle, standard RLM procedure),  could someone build a mission with a house of approximatively 20m height in the middle of the runway and test it???
 

Don't worry abou that, it is true but people tend to maneouver a little bit to much in my point of view with heavy aircraft. There are many things you can think of it. As a Dogfigther I am referring to maneouvres you do on an Spitfire, no the plane itself. Energy loss and high aoaº.

 

You can take out the ETC 501 as for now.

Edited July 22, 2018 by LF_ManuV

[=27=Davesteu]

2 minutes ago, JV69badatflyski said:

Now, looks like the devloppers didn't search enough as it seems the ETC 501 wasn't mandatory and could be removed if not needed (see FW charts from 25/10/1944) thus less drag(+/-15kmh)

The ETC 501 is not mandatory! I wish it would be!
Yes, some Fw 190 A-8 had their ETC 501 removed but the majority didn't. I wouldn't oppose a modification allowing its removal, but having to select bombs to get one at all is misrepresents the A-8 as seen during the BoBP timeframe.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

1 minute ago, =27=Davesteu said:

 

The ETC 501 is not mandatory! I wish it would be!
Yes, some Fw 190 A-8 had their ETC 501 removed but the majority didn't. I wouldn't oppose a modification allowing its removal, but having to select bombs to get one at all is misrepresents the A-8 as seen during the BoBP timeframe.

When we get drop tanks I can see the use of these pylons for all sides more prevalent. 

[JV69badatflyski]

5 minutes ago, LF_ManuV said:

Don't worry abou that, it is true but people tend to maneouver a little bit to much in my point of view with heavy aircraft. There are many things you can think of it. As a Dogfigther I am referring to maneouvres you do on an Spitfire, no the plane itself. Energy loss and high aoaº.

 

You can take out the ETC 501 as for now.

you're right, that's simply because they don't feel the G's... if they did the whole sim would be a completeley another experience and throwing the yak/La's/spits into continuous 6G turns would not happen... that's why i like the idea of pilot fatigue in flying games/sims...but i'm one of the few ?
like a soviet ace said something like 15 years ago (or more) when looking at an old il2-46 dogfight:" you make turns of more than3 g for more than 10minutes, in the real plane, after 3minutes you couldn't even move the stick , because you was be so tired"

Good if the 501 can be removed, can the outer 151 also be removed?

 

6 minutes ago, =27=Davesteu said:

 

The ETC 501 is not mandatory! I wish it would be!
Yes, some Fw 190 A-8 had their ETC 501 removed but the majority didn't. I wouldn't oppose a modification allowing its removal, but having to select bombs to get one at all is misrepresents the A-8 as seen during the BoBP timeframe.

????why? could you elaborate please?
the wurger was the king of multirole and easy maintenance, it was build like that from the start. when something wasn't needed it was removed, simple.
Just as example: an engine swap was done in15min with 4 grease monkeys and a field crane. how much time do you think was needed to remove or attach a 501? did they have to get new electrics through the airframe? nope, it was already build in. did they have to use special tools for the fuel line? nope, it was a fast connector. was there a need to get some bolts and nuts through the airframe for the 501? nope, those were fast attachement points...the wurger was a dream plane for mechanics but a nightmare for electricians ?

[=27=Davesteu]

26 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

When we get drop tanks I can see the use of these pylons for all sides more prevalent. 

It should be part of the unmodified ingame A-8 without any bombs or drop tanks. If you want to attach anything you should be able to do so in the ammunition menu.
As stated, I wouldn't oppose a modification allowing its removal, but I like my missions historic and the vast majority had them installed all the time even not using them.

 

9 minutes ago, JV69badatflyski said:

????why? could you elaborate please?
the wurger was the king of multirole and easy maintenance, it was build like that from the start. when something wasn't needed it was removed, simple.
Just as example: an engine swap was done in15min with 4 grease monkeys and a field crane. how much time do you think was needed to remove or attach a 501? did they have to get new electrics through the airframe? nope, it was already build in. did they have to use special tools for the fuel line? nope, it was a fast connector. was there a need to get some bolts and nuts through the airframe for the 501? nope, those were fast attachement points...the wurger was a dream plane for mechanics but a nightmare for electricians ?

Just do some comprehensive photo studies and you will notice most aircraft during the BoBP timeframe had them attached. Never said all of them, but the vast majority.

And while you are at it, try to count the ones with the outer pair of MG 151/20E removed.

Edited July 22, 2018 by =27=Davesteu

[VuIture]

Can someone please tell me if the windscreen on the A-8 is suppose to be this dark? 

[-SF-Disarray]

The outside pair of guns can be removed if you select some of the modifications; I think it is the bomb racks or the extra armor and engine mods needed to take on the 12 AT rockets. But there is no option, in so far as I'm aware, in game to simply pull the cannons.

