Why the Fw-190A3? What is the charm?

[Bremspropeller]

41 minutes ago, esk_pedja said:

What was the point of A5 development ? The same speed, the same armament, less maneuverable...

 

Shifted engine 10cm forward to increse CoG performance when carrying heavy loadouts.

The A-5 was the first "multirole" platform with larger-scale associated fighter-bomber (F and G models) variants.

[esk_pedja]

So what would be the fighter successor of A3 ? (late 43/winter44)

 

It seems that we have performance gap from 1941 till Dora...

 

What FW-190 should counter Razorback Jug or 5-51B... prior to D-Day ?

[Bremspropeller]

2 minutes ago, esk_pedja said:

What FW-190 should counter Razorback Jug or 5-51B... prior to D-Day ?

 

 A-6 thru A-8.

[sevenless]

Just now, esk_pedja said:

So what would be the fighter successor of A3 ? (late 43/winter44)

 

It seems that we have performance gap from 1941 till Dora...

 

What FW-190 should counter Razorback Jug or 5-51B... prior to D-Day ?

 

A5 from early 43 onwards and from summer 43 until around 12/43 the A6. Then the A7 got introduced and in 4/44 the first units in the west got the A8.

Edited July 22, 2020 by sevenless

[PatrickAWlson]

Just now, esk_pedja said:

So what would be the fighter successor of A3 ? (late 43/winter44)

 

It seems that we have performance gap from 1941 till Dora...

 

What FW-190 should counter Razorback Jug or 5-51B... prior to D-Day ?

 

The decision was made to make the 190 a more capable all around plane at the expense of one of its aspects.  The A5 was still a very good, very effective fighter. Any downgrade in fighter capability from the A3 was not that significant.  One can argue whether this was the right decision or not, but it is what it is. 

 

For the 1943/early 44 time frame the A5 and A6 (Coming with BoN) will be the primary competition, moving to the A8 by mid 1944.  The A5, A6 and later the A8 were still competitive, just not dominant. 

 

To the extent that a gap existed (high altitude), that really happened when the Germans were faced with taking on high altitude bombers after three years of lower altitude tactical combat.  No argument that the development of the FW190 D was too little too late, but keeping the A3 was not the answer.

 

[esk_pedja]

A6 was intended above all to aim U.S. heavy bombers, not to cope with early Jugs and Mustangs...

[PatrickAWlson]

10 minutes ago, esk_pedja said:

A6 was intended above all to aim U.S. heavy bombers, not to cope with early Jugs and Mustangs...

 

Maybe the modifications from A5 to A6 were made with heavies in mind, but it was still the plane that had to cope with early Jugs and Mustangs.

 

In 1943 that was fine when taking on heavy bombers making deep penetrations.  Just wait for the P-47s to turn back and then attack.  With the Mustang that was no longer possible.  The Germans tried to use 109s as top cover to let the 190s go after the bombers, but American numbers were overwhelming.  There was no way 190 pilots were going to avoid fighters.

 

The modifications from the A5 to the A6 may have been made with heavies in mind, but the A6 was still a competent fighter plane.  The problem was that it was a competent fighter plane fighting other competent fighter planes with many times the numbers, in the area (high altitude) where the other planes were best. 

 

The original question was why go from A3 to A5.  Continuing along the lines of the A3 may have produced a better fighter vs. fighter plane but not much.  The radial engine was still going to suffer at high altitudes and the numerical odds were not going to improve.  So we're back to the D being way too little too late. 

 

[Bremspropeller]

44 minutes ago, esk_pedja said:

A6 was intended above all to aim U.S. heavy bombers, not to cope with early Jugs and Mustangs...

 

Nobody at RLM cared about the Jug or the Mustang. They were just two out of a gazillion of opposing fighter types.

The A-6 did pretty well against early Jugs and Mustangs nonetheless. Early Mustangs had been coped with since '42.

 

The A-6 got a new wing -  lightened and strengthened - to cope with all the possible different loadouts.

The A-6 wing was carried through till the end.

31 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

The radial engine was still going to suffer at high altitudes and the numerical odds were not going to improve.

 

The radial engine itself wasn't the issue. Lack of better supercharging was.

