PDA

View Full Version : Fw 190 A-9 performance with BMW 801F-1 and Fw 190 A-10



Pages : [1] 2

Wildnoob
10-01-2011, 04:10 PM
Is there data avaliable or estimatives about the performance of the Fw 190 A-9 with the 2,367 hp BMW 801F-1 engine? And about the Fw 190 A-10 variant, is there data as well?

Treetop64
10-02-2011, 08:14 AM
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190):

"A-9

The Fw 190 A-9 was the last A-model produced, and was first built in September 1944. The A-9 was fitted with the new BMW 801S, called the 801 TS or 801 TH when shipped as a more complete Triebswerksanlage version of the Kraftei or "power egg" concept, unitized engine installation (an aircraft engine installation format embraced by the Luftwaffe for a number of engine types on operational aircraft, in part for easy field replacement) rated at 2,000 PS (1,973 hp, 1,471 kW); the more powerful 2,400 PS (2,367 hp, 1,765 kW) BMW 801F-1 was not available. The armour on the front annular cowling, which also incorporated the oil tank, was upgraded from the 6 mm (.24 in) on earlier models to 10 mm (.39 in). The 12-blade cooling fan was initially changed to a 14-blade fan, but it consumed more power to operate and did not really improve cooling; thus BMW reverted to the 12-blade fan. The A-9 cowling was slightly longer than that of the A-8 due to a larger annular radiator for the oil system. The bubble canopy design with the larger head armour was fitted as standard. Three types of propeller were authorised for use on the A-9: the VDM 9-112176A wooden propeller, 3.5 m (11 ft 6 in) in diameter, was the preferred option, however, many A-9s were fitted with the standard VDM 9-12067A metal propeller and some had a VDM 9-12153A metal propeller with external, bolt on balance weights.[39] The A-9 was also designed originally as an assault aircraft, so the wing leading edges were to have been armoured; however, this did not make it past the design stage in order to save weight. The A-9 was very similar to the A-8 in regards to the armament and Rüstsätze kits. A total of 910 A-9s were built between April 1944 and May 1945, mostly in Focke Wulf's Cottbus factory.[40]

A late-war attempt was made with the Fw 190 A-10, which was to have begun arriving in pilots' hands by March 1945 and was to be fitted with larger wings for better maneuverability at higher altitudes, which, due to internal space, could have allowed additional 30 mm (1.18 in) calibre, long-barreled MK 103 cannon to be fitted. The A-10 was to be powered by the 801 F engine. However, due to the priority given to the Dora variant of the Fw 190 and the new Ta 152, the A-10 never made it past the prototype stage.[41]"

On the BMW 801-F, also from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_801):

"BMW 801 F
2,400 PS (2,367 hp, 1,765 kW), development halted by the end of the war"

It would be difficult to find performance info about an aircraft fitted with an engine variant that never saw any practical use, certainly not in prototypical form.

For more info just click the links to view the wiki pages and click on the citations to view sources, or simply search the web for a start.

Kettenhunde
10-04-2011, 05:30 PM
On the BMW 801-F

That is completely wrong. Close that book and never open it again. That wikipedia article has many errors.

The BMW801F series was produced and flew in significant numbers.

In fact, If you go to the Smithsonian, you will see one in their FW-190 on display.

JtD
10-05-2011, 01:03 AM
"Less than 60 E/F engines were built and series production of the F (originally as TH, later as improved TF) never started."

Kettenhunde
10-08-2011, 08:31 PM
There were several thousand motors constructed and accepted by the Luftwaffe. The serial production FW-190A9 and FW-190F9 all had them. In addition to neubau airframes, an engine upgrade program was put in place where as FW-190A8 airframes were upgraded with a BMW801F series power egg and redesignated an FW-190A9.

That is comes from multiple original sources including the four engines we own.

JtD
10-09-2011, 01:43 AM
Several thousand F motors and A-9 and F-9 all had them?

It's interesting that neither Fw, nor BMW, nor the Luftwaffe knew about that. They said that the A-9 and F-9 were equipped with TU/TS engines, because the F wasn't available.

JSG72
10-09-2011, 11:24 AM
You could look.

http://www.a2asimulations.com/store/fw190/fw190a9.htm

Treetop64
10-13-2011, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

The BMW801F series was produced and flew in significant numbers.



Where did you find this information?

Kettenhunde
10-15-2011, 07:54 AM
Where did you find this information?

Archives...original documentation from Focke Wulf, BMW, the RLM, and Luftwaffe field reports giving feedback to engineers.

We have the installation and servicing manual, parts manual, and operators manual for the engine.

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/3858/bmw801h1.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/4/bmw801h1.jpg/)

Treetop64
10-15-2011, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Where did you find this information?

Archives...original documentation from Focke Wulf, BMW, the RLM, and Luftwaffe field reports giving feedback to engineers.

We have the installation and servicing manual, parts manual, and operators manual for the engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Production figures? The "...flew in significant numbers" part?

Kettenhunde
10-16-2011, 07:21 AM
Production figures?


Yes, that is included too.

JtD
10-16-2011, 08:53 AM
Could you please exactly name these documents? Names, numbers, where to obtain?

I have several documents relating to the BMW 801F which do not contain statements regarding the production.

I have also several documents regarding the Fw 190 A-9 not referring to the engine as an F of some sort.

I have explicit statements from BMW and Fw that state the F will not enter serial production before May, 1945. A copy of such a statement can be found in Peter Rodeikes Fw 190 book on page 270. While it is just a secondary source quoting a primary one, it is easily available so anyone can look it up.

Bremspropeller
10-16-2011, 09:01 AM
The report quoted in the Peter Rodeike book dates August 3rd 1944, so it's hardly and "end of all discussion"-document.

It also states the avaliability of an engine of similar power-output (BMW 801TS as opposed to the TH (= F engine)) as the actual F engine.

Kettenhunde
10-16-2011, 09:59 AM
It also states the avaliability of an engine of similar power-output (BMW 801TS as opposed to the TH (= F engine)) as the actual F engine.


I also have several documents that refer to the BMW801TS engine as the "F series".

All of them are dated AFTER 01 January, 1944.

Originally Alkohol-Einspritzung was to be used on the BMW801H series and GM-1 on the BMW801TS series but that evolved as GM-1 was approved but not encouraged because of intake icing. Remember the BMW-801D series was never approved for operational use with Alkohol-Einspritzung.

Also the D-series production simply incorporated many of the design changes developed for the BMW801F and E series. The pistons, supercharger impeller design, fuel pump etc.. all became standard on the BMW801D2. These and improved C3 fuel allowed the manifold pressure increase to 1.58ata as a simple pressure increase without any additional anti-knock protection.

The S and H series have the same simple manifold pressure increase to 1.65ata in the first gear supercharger. The power output is the same with the only difference being the use of alkohol-wasser to raise the H series to 2400PS at 1.82ata.

In January of 1945 the S series motor was approved for alkohol-wasser at 1.82ata.

In January 1945, a simplified Alkohol-Einspritzung system was adopted and approved speeding up fielding as well as production.

JtD
10-16-2011, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The report quoted in the Peter Rodeike book dates August 3rd 1944, so it's hardly and "end of all discussion"-document.

Absolutely not intended as such, in fact, it is to open up the discussion with a source that's easily available to everyone. You are most welcome to post later (primary) documents that may support or contradict the statements.


It also states the avaliability of an engine of similar power-output (BMW 801TS as opposed to the TH (= F engine)) as the actual F engine.

That is a bit difficult to understand - it says the TS engine has the same power output as an TH (F) and will use the designation BMW 801S.

Bremspropeller
10-16-2011, 10:47 AM
I don't have any later documents that state otherwise.
However, I think digging further into that is moot anyway, as the TS engine has the same power-output as the TH (F) engine - which basicly answers the initial poster's question.


The only drawback of the TS which I could identify right-away would be the non-avaliability of Erhöhte Notleistung due to the weak (= not beefed-up) prop-gear.

JtD
10-16-2011, 12:28 PM
The original poster was asking for the 2400 hp F model, the TS wasn't rated that high, as it was limited to about 2000 hp just like the 801D (but with higher full throttle altitudes). Only the erhöhte Notleistung of the F series would bring the engine in the vicinity of the 2400 hp mentioned. What might have been available for the TS would be the 1.82 ata with about 2250 hp max, but that would have been the end of the line. That necessitated MW50.

Bremspropeller
10-16-2011, 01:06 PM
Beefing up the prop-gear doesn't look like an unsolvable problem to me - that's what the quoted report deems to be the limiting factor on the TS http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JtD
10-16-2011, 01:15 PM
Yes, and that's why the engine was supposed to be good for 2250hp.

Different question - have you ever seen a picture of a 190 A-9 (in service) with the MW50 logo?

Kettenhunde
10-16-2011, 01:20 PM
The original poster was asking for the 2400 hp F model, the TS wasn't rated that high


Sure it was....



The only drawback of the TS which I could identify right-away would be the non-avaliability of Erhöhte Notleistung due to the weak (= not beefed-up) prop-gear.



IIRC, in July of 1944 the new prop gear was available and in production. It was required for the F series motor.

Bremspropeller
10-16-2011, 01:56 PM
Different question - have you ever seen a picture of a 190 A-9 (in service) with the MW50 logo?

The 115L-tank (MW-50 or GM-1, depending on the Rüstsatz) wasn't used due to stability(CoG)-issues IIRC.
Sometimes, it was used as an aux fuel-tank, though.

But that limitation applies to the TH/ F engine as well http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kettenhunde
10-17-2011, 09:14 AM
That is why they increased the oil cooler armor thickness to 10mm. That combined with the heavier weight of the BMW801H/S series helped with the CG issue.

An BMW801D2 required the propeller weights. the tank was not approved until ~August 1944 and the only information on its inclusion into production is a mention that it is planned in the September/October time frame.

MW was not used in the BMW801 U/H/S series until Jan 1945 either.

The MW system consisted of the non-self sealing tank. The GM-1 system on the FW-190A fighter series had two different systems. One did not use a tank in the fuselage but rather lox bottles in the wing very similar to the pilots oxygen bottles. The nitrous was in liquid form just like the pilots O2.

The fuselage tank for GM-1 was 85 liters. It was approved for 20 minutes of use over 8KM in altitude.

Bremspropeller
10-17-2011, 09:59 AM
Sounds very plausible to me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Thanks for the info http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Wildnoob
10-18-2011, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
The original poster was asking for the 2400 hp F model, the TS wasn't rated that high


Sure it was.....

Ok, thanks Kettenhunde! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Now, if possible, can someone provide me a speed chart of the machine with such power?

JtD
10-18-2011, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The original poster was asking for the 2400 hp F model, the TS wasn't rated that high
Sure it was.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did that happen in the same fantasy world where the BMW 801S was called BMW 801F?

Kettenhunde
10-18-2011, 03:50 PM
http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/8210/forjtd.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/707/forjtd.jpg/)

Kettenhunde
10-18-2011, 05:05 PM
Now, if possible, can someone provide me a speed chart of the machine with such power?


Here you go.

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/1597/fw190seriesgraph.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/24/fw190seriesgraph.jpg/)

JtD
10-18-2011, 11:18 PM
That's for 2250 hp, not 2400.

You're aware that the header says A-9 with 801 F AND 801 TS and not that the F engine was designated TS. These had pretty much the same performance unless WEP was engaged.

Kettenhunde
10-19-2011, 04:46 AM
You're aware that the header says A-9 with 801 F AND 801 TS

It shows the result of the FW-190A9's level speed performance over several altitudes.

So how did they switch engines, again??

The only difference was the MW50. When the TS was approved for MW, the H designation was dropped. The engine was developed and major change to the E series was hydraulic controls instead of electro-mechanical.


That's for 2250 hp, not 2400.

No it is 2400 hp. You are not accounting for the power increase of MW50.

Even at fixed manifold pressure and rpm of 1.32ata @ 2400U/min, MW50 added ~200 hp to the engine power output.

Honestly, JtD I could care less what you think and have no interest in pursuing any conversation about airplanes, weather, or anything else with you.

You are free to believe what you want and I will go back to ignoring you. It is not my job to correct misconceptions on the internet.

Feel free to hit the archives and in a few years you might have the collection we do.

JtD
10-19-2011, 05:37 AM
So a chart showing performance for 2250 hp and explicitely states it is without MW50 is 2400 hp and with MW50 because you say so?

It is painfully obvious that your job is not to correct misconceptions...

Do you care to share with the rest of the forum how many curves on the first chart refer to power settings in excess of 1.65 ata / 2700 rpm?

Bremspropeller
10-19-2011, 10:08 AM
So a chart showing performance for 2250 hp and explicitely states it is without MW50 is 2400 hp and with MW50 because you say so?

Where does it state so?

JtD
10-19-2011, 12:23 PM
In the "MW50 supply" column, where it says "-" for both the A-8 and A-9.

Kettenhunde
10-19-2011, 02:28 PM
Where does it state so?

That column is blanked out if you read it because the manifold pressure is listed as 1.65ata which does NOT require MW. It is well within the knock limited performance of the BMW801 series.

You cannot get 1.78 ata and 1.82ata out of BMW801TS engine without MW50.

JtD
10-19-2011, 03:09 PM
It's a description of the plane, not the performance curve. It says the plane does not have MW50.

Also, if the 1.82 ata curve was with Methanol while the 1.65 wasn't, you'd see a speed improvement above full throttle altitude. It's not there.

Kettenhunde
10-19-2011, 03:32 PM
Brems,

Here is a snippet. The entire document explains the program. Also there are two other documents that sort out all the boost systems as well as their test schedules.

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/5242/bmw801d2mw.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/7/bmw801d2mw.jpg/)

Bremspropeller
10-20-2011, 09:33 AM
Also, if the 1.82 ata curve was with Methanol while the 1.65 wasn't, you'd see a speed improvement above full throttle altitude. It's not there.
/quote]

Unless you had a different blower, you wouldn't http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[QUOTE] Brems,

Here is a snippet. The entire document explains the program. Also there are two other documents that sort out all the boost systems as well as their test schedules.


Sounds interesting.
Two questions:

Did they eventually install the MW50 boost?

Why didn't they do it earlier?

Kettenhunde
10-20-2011, 11:35 AM
Did they eventually install the MW50 boost?

MW50 was suitable from the BMW801D2 and was tested in 1942. They don't list a specific reason but I can offer my opinion based on what I have found out.

Other cheaper systems and ways to boost the D2 were used that delivered similar power. At the time, the auxiliary tank was not available because of the instability and planned modification were only for ground attack variants. C3-Einsptrizung offered much better performance at low altitude without the need for an additional supply of Methanol Water.

Later many of the components of the BMW801F series were just incorporated into BMW801D2 construction. Cylinder linings, pistons, supercharger impeller, various improvements to bearings/bushing's etc...

All came out of BMW801E/F research and just replaced BMW801D2 components on the assembly line.

The 801E/F were designed from the drawing board to incorporate MW and GM-1. When the F series entered full production in December 1943, it was planned that MW would be the primary boost system in ALL BMW801 series and other systems such as C3 would be phased out. In other words, it simplified the system.

The MW system discussed is comprised entirely of components already in the Luftwaffe supply chain and currently in production. The injection nozzles and components were modified from the GM-1 system, automatic boost engage from C-3 Einspritzung, and the tank was the 115 liter auxiliary tank. The airplane had to be fitted with the 10mm armor on the oil cooler and the larger capacity oil tank.

JtD
10-20-2011, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Unless you had a different blower, you wouldn't http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The special MW50 blower? It did not exist in the 801TS. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Technically you're right, of course.


Why didn't they do it earlier?

There's a fairly good article in the Flugzeug Classic 12/2004. Should be easy to track down a copy.
Bottom line in that article, the C3 injection offered better performance with less trouble and less effort.