 

That looks like a bug, Megla. Might be related to VR settings? I play on a flat screen so I wouldn't know the ins and outs as well as you might. I did notice an odd texture or animation on the windscreen of the A8 though. Kind of a wavy pattern flowing across the screen that I have not noticed in other planes.

[JV69badatflyski]

9 minutes ago, =27=Davesteu said:

 

It should be part of the unmodified ingame A-8 without any bombs or drop tanks. If you want to attach anything you should be able to do so in the ammunition menu.
As stated, I wouldn't oppose a modification allowing its removal, but I like my missions historic and the vast majority had them installed all the time even not using them.

?

hmm, let's put that in the web legends basket with:
the spit won the Bob
the spit was always superior to any german plane, especially the 190
the spit can fly with one wing off
the  poney won WWII
all allied planes used the150 as from half44, especially the spits...they left some for the poneys, Bohdan Arct had such a mervelous experience with the 15Oct on the poney....
the La3 and 5 had the same roll rate as the 190
Wood is so much more resistant to explosions than duraluminium
the captured Horten IX has never it's wings attached
....

 

 

9 minutes ago, =27=Davesteu said:

Just do some comprehensive photo studies and you will notice most aircraft during the BoBP timeframe had them attached. Never said all of them, but the vast majority.

And while you are at it, try to count the ones with the outer pair of MG 151/20E removed.

 

I don't work by the number of pictures, i work by Manufacturer manuals/documents or JG reports,  pictures are just examples.
especially if you see the same pictures over and over for the 20 years. The number is irrelevant...

[MiloMorai]

Now you have done it. Good thing the Fw190 expert is no longer around. re removal of outer wing cannons.

[VuIture]

12 minutes ago, Disarray said:

The outside pair of guns can be removed if you select some of the modifications; I think it is the bomb racks or the extra armor and engine mods needed to take on the 12 AT rockets. But there is no option, in so far as I'm aware, in game to simply pull the cannons.

 

That looks like a bug, Megla. Might be related to VR settings? I play on a flat screen so I wouldn't know the ins and outs as well as you might. I did notice an odd texture or animation on the windscreen of the A8 though. Kind of a wavy pattern flowing across the screen that I have not noticed in other planes.

Pretty sure its a bug.  Tried clean install of both the game and steamvr but no change.  The odd textures are from the screen shot being in vr, nothing new there.  

Thanks for the help

[=27=Davesteu]

laughable

 

8 minutes ago, JV69badatflyski said:

I don't work by the number of pictures, i work by Manufacturer manuals/documents or JG reports,  pictures are just examples.
especially if you see the same pictures over and over for the 20 years. The number is irrelevant...

No need to tell me how to proper studies on this subject. I have done it for quite some time.
So what JG reports are you referring too, please? And by the way, manuals don't always reflect the real world at unit level.
But you know better for sure...

[von_Tom]

7 minutes ago, JG300_Megla said:

Pretty sure its a bug.  Tried clean install of both the game and steamvr but no change.  The odd textures are from the screen shot being in vr, nothing new there.  

Thanks for the help

 

Gamma setting - try at 1.2.

 

von Tom

[JV69badatflyski]

Milo,

Actually he was right but also wrong. the removal wasn't authorized by FW (on paper) on the A6 due to CoG pb's, but because Wurger jokeys were hard headed spoiled angry kids (just an image here ? ), the mods were done anyway in the field and there seems not to have been any accidents related to this, if the ballast was set correctly. FW simply put this option officialy on the next models. but indeed, the discussion was fun to follow then ?
 

2 minutes ago, =27=Davesteu said:

 

laughable

 

No need to tell me how to proper studies on this subject. I have done it for quite some time.
So what JG reports are you referring too, please? And by the way, manuals don't always reflect the real world at unit level.
But you know better for sure...

 you're perfecly right here that manuals doens't always relfect the real use case or the real situation, but manuals are a starting point, then comes the Manufacturer meetings reports where JG reports and engine manufacturer reports are discussed.
 

[senseispcc]

For my first experience of the A-8 I did Something foolish I choose the central fuselage rack and the four bombs?! It transforms the fighter into a autobus. Once I removed this the Fw190 a-8 did fly at between 500 and 600 km/h without any problems at nearly all altitudes. If not overloaded with bombs or armor.

[MiloMorai]

9 minutes ago, JV69badatflyski said:

Milo,

Actually he was right but also wrong. the removal wasn't authorized by FW (on paper) on the A6 due to CoG pb's, but because Wurger jokeys were hard headed spoiled angry kids (just an image here ? ), the mods were done anyway in the field and there seems not to have been any accidents related to this, if the ballast was set correctly. FW simply put this option officialy on the next models. but indeed, the discussion was fun to follow then ?

 

 

Yup, he could never get his head around that it was done.

 

Which next model?