The quick-fix solution of installing ram-air inlets for the same supercharger raised critical altitudes about 700-900m. It led to little speed-gains at altitude, but gave a remarkable improvement in climb. It cost 10mph down-low. The ram air-intake could be exchanged for the standard duct within 15-20 minutes in the field, so either quick-changes or a Staffel-wise conversion (e.g. two "ram inlet" equipped Staffeln and a "strandard" Staffel per Gruppe) would have been fesible. Yet it was never fielded other than on a few airframes.

 

The long-term solution (equipping the 190 with a V12 and a better supercharging system) was tested in 1942 and could have been fielded in 1943. After all, the Dora was just a 190A with a '43 Jumo 213A plus three different (consecutive) emergency boost systems. RLM didn't see the urgency of the issue and preferred ducking around with several technological cul-de-sacs.

[esk_pedja]

On 7/22/2020 at 10:05 PM, Bremspropeller said:

 

The A-6 got a new wing -  lightened and strengthened - to cope with all the possible different loadouts.

The A-6 wing was carried through till the end.

 

 

Are there any specific data in Kg , about lightened (single) wing of A6 ?

Just would be interesting to compare with additional cannon weight...

[SAS_Storebror]

I can't find any source for the A-6 wings being lightened compared to the A-5 other than just mentioning so in the English Wikipedia article about the A-6, but - of course - without sources (that much about Wikipedia's own rules and quality standards).

I must say that I'm in strong disbelief that the A-6 wing should be lightened. Strengthened yes, but lightened... doesn't make sense.

The wings aren't that much different anyway.

They're similar to an extent where the regarding manual (D. (Luft) T. 2190 A-5/A-6 Teil 5: "Tragwerk") which explicitly deals with the wings of the versions in question - A-5 and A-6 -  is valid for both versions.

The manual lists the similarities - for instance the upper wing structures, lower inner wing structures, main and the aft spar and revision flaps are just the same - and the differences:

Lower structures of the outer wing parts, inner wheel cover and wing nose/fuselage cover.

Certain structural strengthening was necessary to accommodate the upgraded wing guns - MG 151/20 with larger in-wing ammo capacity and shell case housing was done and integration of MK 108 was prepared already, so there was quite some additional weight and recoil to be dealt with compared to the A-5 wing - and only one tiny little thing was there to get rid of (compressed air tube going to the MG-FF guns in the A-5 wing).

 

I'd bet my mother's a$$ that in fact the A-6 wing was a tad heavier than the A-5 one.

 

Mike

[Bremspropeller]

You can lighten and strengthen at the same time - those things aren't exclusive to each other. I don't have the figures, either.

 

The main difference is the larger "taktisches Loch" to fit the outer guns (up to MK108s).

The diagram in (D. (Luft) T. 2190 A-5/A-6 Teil 5 shows five full wing-ribs for the A-5 wing and only 4 ribs for the A-6 wing. It's pretty hard to tell, though.

 

Edit: Looks like they actually reduced the number of full ribs on the A-6. Can't tell about the number of floating ribs from that diagram.

Edited July 25, 2020 by Bremspropeller

[Eisenfaustus]

My 2 Cents on the original question:

If you enjoy career mode, the a3 offers the greatest 190 fighter career so far - Stalingrad career in general has the greatest variety of aircraft you‘ll encounter and jg51 is based very close to the action - more fighting, less marching. 

[ciderworm]

Extract from "The great book of ww2 airplanes" with the section on FW190's by Robert Grinsell

 

Gives an account of the A6 development and some details on the modifications from earlier designs. I'm not sure whether the text implies that the designers strengthened the wing (low maintenance and high combat survivability) but it does state that even with the additional armor plating etc the wing loading was reduced.

 

 

[CountZero]

If you have one of them you dont need another is my view, same as for Yak.1b and Yak-9, get them all just if you need but they are similar enough to not get both if your not some uber fan. But for 5$ on 75% sale why not get them all ?