Kettenhunde wrote:
When the F series entered full production in December 1943
http://www.austria-lustenau.info/forum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif Someone should have told Fw, which in August 44 expected full production to start in May 1945.

Bremspropeller
10-20-2011, 12:43 PM
Bottom line in that article, the C3 injection offered better performance with less trouble and less effort.

Makes a lot of sense, as there's no nessessity for another tank to be dedicated to MW-50.
Instead, they would just take the fuel they already had.
And it could be used at all altitudes.
Pretty much down to "KISS" before it was invented http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The MW-50 strategy is somewhet of a mystry to me:
Why didn't they gear-up Jumo 213-production instead of wasting airframes on the BMW, when it only used more prescious C3-fuel ( instead of the B4 on the Jumo) and didn't have any advantages except a lower vulnerability to small-arms fire?

The only sane mission for BMW-equipped 190s in 1945 was ground-attack IMHO.

It's not that at least Jumo 213As weren't avaliable before Summer '44 - had they not deemed producing Stuka-engines (Jumo 211) as being more important... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Kettenhunde
10-20-2011, 06:13 PM
Makes a lot of sense, as there's no nessessity for another tank to be dedicated to MW-50.
Instead, they would just take the fuel they already had.
And it could be used at all altitudes.


C3 Einstpritzung could only be used below 1KM in altitude and consumed fuel at a rate of ~70liters/5 minutes. The extra tank was intended for use with the system.


Jumo 213-production

The Jumo 213 had some crankshaft harmonics issues that took a while to solve.

The BMW was already in production. The conference notes are from 9.4.43 but the first 35 engines rolled off the production line in February 1944.

JtD
10-22-2011, 02:19 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:

The MW-50 strategy is somewhet of a mystry to me:
Why didn't they gear-up Jumo 213-production instead of wasting airframes on the BMW, when it only used more prescious C3-fuel ( instead of the B4 on the Jumo) and didn't have any advantages except a lower vulnerability to small-arms fire?
...

Keep in mind that at low altitude the BMW developed more power than contemporary Jumo 213A did. Originally, sea level power output of the 213A was only at 1700hp, while the 801D-2 already managed 2000. This was later increased to 1900hp ... 2150 ... 2250, with 2150 being the maximum that was used in service to a meaningful extend. During the same time, the 801 got boosted up to 2050 ... 2250 ... 2400. Also, the A models might have been a little bit lighter for the same armament, and reportedly handled a little bit better.
The ruggedness of the 801 would also be important in bomber interception missions.

In the long term the 213 most certainly was the better option, but if you had existing production facilities and logistics that would suffer from a change, you better wait with that change until it offers significant advantages. The MW50 was good to keep existing material competitive. I don't think there would have been a lot of A models made in late 1945, but early that year it still made a lot of sense.

BillSwagger
10-22-2011, 07:24 AM
Is it a fair assumption to say that the R-2600 was the equivalent of the BMW801?

They appear to have similar performance and applications and also max out around the same horsepower with each upgrade.

Bremspropeller
10-22-2011, 07:46 AM
I think the Jumo 213 could have been up to the task (= boosted up to 1900PS or 2150PS with MW50) quite some time earlier - had they not concentrated on the Jumo 211 instead.
Now this is "coulda shoulda woulda", but I think it's worth wasting a thought or two.

I could be wrong on this (haven't stuck my head in a related book for a while...), but IIRC the amount of forces concentrated on bomber-interception was relatively low after the invasion anyway:
Many forces were drawn to the invasion-fron and thus weren't that reliant on protection from bomber-gunners.

On the other hand, the invasion came in as a surprise and therefore re-equipping those units with better-suited aircraft wasn't possible at any time before taking them back and re-freshing their pilot-stocks.

Having Dora-9s in a couple of units by early 1944 might have been possible, though.


Do you have more info on the handling-part?
Seems to me that pilots were pretty much satisfied with the a/c's handling.
The most common answer would be it handled "different" to both, the Anton and the 109 (what a surprise! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )
I think that most of the perception was based on the different layout of the aircraft - (low-time) pilots tend to read more into things than there actually is - but that's another story altogether.

Wildnoob
10-22-2011, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
In the long term the 213 most certainly was the better option

I agreed in the specific case of piston fighters. But with consideration of "long term" until the jets were put in good numbers.

dimiatha
11-02-2011, 10:29 AM
Mr Kettenhunde
Excellent and unique informations, thank you very much. But i got confused.Could you help?
1.32 ata = 1700ps
1.58 ata=?
1.65 ata =2000 ps ?
1.82 ata = 2400 ps with MW50 ?
Also the chart that you had the generosity to share with us , points a top speed for A-9 of ~590km/h at 0m and ~680 km/h optimum altitute . Arent these somewhat disappointing figures for 2400ps or even 2250 ps ? D-9 on 2100 ps reaches 610 km/h at 0m(of course has better aerodynamics but still ...) Sea fury on 2400ps reaches 410 mph at 0 m
Finally , in your opinon , which is the most complete book on Fw 190A and which on Fw190D9 ( with all recent discovered informations?) Thank you in advance

Kettenhunde
11-03-2011, 07:09 PM
Mr Kettenhunde
Excellent and unique informations, thank you very much. But i got confused.Could you help?
1.32 ata = 1700ps
1.58 ata=? (1950PS)
1.65 ata =2000 ps ? (or 2100PS with Lufterleistungen)
1.82 ata = 2400 ps with MW50 ? Yes
Also the chart that you had the generosity to share with us , points a top speed for A-9 of ~590km/h at 0m and ~680 km/h optimum altitute . Arent these somewhat disappointing figures for 2400ps or even 2250 ps ? D-9 on 2100 ps reaches 610 km/h at 0m(of course has better aerodynamics but still ...) Sea fury on 2400ps reaches 410 mph at 0 m
Finally , in your opinon , which is the most complete book on Fw 190A and which on Fw190D9 ( with all recent discovered informations?) Thank you in advance

Hi dimiatha,

I hope this answers your questions. Aircraft speed is hard to accurately measure. It always contains a percentage of instrumentation error which is usually ~3%. To make matters worse, production aircraft performance will vary over a given mean. This is usually ~3% to 5% but can be as high as 10%.

590 kph and 610kph is only 6.2 mph. At a mean of 600kph, that is only +/- 1.6% difference. From 590kph, that is a 1.7% increase to 610kph....

In other words that difference is insignificant in the air and you cannot tell which aircraft is faster in the air from that information alone.

As for the power, the effect of velocity upon power required is cubed. That means a small reduction in Parasitic Drag represents a large gain in velocity.

Your Sea Fury for example had true laminar flow wings and the FW-190D9 a ~9% reduction in drag.

A 9% reduction in drag is like adding ~300 hp to the engine output.

Wildnoob
11-03-2011, 07:37 PM
Kettenhunde, in IL2 I can catch Mustangs and La-7's at low and medium altitude without much difficult with the Fw 190A. At least to get close to them to attack. This was always reason for confusion to me with the speed charts, but I guess the problem is partially because the instrumental error, and in other part because we have the so called "combat speed", and in this case the power of the the Anton at medium and low altitude is already competitive enough for the combat speed. In other words: more powerful the planes were, the difference in combat speed is less noticiable, even when one is more faster.

I'm correct?

JtD
11-03-2011, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by dimiatha:
... 1.32 ata = 1700ps ...

... D-9 on 2100 ps reaches 610 km/h at 0m...

Probably a typo - ~1700 hp is the 1.42 ata figure.
610 km/h for the D-9 are an optimistic figure and at minimum required the sealing of a gap at the engine mount which wasn't standard in the field. Without it, speeds were closer to 590 km/h - pretty much as fast as the 1.82 ata A model would be, so the A isn't that bad after all. It also illustrates that small things can have a big effect.

dimiatha
11-04-2011, 07:24 AM
Mr Kettenhunde
thank you for the reply.
i confess that if anyone else but you was telling me that Anton was needing 2400ps to reach 590 km/h i would not believe him. I am very surpised. It looks anton had very poor aerodynamics.
Alowe me some crude comparison . La7 claimed 612 km/h on 1850engine. since 9% drug ~ 300hp , that means La7 had 20%+ less grug than A-9 ? If so Anton really was in trouble. Whats your opinion about A-9 against the 1945 enemy fighters?
Mr Jtd
I agree , Dora to achieve 610 km/h not only needed sealed engine gap, but also wheel covers ,no ETC rack ,decent wings building quality. Ta 152 tail with fully retractable wheel would also help.
Even Dora with in line engine needs 250hp more than la7 ( radial engine)plus aerodymamic improvements to approach similar speeds.
Very disappointing ,it appers that by 1945 not only alleid fighters had more powrful engines, but also had better speed for a given power level. P51h claims almost 800km/h on 2200 ps! while dora on 2100 just touches 700km/h .A-9 680km/n on 2400ps!
Yak 3 claims 660 km/l on just 1300 ps !!! Thats half the power of A-9 !!! your opinion?

dimiatha
11-04-2011, 07:30 AM
I would like to add F8F-1 Bearcat ,radial engined and similar in zize to Fw190, achieved 685/km/h on 2100 ps

Kettenhunde
11-04-2011, 07:48 AM
It looks anton had very poor aerodynamics.


Not really. It was on par with most radial engine fighters. Better than some, worse than others.....


La7 claimed 612 km/h on 1850engine.

Of all the combatants in WWII, the VVS had the best aerodynamics by the end of the war. Necessity is the mother of invention and just like the Germans, they had to use technology to overcome shortages in other areas. Their engines and gasoline was below average but they compensated for it very well.

Look at the fairing sometime on an La-7. Once more, the aircraft was constructed of Delta Wood. Delta wood is basically a mix of wood chips, sawdust, and resin. Many people see "wood" and think World War I. That is very far from being correct. The Lavochkin fighters are closer to modern composite aircraft than they are World War I wooden designs.

It allows for a very strong, relatively light, and very smooth finish.

Kettenhunde
11-04-2011, 08:23 AM
I would like to add F8F-1 Bearcat ,radial engined and similar in zize to Fw190, achieved 685/km/h on 2100 ps

Are you sure?

dimiatha
11-04-2011, 10:56 AM
Mr Kettenhunde
About F8f i took the speed figure from F8F in Action by Osprey publications (621 mph)
Very interesting the your comment about soviet aerodynamics. It was a road that german should also had followed because their engines in 43 early 44 was also inferior. Instead they took the opposite direction. Bf 109 G6 is much dirtier than F4 ,according to datas on Mr Kurfust site G6 could be 30km/h faster with the same engine if simple aerodynamics improvements (see K4) were introduced in time.
Also Fw eventually lost its main landing gear covers, blown hoods were introduced ,bulged cover for the Mg 131 s . Was Anton outclassed in 1945
A last thougt . If BMW caused so much drug all its power was of little benefit. Not to mention its high altitude degiciencies. Whats your opinin about a possible use of Db605 ASM in its place in an installation with nose radiator similar to jumo 213? The resulting aircraft would be over 200kgr ligter, over 9% less drug,a motorkannone would replace the outer 20mm guns (=even less weight), better altitude performance and unifeid engine production. Whats your opinion?

JtD
11-04-2011, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by dimiatha:
Very disappointing ,it appers that by 1945 not only alleid fighters had more powrful engines, but also had better speed for a given power level. P51h claims almost 800km/h on 2200 ps! while dora on 2100 just touches 700km/h .A-9 680km/n on 2400ps!
Yak 3 claims 660 km/l on just 1300 ps !!! Thats half the power of A-9 !!! your opinion?

It's not good to mix speed and power at altitude with other figures. For instance, with the 2200hp the P-51H reached 680 km/h at sea level. At altitude, the engine produced 1800 hp, and the plane reached 780 km/h. At the same altitude, the Jumo of the D-9 as well as the 801TS on the A-9 produced only around 1200 hp, and therefore they are considerably slower. Also, the P-51H is arguably the WW2 fighter aircraft with the least draggy design, which is not quite true for the late 190. Here one has to keep in mind that the P-51, like the F8F or Sea Fury, came one generation after the Fw 190. It would be very disappointing if they did not have improved aerodynamics!

The high speeds attained on the Yak, or the La, are indeed remarkable, however, these were also figures for planes tested and sometimes even modified versions. In the field, they'd lose considerable margins because they weren't that well built, or wheel covers were removed, bomb racks added and so on. It should also be kept in mind that the Soviet fighters were remarkably small. Just like a 190 D-9 is faster than a P-47 on the same power because it simply is much smaller, a Yak-3 will be faster than the D-9.

As a technical side note, a considerable portion of the drag created by the A model 190 came from the cooling of the engine. If you compare the cooling concept of a late BMW 801 with that of a R-2800 C model, (F8F), you can very well see which advances had been made on this field over the course of the war. It really is a next generation engine.

And there's no reason to "Mr." me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Wildnoob
11-04-2011, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
The high speeds attained on the Yak, or the La, are indeed remarkable, however, these were also figures for planes tested and sometimes even modified versions. In the field, they'd lose considerable margins because they weren't that well built, or wheel covers were removed, bomb racks added and so on.

Hey JtD, look at the page 67: http://books.google.com/books?...#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=PN41wV_CiYMC&pg=PA69&dq=fw+190+vs+la-7&hl=pt-BR&ei=7CW0TqChCIrEgAfngvWPBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)

The La-7 used the same engine as the La-5, and since the La-7 was given only to Guards regiments, the chance of incorrect use of the boost were small.

About the racks and brand new tested planes, well, the Germans used racks a lot in their fighters towards the end of the war, and their production quality and fuels left much to desire. I guess the Soviets still had the upper hand.

The Yak-3 was an excellent machine, it's roll rate was excellent, it could match the Anton in this kind of fight. And while the Vk-105 powered models lack some speed, the Vk-107 and Vk-108 ones turned the little fighter a beast. But they suffered from overheating problems. And I suspect this was because the carter was too small to acomodate such much larger engines.

The Soviet machines were made to not have a much longer service life. With good numbers you can put more fighters in the air, and even make rotations to always try let the frontline regiments with brand new machines with adequated performance. Also, the Yak was easy and cheap to built. People wrongly criticize uncle Joe's "quantity has a quality of it's own" philosphy. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Wildnoob
11-04-2011, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
And there's no reason to "Mr." me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I just hope he don't calls other person here as "Mr" in this kind of discussion. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

JtD
11-04-2011, 12:31 PM
I wasn't really commenting on the relative performances of Soviet and German aircraft at the time, it was more about trying to put the figures in the proper context. The same way the D-9 needed aerodynamic refinements to exceed 600 km/h at sea level, the La-7 did. It's not that each and every La-7 fielded by the Soviets would go that fast.

What do you think the qualities of a Yak-3 (105-PF2 engine) would be like had it been capable of carrying 4 20mm cannons & 700 kg of bombs?

Wildnoob
11-04-2011, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
I wasn't really commenting on the relative performances of Soviet and German aircraft at the time, it was more about trying to put the figures in the proper context.

Ok.


It's not that each and every La-7 fielded by the Soviets would go that fast

Actually it wasn't 610 km/h?

Anyway, yes, but the same applies with more emphasis to the German fighters in that period. My link explaining the engine power losses of the Lavochkins due to pilot mismanagement probably already adressed this.


What do you think the qualities of a Yak-3 (105-PF2 engine) would be like had it been capable of carrying 4 20mm cannons & 700 kg of bombs?

Really not. But the Soviets didn't used fighter-bombers like the Germans and the Western Allies. By 1945, the new IL-10 was already arriving in the frontline regiments. Assault planes like it and the IL-2 formed the backbone of the VVS.

Kettenhunde
11-05-2011, 02:17 AM
In other words: more powerful the planes were, the difference in combat speed is less noticiable, even when one is more faster.