[Blutaar]

Can someone explain why the A8s engine is hotter then the one on the A5? This negates a bit the A8s top speed through the increased boost pressure because you have to open the cowls more. Even at normal settings like Kampfleistung you get higher temps. I dont understand it. Another question is why is there no cooling effect from the C3 fuel injection? Its possible that i misunderstood something but how i understand it, the C3 injection makes the fuel air mixture so rich that not all the fuel is burned and this cools the cylinders while increasing the boost pressure. But like i said i might be very wrong. Im no expert and i would like to know if that assumption is correct or wrong. Please educate me.

 

Also i wonder why the outer wing cannons arent removeable. What is the reason for that? If CoG is the reason, couldnt they not just ballance it via the two fuel tanks or some counterweight in the back or so?

 

I would like to have a modification for the A5 with the increased emergency setting for both supercahrger stages in late war scenarios. Do you think this would be realistic? That older Antons were retrofitted with just this system? This would make the A5 a really good fighter in its alititude range even in late war with the outer guns removed. Or even better would be the A3 with retrofitted cooling cowls and that C3 injection. Would be my favorite Anton for sue. Of course only for scenarios were you can also fly the A8 and in QMB. 

[=27=Davesteu]

7 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

Yup, he could never get his head around that it was done.

Apparently you can't get your head around reading comprehension.
Quite an attitude, big shot.

 

 

8 hours ago, JV69badatflyski said:

 you're perfecly right here that manuals doens't always relfect the real use case or the real situation, but manuals are a starting point, then comes the Manufacturer meetings reports where JG reports and engine manufacturer reports are discussed.

So how common was the removal of ETC 501 on late Fw 190 A during the BoBP timeframe in your opinion?

Edited July 23, 2018 by =27=Davesteu

[LukeFF]

The only picture I've seen of an A-8 from the Bodenplatte timeframe without a bomb rack is White 11 of JG 4, which was forced down during the New Year's day attack. However, given that the photo was taken after the plane was captured, it makes me wonder if perhaps the Americans removed the bomb rack themselves before taking the photo:

 

Edited July 23, 2018 by LukeFF

[sevenless]

4 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

..., it makes me wonder if perhaps the Americans removed the bomb rack themselves before taking the photo:

 

 

 

Very likely. As you easily can see they removed all cannons from the plane also. More to this you can find in Manrho page 102:

 

 

[klebor]

10 hours ago, Ishtaru said:

Can someone explain why the A8s engine is hotter then the one on the A5? This negates a bit the A8s top speed through the increased boost pressure because you have to open the cowls more. Even at normal settings like Kampfleistung you get higher temps. I dont understand it. Another question is why is there no cooling effect from the C3 fuel injection?

 

A8 don't have C3 injection. Some (early?) F8 (and F3) had it, C3 injection worked only below 1 km.

F8 we have don't have C3, it has Erhöhte Notleistung instead.

 

Are you sure A8 without Erhöhte Notleistung engaged with the same cowlings settings and the same ATA and other circumstances (weather, altitude, speed etc.) has higher temperatures than A5?

Edited July 23, 2018 by sereme1

[LeLv76_Erkki]

Poor quality image and its obviously a plane left behind... but with its engine cowling bulges its to my eyes very likely a 190 A/F 8 or -9.

 

I hope the option to remove outer wing cannons will be added, especially if the ETC 501 rack becomes mandatory to carry - even if irl it took less than a minute to remove, it obviously still was carried most of the time.

 

[=27=Davesteu]

Thanks for the additional pic @sevenless. Unfortunately the photo caption isn't correct, the aircraft shown is not Wagner's white 11. Note the missing armored windshield and various discrepancies in the camouflage patterns.

 

 

@LeLv76_Erkki, the ETC 501 is not becoming mandatory.
I only expressed my wish for the ETC 501 without bombs being part of the unmodified aircraft. Absolutely no objections against a modification allowing its removal - In the end all I'm talking about is a reversed game-logic better reflecting the historical reality.

[Arsenal53]

 

 

I have a question for the developers:

Can't it be possible to have in the options the GM1 boost? certainly it is not very useful in multiplayer but offline, on historic missions at high altitude against Mustang, Spitfire or Thunderbolt it would allow a few more options.
Subsidiary question: there are sources that talk about FW 190 A8 motorised with BMW 801 TS / TH (Basically, as i understand, a BMW 801 D-2 engine fitted with the oil cooler of the BMW 801 F and the oil tank of the BMW 801 D and TH. It was delivered with a cowl in which the nose armor was increased to 10 millimeters and oil tank armor was increased to six millimeters)? These engines would offer (and I use the conditional as there is a lot of conflicting informations) an increase of 17 km / h at the combat power. There are several red planes that have a second engine in option, why not offer one to the blues?

