Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
esk_pedja

Question for FW-190 A5 advice

Recommended Posts

Well, I have a question for FW-190 A5 fans ( or developers ) :

If I want to dogfight with 4 20mm guns, instead of basic 2...  i.e. + 2 additional wing mounted MG FF/M (180 rounds ) - how much fuel load ( in percentage % ) should be decreased from 100%  : to compensate the additional weight... to approx. preserve default A5 weight, climb, speed... etc ?

 

All estimations and opinions are welcome...

Edited by esk_pedja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For most accurate compensation I usually just take away the weight I am gaining. Add the fuel needed to go where you estimate trouble. And that is it. But for dogfighting it is a bad idea to add anything with pylons or extra drag. 
Adding guns do something with planes balance. 
And reducing fuel would or should not compensate that. If you ad pylons your strategy should not be dogfight, it should be bouncing

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, No.322_LuseKofte said:

For most accurate compensation I usually just take away the weight I am gaining. Add the fuel needed to go where you estimate trouble. And that is it. But for dogfighting it is a bad idea to add anything with pylons or extra drag. 
Adding guns do something with planes balance. 
And reducing fuel would or should not compensate that. If you ad pylons your strategy should not be dogfight, it should be bouncing

 

I am not talking about pylons, but canons inside the A5 wings.

Just to "take away the weight I am gaining"..."" as you proposed - I have a problem as fuel is expressed in % and canons weight in kg.

 

I am not talking about a pure dogfight, I am not such a rookie to try to dogfight Spitfire MkIX with a 4 canons FW-190... I prefer to wait the right moment to catch him in a gunsight as ""energy fighter"...  but when I need to ""finish him off"" with the second burst: my additional weight prevents me to follow / maintain the distance with a runaway modern allied fighter - in a strait flight or climb escape, what is not a huge problem with basic 2 canons version... 

 

Also there is an issue of regaining altitude, and many other weight issues... so the question/estimation remains ?

 

Edited by esk_pedja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that is my point. Russian P 39 pilots preferred to take away the wing mounted 30 mm in order to compete with BF 109 in all manouvers. Including speed. Fuel tanks and designed weapons are placed as part of the design. Added weapons add drag and weight that will affect speed and maneuverability. 
Just look at what happened to 109 development a some point power of engine and added weight make the design old

Edited by No.322_LuseKofte
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting the weapons inside the wing doesn't change the fact they they'll have an affect on performance. It's not just the overall weight of the aircraft which is affected, so removing fuel will not completely compensate for the changes. Having openings, barrels, and bulges in the wing adds drag, for example. Putting heavy weights (cannons) in the wings instead of the fuselage will also change it's manoeuvring characteristics, alluded to by LuseKofte above.

 

So essentially, if you're definitely going to be dogfighting then you should probably avoid putting extra weapons on/in the wings. The extra firepower will likely be negated by the loss in combat performance.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we‘re talking turn performance, decreasing the fuel load would just about  compensate the added weight of the MG/FFs. 
 

Roll performance is a different matter though. The further removed a weight is from the axis of roll, the slower the resulting roll.

 

But in the end, unless you plan on fighting at high altitudes, taking the MG/FFs won’t change the 190‘s handling characteristics by too much. I personally always take them, doubling the amount of 20mm shells I lob at my enemy is well worth the minimal change in handling.

Edited by So_ein_Feuerball
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I normally try to attack a.s.a.p. in the right moment and predicting the direction of Spit !

I never try following a Spit if it starts it's famous turns and dance... not with FW-190.

 

But when they receive a serious hit of 4x20mm guns, they often tend to " get lost " in fast direct flight or climb.

So, sharp turns and side effects ( of heavy armament ) were not the reason of my question. I just want to have fun with a "heavy punch", both in initial chase and following the damaged fighter.

For the time being ( in a quick missions ) seems that 60% of fuel does the job of compensation...

I just hoped that somebody knows or estimates what should be the right %...

 

 

Share this post


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

If we‘re talking turn performance, decreasing the fuel load would just about  compensate the added weight of the MG/FFs. 
 

Roll performance is a different matter though. The further removed a weight is from the axis of roll, the slower the resulting roll.

 

But in the end, unless you plan on fighting at high altitudes, taking the MG/FFs won’t change the 190‘s handling characteristics by too much. I personally always take them, doubling the amount of 20mm shells I lob at my enemy is well worth the minimal change in handling.

 

Can only agree with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the OP question

A quick Google search gives a gasoline density of 0.75 (aprox)

And the total weight of the outer wing 20mm MG/FF, plus ammo is 131kg

So you need 175 Liters LESS to compensate the weight.

As others said before. This does not means that the handling will be ecual, but that's the answer.

 

 

Edited by =FEW=fernando11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to get back in action with the A5.  Did have a career going in Kuban with them but found myself more than not ground pounding rather than flying cover or CAP.

 

Trying an A8 career in Rheinland but feel it would be nice to take those cannons out of the mid wing section and just have the guns closer in.  More than enough to take out the opposition especially if you are used to flying VVS fighters and learn to be sparing with your ammo. 

 

Not had much joy against Spit IX's and Tempests but P47's, the A8 eats them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the game specifications for the FW 190 a5, the total fuel load is 409 kg / 524 L. The weight of the  2 MG FF / M + ammunition is 131 Kg, so you need to empty 32% of fuel, ergo, load the plane with 68% fuel ... if my calculations are correct ...

Edited by andres43

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, andres43 said:

ergo, load the plane with 68% fuel ... if my calculations are correct ...

and if he would take full fuel load without wing guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, andres43 said:

According to the game specifications for the FW 190 a5, the total fuel load is 409 kg / 524 L. The weight of the  2 MG FF / M + ammunition is 131 Kg, so you need to empty 32% of fuel, ergo, load the plane with 68% fuel ... if my calculations are correct ...

 

Seems to be right... as my wild estimation of 65% fuel load - feels like appropriate compensation in combat speed & climb... 

 

Thanks mate for your calculation 🙄!

  • Upvote 1

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...