[SAS_Storebror]

5 hours ago, ciderworm said:

even with the additional armor plating etc the wing loading was reduced

 

Not trying to tell who's wrong or who's right, but the weight of the 190A-5 is specified as:

2960kg (empty) / 4106kg (takeoff),

and the 190A-6:

3000kg (empty) / 4186kg (takeoff)

(D. (Luft) T. 2190 A-5/A-6 Teil 0: "Allgemeine Angaben")

 

How come, considering that both have the same wing dimensions (square and span), that the wing load should have decreased on the latter?

 

Mike

[esk_pedja]

1 hour ago, SAS_Storebror said:

 

Not trying to tell who's wrong or who's right, but the weight of the 190A-5 is specified as:

2960kg (empty) / 4106kg (takeoff),

and the 190A-6:

3000kg (empty) / 4186kg (takeoff)

(D. (Luft) T. 2190 A-5/A-6 Teil 0: "Allgemeine Angaben")

 

 

That would mean +20 Kg difference per wing.

One 20mm MG151 cannon was 42 Kg itself ... so far, it seems that wing construction was really somewhat lighter.

 

The question remains - "empty" of fuel... or "empty" of fuel and ammo.   ( A6 had increased ammo capacity )

?

Edited July 25, 2020 by esk_pedja

[SAS_Storebror]

11 hours ago, esk_pedja said:

That would mean +20 Kg difference per wing.

One 20mm MG151 cannon was 42 Kg itself ... so far, it seems that wing construction was really somewhat lighter.

That's a fallacy.

Is it that anyone here is stranger to math?

The MG 151/20's mass is 42.7kg.

The mass of the removed MG FF is 26.3kg.

Using your calculation (which is a tad too simplified I'm afraid) the guns would be +16.4kg per wing, the remaining +3.6kg "per wing" would be "elsewhere".

 

11 hours ago, esk_pedja said:

The question remains - "empty" of fuel... or "empty" of fuel and ammo.

 

Simple answer: "Empty" is bare bone with guns.

No pilot, no fuel, no oil, no ammo, no bombs, no droptanks, no "additional equipment".

 

11 hours ago, esk_pedja said:

( A6 had increased ammo capacity )

MG FF ammo weight of the A-5 according to D. (Luft) T. 2190 A-5/A-6 Teil 0: "Allgemeine Angaben" is 37kg (18.5kg per wing).

Outer wing MG 151/20 ammo weight of the A-6 according to the same document is 62kg (31kg per wing, diff to A-5: +12.5kg).

This is not the difference in empty weight as empty weight is without ammo.

 

Mike

[Yogiflight]

2 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

Outer wing MG 151/20 ammo weight of the A-6 according to the same document is 62kg (31kg per wing, diff to A-5: +12.5kg).

This is not the difference in empty weight as empty weight is without ammo.

Maybe the ammo box of the MG151/20. Without ammo, there are no magazines in the MG/FFs either, but I would guess, that the ammo boxes for the MG151/20 were in place.

[SAS_Storebror]

The ammo box may or may not be the +3.6kg "per wing" on the A-6, that'll be pure guesswork.

Fact is the A-6 is heavier than the A-5, the wing load therefore will logically be more as well, and the weapon replacement doesn't explain the weight difference and by far doesn't back up claims for "lighter" wing structures.

 

Mike

[Bremspropeller]

20 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

and the weapon replacement doesn't explain the weight difference and by far doesn't back up claims for "lighter" wing structures.

 

There are other differences between the A-5 and A-6 that may or may not account for the differences in weight, some of which were incorportated during the production run:

 

- different wing and outher outer guns

- changed armor

- guncam in port wing (during running production)

-  FuG16 PR16 antenna (during running production)

- solid wheels instead of rims with holes (during running production)

- two steel-cables to catch the headrest-armor (during running production)

Edited July 26, 2020 by Bremspropeller

[SAS_Storebror]

Absolutely.

Again: There's differences, but so far no sign of any backup to the claim of lightened wing structures.

They'll probably have been strengthened - simply because almost every plane that got the MK 108 attached in it's lifetime had to be strengthened to some extent - but the claim for a lightened wing structure so far is just that: A claim.