I'm correct?

Sorry I missed your question Wildnoob.

Yes, there is a limit to propeller aircraft performance and by the end of WWII it was being approached. Remember the basic relationship is power required increases at the cube of velocity. The slope of the Power required curve gets very steep the faster you go in a subsonic propeller design. Therefore, huge power gains result in very small velocity gains.

That being said, supersonic propeller aircraft are possible but require a radically different design features from a conventional piston engined propeller design found in WWII.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/qu...ynamics/q0031b.shtml (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0031b.shtml)

Kettenhunde
11-05-2011, 02:45 AM
It was a road that german should also had followed because their engines in 43 early 44 was also inferior.

The German engines in general were on par with the United States and England. Somethings were better and others worse so that in the end things are a wash.


Instead they took the opposite direction. Bf 109 G6 is much dirtier than F4

Yes and it is a great example of what happens when the customer puts unrealistic demands on the engineering firm. As I understand it, Mtt had to shoehorn much larger cowl weapons into the design at the last minute to meet a new RLM requirement. Some good design work later on in refining that and gains in power quickly overcame the initial penalty of some hasty design changes.


Was Anton outclassed in 1945

It was long in the tooth by 1945 but still competitive. The issue is how much potential for growth. The BMW801 series had simply reached the limits of its developmental potential in the FW-190A9. I think Focke Wulf was correct in the direction they took the design by seeking a new engine.


Whats your opinion?

Sounds great if it was available to them.

Bremspropeller
11-05-2011, 08:51 AM
Anyway, yes, but the same applies with more emphasis to the German fighters in that period. My link explaining the engine power losses of the Lavochkins due to pilot mismanagement probably already adressed this.

Not neccessarily - german quality-requirements never dropped. The main issue was sabotage by the "outsourced" production-personnel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I'd hazard to argue that german crew-chiefs ans MX personnel was better (on par with western Allies) than the russians till the very end.
The corners some of them did cut in order to get aircraft serviceable is VERY remarkeable. A lot of "black men" actually had deserved at least an EK I!

But that's a different story altogether...


Referring to the F8F and Sea-Fury:
They were actually the product of testing and evaluating captured Fw 190s (especially the cowl-design!).
It's natural that they came out with better designs.
They were both excellent aircraft.

On the P-51, I'd disagree somewhat. It was more of a generation-bridge between the last pre-war designs and their technological state and the late-war designs and their advances.
It's more like a half-generation advance over the Fw 190, P-47 and other late pre-war designs.

The P-51H is a true "next-gen" design.

Wildnoob
11-05-2011, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In other words: more powerful the planes were, the difference in combat speed is less noticiable, even when one is more faster.

I'm correct?

Sorry I missed your question Wildnoob.

Yes, there is a limit to propeller aircraft performance and by the end of WWII it was being approached. Remember the basic relationship is power required increases at the cube of velocity. The slope of the Power required curve gets very steep the faster you go in a subsonic propeller design. Therefore, huge power gains result in very small velocity gains. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem.

Interesting, thanks. That's why I never read of any Anton pilot complaining about speed inferiority at low and medium altitude. The difference was not in a point of significance.

You know, I found this in a forum:

"The Me 109 was WELL KNOWN as a 180 - 300 mph fighter. The 441 mph speed was a straight line intercept or fleeing from death speed. The Me 109 could barely roll or turn at 400+ mph and the leg was VERY tired due to no rudder trim. They were slow to medium speed dogfighters, no bull, and were not much of a factor if going faster than 330 mph because they were fleeing or arriving before configuring to fight. If in their envelope, the Me 109 was formidable. If outside the envelope, it was either accelerating, running, or trying desperaley to slow down to fight. To be fair, most other fighters were also not good at fighting at 400+ mph. They were basically ALL 200- 350 mph fighters with the ability to sprint when required for sruvival or attack."

Seems to make sense to me. BTW, the Fw pilots praised the plane for it's light control surfaces, good cockpit visibility and other things that performance figures alone don't tell but can be vital. Unfornately, at least in IL2 Sturmovik we don't have them.

For example, Heins Lang tells this, from Osprey Fw 190 Aces of the Eastern Front:

"I belive the Focke-Wulf was more manouevrable than the Messerschmitt - although the latter could pull make a tighther horizontal turn, if you mastered the Fw 190 you could pull a lot of Gs and do just about as well. In terms of control force and feel, the 109 was heavier on the stick. In the Fw 190 aerobatics were a pleasure!"


That being said, supersonic propeller aircraft are possible but require a radically different design features from a conventional piston engined propeller design found in WWII.

Any prop plane already broken the barrier?

Wildnoob
11-05-2011, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Was Anton outclassed in 1945

It was long in the tooth by 1945 but still competitive. The issue is how much potential for growth. The BMW801 series had simply reached the limits of its developmental potential in the FW-190A9. I think Focke Wulf was correct in the direction they took the design by seeking a new engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How the annular radiator tolerated battle damage?

The Dora was really an excellent machine, but what about the Ta-152C, the design would have offered competitive or better performance at low and medium altitude against the "new generation", like the the P-51H?

Wildnoob
11-05-2011, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Anyway, yes, but the same applies with more emphasis to the German fighters in that period. My link explaining the engine power losses of the Lavochkins due to pilot mismanagement probably already adressed this.

Not neccessarily - german quality-requirements never dropped. The main issue was sabotage by the "outsourced" production-personnel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I'd hazard to argue that german crew-chiefs ans MX personnel was better (on par with western Allies) than the russians till the very end.
The corners some of them did cut in order to get aircraft serviceable is VERY remarkeable. A lot of "black men" actually had deserved at least an EK I!. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yean, I exaggerated Breams. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bremspropeller
11-05-2011, 11:40 AM
but what about the Ta-152C, the design would have offered competitive or better performance at low and medium altitude against the "new generation", like the the P-51H?

The Ta 152C was basicly a heavily modified Fw 190 airframe.
The P-51H was an ENTIRELY new aircraft - the only things it shared with the original Mustang were designation and general design-layout.

The Ta 152C was a multirole aircraft, whereas the P-51H was a pure fighter.

There was no way the Ta 152H could have been competitive performance-wise.
In actual front-line service, however, it looks a bit different as people would trade some performance for dropping bombs and squeezing off some rockets.

Wildnoob
11-05-2011, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
There was no way the Ta 152H could have been competitive performance-wise.

The Mustang H was about 25 km/h faster. If I'm not wrong, Tank wanted to development a turbocharged version for the 152.

The gap would be so revelant?

Bremspropeller
11-05-2011, 02:00 PM
The P-51H was considerably lighter than the standard Mustang, whereas the Ta 152 was heavier than the Fw 190s.

Kettenhunde
11-05-2011, 10:07 PM
AFAIK, no propeller aircraft ever achieved supersonic flight. A couple designs came close but other issues caused cancellation of the programs.

Here is a good article from AIAA:

http://www.me.wustl.edu/~aiaa/November_1996.pdf (http://www.me.wustl.edu/%7Eaiaa/November_1996.pdf)


Ta 152 was heavier than the Fw 190s.


IIRC, The weight of the Ta-152C was primarily disposables, ie avgas.

dimiatha
11-06-2011, 03:36 AM
Ta 152H-1 (Jumo 213E )was not as fast as P51H (475mph in theory) But Jumo 213EB (nearing searvice) plus GM1 would close the gap with more potential development available ( 213J,Db60L,N) while Merlin on P51H was extremely pushed to provide 2200hp
Also P51H had that speed because of its very thin laminar flow wing. Ta 152 had bigger , high aspect wings that alloewd better climbing, turning, and better control at stall . So i expect better manouverability for the Ta 152h, especially above 25000ft
Also there were aerodynamics imporovement for the Ta that did not enter production only because of the difficulties of the period. Integral engine cowling , lower grug radiator, sealed engine gap,
We may also notice the lower work load of the Ta , the heavier armament, the heavier armour (150kgr), the proposed boosted ailerons as found in D13
I believe Ta was even marginally a more advanced aircraft.

Bremspropeller
11-06-2011, 06:12 AM
IIRC, The weight of the Ta-152C was primarily disposables, ie avgas.

Depends on the benchmark:

Over an Anton, it's got the liquid-cooled engine, fuselage rear-extension and front-extension and wing-stretches on the root.

Over a Dora, it has a nose-job and wing-extensions.

dimiatha
11-06-2011, 06:43 AM
Jumo 213E = ~950 kgr Jumo213A= ~900kgr
BMW 801 = 1020 kgr ++
I never understand why liquid engines brought extra weight. They are longer and require some CG adgustements,but not heavier.

Kettenhunde
11-06-2011, 07:18 AM
Jumo 213E = ~950 kgr Jumo213A= ~900kgr


Dry weight...does not include the cooling system or the coolant.

Kettenhunde
11-06-2011, 07:33 AM
How the annular radiator tolerated battle damage?

The Dora was really an excellent machine, but what about the Ta-152C, the design would have offered competitive or better performance at low and medium altitude against the "new generation", like the the P-51H?


No radiator tolerates damage well at all. It is the Achilles heel of liquid cooling.

I think the Ta-152C had a lot of promise. With wing tanks, it carried some 960kg of fuel including 127kg of MW-50.

Bremspropeller
11-06-2011, 09:20 AM
It definately was very promising (as I indicated in "performance vs. operational requiements").

It was what the Luftwaffe needed - too little, too late, though.

Wildnoob
11-06-2011, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
[QUOTE]How the annular radiator tolerated battle damage?
No radiator tolerates damage well at all. It is the Achilles heel of liquid cooling.

But since the radiator was enclosed in the engine, and probably well armored, the vulnerability would not be smaller than in a conventional layout?

Wildnoob
11-06-2011, 05:05 PM
Another point we perhaps can considerate are the advanced weapons being devolped by the war's end. The X-7 missile for example, could have allowed the Ta-152 to destroy it's targets in a Jabo mission and get away before the interceptors arrived. With it's high power and sturdy structure, the Ta-152 would be ideal for this kind of task. It's really like a pickup against a sport car in the cargo comparison. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kettenhunde
11-07-2011, 11:28 AM
It's really like a pickup against a sport car in the cargo comparison.

Well as a military fighter airplane, it is hard to beat the FW-190 series.

Not in terms of pure performance but in the overall picture.

When you combine the performance with the stability and control characteristics and weaponry, the FW-190 was a match for any dog-fighter of the day.

More importantly, Kurt Tank brought his experience as a pilot and mechanic to the drawing board in the FW-190. It had some unique features that made it an ideal front-line aircraft designed to operate under primitive conditions. It also had some things that make you scratch your head and go, "Huh??".

First he designed it so that everything essentially fits behind that engine. What that does is help make the aircraft immune to finish degradation operational aircraft experience. He also engineered the fuselage boundary layer to remain energized over a wide portion of the aircraft operating envelope. In the harsh environment of the pacific theater for example, aircraft could lose 30-40mph in level speed performance just due to finish.

He designed the fighter to be easy to maintain with few special tools under primitive conditions. For example, the cowling becomes its own scaffolding and mechanics can access almost every part of the engine relatively easily. He made extensive use of quick release latches and modular construction. One man can strip the cockpit in about 10 minutes. In the FW-190A8 he installed a universal wiring harness so that all weapons could simply be plugged in at a receptacle block recessed in the wing/fuselage near the hard points.

Some of the things that make you scratch your head are the aileron adjustment blocks and the absolute nightmare of spacers utilized in the wing and floating ribs that go nowhere.

I really don't have any explanation for the spacers. The only thing I could think of was that fitting different sub-assemblies from cottage industry subcontractors required such measures.


But since the radiator was enclosed in the engine, and probably well armored, the vulnerability would not be smaller than in a conventional layout?

Most radiators were armored or at least designed to be protected by other structures. It is kind of a wash, IMHO.

Wildnoob
11-07-2011, 12:08 PM
Really interesting Kettenhunde. Just a shame we don't have those advantages represented in a sim yet. The plane was really very advanced for it's time, and shares various conceptual features with modern multirole fighters.

This also brings me the doubt: how much, for instance, was the worth of a Fw 190 in comparison with a IL-2? People like a lot to make critics about the German tecnologies (good; but much expensive, simply designs would be better to add more numbers, etc), but forgot that numbers alone are not the whole ansewer. I can imaginate that a Fw 190 Jabo in the East had much more chance of survival than a IL-2. And this was also much welcomed because the Germans had precious manpower that need to me spared. The durability of the German equipment was also better, as Kettenhundle mentioned with the Fw 190. The Russians build more T-34s than the German their tanks, but most of them were lost in the war, together with the IL-2's (2/3 of them). Therefore I think that criticism to the German "perfeccionist" engineering is not so easy as most do.

Wildnoob
11-07-2011, 12:11 PM
Most radiators were armored or at least designed to be protected by other structures. It is kind of a wash, IMHO.

Uhmm, so that thing of the radiator being put out by a mere rifle bullet is mostly a myth?

JtD
11-07-2011, 01:53 PM
If two thirds of the Il-2's produced were lost, how much of the 190 production was lost?

Tully__
11-07-2011, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Wildnoob:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Most radiators were armored or at least designed to be protected by other structures. It is kind of a wash, IMHO.

Uhmm, so that thing of the radiator being put out by a mere rifle bullet is mostly a myth? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
In part...a rifle bullet is unlikely to pierce armour, but there has to be some access for air to get to the radiator and in most cases this allows bullets fired from some directions to reach to radiator core. It is not practical to armour the core itself, it would interfere too much with heat transfer.

Wildnoob
11-07-2011, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
If two thirds of the Il-2's produced were lost, how much of the 190 production was lost?

Mostly as well. But mostly was employed and destroyed in the West. What I wanted to mean is the Fw 190 was a more versatile plane.

JtD
11-08-2011, 12:28 AM
OK, I understood that the Il-2 had high losses because it was a simple aircraft, which would justify the on occasion overly complex engineering on German warplanes. Sorry.

Kettenhunde
11-08-2011, 05:21 AM
how much, for instance, was the worth of a Fw 190 in comparison with a IL-2?

Are you comparing an FW-190 fighter, ground attack, or long range bomber?

The answer depends on what we are comparing.

Wildnoob
11-08-2011, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
OK, I understood that the Il-2 had high losses because it was a simple aircraft, which would justify the on occasion overly complex engineering on German warplanes. Sorry.

It was not only because it was a simple plane. The Fw 190 could substitute several planes in a single design, like the F/A-18 when it came. Therefore we need to look the number figures better, because the 190 Jabo (Kettenhunde, this version) could drop their load and pass to the air superiority role, multiplying the avaliable fighter force. The IL-2 could do this?

JtD
11-08-2011, 10:08 AM
It would be an interesting discussion comparing a fighter bomber force with a mixed fighter/bomber force, but it would be totally off topic. If you think it's worth it, start a new topic, I'd participate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

A small point, though, I'd like to make here before letting it go - even if the plane was capable of effectively becoming a fighter, the pilot wasn't necessarily a fighter pilot, which is something that has to be considered, too.

Bremspropeller
11-08-2011, 12:18 PM
The IL-2 could do this?

No, just as the 190 had a hard time busting tanks.

It's all about compromise http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kettenhunde
11-08-2011, 02:28 PM
The 190 Jabo (Kettenhunde, this version) could drop their load and pass to the air superiority role

I don't think the FW-190F series was a very effective fighter. It was not a fighter at all in fact and it was standard for them to be escorted by actual fighters.

The Rüstgewicht of the FW-190F3 was 3575Kg while the FW-190A5 was some 200kg lighter at 3336kg. The F series was armored much like the IL2 with a "bathtub" surrounding the crew compartment and engine.

What the F series was is fast. C-3 Einsptriztung made the aircraft extremely difficult to intercept if it was even possible for most allied fighters. The F series could get in, loiter, and get the heck out if enemy defenses reacted.


