Jump to content

FW 190: 2 cannons or 4?


Leaf
 Share

Recommended Posts

Presuming you like to fly it, do you usually equip all 4 cannons or remove the outer ones?

I'm not sure if there is a truly tangible difference or whether it's just in my mind, but with the outer cannons removed the 190 feels just a tad sharper. I've also noticed that firing all four guns creates considerable shaking. 
So I usually rely on two cannons, which tends to be enough, but what do you prefer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Presuming you like to fly it, do you usually equip all 4 cannons or remove the outer ones?

I'm not sure if there is a truly tangible difference or whether it's just in my mind, but with the outer cannons removed the 190 feels just a tad sharper. I've also noticed that firing all four guns creates considerable shaking. 

So I usually rely on two cannons, which tends to be enough, but what do you prefer?

I didn't even try messing with the number of cannons. When I do, I will probably stick with two cannons. I figure that removing the  outer cannons will improve acceleration, roll rate, and climb rate.

 

:salute: MJ

Edited by =69.GIAP=MIKHA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NightFalcon

Outer wing cannons can only have up to 180 rounds after that they are only useless weight on your plane, if you are not planning on engaging Pe-2 / IL-2 formations, i don't see a reason mounting extra cannons. In dogfight scenarios couple cannon hits will bring down any fighter, so 2x inner wing cannons + 2x MGs are more than enough firepower for dogfights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well logically the outer cannons generate more moment of inertia or resistance to roll so its better to have them inwards, not to mention its better concerning convergence

 

 

but i would rather to be able to get rid of them all as i heard certain experten did

Edited by raaaid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In IL2-1946 I usually flew the Würger with 2 cannon. I like my fighters as light and sleek as posible.

 

However, because of the a-historical unlocks in BoS (the MG-FFs should be the standard, not an unlock) I'm inclined to fly with 4 cannon just to be historically accurate.

 

From a pure fly-to-win perspective, I say 2 cannon is far better:

 

1. Even without them the Fw 190 is still the most heavily armed fighter in BoS with enough firing time to easily take down 6 - 8 opponents in one sortie.

 

2. You don't need to worry about convergence.

 

3. The loss in weight gives enough of a bonus in both speed, acceleration, climb rate and in particular roll rate to be worth the reduction in firepower.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

something i did in old il246 was shoot all machine gun ammo at start with the 190, less weight of useless 0.50 mm :) and i noticed the difference

Edited by raaaid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LLv34_Flanker

S!

 

 I would rather see the outer wing cannons removed as an unlock on the Fw190A-3. I think the only versions of Fw190 without them from the factory were G/F and Dora.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You shouldn't be dogfighting with the 190 anyways, so I don't see how the extra cannon could really hurt you.  Why not have the extra firepower?  Your climb rate is going to be slower, but you shouldn't be climbing out on the MLR anyways.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

S!

 

 I would rather see the outer wing cannons removed as an unlock on the Fw190A-3. I think the only versions of Fw190 without them from the factory were G/F and Dora.

 

Right...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You currently lose about 15 km/h when carrying those guns and i don't think they are worth that. Atleast not until convergence can be set or if you know you're going to meet Pe-2 (i think the Il-2 is still easy enough to kill with 2x 20mm). When convergence can be changed, the extra guns might become very useful in the ground-attack role though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SYN_Saintblu

I go with 4 because I usually plan on coming in from very high and getting off a burst or two. The extra weight is not an issue because i only play "ballerina" in a Yak. If i don't get my target in one pass then that is my problem and i try not to compound that problem by giving up my energy and leaving the scene alive.

 

Don't get me wrong, the 190 can dogfight fairly well, but you are better served in any plane that we have at the moment by not getting tangled up. The best postion is always to come in from above and leave them burning. So I take all the armament i can take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it's a matter of preference; both sides have good arguments. I've tried 4 cannons a bit today and, despite the lack of convergence, it doesn't seem to affect performance too much (to me at least). Considering the fact that the FM still needs tweaking (see the half dozen threads in the Early Access Discussion), I think I'll try four cannons from now on, until the FM is in a state where the removal of two actually yields tangible benefits. 