 

Mike

[Lusekofte]

Well I have seen the difference on a early A 3 and a late war version of a A or F Fw 190. 
The late war version had very bad fitted panels. There where no signs of effort smoothening rivets bolts to make it as aerodynamical as possible. 
Can inferior metal and less production time be a cause of more weight? 
Personally I have no clue, but late war planes serving in Luftwaffe suffered in terms of quality. I just are Not sure if that involved A 6 

[Bernard_IV]

The A3 is a really sweet flying airplane.  I take it on Combat Box still with the guns removed and a half tank of fuel, jump into the furball for a good time.  Great plane, just a little bit too slow to deal with P51s in many situations.

[esk_pedja]

14 hours ago, Bernard_IV said:

The A3 is a really sweet flying airplane.  I take it on Combat Box still with the guns removed and a half tank of fuel, jump into the furball for a good time.  Great plane, just a little bit too slow to deal with P51s in many situations.

 

You can not counter P51D from late 1944/45 with a plane that took off at 1941... Maybe it would be possible with early P51B from 1943 ?

 

( After few weeks of flying different FW-190 I returned to 1941 :  Bf-109 F4 vs Spit Vb - what a refreshment of flight feeling... Like riding the trains and than switch to "ride on falcon bird" )

[PatrickAWlson]

Maybe somebody can correct me, but my impression is that the later Fw190s were competitive in 1944 primarily because of different forms of injection.  The engines got a bit more powerful but the plane also got a bit bigger and heavier.  The plane became generally more capable but not so much in terms of fighter-fighter combat.  Without injection I'm not at all sure that the A8 was a better fighter than the A3.  It was really the advent of the D9 that brought parity again, but it seems that in 1944 the 190A was lagging behind the P-51, Spitfire XIV, and maybe the Tempest.

 

So the appeal of the A3 is its time frame.  The A3 was at the height of the 190s capabilities relative to the competition.  A couple of years later you have a FW190A that is not much more advanced in fighter-fighter combat while the competition has improved considerably.  Sure the A5-A8 were much more capable overall planes, especially in anti bomber and ground attack roles, but they were not really much better fighters.  

[Jaws2002]

2 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Maybe somebody can correct me, but my impression is that the later Fw190s were competitive in 1944 primarily because of different forms of injection.  The engines got a bit more powerful but the plane also got a bit bigger and heavier.  The plane became generally more capable but not so much in terms of fighter-fighter combat.  Without injection I'm not at all sure that the A8 was a better fighter than the A3.  It was really the advent of the D9 that brought parity again, but it seems that in 1944 the 190A was lagging behind the P-51, Spitfire XIV, and maybe the Tempest.

 

So the appeal of the A3 is its time frame.  The A3 was at the height of the 190s capabilities relative to the competition.  A couple of years later you have a FW190A that is not much more advanced in fighter-fighter combat while the competition has improved considerably.  Sure the A5-A8 were much more capable overall planes, especially in anti bomber and ground attack roles, but they were not really much better fighters.  

 

 

The A8, once it got it's full boost, had quite a good thrust to weight ratio. It was equivalent to the BF-109G2.  It had the horsepower necessary for 1944. But the engine improvements messed up the airflow under the cowling, so the added internal drag, combined with the added weight, negated the added power.

  If you look at the drawings for planned, BMW-802 powered FW-190 variants, the cowling is dramatically different. The airflow inside the cowling was a major part of the design focus.

 

http://www.luft46.com/fw/fwbmw802.html

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/bmw-802-engine.51950/

 

 

 

 

Edited July 28, 2020 by Jaws2002

[Bernard_IV]

Firing multiple guns through contra rotating propellers?  That plane does look cool though.

[Irishratticus72]

190 A3s are just [edited] sexy. That's enough for me. 

Edited August 3, 2020 by SYN_Haashashin
Language

[LukeFF]

7 hours ago, esk_pedja said:

You can not counter P51D from late 1944/45 with a plane that took off at 1941

 

Yes you can - JG 5 had A-3s on hand at least to the end of 1944.

Edited July 28, 2020 by LukeFF

[esk_pedja]

FW-190A  development destiny was a desperate attempt to blast B-17 and B24 formations. It was an absolute priority. Plane become heavier and less "dogfighter"...

 

USAAF on the other hand, had a freedom to improve early P-51 into pure dogfighter reaching the perfection by P-51D.

They simply never had a headache to counter heavy bomber formations.