No, just as the 190 had a hard time busting tanks.

I believe the Germans did a study and found that bombs were more effective against tanks than any other weapon system.

Bremspropeller
11-09-2011, 10:47 AM
Well, I'd say the 190F wasn't much worse down-low than a plain-vanilla P-47.
Better than an IL-2 anyway.
With a good pilot, it could even haul some arse - check out Herrmann Buchner or August Lambert.

On the tank-busting:
Dunno about that, but aiming guns is signifigantly easier thant dropping bombs on spot.
I'd say that the evolution from big-caliber guns (IL-2, Ju 87 and Hs 129 gunships) towards rockets (HVAR, Panzerblitz) proves that.

JSG72
11-09-2011, 12:20 PM
I believe that certainly as with preferences of many. Hs 129 pilots. They much preferred a load of bombs to the orders that were foisted upon them, to use bigger guns.

You required direct hits from "Well aimed" guns. Flying straight at targets and hitting them right in the weakest spot.
Lobbing bombs from your craft was easier when evading return fire. With near misses being quite effective in, if not destroying. At least disabling a target.

Pilots requests for more effective weapons. Resulted in Hitler and the RLM sanctioning larger gun designs that would theoretically kill with one hit.
However these weapons were slower firing added much weight and had to be aimed more precisely. Resulting in more time flying slow and straight at targets.
Not a good situation to be in?

The same with the IL2. However IL2s were used in waves and presented too many targets for defensive gunners. So there chances of survival were greater.


It wasn't till 25 years after the War that Tankbusting cannon were again realised with the A-10 Warthog.with the GAU-8 Avenger But hey! That gun is essentially. That as, originally designed a "Spray" weapon..(Now sighting upgraded.)

Again rockets were only slightly better than bombs.(If used in salvo.)

That is why we have "Stand off" guided missiles used today.

You can try all these scenarios "In Game"

Bremspropeller
11-09-2011, 12:41 PM
On the Hs 129, that may have been largely dependant on the gun-implemaentation, wich was rather sub-optimal http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kettenhunde
11-10-2011, 05:26 AM
Well, I'd say the 190F wasn't much worse down-low than a plain-vanilla P-47.

The F series had some 540Kg of extra weight in armor and bombing equipment (minus ETC 501 and ETC 50 rack/fairings) according to the ladeplan.

It was not, by doctrine, a fighter at all.


Dunno about that, but aiming guns is signifigantly easier thant dropping bombs on spot.

In a game, I am sure.

In RL, there is little difference in aiming a bomb sight, gun sight, or rocket site.....

As long as the sighting system is properly zeroed to the weapon system and the weapon released within operating parameters.

Guns are cheap, rockets are not so cheap, and bombs are expensive. That is why you see the evolution of bombs to guns and rockets. Had those systems been more effective at actually busting tanks, the transition would have happened much sooner.

JtD
11-10-2011, 09:50 AM
From what I've read, guns were considered the best method of taking out tanks, for as long as the guns were strong enough to actually hurt the tank. This is why we have developments like the Hs 129, Ju 87G, Il-2T3M, Yak-9T, LaGG-3IT or Hurricane IID / IV. These did shine in the mid war period in the tank busting role, for as long as the tanks were Panzer IV, T-34 or M4. Later in the war, with heavier and up-armoured medium tanks replacing what was common in 1942 and 1943, these guns became a lot less effective, and were again replaced by other weapons systems.

Common HE / splinter bombs were considered pretty much useless, as they needed to be dropped very close to a tank to cause significant damage. This was very hard to achieve in the field. The bombs that worked fairly well were the cluster bombs, with dedicated AT warheads. You'd just spread them out evenly over a larger area, and if you score a hit, the tank's likely gone.

Rockets were in between, less accurate than guns, quite hard hitting. So often you'd see the attacking plane fire a salvo, and with a bit of luck the tank was hit and killed. However, HE warheads had little effect and AP warheads required a direct hit, which still was quite hard to achieve. Rocket accuracy went up as the war went on, but even the best unguided systems were far from actually accurate. In a salvo, you could typically be certain to hit a ship sized target, but not a tank.

Rockets, much like bombs, were also successful late war because the AAA was becoming a bigger and bigger threat. Bombs and rockets allowed you to fire your entire load in a single pass, while guns would require repeated passes for the same result. This increased the chance for a loss significantly, and only rarely was an option at all.

Bremspropeller
11-10-2011, 10:17 AM
Pretty much my thoughts, JtD! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


The F series had some 540Kg of extra weight in armor and bombing equipment (minus ETC 501 and ETC 50 rack/fairings) according to the ladeplan.

It was not, by doctrine, a fighter at all.


True, but it had it's outer wing-guns removed (- 180kg), maybe even the cowling-MGs.

Then again, nothing quite compares well against a Yak-3 anyway.
The Fw 190F is still enough of a fighter to be a sizeable threat for IL-2s or VVS twins.
With a good pilot even more than that.

Wildnoob
11-10-2011, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
and bombing equipment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXiHBB7EbaI

This is just a propaganda movie, but the 190s seems to have been launching the bombs from level flight with some altitude. The Jabos did have some kind of bombsight for level or dive bombing?

Anyway, I heard that some late 190s have or would have dive breaks. Therefore with the dive breaks, in theory they would be capable of let the chance of interception from the VVS very low. If the Russians tried to intervine with their fighters, the German fighters would be much more capable (including the 190 Jabos) to deal with them from 2500m up. But of course, CAS missions would still be a problem.

Kettenhunde
11-10-2011, 03:05 PM
I don't think they are level bombing. The FW-190F series used the Revi gunsight set up for bombing. Typical attack was from a dive of ~45 degrees, the canopy was usually marked so that the pilot could place it on the horizon.

IIRC, the Germans found that an SC250 within 12 meters set for no delay impact detonation worked the best. If the bomb did not penetrate the overpressure would kill the crew.

If the bomb penetrated the ground, the explosive force tended to be channeled up instead of out into the tank.

The most effective bomb developed was the SD-4 cluster bomb shaped charged sub-munition. It had a fragmentation radius making it useful for troops who might be supporting the tanks as well.

Kettenhunde
11-11-2011, 04:40 AM
including the 190 Jabos

The term Jabo gets used all the time for the F series.

The F series was a Schlachtflugzeug not a jabo.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlachtflugzeug

The Jabo variant is the FW-190A series.

For the FW-190A5 and above, it was the Type III and Type IV on the Ladeplan. Type III was a 500 kg weapon and Type IV a 250 Kg weapon
(ER-4/ETC-50) mounted on the ETC 501 rack.

In the FW-190A4 and below, it is the Type IV and the ladeplan only allows for a maximum 500 kg weapon on the ETC 501.

A ladeplan is generally ~8 pages long and details all authorized items for carry and the only configurations the aircraft can operate in.

There are no wing hardpoints for bombs or fuel tanks on the FW-190A series. The only hard point for those items is the fuselage ETC 501 rack.

Bremspropeller
11-11-2011, 01:20 PM
190As require an (Um)rüstsatz to carry bombs.

De-facto, there weren't any Antons used for jabo-missions. Some were in JG54 and maybe in other Geschwadern, but usually, they could be counted with one hand.

Anyway, the role the 190F usually was used in, was a Jabo-mission - very much depending on the unit (it's pilots) and the theatre, however.

Fw 190G or F usually weren't used in Jabo (= swing-role) missions on the western front, due to the inadequacy of their crews (usually former instructor-pilots without any combat-experience). Fritz Schöter was complaining to Galland about that, who in turn agreed.
On the eastern front, things were different.

The term "Schlachtflugzeug" is pretty un-specific. As is the term "Jabo-Rei, wich was not a "Jabo" at all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kettenhunde
11-11-2011, 07:28 PM
De-facto, there weren't any Antons used for jabo-missions.

Where the heck did you get that? In fact Oskar shot down a P51 on a jabo mission over the Ardennes. He was not fly an F series at all.

Antons had what was called "expedient" bombing system installed. You can even see in your game, IL2.

F series had a much more sophisticated bombing system called the "grossebombenelectik". I don't believe it is modeled in your game.


The term "Schlachtflugzeug"

Is what Focke Wulf GmbH called the aircraft....


Jabo (= swing-role) missions

The only Jabo variant according to Focke Wulf GmbH, is found on the FW-190A series.

They are very specific and clear as to which aircraft variant had what mission.

Bremspropeller
11-12-2011, 05:42 AM
If you're talking about Oskar Boesch, I can tell you that his "Sturmbock"-variant wasn't a designated Jabo at all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Neither wa Willi Maximowitz' Fw 190A-8/R2 he flew on Jabo-missions on the invasion-front.

The amount of Jabo-missions compared with the amount of fighter-missions on the 190A is virtually neglectable.

I don't know about the ReVi/ Bombsight issues.
Maybe you could shed some light on that? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Is what Focke Wulf GmbH called the aircraft....


True, but Fw wanted to sell airplanes. The term "Jabo" was politically incorrect by then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Hitler and his friends liked dramatic names like "Blitz-", "Sturm-", "Schlacht-", etc.
Hence the 262 was never officially known as "Schwalbe", rather than "Sturmvogel" back then.


The only Jabo variant according to Focke Wulf GmbH, is found on the FW-190A series.


Acc Fw, the Anton is a (heavy) fighter.
Not a Jabo or anything else.
To make a Jabo out of it, it needed a Rüstsatz or Umrüstsatz, which basicly converted it into a Friedrich or Gustav.
Hence the re-naming of all A-4 and A-5 Jabos to respective "F" and "G" models.
The Fs and Gs were directly converted or specifically built airframes at the factory. They were in very low numbers compared to the fighter-output.


They are very specific and clear as to which aircraft variant had what mission.


Only after they designated the ground-attack versions as Fs or Gs.
Most A-4s and A-5s in A-G missions were therefore re-designated to their respective F or G models.
That was basicly during the time, Ernst Kupfer wanted his Stukas replaced by the more adept (= surviveable) Fw 190s.

The recce-190s were also called Antons, yet wih an Umrüstastz-designator identifying them as recce-birds.
You wouldn't call a normal Anton a recce-bird, would you? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The nomenclature of the 190s is pretty non-specific anyway. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

JtD
11-12-2011, 06:31 AM
It is true that Fw only referred to bomb rack equipped A models as Jabo. The F series was the Schlachtflugzeug and the G the Jabo-Rei.

I don't think we necessarily need to make that distinction when discussing fighter bombers in general.

Bremspropeller
11-12-2011, 06:48 AM
It's not *that* easy, as most aircraft in Reichsverteidigung and at the Channel Front were equipped with ETC 501s for ext. fuel-tank carriage.

JG 26 had a special device built (less weight and drag), that could be used as tank-rack only.

Kettenhunde
11-12-2011, 06:51 AM
JG 26 had a special device built (less weight and drag), that could be used as tank-rack only.

JG26 did not have a special device built, Focke Wulf tested what would become the ETC504 series to replace the ETC 501.

Bremspropeller
11-12-2011, 07:04 AM
They did.
Rodeike p. 201 - called "Erla Aufhängung"

RegRag1977
11-12-2011, 08:07 AM
One can see this device on the first picture on this page:

(not sure)plane is fw190 a8 wnr 170346, Normandy front summer 1944

http://maquetas.mforos.com/353...f-priller-terminado/ (http://maquetas.mforos.com/353318/8489159-focke-wulf-190-a-8-dml-1-48-josef-priller-terminado/)

Don't forget to look at other pics of the same ac on the same page (especially those at the bottom)

Bremspropeller
11-12-2011, 09:59 AM
That's the thing I was talking about http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

csThor
11-12-2011, 11:50 PM
Actually Schlachtflugzeug is an official term originating in World War 1 and the first armored aircraft in use by the german Air Service (also known as "Infanterieflugzeug").

As such the term is a bit misleading for the actual role of the Fw 190 F in Germany's Schlachtgeschwadern in WW2 since instead of direct battlefield support (i.e. the stuff the Il-2 was built for) they usually went for the weaker logistics chain of the enemy and targeted the wheeled supply transports. The soviets did have major problems in countering these hit-and-run attacks since none of their aircraft could catch a Fw 190 when it used the standard attack pattern. Until the advent of the La-7, that is.

JtD
11-13-2011, 12:37 AM
What was the "standard attack pattern" like? A bomb loaden F model on Kampfleistung has a hard time reaching 500 km/h at low altitude, which I suppose would give any fighter pilot a big enough speed margin to catch up with them. It would be hard, but it still could catch it.

I always considered this problem more of a tactical than technical nature, meaning with the high speed of fighter bombers it would be hard for interceptors to be there early enough to intervene. You make it sound as if even if the VVS was there, all they could do was watching the 190 disappear in the distance.

csThor
11-13-2011, 01:13 AM
The standard was to move in at some altitude (say 4000m), dive at the target, release the bombload and race back at full speed at low altitude.

As to why the soviets had major issues with catching them ... you need to see this with soviet fighter doctrine and tactics in mind. Soviet fighters remained utterly defensive for the whole war. Their doctrine was centered on defense of the own ground forces or escort of own assault aircraft or bombers. As such they were tied to an objective or a location and neither had the tactical freedom to pursue enemy aircraft nor to actually take a tactically advantageous position. It was not before the introduction of the La-7 that certain units were let off the tight tactical leash (i.e. 176. GIAP was one of them).

Imagine yourself flying an La-5FN and your task is to cover a higher headquarters near the front. You're flying at ... maybe 3000m, always keeping the objective you have to protect within visual range (because that was what VVS fighter doctrine demanded) and suddenly you see six shapes diving at it from above at full speed while you're still trying to wrest your aircraft around. Then they release bombs and race back to the west at treetop height while you are still trying to catch up ... only to break off because you're not authorized to pursue them. That was the reality of the war ... and the way the VVS used their fighters. But more often than not the Fw 190s did not meet enemy fighters simply because even the numerically far superior VVS could not have a constant fighter screen over the whole of its frontline at all times.

RegRag1977
11-13-2011, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
What was the "standard attack pattern" like? A bomb loaden F model on Kampfleistung has a hard time reaching 500 km/h at low altitude, which I suppose would give any fighter pilot a big enough speed margin to catch up with them. It would be hard, but it still could catch it.

I always considered this problem more of a tactical than technical nature, meaning with the high speed of fighter bombers it would be hard for interceptors to be there early enough to intervene. You make it sound as if even if the VVS was there, all they could do was watching the 190 disappear in the distance.

Hi JtD,

There's always a possibility to be intercepted, even when flying the me262 at high cruise speed: that's the very nature of war, you just cannot anticipate everything (war fog).

To me flying slow and low isn't a fatal disadvantage while you're carrying bombs on the way to target. Don't forget the surprise factor and the difficulty to detect even a moderately fast aircraft at low alt.

Flying slow will increase the range, and that is what is needed to strike farther (or chose the best route for surprise) inside ennemy territory (think surprise again).

Now when you have launched your bomb load, and when the ennemy knows your exact location for a short moment, then you need to fly very fast to change courses and avoid being intercepted. Speed is especially useful on the way back to base...
That is, at least, how i think i would use a FW190.
They are so small, i guess that they are harder to spot than bigger machines of he time, especially from above.

Bremspropeller
11-13-2011, 05:07 AM
Thor, where'd you get all that info from? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'm currently reading "Fw 190 in the Battle of Sicily", and there's (naturally no Russians involved http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ) a lot about anti-shipping and tactics used on that theatre.