Right now I feel like I'm not getting the full benefits, especially in regards to the roll rate increase. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VBF-12_Snake9

I haven't flown the BOS 190 yet, but I likes the big guns.  :)   Always have.  That is the point of the 190, or might as well fly the 109.  If you say "well two 20s is enough,"  then one 20 is just as good as two.  Fly the 109.  You should have a wingman clearing your rear end anyway in the 190.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't flown the BOS 190 yet, but I likes the big guns. :) Always have. That is the point of the 190, or might as well fly the 109. If you say "well two 20s is enough," then one 20 is just as good as two. Fly the 109.

Apart from the fact that 2 MG 151s is stille double the firepower of 1, there is also the issue of firing time. The Fw 190s huge ammo supply makes it desirable to go for shots, where you'd normally keep your finger off the trigger in the 109.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VBF-12_Snake9

And. . . 4 20s is still double the firepower of 2 20s.  :)   Hey, your a 190 pilot.  Take the big guns or go home to your 109.  In 1946 I didn't fly the 109 much, but flew the 190 always if I had the choice.  There was a map on Spits vs 109s where they took the two 20s away from the bird.  Man I hated flying without my full firepower.  I would switch sides to the Russian p39 just to get that huge 37mm in the nose.  :biggrin:   Those were fun days. 

 

Anyway, my opinion.  Man up.  Take the big guns. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LLv34_Flanker

S!

 

 Shoot closer and 2 x 20mm is enough. I take the performance increase from removing the outer guns, thank you. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only found out yesterday, that you can either carry bombs or the MGFF, so i guess they are not that useful for ground attack after all.

 

What also hurts a bit, is that you can't fire the outer cannons seperately from the inboard cannons.

 

FW only with 4 cannons. Fire power is devastating. Its a pity that we cant use FW it in the career mode.

It will be possible to use the 190 in career mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes in some developer blog with Q&A earlier this year.

 

But i think there will not be any other squadron with the 190 except yours. At least that's how it understood it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Fw-190A4 and below outboard MGFF's were removable at the unit level. The authorized load out for a Type I Fighter is just the MG17's and wing root MG151's.

It should be optional one the early FW190A's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6./ZG26_Gielow

It is hard to tell with FM and DM not fully complete.

Anyway, I always select maximum firepower available but with no convergence settings and no big russian bombers around it probably dead weight right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, because of the a-historical unlocks in BoS (the MG-FFs should be the standard, not an unlock) I'm inclined to fly with 4 cannon just to be historically accurate.

 

This. But: Totally missing convergence and the wrong trigger setup kills it :) '46 trigger setup was better. A = MGs + inner cannons, B = outer cannons. Even better would be that plus switches for individual gun pairs on/off selection. Eventually we might see a P-39 - she had just one trigger for guns, but 3 on/off switches that made it possible to control which guns would be fired (wing guns, cowling gungs, cannon). So it has to be programmed anyway if BoS wants to keep up some realism.

 

(http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/070116-F-1234S-001.jpg - left hand side, the uppermost switches)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In IL2-1946 I usually flew the Würger with 2 cannon. I like my fighters as light and sleek as posible.

 

However, because of the a-historical unlocks in BoS (the MG-FFs should be the standard, not an unlock) I'm inclined to fly with 4 cannon just to be historically accurate.

 

If that was a-historical unlock in BoS how light and sleek would be Würger with 6x MG17 cannons vs 2x  MG17 + 2x  MG151/20 + 2x  MGFF/M? I have calculated you would have 309 kg less weight if you use 2x MG17 with 900 rounds + 4x MG17 with 500 rounds. 309 kg less weight sounds really cool. Firepower maybe still good even for dogfight to made a lot small holes into your enemy.

 

What you think about this idea?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that was a-historical unlock in BoS how light and sleek would be Würger with 6x MG17 cannons vs 2x MG17 + 2x MG151/20 + 2x MGFF/M? I have calculated you would have 309 kg less weight if you use 2x MG17 with 900 rounds + 4x MG17 with 500 rounds. 309 kg less weight sounds really cool. Firepower maybe still good even for dogfight to made a lot small holes into your enemy.

 

What you think about this idea?

The A-0 would be a fun plane no doubt, but totally unfit for this theatre, since they never served on the Eastern Front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

migmadmarine

I wish they had done the cannon unlocks the other way round, given you all four by default, and you would unlock the option to remove the outer ones. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 cannons - not until the FW190A6. The MGFF I find to be a lousy gun anyway, and for a 109 driver 2x20mm is more than enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Fw-190A4 and below outboard MGFF's were removable at the unit level. The authorized load out for a Type I Fighter is just the MG17's and wing root MG151's.