 

 

[Jaws2002]

1 hour ago, Bernard_IV said:

Firing multiple guns through contra rotating propellers?  That plane does look cool though.

 

Another interesting aspect of this engine was the supercharger mounted in the cowling, in front of the Cylinder banks, that eliminated the need for all that ducting and additional intake scoop. 

Edited July 28, 2020 by Jaws2002

[Eisenfaustus]

4 minutes ago, esk_pedja said:

They simply never had a headache to counter heavy bomber formations.

they had other compromises to make - the best thing about the mustang wasn't it's dogfighting capabailities (although they were great) but rather it's fantastic reach. Might have become even better at maneuver combat if it hadn't been designed with such long legs...

 

Fighter a/c are seldom designed as pure dogfighters - rather to fullfill certain missions. And often enough real warfare presses them into diffrent roles then originally intended.

[esk_pedja]

Pure dogfighter was Spit Mk IX, but they never had to worry about extra long range escorts trips.

[Eisenfaustus]

28 minutes ago, esk_pedja said:

Pure dogfighter was Spit Mk IX, but they never had to worry about extra long range escorts trips.

The spit was designed as high speed interceptor and bomberkiller and originally not intended to fight fighters at all. 
 

and of course was the Short range of the spit a problem! It’s main task from 41 onward was escort. Would have been great if it could have escorted bombers to their targets...

 

it‘s insufficiency was the reason why the p51 was a gamechanger. 

[Diggun]

14 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

main task from 41 onward was escort.

Not really. 41-42, it's running escort along with home defense etc, but from 43 onwards it's increasingly on air superiority (both at home, v raiders and v1s) and ground attack duties. Not doing too shabbily at either. 

[DD_Arthur]

1 hour ago, Diggun said:

Not really. 41-42, it's running escort along with home defense etc

 

I dunno. 

We built up a large Spitfire force in these years for what seemed good solid reasons - complete air superioty over the UK - which turned out to be surplus to requirements.

 

Yes, they shot down quite a few of the LW who were intent on bombing south-coast chippies but the RAF lost a great many experienced pilots over France and Belgium escorting bomber formations that hit targets that in no way could have led to the fall of Berlin but put the lights out for many Frenchmen both literally and figuratively.

They certainly tied down some of the LW but....not that much.

 

At the same time RAF fighter units in the desert, the med and south-east Asia - critical battlefields - were starved of the best fighter aircraft we possessed.

[ATAG_Flare]

On 7/20/2020 at 9:13 PM, Gambit21 said:

190 A3 or A5, 109 E or F4 - every other German fighter can kick rocks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's what I'm talking about!! The E-1 is a personal favourite. Just hose people down with the 4 MGs that never seem to run out of ammo.

[esk_pedja]

Spitfire as bomber interceptor ?

Even during 1940 their main task was to engage Me-109s , opening Luftwaffe cover to Hurricane to do the main job with bombers.

During the the Luftwaffe night raids in 1941, after Battle of Britain, they where useless.

 

After 1941 they could mostly tease and test Me-109s on the French coast.

In 1942/43 German bombers attacks were rarely sent in offensive actions.

 

( North Africa, Malta, New Guinea ...it was another different story )

   

Edited July 29, 2020 by esk_pedja

[41Sqn_Skipper]

1 hour ago, esk_pedja said:

Spitfire as bomber interceptor ?

 

All pre-war RAF fighters were designed as bomber interceptors.

At that time no fighter had enough range to get from Germany to Britain. 

 

Initial design and main use in the end are totally unrelated. The P51 was designed in 1940(?) as an interceptor. Then actually used for low level armed reconnaissance and finally it was modified for long range and used as escort.

Edited July 29, 2020 by 41Sqn_Skipper

[DD_Arthur]

1 hour ago, esk_pedja said:

Spitfire as bomber interceptor ?

Even during 1940 their main task was to engage Me-109s , opening Luftwaffe cover to Hurricane to do the main job with bombers.   

 

Yes,  the Spitfire was designed first and foremost as a bomber interceptor for the air defence of Great Britain.   Spitfires being sent to engage '109's whilst the Hurricanes went for the bombers during the battle of Britain is largely a myth btw.