FW-190 A-8 maximum performance

[Michael262]

I just want to ask why FW-190 A-8 have declared maximal speed of 641 km/h at 6200 metres with emergency mode?

In many books you can found maximal speed of A-8 is about 652 - 656 km/h at 6000 metres in emergency mode.

For example in book (WINGS OF THE LUFTWAFFE - Capt. Eric Brown) is maximal speed of FW-190 A-8 656 km/h at 6300 metres with emergency mode.

 

[SJ_Butcher]

The maximum speed on the FW190 A8 according to my sources should be 656kmh@5200meters at 1.65 ata. You should test this on autumn but I can't recall which map was. I believe it's kuban.

Edited March 22, 2021 by SJ_Butcher

[D3adCZE]

656kph ias in that altitude is incredibly fast. I am not sure if there is anything faster than 620kph. I am interested in results. Can you please tag me?

[Dr_Molem]

23 hours ago, D3adCZE said:

656kph ias in that altitude is incredibly fast. I am not sure if there is anything faster than 620kph. I am interested in results. Can you please tag me?

 

I think it's a typo and he meant 5200m rather than 520m.

[Kurfurst]

Probably the drag effect of the ETC bombrack which IIRC was permantently attached to the A8 to maintain the plane’s centre of gravity.

[Bremspropeller]

On 3/21/2021 at 3:08 PM, VO101Kurfurst said:

Probably the drag effect of the ETC bombrack which IIRC was permantently attached to the A8 to maintain the plane’s centre of gravity.

 

The ETC wasn't permanently attached for CoG reasons - it was attached due to mission-requirements (mostly carrying the 300l tank).

The ETC was moved forward by 200mm on the A-8 to keep CoG in balance (due to the new 115l tank behind the cockpit).

 

Some A-8s of JG26 did have the Erla-rack instead of the ETC, which was lighter and had less drag. It could only carry the 300l tank and provided no mission-flexibility (e.g. carrying a bomb on one mission and a tank on the next).

 

 

[gimpy117]

On 3/22/2021 at 10:11 AM, Bremspropeller said:

 

The ETC wasn't permanently attached for CoG reasons - it was attached due to mission-requirements (mostly carrying the 300l tank).

The ETC was moved forward by 200mm on the A-8 to keep CoG in balance (due to the new 115l tank behind the cockpit).

 

Some A-8s of JG26 did have the Erla-rack instead of the ETC, which was lighter and had less drag. It could only carry the 300l tank and provided no mission-flexibility (e.g. carrying a bomb on one mission and a tank on the next).

 

 

any weight and balance data for the aircraft? we could calculate the stations and arms pretty easy enough and see if this is true or not...I got a spreadsheet set up for this kinda stuff 

[MiloMorai]

6 hours ago, gimpy117 said:

any weight and balance data for the aircraft? we could calculate the stations and arms pretty easy enough and see if this is true or not...I got a spreadsheet set up for this kinda stuff 

Do a forum search as Crumpp did one way back. Possibly in a thread about removing the outer cannons.

[JtD]

I don't know what a recalculation would give us, it's what Fw says about the aircraft. Below from the A-8R2, but same applies to the standard A-8.

 

"The additional fuselage fuel tank (115l, only permissible with ETC501 moved forward) pushes the CoG to 0.74m behind the leading edge of the wing root profile, when the fuselage tank is full."

 

(The ETC is located at 0.68m behind the LE and was 0.88m behind the LE on earlier models. The most rearward CoG position of earlier models ranged from 0.72 to 0.75. With the CoG at the most rearward position the Fw could become laterally unstable under certain flight conditions. Pushing it another 0.02 aft by not moving the ETC forward would be cause for concern. In particular with the skill level of the average 1944 German combat pilot.)