It should be optional one the early FW190A's.

 

What compensation was done to adjust the CG back into its limits when the MGFF were removed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

migmadmarine

Well, the cannons moment arm is quite near the center it would seem, so I think it's possible that no compensation would be needed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What compensation was done to adjust the CG back into its limits when the MGFF were removed?

None. It is an authorized load out in the FW 190A4 and below.

 

Only when the fuselage gets extended in the Fw190A5 and later do we see removing the outboard weapons as no longer an option for unit level maintenance.

Just read the ladeplan for the aircraft. It tells you all the authorized configurations. Pretty simple and requires no speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None. It is an authorized load out in the FW 190A4 and below.

 

So the removal of ~180lb from behind the CG had no adverse effect on the CG location. If you say so Crump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the removal of ~180lb from behind the CG had no adverse effect on the CG location. If you say so Crump.

 

Behind the CG?  The A3 had the early aft bomb rack location which puts the bombs it carried on exactly the same line as the MGFFs and I don't think there were any CG compensations when dropping them.  In any event the guns were very near the typical CL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FuriousMeow

I'm curious as well chuter. I know with the 190A-3, bombs could be mounted using the ETC rack, and dropping bombs mounted on the ETC caused no detriment to CG - which as you stated was in CG line with the outer wing MGFFs. It was later found the 190 could carry more of a payload externally so the CG was altered for that reason with the A-5. However, I recall finding examples of the 190A-5 having the outer MGFFs removed but I don't know if it was done in field or at the factory.

 

Either way, the 190A-3's removal of the MGFFs was a popular field modification - if it threw off the 190A-3's CG terribly then it wouldn't have been very popular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only place they had to add new (or larger versions of) equipment on the 190 was the aft fuselage which, of course, would draw the basic CG aft.  Moving the nose (and propeller) forward would balance that BUT would have a slightly destabilizing effect which might have been addressed at some point by moving the CG aft limit forward a tad.  Then putting a larger prop on would destabilize further ... so the A8 (which moved the rack forward) clearly doesn't have the same level of stability (or efficiency) as the A3 while no doubt operating with a CG range that is at least shorter on the aft end.  (The P-51 and Spitfire experienced similar destabilization when they went from three blade props to four blade.)

 

Just speculating ... do I need a speculum for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Either way, the 190A-3's removal of the MGFFs was a popular field modification

 

 

It is not a "field modification".  It is a specifically authorized load out found in the official weight and balance.

 

The factory specifically allows FW-190A4 and below to have the outboard guns removed by the unit.

 

post-1354-0-97130000-1408144653_thumb.jpg

 

The FW-190A5 units could remove the outboard guns IF the GM-1 kit was installed.  Without GM-1, operation of the aircraft with the outboard guns removed was not authorized.

 

post-1354-0-54000900-1408144840_thumb.jpg

 

While the system was operationally tested in the FW-190A5, GM-1 was not adopted for general service use in the FW-190A series until the FW-190A8.

 

You will find factory modifications removing the outboard weapons on many FW-190A series to test various weapon configurations such as the WGr. 21 rockets, GM-1, and engine modifications.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The factory specifically allows FW-190A4 and below to have the outboard guns removed by the unit.

 

...which therefore makes it a field modification.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The only place they had to add new (or larger versions of) equipment on the 190 was the aft fuselage which, of course, would draw the basic CG aft. Moving the nose (and propeller) forward would balance that BUT would have a slightly destabilizing effect which might have been addressed at some point by moving the CG aft limit forward a tad. Then putting a larger prop on would destabilize further ... so the A8 (which moved the rack forward) clearly doesn't have the same level of stability (or efficiency) as the A3 while no doubt operating with a CG range that is at least shorter on the aft end. (The P-51 and Spitfire experienced similar destabilization when they went from three blade props to four blade.)

 

The CG range, both forward and aft is unique for each FW-190 variant. 

 

The empty CG is an allowable range which is why each aircraft has a specific ladeplan by Werknummer.  Look at the FW-190A5 ladeplan I posted, the Werknummer is blank as it has not been filled out and assigned to a specific airframe.

 

 

Removing the outboard guns moves the CG forward which is why you see the dedicated ground attack variants without wing weapons.  The bomb hard points move the CG aft so taking the weapons out helps both with weight and in keeping the CG from sliding too far aft when loaded with outboard wing hard points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...