Would be cool to have some reference on the Eastern Front ops.
I guess the up-to-come Kurland-book will cover some of that, yet that one is propbaly 5 years or so away http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Any literature tips? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

csThor
11-13-2011, 09:22 AM
A lot of reading in between the lines. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

There is not much, I admit, but then reading the recently published "La-5 vs Fw 190" by Osprey does give a few hints about tactics and problems. I know it's Osprey so I take it with a grain of salt (especially that line of books but I was bored and had a few €uros to waste), but some things are conspiciously similar to other descriptions given by other Luftwaffe airmen over the years - most of all the fact that soviet fighters very rarely engaged in prolonged pursuits. More often than not bomber pilots managed to escape simply by flying far away enough from the objective the soviet fighters were protecting.

Bremspropeller
11-13-2011, 10:00 AM
Ok, I'll give it a chance, even though those other DUEL-issues haven't quite impressed me -.-

Thanks Thor http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Wildnoob
11-13-2011, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by csThor:
you need to see this with soviet fighter doctrine and tactics in mind.

When we check the statistics of the relative low LW losses and the East, this has surely has much about. As well as for the Soviet losses themselfs.


But more often than not the Fw 190s did not meet enemy fighters simply because even the numerically far superior VVS could not have a constant fighter screen over the whole of its frontline at all times.

Another advantage for the Fw 190 was in the high fuel quantity. It could circumvent the enemy airfields and attack unexpectedly and from several directions, spliting the enemy fighters and making looks like there were more 190s than the reality. The Japanese did the same with the Zero at the start of the war.

Kettenhunde
11-13-2011, 07:33 PM
I don't think we necessarily need to make that distinction when discussing fighter bombers in general.

Sure you do. The Luftwaffe used them according to how Focke Wulf designed them.

If they wanted a fighter, they got a fighter. If they wanted a ground attack platform, they got a ground attack platform.

Jagdbomber Reichweite = Jabo-rei, btw.

Bremspropeller
11-14-2011, 12:20 PM
The Jabo-Rei isn't a jabo at all.
The Fw 190G was an interdictor, not a *fighter-bomber*.
It was - as you already mentioned - too heavy for that job.

Kettenhunde
11-14-2011, 02:21 PM
The Jabo-Rei isn't a jabo at all.
The Fw 190G was an interdictor, not a *fighter-bomber*.
It was - as you already mentioned - too heavy for that job.


I said the F series was much heavier. The empty weight of the G series varied but was much closer to the Antons.

FW-190A5 empty weight - 3316Kg

FW-190A5/U8 empty weight - 3336Kg to 3470Kg depending on which type.

The G series was designed to strike long distances at targets behind enemy lines. A concept that was actually very successful. However just like the attacks on the chain home radars, the Germans lacked reliable battle damage assessment and ended up cancelling one of the most successful bombing campaigns in the history of warfare.

Bremspropeller
11-15-2011, 09:30 AM
With two 300l aux-tank racks, the a/c is gonna underperform in the "Ja"-part of "Jabo".

I don't have any data about the G's armor over here.

RegRag1977
11-15-2011, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
They did.
Rodeike p. 201 - called "Erla Aufhängung"

Hi Bremspropeller,

Btw, i forgot to ask: i have noticed on some pictures that what you call "Erla Aufhängung" was sometimes used along with the outer 20mm canons removed on some machines (A7 and A8)? I'm not sure but i think one picture i saw was actually Josef Priller's machine (A8 W/Nr 170346).
Is that possible? Was this configuration common on the Western front or was it just used by JG26? It's a question i've asked myself many times.

Kettenhunde
11-15-2011, 11:44 AM
With two 300l aux-tank racks, the a/c is gonna underperform in the "Ja"-part of "Jabo".

I don't have any data about the G's armor over here.



The G series had the same armor as the Anton's. You are correct, the wing racks severely dampen performance. The engine is not set up the same as an Anton's either.

The boost systems were different as well although both were a straight manifold pressure increase and not the C-3 Einspritzung approved for the F series.

Bremspropeller
11-15-2011, 12:38 PM
Reg, there were quite some Antons around with no outer guns installed.
As the situation got evermore hopeless for the Luftwaffe, however, the aircraft with the guns removed were getting less and less.
Priller (Kommodore JG26) might have had intervened and prefered to fly without them.

Getting the guns out wasn't a big deal anyway. On the A-8 and A-9, you could even re-equip the plane with either an MG151 or MK108, as the outer wing-bay was universally useable.
As the average airframe's dervice-life was only a couple of hours, I doubt this was done too often, though.

A-2s and A-3s got camparatively old, btw, with lots of them serving in Ergänzungsstaffeln or advanced training units in '44.


@Kettenhunde, do you have any idea why the tanks were so sloppyly integrated in on the wing - compared to the P-51s ?

EDIT: I'm actualy talking of the pylons rather than the tanks, of course.

Kettenhunde
11-17-2011, 07:06 AM
Reg, there were quite some Antons around with no outer guns installed.

Not in any Anton's after the FW-190A5 UNLESS they had the early WGr 21 installation kits. The requirement to remove the guns in order to install the firing blocks for the rockets was quickly eliminated.


Getting the guns out wasn't a big deal anyway.

In any aircraft the guns have to removed for servicing to including cleaning after firing.


@Kettenhunde, do you have any idea why the tanks were so sloppyly integrated in on the wing - compared to the P-51s ?

This has much more to do with airfoil selection than "sloppy" design. The initial hard points in the G series were horrible really on the Junkers design. It was high drag and limited to only wing tanks.

The Mtt design was the lowest drag but again, limited to just fuel. The Focke Wulf designs were comparable in drag but were dual role, carrying both bombs and fuel.

Plus it just sounds so much worse in kilometers than miles. Depending on the design, the wing hardpoints in the G series went from ~30kph to 15kph. That is only a 18mph to 9 mph average change in speed.

Compare that to the Mustang which also lost ~15mph with wing hard points installed and there really nothing to choose.

Bremspropeller
11-17-2011, 09:58 AM
Doesn't seem that well integrated to me:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CEXdCQtF_OQ/Tgl7X8q8foI/AAAAAAAABUw/XhI3LMB_TRA/s1600/Fw_190_G-3.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-f6BOGBwgkzA/Tgl75txH-aI/AAAAAAAABU8/TuPI6kEmXgQ/s1600/190_g3_1.jpg

The "flush" design may be a better solution when having the tanks attached, but is considerably worse during the trip back to the field (without the tanks):
http://www.fliegerweb.com/inhalte/Geschichte/Flugzeuge/FockeWulf_Fw190G/Fw190G3_600xx.jpg

...but then again I might be seeing this too much from the aerodynamicists point of view...


Not in any Anton's after the FW-190A5 UNLESS they had the early WGr 21 installation kits. The requirement to remove the guns in order to install the firing blocks for the rockets was quickly eliminated.

As you said below, taking the guns out wasn't a big deal. It depended on the will of the unit-leader.

Kettenhunde
11-17-2011, 01:33 PM
..but then again I might be seeing this too much from the aerodynamicists point of view...

I did not know you are an aerodynamicists.


Doesn't seem that well integrated to me:

ok

Bremspropeller
11-17-2011, 01:47 PM
P-51 droptank and rack:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/27/65183357_b03acc9b71.jpg

Note how much smaller the rack is.

Kettenhunde
11-17-2011, 03:09 PM
Note how much smaller the rack is.

The drag production is the comparable. What is the difference?

Kettenhunde
11-17-2011, 03:23 PM
The "flush" design may be a better solution when having the tanks attached, but is considerably worse during the trip back to the field (without the tanks):

The Junkers racks might look aerodynamic but it was not. It was comparable with all the other designs with the tank and much much worse when the tanks were gone.

Kettenhunde
11-17-2011, 03:46 PM
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/8589/fockewulfwingracks.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/684/fockewulfwingracks.jpg/)

Kettenhunde
11-18-2011, 07:32 AM
Note how much smaller the rack is.

Dimensionally there is not any significant difference either. The P51 has a larger wing than the Focke Wulf FW-190. That creates the perception the racks are much smaller.

Bremspropeller
11-19-2011, 03:17 AM
The P-51 rack is dimensionally somewhere in-between the G-2 and G-8 racks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Thx for the chart http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

RegRag1977
11-29-2011, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Reg, there were quite some Antons around with no outer guns installed.
As the situation got evermore hopeless for the Luftwaffe, however, the aircraft with the guns removed were getting less and less.
Priller (Kommodore JG26) might have had intervened and prefered to fly without them.

Getting the guns out wasn't a big deal anyway. On the A-8 and A-9, you could even re-equip the plane with either an MG151 or MK108, as the outer wing-bay was universally useable.
As the average airframe's dervice-life was only a couple of hours, I doubt this was done too often, though.

A-2s and A-3s got camparatively old, btw, with lots of them serving in Ergänzungsstaffeln or advanced training units in '44.


@Kettenhunde, do you have any idea why the tanks were so sloppyly integrated in on the wing - compared to the P-51s ?

EDIT: I'm actualy talking of the pylons rather than the tanks, of course.


Thanks Bremspropeller for answering (i missed your post)!

Kettenhunde
11-30-2011, 04:32 AM
Reg, there were quite some Antons around with no outer guns installed.

That is not correct, Reg.

RegRag1977
11-30-2011, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Reg, there were quite some Antons around with no outer guns installed.

That is not correct, Reg. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, got it thanks: these Antons were then rare exceptions, only saw few pictures of them anyway(actually only two, one being an A7 the other one A8, both seemingly belonging to JG26) hence my question.

I'm always following your discussions with interest, they're always interesting and very well documented http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Bremspropeller
11-30-2011, 08:45 AM
That is not correct, Reg.


It actually is: In the pictural-book about JG 54 ("Die Grünherzjäger", Ekkehard Bob/ Hannes Trautloft/ Werner Held) in which 50% or more of all Fw 190s had the outer guns removed.
Those are mostly A-4s and A-5s - possibly some A-6s.

Acc. Rodeike, starting wich the 190A-2, outer wing-guns were a undesignated Rüstsatz.
In his book are lots of A-2s//A-5s without the outer guns. There's one A-6 and Heinz Bär's A-7 also doesn't have them. I stopped counting the A-8s (at least three+) and A-9s (two+) - that's evidence enough for me to prove it was common practice to remove the outer guns in some units.
It really was a non-issue - mostly down to approval from above or the lack thereof http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JtD
11-30-2011, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:

Acc. Rodeike, starting wich the 190A-2, outer wing-guns were a undesignated Rüstsatz.

That's not just according to Rodeike, that's accoring to Focke Wulf. However, this was only the case up to the A-5.

Thereafter the outer cannons were standard fit, and while easy to remove, the vast majority of the pilots did not have the choice to have this done. But it appears that there were plenty of veterans which did indeed had them removed.

Kettenhunde
11-30-2011, 05:51 PM
plenty of veterans which did indeed had them removed.

Baloney.

None of the Anton's after the FW-190A4 series had the outboard weapons removed outside of the R6 kit parameters.

Removing the outboard weapons places the CG at ~.3019 which is far forward of the limit of .48.

Whoever is propagating this myth does not understand weight and balance or aircraft maintenance instructions.

That is clearly reflected in the Ladeplan's for the type and available for anyone who can do weight and balance calculations.

Kettenhunde
11-30-2011, 06:08 PM
those are mostly A-4s

Brems,

The FW-190A4 could have the outboard cannon removed in the Antons. It was an authorized loadout IAW the Ladeplan.

The FW-190A5 and above could NOT have the outboard cannon removed UNLESS it was fitted with the early R6 kit. The firing block and suspension bracket supports used the cannon bay. Unless the launcher tubes are mounted, there is no way to tell from an external photograph. You might be able to see the hook and suspension bracket. The bracing strut fittings are all internal.

The suspension brackets were redesigned to allow the outboard cannon to remain in place and the firing block incorporated into the universal wiring harness. In the FW-190A8 it is accessed by a recessed panel in the wing.

Frequent_Flyer
11-30-2011, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Note how much smaller the rack is.

Dimensionally there is not any significant difference either. The P51 has a larger wing than the Focke Wulf FW-190. That creates the perception the racks are much smaller. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The FW-190 rack is significantly( in relative terms) larger, this is the reason it looks larger.

JtD
12-01-2011, 12:52 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Removing the outboard weapons places the CG at ~.3019 which is far forward of the limit of .48.

Edit: Forget the questions, I just checked the Ladeplan for myself. As expected, your math doesn't add up. While it is true that there are loading conditions that put the CoG to the forward limit, and the removal of the outboard guns could push it beyond that, it were by no means 180 mm in any flyable condition.

That's clear to anyone who can do weight and balance calculations.

Its possible you did the math for the empty weight and removed the cannons there, but they aren't even included in the empty weight. Maybe you can check on that.

Kettenhunde
12-01-2011, 03:00 AM
I just checked the Ladeplan for myself. As expected, your math doesn't add up.

Never would have guessed that would be response.

What is the moment for the outboard guns as listed on the ladeplan?

JtD
12-01-2011, 09:10 AM
About one tenth of what it needs to be for your calculation to be correct, even if you take out more than just the actual guns.

Bremspropeller
12-01-2011, 10:39 AM
So the 190A-5...9s I saw were Pulkzerstörer?
On the Eastern Front?
Hardly!
Unless you suppose Kommodores flying around with less guns for saving weight would specifically chose an R6-aircraft. That's rather unrealistic if the entire unit didn't fly that outfit.

It also doesn't add up with Ernst Schröder's account of not being allowed to remove the outer guns out of his 190A-8. He was flying among a Sturmgruppe back then and flying a "normal six-gun version" was as much as they'd approve.

Plus, there's an A-8 that had it's MK108 removed and the muzzle-gap on the leading-edge sealed.

The weight-and-balance story doesn't add up if you ask me.

Kettenhunde
12-01-2011, 01:08 PM
About one tenth of what it needs to be for your calculation to be correct, even if you take out more than just the actual guns.

The moment for the outboard weapons is a specific number listed on page 6 of the ladeplan.

I listed no moments, just CG positions JtD.

It is an easy thing I ask of you that simply confirms you have the same document I am looking at.

It is also necessary to calculate the CG position.



On the Eastern Front?

Most likely then the aircraft are ground attack variants in the Jabostafflen.

http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/oob.htm

Remember, the F and G series did not exist for much of the war.

FW 190 A-4/U3 is the FW-190F1 after re designation.

What they are not is fighters outside of the parameters already listed in this thread.

JtD
12-01-2011, 01:54 PM
I am not looking at the same document you are looking at.

Your CG positions imply a moment change of ~700 kg*m, if one is to assume that the CG of a ~4 ton 190 is within the acceptable range, i.e. at least 0.48 m behind the engine mount. This puts the wing gun installation ~7 m behind the engine mount into the tail of the aircraft, to allow it to have the impact it needs to have.

So either you based your calculation on a plane already outside the acceptable range (for instance the empty plane) or you made a wrong calculation.

Whatever it is, your point is correct to some extend, but the margin is completely off. It's nothing that couldn't be fixed in the field - and it was fixed in the field.

Bremspropeller
12-01-2011, 02:13 PM
Most likely then the aircraft are ground attack variants in the Jabostafflen.

http://en.valka.cz/attachments/121/Fw_190_A-5.jpg

This A-5 isn't a Jabo.
It's most-propably a II./JG 54 aircraft.

Kettenhunde
12-01-2011, 04:16 PM
This A-5 isn't a Jabo.

It is also in the middle of maintenance.

You know the guns are removed for daily cleaning and servicing.

Kettenhunde
12-01-2011, 04:32 PM
I am not looking at the same document you are looking at.

Well, there is only one ladeplan for the type.

So without having the correct document or seeing any of the numbers, you have concluded I am wrong.

Ok...I will note that.

It is a fact that removing the outboard weapons moves the CG forward of the limits. Anyone that can do CG calculations can determine this with the correct information.

That is why is was NOT an authorized configuration for the FW-190A series fighters in the FW-190A5 and above.