[sevenless]

35 minutes ago, =27=Davesteu said:

Thanks for the additional pic @sevenless. Unfortunately the photo caption isn't correct, the aircraft shown is not Wagner's white 11. Note the missing armored windshield and various discrepancies in the camouflage patterns.

 

Thanks, that is interesting to learn. The caption in Manrhos book reads 48th FG Association and 48th FG was stationed at St. Trond from 30/9/44 - 29/3/45. Any idea which aircraft is shown here if not White 11 of JG 4 ?

[=27=Davesteu]

13 minutes ago, sevenless said:

Thanks, that is interesting to learn. The caption in Manrhos book reads 48th FG Association and 48th FG was stationed at St. Trond from 30/9/44 - 29/3/45. Any idea which aircraft is shown here if not White 11 of JG 4 ?

No idea right now, sorry. I guess it's a formatting issue and the picture was mistakenly replaced by the publisher.

[MiloMorai]

1 hour ago, =27=Davesteu said:

Thanks for the additional pic @sevenless. Unfortunately the photo caption isn't correct, the aircraft shown is not Wagner's white 11. Note the missing armored windshield and various discrepancies in the camouflage patterns.

 

 

Never mind that there is a 20mm cannon sticking out of the leading edge of the outer wing.

[InProgress]

I doubt ETC 501  would be non mod that you could remove. If you look at ju87, it has sirens that you can put on it and not remove. I am not fan of it, planes should be as they were made, mod should allow you to remove it if you want. But it's not a big deal.

 

Also the more i fly A8 the better it gets. Still i will always prefer A5 but A8 is really great to attack airfields :3 Lots of bombs and that armor... i was hit few times by medium aaa, full of holes and fuel leak but that's all. I was ok, nothing broken and could easly go back home. That plane can take few shots and still be ok, love that

 

Edited July 23, 2018 by InProgress

[sevenless]

1 hour ago, MiloMorai said:

 

Never mind that there is a 20mm cannon sticking out of the leading edge of the outer wing.

 

Yep that´s right. No A8/R2 for sure. The longer I look at that pic from the Manrho book the more suspicious it gets for me. Look at the vegetation behind the plane and the overall look of the surroundings. Looks to me as if the shot was taken in late spring to late summer.

[=27=Davesteu]

It's obviously not a R2, but you guys should take into account the extremely limited number of A-7/8 with additional armour and outer MG 151/20E.

Edited July 23, 2018 by =27=Davesteu

[sevenless]

5 minutes ago, =27=Davesteu said:

 

It's obviously not a R2, but you guys should take into account the extremely limited number of aircraft with additional armour and outer MG 151/20E.

 

Found one pic which shows some similarities to the Manrho mislabel. What do you guys think?

 

 

[MiloMorai]

John Manrho has produced an errata sheet for his Bodenplatte book, http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?s=1e0802553b7c7d59ec98c90b6e50f8f9&p=207965

[sevenless]

7 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

John Manrho has produced an errata sheet for his Bodenplatte book, http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?s=1e0802553b7c7d59ec98c90b6e50f8f9&p=207965

Thanks! It is not in the errata.

[MiloMorai]

OK, opened my Bodenplatte book. The captions are inverted. There is a 3rd photo and all show the same ragged edge to the camo above the exhaust.

[sevenless]

18 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

OK, opened my Bodenplatte book. The captions are inverted. There is a 3rd photo and all show the same ragged edge to the camo above the exhaust.

 

Look at the wavy camo pattern on the front of the wings of the miscapture in Manrhos book and the colour pic I posted and look at the two camo downward spikes below (ca. 40cm) the pilots hand which is also present in the miscapture of Manrhos book. The original white 11 doesn´t show those wavy patterns or the spikes. 

Edited July 23, 2018 by sevenless

[BubiHUN]

2 hours ago, InProgress said:

I doubt ETC 501  would be non mod that you could remove. If you look at ju87, it has sirens that you can put on it and not remove. I am not fan of it, planes should be as they were made, mod should allow you to remove it if you want. But it's not a big deal.

 

Also the more i fly A8 the better it gets. Still i will always prefer A5 but A8 is really great to attack airfields :3 Lots of bombs and that armor... i was hit few times by medium aaa, full of holes and fuel leak but that's all. I was ok, nothing broken and could easly go back home. That plane can take few shots and still be ok, love that

 

Hope devs will make the 20mm for the K-4 liek this. 

[dkoor]

 

 

 

17 hours ago, JG300_Megla said:

Can someone please tell me if the windscreen on the A-8 is suppose to be this dark? 

When I'm resseting my view in A8, I sometimes get this screen for a second.

Then it goes clear, visible.

Edited July 23, 2018 by dkoor

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, -[HRAF]BubiHUN said:

Hope devs will make the 20mm for the K-4 liek this. 

 

That would be a mod that never existed so no, I hope that doesn't happen.