RegRag1977
12-01-2011, 04:50 PM
Hi Kettenhunde,

Thanks for all the informations you posted, here's a pic showing what seems to be an A8, Normandy front summer 44 (Priller's machine coming back from the mission where he scored his 100th kill): no outboard canons...

http://i803.photobucket.com/albums/yy314/RegRag/FockeWulf190A82.jpg

BTW any idea what is just under each prop blade? Seems very strange and not aerodynamic to me...

EDIT it could be armed with MK108 which is shorter (and hidden by the mechanic's head you may say) though i doubt it for i have a picture of an A7, 4 staffel (JG26), pilot Feldwebel Kurt Schmidtke, after a mission (pilot still in the aircaft), with exactly the same configuration light erla rack and no outer canons. Will see if i can find someone that can help me scan it. Then i'll post it for you.

Kettenhunde
12-01-2011, 05:22 PM
BTW any idea what is just under each prop blade? Seems very strange and not aerodynamic to me...

It is the propeller weights required for mounting the 115 liter tank.


no outboard canons...

You can see the crew in the back. I bet they have removed the cannon are in the process of clearing out the spent casings. Re-arm and refit is the first order of business.

RegRag1977
12-01-2011, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">BTW any idea what is just under each prop blade? Seems very strange and not aerodynamic to me...

It is the propeller weights required for mounting the 115 liter tank.


no outboard canons...

You can see the crew in the back. I bet they have removed the cannon are in the process of clearing out the spent casings. Re-arm and refit is the first order of business. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So these are made of metal to help correcting the center of gravity of the aircraft?

What you say about the crew sounds logical but in Normandy, the first thing to do after landing, was actually to roll the aircraft to cover because of the omnipresence of recco aircraft and fighter bombers, so i'm sure they would not rearm the aircraft here in an open field. My guess is that they are making it roll to a cover place (actually a wood at the limit of the airfield) by the means of men, also to save every drop of fuel possible.

i just edited my last post just check its last lines, will try to post the pic (don't know when).

Kettenhunde
12-01-2011, 07:29 PM
What you say about the crew sounds logical but in Normandy, the first thing to do after landing, was actually to roll the aircraft to cover because of the omnipresence of recco aircraft and fighter bombers, so i'm sure they would not rearm the aircraft here in an open field. My guess is that they are making it roll to a cover place (actually a wood at the limit of the airfield) by the means of men, also to save every drop of fuel possible.

Depends on what time period. That could also be an FW-190A7. If it is then it would be mounting the R6 kit.

What is a FACT is the guns could not be removed and the aircraft safely flown in the FW-190A5 and above.

JtD
12-01-2011, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Well, there is only one ladeplan for the type.

There is one Ladeplan for each sub type.


That is why is was NOT an authorized configuration for the FW-190A series fighters in the FW-190A5 and above.

It was on the A-5, where the MG-FF still were a Rüstsatz.


It is the propeller weights required for mounting the 115 liter tank.

They were mounting these weights because the CoG would be too far aft without them, which pretty clearly illustrates that the outer guns could be taken out without moving the CoG too far forward. If it was too far forward without the guns, they could simply leave out the weights as well to correct for this.

RegRag1977, Prillers machine is one of the best examples for this practice, as there are not only plenty of pictures showing it, but also explicit statements (incl. Priller himself) that the guns were indeed removed.

But then we also have an internet expert who can't properly calculate a CoG position, which must mean Priller and a lot of other people are either lying or plain stupid.

Kettenhunde
12-02-2011, 04:04 AM
They were mounting these weights because the CoG would be too far aft without them,

Because of the 115 liter tank. Look at the arm on the 115 liter tank and look at the arm on the guns....

That information is on page 4 for the tank and 6 for the guns.



If it was too far forward without the guns, they could simply leave out the weights as well to correct for this.

While yes, the aircraft could have been ballasted to fly without the outboard guns, the facts are it was NOT.

Removing the outboard guns is not an authorized load out and doing so without considerable time and effort to return the CG to limits.

What would be the point of taking the guns out to add weight to the plane to compensate? Your bang to buck ratio for reward vs effort goes to nothing.

On what level does that make any sense especially considering it would be a major alteration and require RLM as well as factory approval.

The RLM had a process for experimental or non-standard alterations but it required factory representative approval as well as RLM approval on the actual work. In those cases, the factory would work directly with the unit to enact these changes. This was done for testing purposes for several experimental units.

Reminds me of an old guy at the local airport. The FBO removed the guns from his P51 Mustang after getting approval from the FAA and filling out the 337's. The owner decided he did not like the 250lbs of lead the engineers bolted to the tail after removing the guns. So, this guy unbolted that lead balance and went for a joyride. He was very lucky in that he lived but as he said, "I just couldn't get the tail down." He did not have enough trim and had to keep constant control input on the elevator to keep the nose from falling. He did a high speed wheel landing back to the runway.

That is what the FW-190 would fly like without the outboard cannons. The trim would not be powerful enough to hold the tail down and the pilot would have to constantly pull back. That means the available control input to maneuver the airplane would be very restrictive.

FYI, Data required on the 337...

The RLM was very similar as are most Government Aeronautical Agencies:


Data used as a basis for approving major repairs or alterations for return to service must be FAA-approved prior to its use for that purpose and includes: FAR (e.g., airworthiness directives), AC's (E.g., AC43.13-1A under certain circumstances), TSO's parts manufacturing approval (PMA), FAA-approved manufacturer's instructions, kits and service handbooks, type certificate data sheets, and aircraft specification. Other forms of approved data would be those approved by a designated engineering representative (DER), a manufacturer holding a delegation option authorization (DOA), STC's, and with certain limitations, previous FAA field approvals. Supporting data such as stress analyses, test reports, sketches, or photographs should be submitted with the FAA Form 337. These supporting data will be returned to the applicant by the local FAA district office since only FAA Form 337 is retained as part of the aircraft records at Oklahoma City.

http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/at...3.9-1E/AC43-9-1E.pdf (http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/at/courses/at308/Technical_Links/AC43.9-1E/AC43-9-1E.pdf)

The survivability of a "wing it" process or a "let's see if this will work" is not very good in aviation.

Kettenhunde
12-02-2011, 04:10 AM
There is one Ladeplan for each sub type.

The FW-190A8 air superiority fighter has ONE ladeplan.

The discussion is not about other subtypes. I have the ladeplan for the FW-190 variants from FW-190A0 thru Ta-152C including the G and F series. The folder is over 3 inches thick.

Please, just give us the moment for the outboard weapons. That is a specific number listed on page 6 of the ladeplan.

If you can give it to me, I will post the copy of the entire ladeplan and we will walk thru the calculations.

Otherwise, you are blowing smoke and don't have the information.

Bremspropeller
12-02-2011, 10:41 AM
You know the guns are removed for daily cleaning and servicing.

Nope. only when the gun was fired - which it wasn't every day.
Also, the acces-doors aren't opened, in contrast to the cowling-panels.
The access-doors aren't even bulged (the MGFF has drum-magazines), but flush.
No guns installed on this aircraft.

Gun-MX:
http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Bilder/Fw190/Fw190A8-2.jpg


You can see the crew in the back. I bet they have removed the cannon are in the process of clearing out the spent casings. Re-arm and refit is the first order of business.

There isn't even a muzzle-gap on the leading-edge. The guns are clearly not installed.


RegRag1977, Prillers machine is one of the best examples for this practice, as there are not only plenty of pictures showing it, but also explicit statements (incl. Priller himself) that the guns were indeed removed.


Priller's A-5 in-flight, no outer guns.
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW5/FW190-A5-7.jpg

Heinz Bär also had no outer guns installed on his A-7.

Nowotny's A-5, no magazine-drum bulges:
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW5/FW190-A5-8.jpg

Another wing-gun-less A-5:
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW5/FW190-A5-6.jpg

Bremspropeller
12-02-2011, 11:14 AM
A-7, Erla-Aufhängung, no outer guns, non-existant barrel-openings (not taped, but done by replacement-panels):
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW10/FW190-77f-s.jpg

Bremspropeller
12-02-2011, 11:21 AM
A-5 or A-6, no outer guns, flush leading-edges:
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW10/FW190-A5-34f-s.jpg

thefruitbat
12-02-2011, 11:42 AM
lol, pawned.

nice pics by the way http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

RegRag1977
12-02-2011, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
A-7, Erla-Aufhängung, no outer guns, non-existant barrel-openings (not taped, but done by replacement-panels):
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW10/FW190-77f-s.jpg

Hi Bremspropeller, thanks for posting this, that was the A7 i was talking about:

"though i doubt it for i have a picture of an A7, 4 staffel (JG26), pilot Feldwebel Kurt Schmidtke, after a mission (pilot still in the aircaft), with exactly the same configuration light erla rack and no outer canons."

Nice you could scan all these pics.

Bremspropeller
12-02-2011, 01:13 PM
I didn't scan them - I found them using Google http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Kettenhunde
12-02-2011, 03:48 PM
Nope. only when the gun was fired - which it wasn't every day.
Also, the acces-doors aren't opened, in contrast to the cowling-panels.
The access-doors aren't even bulged (the MGFF has drum-magazines), but flush.
No guns installed on this aircraft.

In the remarks on the ladeplan for the FW-190A5 it states:

"Anstelle von MGFF kann GM-1 Anlage eingebaut werden."

You cannot just remove the guns and fly the aircraft. Removing them puts the CG well forward of the allowable limits.

It is a fact, removing the guns is NOT an authorized load out for the FW-190A5 and above.

Bremspropeller
12-02-2011, 04:23 PM
Well, Pips Priller's A-5 looks just alright.
In-flight.


"Anstelle von MGFF kann GM-1 Anlage eingebaut werden."


So what?
"Instead of MGFF, GM-1 device could be fitted."

It's not imperative - it's suggestive.

Kettenhunde
12-02-2011, 06:38 PM
So What?

Really?

GM-1 was an option that was available but not encouraged by BMW. It was susceptible to intake icing.

How about the fact those picture prove nothing since GM-1 was used although rarely.


How about the fact you cannot remove the outboard guns because the CG is not within acceptable limits.

How about a handful of pictures we know little about is not any kind of proof that Focke Wulf's instructions were routinely violated. Any pilot or mechanic knows the value of adhering to the published instructions.

How about that several variants existed in the Geschwaders that did not have outboard cannon but were correctly compensated for the weight of the guns as per Focke Wulf's instructions.

You must compensate for the weight or the aircraft is not safe to fly.

That is reflected in the authorized types for the aircraft and the reason is available to anyone who can do the calculations with a ladeplan.

RegRag1977
12-03-2011, 03:05 AM
How about that several variants existed in the Geschwaders that did not have outboard cannon but were correctly compensated for the weight of the guns as per Focke Wulf's instructions.

You must compensate for the weight or the aircraft is not safe to fly.

Hi Kettenhunde,

Sounds logical. Perhaps weight gain was not what was primarly looked for with this two canons Fw190A...
Would it be possible that the canons were removed not to have a lighter machine but to decrease drag in order to get the best aerodynamics possible, or possibly to test some devices like MW/GM-1, additional fuel tank or additional radio devices?

JtD
12-03-2011, 03:14 AM
Kettenhunde, I don't think I have the Ladeplan for Fw 190A-8 air superiority fighter, if you want to post it so you can prove your point, I'd be more than happy to see it.

Bremspropeller
12-03-2011, 03:27 AM
How about the fact those picture prove nothing since GM-1 was used although rarely.

...on the Eastern Front?
Sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Of course GM-1 is the Rüstsatz R4, not R6 as previously commentad by you.
And on top of that, there was no GM-1 used by A-5 aircraft.


How about the fact you cannot remove the outboard guns because the CG is not within acceptable limits.


Obviously it is. You're so far the only person suggesting othewise.
Of course you might post the ladeplan so everybody can check your comments.


How about a handful of pictures we know little about is not any kind of proof that Focke Wulf's instructions were routinely violated. Any pilot or mechanic knows the value of adhering to the published instructions.

It's not only pictures, but also pilot-accounts and the fact that the outer guns were a Rüstsatz up untill the A-5.


How about that several variants existed in the Geschwaders that did not have outboard cannon but were correctly compensated for the weight of the guns as per Focke Wulf's instructions.

Unlikely, see above I want so see these instructions.


So What?

Really?


Yes, I'll repeat what I said before:
"Its not imperative, but suggestive".
It's a note, not a recommendation/ warning.

You may post the entire context of this note - maybe something got lost.

RegRag1977
12-03-2011, 07:16 AM
If the removing of the canons resulted in no advantage in speed (less drag, GM-1, MW50), or in weight (climb), or in range, or in the opportunity to use some useful extra radio device, (or even more stability during firing phases, thus better aiming, or what else do i know?): the question is then why removing them?

But thanks to the pics posted we can clearly see that they removed them sometimes. Of course we cannot determine how many these were, but at least we know such Fw190A existed.

It's simple reasonning, but i cannot believe such a competent pilot as Priller would not take additionnal fire power if there wasn't any advantage to gain in the process.

Wurkeri
12-03-2011, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by RegRag1977:
If the removing of the canons resulted in no advantage in speed (less drag, GM-1, MW50), or in weight (climb), or in range, or in the opportunity to use some useful extra radio device, (or even more stability during firing phases, thus better aiming, or what else do i know?): the question is then why removing them?

But thanks to the pics posted we can clearly see that they removed them sometimes. Of course we cannot determine how many these were, but at least we know such Fw190A existed.

It's simple reasonning, but i cannot believe such a competent pilot as Priller would not take additionnal fire power if there wasn't any advantage to gain in the process.

Removing the outer guns (and ammo) decreased the weight near 200kg and also the drag by some degree.

There are plenty of pictures of II/JG 54 FW 190A fighters while these were in Finland summer 1944. Difficult to say the exact proportion of the planes which had the outer guns removed but it's was certainly very common among the more experienced pilots. Rudorffer's A-6 is particularly interesting; not only the outer guns were removed but also the cowl guns (slots taped over) and the homing device.

Bremspropeller
12-03-2011, 12:20 PM
That sounds quite interesting Wurkeri!
Where'd you get that information regarding Rudorffer's a/c from?

Wurkeri
12-03-2011, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
That sounds quite interesting Wurkeri!
Where'd you get that information regarding Rudorffer's a/c from?

Pictures of Rudorffer's A-6 (and many other II/JG 54 Fw 190) can be found from "Lento-osasto Kuhlmey" by Hannu Valtonen (ISBN 978-952-99989-3-7), more pictures can be found from Suomen Ilmailuhistoriallinen lehti 1/1998 (Finnish aviation history magazine).

Some pictures of II/JG 54 AC can be googled easily:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w...ung_einer_Fw_190.jpg (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-727-0297-30A,_Russland,_Wartung_einer_Fw_190.jpg)

http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Fw-...la-June-1944-01.html (http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Fw-190A/Fw-190A-JG54.2-%28%28+-Rudorffer/pages/1-Fw-190A-II.JG54-%28%28+-Erich-Rudorffer-Immola-June-1944-01.html)

Bremspropeller
12-04-2011, 08:08 AM
That definately sounds tempting, but I gotta admit that Finnish is not quite my strongest language http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Kettenhunde
12-04-2011, 10:15 PM
Sounds logical. Perhaps weight gain was not what was primarly looked for with this two canons Fw190A...
Would it be possible that the canons were removed not to have a lighter machine but to decrease drag in order to get the best aerodynamics possible, or possibly to test some devices like MW/GM-1, additional fuel tank or additional radio devices?

The cannons were removed for several variants and kits. The early rocket kits (R6 kit not GM-1), GM-1, Reconnaissance aircraft, and weapon gondola's.

You don't save any appreciable weight and the CG was out of limits. That is why is not authorized and no pilot would be stupid enough to fly the airplane with the CG off.

You can believe gamers who wish to miracle out the facts so they can advance a gaming agenda.

Or you can believe Focke Wulf.....

The way to end this is to simply post the authorized load out that says you can remove the guns.

Kettenhunde
12-04-2011, 10:19 PM
It's simple reasonning, but i cannot believe such a competent pilot as Priller would not take additionnal fire power if there wasn't any advantage to gain in the process.


Well if you want to mount the additional firepower of rockets, you need the R6 kit which the early ones required the gun bays to mount the firing blocks.

The guns are also removed for the GM-1 equipment.

A handful of pictures proves nothing in this case.

JtD
12-05-2011, 03:04 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

The way to end this is to simply post the authorized load out that says you can remove the guns.

Wrong. It is an established fact that Fw 190A were flown with outer cannons removed. It can be found in about any publication on the Fw that has been written in the last 50 years. However, established facts don't necessarily have to be true, but if you want to prove it wrong, YOU need to provide the proof, not the folks who agree with what's been established. That's how it works in history and science.

You offered to post the Ladeplan that will prove it, it was requested that you indeed do, so please do. It will either show that it was impossible to remove the guns, or it won't.

In the meantime I'll just go with what dozens of historians have researched, the eye witness statements they quoted, the pictures shown, Fw documentation and test reports that are available.

You need to show _some_ proof. So far, you've just stated your opinion.

Kettenhunde
12-05-2011, 03:56 AM
You offered to post the Ladeplan that will prove it, it was requested that you indeed do, so please do.

Well JtD, if you had been honest the first time I asked it would have happened.

It does not matter what "version" of the ladeplan you have, the moment for the outboard guns is not going to change. The arm is fixed and weight of the MG151 remains the same.

Instead it took what 4 pages for you to admit you were lying:


JtD says:
Edit: Forget the questions, I just checked the Ladeplan for myself. As expected, your math doesn't add up. While it is true that there are loading conditions that put the CoG to the forward limit, and the removal of the outboard guns could push it beyond that, it were by no means 180 mm in any flyable condition.


I do weight and balance every flight I take with the safety of myself and passengers at stake. Pretty comfortable doing it.

You on the otherhand have probably never done a single one.

Here is what the ladeplan looks like. Just like today's weight and balance sheets, it has the weight, arm, and moment for everything on the aircraft.

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/3066/pg5r.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/23/pg5r.jpg/)

JtD
12-05-2011, 04:22 AM
What I said is absolutely true. Only that "the" Ladeplan for me was from an A-1 model, because it was the first one I found. And this one does NOT have the moment for an outboard MG151/20 installation. However, it only takes half a brain to derive from this early Ladeplan that the removal of the outboard MG 151 installation does not change the CoG of the plane by 0.18m, which is what you were suggesting.

Anyway, you insulting me once more is off topic, so please provide the complete document - at the moment we're at 2.8m, which is clearly outside the limits, aft!

Bremspropeller
12-05-2011, 04:32 AM
Why don't you just show the effing Ladeplan and stop BSing around?

Kettenhunde
12-05-2011, 12:58 PM
Only that "the" Ladeplan for me was from an A-1 model


Really? You think an FW-190A1 Ladeplan is comparable on any level at all with a completely different aircraft?

I am not insulting you. You stated I was wrong based off conclusions from a completely different aircraft. How you even arrived at that being valid in anyway is more than telling.

It is just a plain silly thing to do. I would love to follow the rabbit down the hole to see how you draw those conclusions.

Explain and let me get my popcorn.


Why don't you just show the effing Ladeplan and stop BSing around?


If people had just asked from the beginning I certainly would have helped out. It is not my job to correct information on the internet.

Why don't you spend time, money, and effort to find it. I certainly did and it was not to give away to every rude person on the internet over a game. These documents do not appear out of thin air and they are not free.

JtD
12-05-2011, 01:49 PM
So you can't back up your claim. Figures. Lots of noise, but no facts.

I'll stick with the word of 50 experts published in the past 60 years and the first hand information I have backing them up.
I'll take your opinion as the usual nonsense.

I hope everyone else does the same.

Bremspropeller
12-05-2011, 01:49 PM
If people had just asked from the beginning

*People* have.


It is not my job to correct information on the internet.


Funny, because you sound so.


Why don't you spend time, money, and effort to find it.

Because it's not me argueing against common knowledge and when challenged to provide hard evidence, sneaking away with cheap excuses.

Holtzauge
12-08-2011, 12:29 PM
In the Fw190A5/A6 flight manual* there is on page 11 four loadouts listed, all "Jagdeinsats", i.e. figther, first 2 clean, 3rd with ETC501 and 4th with 4 ETC 50.

The different configurations each have an own column with a weight breakdown and a total weight given for each configuration and a note stating that MG-FF can be removed:

"Beim Ausbau von MG-FF verringert sich das flugwicht von 135 Kg (Waffe 98 Kg + Munition 37 Kg)"

Litteral translation "When MG-FF are removed** the flying weight is reduced by 135 Kg (Weapon 98 Kg + Munitions 37 Kg)"

This not only proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that to remove the outboard guns was an officially approved procedure, it also shows that it did not require any addition of counterweights since the only effect on weight is due to the reduction due to the removal of the guns and ammunition.

* D. (Luft) T. 2190 A-5/A-6, Flugzeug-Handbuch, Teil 0
** "Ausbau" litteraly translated means "built out"

RegRag1977
12-08-2011, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by Holtzauge:
In the Fw190A5/A6 flight manual* there is on page 11 four loadouts listed, all "Jagdeinsats", i.e. figther, first 2 clean, 3rd with ETC501 and 4th with 4 ETC 50.

The different configurations each have an own column with a weight breakdown and a total weight given for each configuration and a note stating that MG-FF can be removed:

"Beim Ausbau von MG-FF verringert sich das flugwicht von 135 Kg (Waffe 98 Kg + Munition 37 Kg)"

Litteral translation "When MG-FF are removed** the flying weight is reduced by 135 Kg (Weapon 98 Kg + Munitions 37 Kg)"

This not only proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that to remove the outboard guns was an officially approved procedure, it also shows that it did not require any addition of counterweights since the only effect on weight is due to the reduction due to the removal of the guns and ammunition.

* D. (Luft) T. 2190 A-5/A-6, Flugzeug-Handbuch, Teil 0
** "Ausbau" litteraly translated means "built out"

Hi Holtzauge,

Interesting, thanks. Do you by chance have any links to the manual in question? And is there something like an A8 manual showing the same information? That would be extremely interesting!

BTW didn't the A6 have MG151/20 in the place of MGFFs? Would the weight balance be ok then (assuming the Mausers MG151 are heavier)?

Holtzauge
12-08-2011, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by RegRag1977:
BTW didn't the A6 have MG151/20 in the place of MGFFs? Would the weight balance be ok then (assuming the Mausers MG151 are heavier)?

The A5/A6 Flugzeughandbuch does not mention "Ausbau" of the outer MG151 installation in A-6 as a possibility. It is only listed as an option to remove outer cannon on A-5.

JSG72
12-08-2011, 02:08 PM
The A-6 had outer wing cannon mg151 and that's it. It was introduced to counter the allied bombing campaign. The original concept had been tried out with the A-5 U10. There was no need to remove outer guns on the A-6 as other variants are, or have already been available.
Other than the A-6 R2. which carried the waffen trophen twin 151 cannon gondolas as used breifly by JG11.

I find it completely disillusioning to read such posts that refer to things that only happened on bits of paper. With no connection with reality/What actually was flown within the actual perameters of WW2.Within what was supplied and flown in the missions of real pilots.

This thread is full of it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

May I, point you in the direction of the latest publication of "The Subject"?

Bremspropeller
12-08-2011, 03:44 PM
There was no need to remove outer guns on the A-6 as other variants are, or have already been available.

The outer guns could be removed just as well.
It was down to the unit's preference - just as with other versions.

The A-6 introduced a new wing-structure, btw.
Don't know which precise impact this made on the WaB, couldn't have been too dramatic, anyway.


Other than the A-6 R2. which carried the waffen trophen twin 151 cannon gondolas as used breifly by JG11.


The A-6/R2 had two internal MK108s in the outer wings.

You're talking about the R1.

Wurkeri
12-09-2011, 04:54 AM
Well, can't find any pictures of JG 54 A-5 (nor A-4/A-3) with outer (MG-FF) guns installed while in Finland summer 1944. This might be affected by the logistics; the use of MG-FF was quite limited in Finnish air force so the ammunition was not so widely available.

Kettenhunde
12-09-2011, 05:44 AM
"Ausbau" litteraly translated means "built out"

That is not the ladeplan and it is for factory modifications not field. There is about 7 different ladeplan for the FW-190A5 and not all of them include the outboard guns.


"Beim Ausbau von MG-FF verringert sich das flugwicht von 135 Kg (Waffe 98 Kg + Munition 37 Kg)"

More accurately would be "not installed".

Again, it is not an option on the ladeplan....

The ladeplan is what is used for determining weight and balance to fly the aircraft.

Feel free to find an FW-190A5 ladeplan that authorizes the removal of the outboard guns without compensation or as a factory kit.

Bremspropeller
12-09-2011, 06:08 AM
"Ausbau" means "taking the guns out", not "not installing the guns in the first place".

JtD
12-09-2011, 07:29 AM
I wonder why this is still a subject, given that Kettenhunde has no proof at all for his claim?

Kettenhunde
12-09-2011, 08:06 AM
"taking the guns out"

Not according to our translators who get paid and have liability for their work.

First that line ONLY appears on the FW-190A5 handbuch. At the time the base handbuch was written there was no such animal as an FW-190G or F series.

Those variants are just additions to the FW-190A5 handbuch. I will dig out one and scan some of for you guys.

I will also post the verwendungszwecke portion of the ladeplan that details exactly what can go were for several variants. The FW-190A5 had Jagdeinsatz, jadgbomber, Stuka-Jager,Jaboeinsatz, and Schlachtflugzeug variants that were different enough for Focke Wulf to include them on the ladeplan. All of them are FW-190A5's and use the same Flugzeug-handbuch.

It is a fact there is no authorized loadout on the ladeplan that involves just removing the outboard weapons in an FW-190A5 fighter and above.

If you have a ladeplan and do the math, you will find the CG is too far forward for safe operation.

No amount of wishing it were different will change that.

Bremspropeller
12-09-2011, 08:39 AM
Not according to our translators who get paid and have liability for their work.


I'm a native speaker, so is JtD http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JtD
12-09-2011, 09:36 AM
It is a fact there is no authorized loadout on the ladeplan that involves just removing the outboard weapons in an FW-190A5 fighter and above.

Wait a minute, that's not the point. The point is that you claim it was not safe to remove the outer wing cannons from any model A-5 and up, not if it was an authorised fighter loadout or not.
Anyway, taking your sideline argument, it was an authorised loadout for the A-5 but not thereafter. As has been said and shown repeatedly, the MG FF on the A-5 came as a Rüstsatz, which could be removed or installed as wanted. The Fw documentation makes this more than clear, not only the part quoted above by Holtzauge, but also other parts, for instance the 8A weapons manual for A-1 to A-5 models, dated October 1943.
http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/reallysillynow.jpg
"The MG-FF/M are considered a Rüstsatz for models A-2 to A-5 and can be installed and removed depending on intended purpose." - Free choice here.

Now unless you manage to finally show the Ladeplan to prove beyond doubt that the removal made the plane exceed save operating parameters, you are not adding anything of value to this topic.

Kettenhunde
12-09-2011, 10:05 AM
The point is that you claim it was not safe to remove the outer wing cannons from any model A-5

Baloney. You don't read what I write because your only point is to argue. If we are going to go down this sideline, have the discussion without me, tear your throats about what is on the ladeplans and enjoy your pictures.

The whole discussion is on whether or not fighters removed their outboard weapons.

The topic is not recce, ground attack, or any other specialized variant. That is what going on. You have found pictures of some of these variants and want to apply it to air superiority fighters. You also do not have the type specific ladeplans and are taking generic statements from the FW-190A5 flugzueg handbuch. ALL FW-190A5 variants are just that, FW-190A5's. The types were re-designated in the middle of 1943 and I have ladeplans that list both nomenclatures on the same plan.

It is air superiority fighters we are discussing. The ones designed to engage in combat with enemy fighters and win control of the skies. The rockets and GM-1 are the only authorized load out for fighters that involves removing the outboard weapons that I see on any ladeplan. It is only the early version of the rocket kit too. In each of those, the aircraft is ballasted by the addition of equipment for the kits in the gun bay.

It is not an option to remove the outboard guns from the FW-190A5 air superiority fighter variant. On earlier variants, the ladeplan specifically notes were the outboard guns are removable for air superiority variants.

In the FW-190A2 thru FW-190A4, removing the outboard guns in the air superiority variant is authorized by the ladeplan. When they moved the CG in the FW-190A5, it is no longer an option.

Kettenhunde
12-09-2011, 10:07 AM
"The MG-FF/M are considered a Rüstsatz for models A-2 to A-5 and can be installed and removed depending on intended purpose."


No that does not say free choice.

It says depending on the purpose.

Once again, for the purpose of fulfilling the air superiority fighter mission, it is not an option in the FW-190A5.

Bremspropeller
12-09-2011, 10:43 AM
It also doesn't mention any mandatory retrofits in order to make the take-out of the guns legal http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

If the lack of outer guns was to get the CoG out of limits, there would be a warning like "Warning, you can't take the guns out unless installing counterweight XY!"

JtD
12-09-2011, 11:09 AM
The whole discussion is on whether or not fighters removed their outboard weapons.
No. The point is if the removal of the outboard cannons on fighters placed the CoG outside of safe limits. You say it did, history and physics say it didn't.

So please provide the Ladeplan to prove it.

And for the record, I am fully aware that what you say regarding the Ladeplan options is correct, however, the MG-FF were optional not only for the fighter variant on the A-5, but also for the long range fighter variant (no seperate Ladeplan without MG-FF for that one), the fighter bomber with a 500 kg bomb (no seperate Ladeplan without MG-FF for that one, too) and the fighter bomber with 4x50 kg bombs ((no seperate Ladeplan without MG-FF for that one, either). Why? Because the Rüstsatz was generally optional as stated in many other places in the documentation and could safely be removed in any of these variants. As it was done.

Holtzauge
12-09-2011, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
The way to end this is to simply post the authorized load out that says you can remove the guns.


Done: See D. (Luft) T. 2190 A-5/A-6, Flugzeug-Handbuch, Teil 0 page 11.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
In the remarks on the ladeplan for the FW-190A5 it states: "Anstelle von MGFF kann GM-1 Anlage eingebaut werden." You cannot just remove the guns and fly the aircraft. Removing them puts the CG well forward of the allowable limits. It is a fact, removing the guns is NOT an authorized load out for the FW-190A5.


Wrong: Flugzeughandbuch page 11 says guns can be removed and the only effect on flying weight is due to the removal of the guns 95 and ammunition 37, i.e. 135 Kg in total.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
How about the fact you cannot remove the outboard guns because the CG is not within acceptable limits. How about a handful of pictures we know little about is not any kind of proof that Focke Wulf's instructions were routinely violated. Any pilot or mechanic knows the value of adhering to the published instructions. How about that several variants existed in the Geschwaders that did not have outboard cannon but were correctly compensated for the weight of the guns as per Focke Wulf's instructions. You must compensate for the weight or the aircraft is not safe to fly.


1)Now which Focke Wulf instructions would that be that details how to do the compensation? Reference? Page no?
2)So you say there must be compensation: How much weight and where?



Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
If you have a ladeplan and do the math, you will find the CG is too far forward for safe operation. No amount of wishing it were different will change that.


I say you are wrong. So post the calculation showing the shift from ”CG .48. to ~.3019” due to the removal of the guns as you claim. I bet you won’t though because if you do we’ll be able to see where you went wrong.

Kettenhunde
12-09-2011, 02:36 PM
If the lack of outer guns was to get the CoG out of limits, there would be a warning like "Warning, you can't take the guns out unless installing counterweight XY!"


No it just would not be listed as authorized. It is that simple.

The warning not to fly the aircraft outside of the CG limits is already included. Nobody list's every possible scenario for an incorrectly loaded aircraft.

That is kind of silly isn't it?

A infinite number of pages of "Don't put a 200lb weight on the tail"....

JtD
12-09-2011, 02:55 PM
Two more lines from the A-5 weapons manual:
http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/reallysillynow2.jpg
"The two MG-FF/M can be installed as desired."

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/reallysillynow3.jpg
"MG-FF/M (optional installation)"

What about the Ladeplan for the A-8 now?

JSG72
12-09-2011, 02:55 PM
Quote from Bremspropeller "The outer guns could be removed just as well."
It was down to the unit's preference - just as with other versions.

I apologise for my misquote on the R1/R2 version http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif

I am sorry but I cannot find any evidence of outerguns being removed "At Unit level" for the FW190 A6.
For "Intended purpose" Was not decided by the unit.AFAIK.
Pics I have seen are planes flown by Unit commanders who could have "The pick of the stall" as far as delivered aircraft were concerned.They also mostly had more than one plane at their disposal.
Pics shown here show either "Factory fresh varients" Or indeed planes that could be specifically modded to a persuasive Unit commanders request and then only to Maintenance centres. Supplying such craft and then only for his individual request. Not for Gescwader/Gruppe/Staffel.
Those decisions were made by High Command and directed to the Factories.Depending on the Units ordered usage.

Of course later on in the War Pilots flew what they got and this could be any old hotchpotch of parts.

Bremspropeller
12-10-2011, 04:49 AM
http://en.valka.cz/attachments/121/Fw_190_A-5.jpg

Not a unit-commander as well.
Rodeike's book shows several a/c (post A-6) that lack the outer guns ant aren't flown by unit-commanders either.

Taking the guns out is not a job that requires MX-Center action. It can be done on the line in a couple of minutes.

Keeping the aircraft in good shape was duty of the crew-chief, and some got pretty obsessed with performance-modifications and finish-treatment.
Commanders didn't neccessarily always have the slickest bird of the unit - mostly unnkowingly though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Holtzauge
12-10-2011, 05:28 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If the lack of outer guns was to get the CoG out of limits, there would be a warning like "Warning, you can't take the guns out unless installing counterweight XY!"


No it just would not be listed as authorized. It is that simple.

The warning not to fly the aircraft outside of the CG limits is already included. Nobody list's every possible scenario for an incorrectly loaded aircraft.

That is kind of silly isn't it?

A infinite number of pages of "Don't put a 200lb weight on the tail".... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
If you have a ladeplan and do the math, you will find the CG is too far forward for safe operation. No amount of wishing it were different will change that.




Kettenhunde, it would be easier if you just posted the ladeplan because it’s obvious that you miscalculated somewhere:

Proof that shift in CG for a Fw190A8 cannot be as large as you claim:

1) Both CG of airplane and CG of guns must be within the confines of the wing

2) That means that the maximum moment of arm is given by the chord which is no larger than 2 m

3) Assuming guns and ammo weigh 200 kg and airplane 4400 kg with guns installed


So using this worst case scenario to calculated shift in CG due to removal of guns:

DeltaCG=(2x200)/(4400-200)=0.095

So this makes it physically impossible for the CG to shift more than 0.095 m.

So your calculation that it shifts ”CG .48. to ~.3019”=0.178 m is simply wrong.

Q.E.D.

Instead the shift in CG is probably in the order of a few cm:

A more reasonable calculation using the spinner tip as reference point:

Airplane CG eyeballed at roughly 2.55 m. Guns CG probably at around 2.85 m. This gives a delta of about 0.3 m.

DeltaCG= (0.3x180)/(4400-200)=0.013 i.e. around 1.3 cm!

If you post the ladeplan we can do a proper calculation but I bet the result will be a CG shift in the order of a few centimeters and not decimeters like you claim.

But you don’t even have to do that: Just post airplane CG position and gun CG position from the ladeplan and we can take it from there.

Something tells me you won't though because this will show us that a Kettenhunde factor K~10 is needed in order to make your calculation add up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JtD
12-10-2011, 06:01 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif the infamous Kettenhunde factor ...

Holtzauge, I very much agree with your eyeballing here, but I'd say you don't have to assume 200 kg for the MG 151, because the plane would need to be safe even without the ammo, so the gun installation only adds up to around 100 kg. It means we're talking about less than 10 mm.

Holtzauge
12-10-2011, 06:36 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif the infamous Kettenhunde factor ...


Yes, it's a bit like Einsteins cosmological constant isn't it? It just keeps popping
up here and there in order to produce wanted results.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


Originally posted by JtD:
Holtzauge, I very much agree with your eyeballing here, but I'd say you don't have to assume 200 kg for the MG 151, because the plane would need to be safe even without the ammo, so the gun installation only adds up to around 100 kg. It means we're talking about less than 10 mm.

OK,thanks, I didn't think about that but just as you say the CG shift is most likely even better measured in mm!

Holtzauge
12-10-2011, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
Holtzauge, I very much agree with your eyeballing here, but I'd say you don't have to assume 200 kg for the MG 151, because the plane would need to be safe even without the ammo

It just struck me that you may be on to something here JtD: The CG shift could explain the high Luftwaffe losses late in the war: Pilot get's behind B-17, expends all MG 151 ammo, CG jumps 0.178 m forward leading to a sudden uncontrolled dive into the ground?

Frequent_Flyer
12-10-2011, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by Holtzauge:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Holtzauge, I very much agree with your eyeballing here, but I'd say you don't have to assume 200 kg for the MG 151, because the plane would need to be safe even without the ammo

It just struck me that you may be on to something here JtD: The CG shift could explain the high Luftwaffe losses late in the war: Pilot get's behind B-17, expends all MG 151 ammo, CG jumps 0.178 m forward leading to a sudden uncontrolled dive into the ground? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Usually at this point the Luftwaffe fighter had picked up enough additional lead weight to reestablished the COG http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JSG72
12-11-2011, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
http://en.valka.cz/attachments/121/Fw_190_A-5.jpg

Not a unit-commander as well.
Rodeike's book shows several a/c (post A-6) that lack the outer guns ant aren't flown by unit-commanders either.

Taking the guns out is not a job that requires MX-Center action. It can be done on the line in a couple of minutes.

Keeping the aircraft in good shape was duty of the crew-chief, and some got pretty obsessed with performance-modifications and finish-treatment.
Commanders didn't neccessarily always have the slickest bird of the unit - mostly unnkowingly though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

And how can you tell that this is indeed an operational craft pictured at what time?
Of course, there are loads of pics of later model 190s without wing guns But how do you know they are Antons and what subtype?

And where is the proof that removing the outer 151s altogether was prevelant/sanctioned at "Unit Level"

I myself have many publications on the Fw190 and the Units that flew them. I don't ever remember reading of anyone just removing wing guns on a whim. And certainly not a Crew Chief making the decision.

There is an interesting piece on page178 of The latest FW.190 Vol.1 by Smith and Creek.

I will not quote but it is a preface to a document issued by the RLM and Focke Wulf on the 15 April 1943. It goes to say that there is such a great number of Subtypes of 190s being built at the factory that. In its orders, the factory cannot account itself design conversion data but uses them as guidlines for series production and that Organising supplies to Units for converted aircraft has become impossible. It does go on to say that the A-5 will be the next standardisation. However we do know that there were just as many Subtypes of later models.
There were A-5s G2s and F2s all being built at the same time within the same batch numbers.

This may go some way to explaining missing outer guns. It would appear that some Units were basically flying what ever was supplied to them. And not specifically the standard model even though it may have been listed as such.


I have read of guns being removed from derelict aircraft and being used as make shift Anti aircraft defences.

Bremspropeller
12-11-2011, 09:42 AM
Of course, there are loads of pics of later model 190s without wing guns But how do you know they are Antons and what subtype?

It's relatively simple:
A RV-Band and it's color/ -composition gives away the Unit, if not a unit-insignia does that before. Subtypes can easily be distinguished - except late A-8s and A-9s.

The a/c from above is an A-5 or A-6 of II./JG 54, based in Finland. There are other shots of this exact aircraft from different angles with finnish aircraft (a Buffalo and a G50) in the background.


And where is the proof that removing the outer 151s altogether was prevelant/sanctioned at "Unit Level"


No proof, as there isn't any against it, aye?


I myself have many publications on the Fw190 and the Units that flew them. I don't ever remember reading of anyone just removing wing guns on a whim. And certainly not a Crew Chief making the decision.

Did I say so?


It would appear that some Units were basically flying what ever was supplied to them. And not specifically the standard model even though it may have been listed as such.

Taking out some armor-plates isn't exactly gonna be world's end.
I wonder if there's any proof to that theory, based on pilots/ crew-chiefs mentioning special boost-settings (F vs A) or boost-limitations of their aircraft.
Would be a bad idea, sending an F-2 on a western-front bomber-intercept, don't you think? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

There was most-propably post-productional modification - IF what you suggested happened at all.


I have read of guns being removed from derelict aircraft and being used as make shift Anti aircraft defences.


Yes, and of course they'll always remove the outer guns only and never cannibalize the inner guns, because those never break http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Frequent_Flyer
12-11-2011, 10:02 AM
Why all the consternation regarding field modification, and wing mounted gun removal. The VVS removed the wing mounted guns,radio's and sundry other items on most versions of the P-39. They had no trouble scoring victories over the Luftwaffe fighters.In fact a argument can be made it was their best fighter when it mattered most.

JSG72
12-11-2011, 12:13 PM
I am not trying to argue with you.

I am merely trying to relate my reading experience of over 35years. All you appear to be basing it on is photos of planes with outer guns removed.
I've seen hundreds of these pictures and am trying to explain That after all these years I have never heard of Units removal of outerwing cannon on the A-6 /7/8/9.

I have read of pilots wishes but not being allowed to .
I don't think you're getting the message from the RLM and Fockwulfs document preface.

I am not implying that all these winggunless planes were F or G series

Oh and BTW. As for the "Relatively simple" identification of plane?


There were no RV bands before Late '43 and by the time Some/But not all units had them. and then only some RV Units Not all planes before, carried Unit insignia. Sch and SKG units sometimes carried numbers as opposed to letters

As for sub types being easily distinguishable. You seem to be struggling determining the Type as opposed to Subtype http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

So perhaps if we knew the Werk No.? Nup! sometimes they are obscured.

And of course we are trying to interpret from Black and white photographs that depending on the film used to take the picture can render Gelb to be a very dark colour.

Oh and yes many Jabo/Sclacht units did have to undertake fighter duties and Fighter Units had to undertake Bombing missions (Come to think of it. Why didn't they remove the wing cannon from IV(Schturm) JG3s A8R2s when they were ordered to France to defeat the Invasion. Jeez they were cumbersome planes at the best of times But with bombs as well??).

Yes it's relatively simple.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif But at least you can Google it.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Bremspropeller
12-11-2011, 01:48 PM
There were no RV bands before Late '43 and by the time Some/But not all units had them. and then only some RV Units Not all planes before, carried Unit insignia.

Funny that after 35 years you can not identify units by the shapes of the numbers or the way Gruppe-Balken were applied.
I'm not talking about some oddball aircraft with make-shift paint-schmes, but aircraft that are clearly identifiable.
JG 26, JG 2 and JG 1 are pretty good contenders here.
So are JG 54 and JG 51.


Sch and SKG units sometimes carried numbers as opposed to letters

...and - gosh! - sometimes even unit-insignia or fighter-unlike markings, such as letters or triangles.


As for sub types being easily distinguishable. You seem to be struggling determining the Type as opposed to Subtype

Relevance?
Unless you give me a Rüstsatz-designation of fighters that includes removal of the outer guns, of course...


Oh and yes many Jabo/Sclacht units did have to undertake fighter duties and Fighter Units had to undertake Bombing missions

So?
Things are getting easier when the place where the photo was taken is known.
There weren't any fighter Fw 190s on the southern part of the Eastern Front, for example.
It's about context.


(Come to think of it. Why didn't they remove the wing cannon from IV(Schturm) JG3s A8R2s when they were ordered to France to defeat the Invasion. Jeez they were cumbersome planes at the best of times But with bombs as well??).

Well, maybe they deemed the armament as great against ground targets as well. After all, few aircraft were better armored than a Sturmjäger 190.
Why were other Sturmjäger pilots (Ernst Schröder was allowed so because of his successes) then flying normal six-gun A-8s instead of Sturmjäger-Rüstasatz equipped a/c?
Maybe a unit-policy-thing, eh?

JSG72
12-11-2011, 02:16 PM
Btw. I can go further

But you are getting nothing.

Keep googling.

Bremspropeller
12-11-2011, 02:48 PM
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW10/FW190A9_02f-s.jpg

Go further if you want to http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

Bremspropeller
12-12-2011, 02:55 AM
BTW JSG:

I think were totally argueing into different directions.
You may be true that there was no entire unit flying around with wing-guns taken off (A-6 till A-9 era, as there were lots of A-2s and A-3s flying around in '42 to suggest they were doing so on a unit-basis...different times, though!).
But that's not the point I'm trying to make:

The point I'm trying to get accross is that there were a/c flying with their outer guns taken off. The decision to approve this or not was on a unit-commander level. It was propably the Gruppenkommandeur who either approved it, or not. Asking for this was propably down to individual pilots, but it could be done.

The other point you were trying to make was that some planes could have been used for cannibalisation. True.
There's only the question why cleared-to-cannibalize aircraft had only their outer wing-guns removed, instead of totaly being broken down. IF only the outer guns were pulled and the aircraft was still flying around, this was propably also decided on unit-level (Staffel, maybe Gruppe).

The argument on the IV.(Sturm)/JG 3 boys is not a good one in my eyes:
First, they were getting any planes avaliable to the scene. There was no TIME to strip the aircraft of their excessive armament and armor.
Second, the increased armamet and armor came handy in some situations.

The situations I was thinking of were more attached to being stationed in some area that provides a specialized set of aerial targets (fighters only for example). The tactical situation of 1942 on the Channel pretty much gives an example.


And finally:
The whole type/ sub-type discussion is down to definition...

Type: Fw 190
Subtype: A-3
Modification-Standard: U4

Wurkeri
12-12-2011, 03:30 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
BTW JSG:

I think were totally argueing into different directions.
You may be true that there was no entire unit flying around with wing-guns taken off (A-6 till A-9 era, as there were lots of A-2s and A-3s flying around in '42 to suggest they were doing so on a unit-basis...different times, though!).

The II/JG 54 still had the A-3 in use while in Finland 1944 and, of course, the A-4 as well. As an example Valtonen's book gives following numbers of used Fw 190s during July 1944 (includes strenght in the beginning + arrived aircraft):

A-3 3
A-4 7
A-5 9
A-6 34
A-8 13 (none in the end of June)

Kettenhunde
12-12-2011, 01:51 PM
The two MG-FF/M can be installed as desired."

The MG-FF and MG-FF/M are two different weapons. Yes they are completely interchangeable in the FW-190 series outboard weapons bay.

That is not the same as it is optional to remove the outboard weapons in the FW-190A5 series fighter.

JSG72
12-12-2011, 03:49 PM
"Why were other Sturmjäger pilots (Ernst Schröder was allowed so because of his successes) then flying normal six-gun A-8s instead of Sturmjäger-Rüstasatz equipped a/c?"

Ernst Schroder had trans ported this aircraft from the depot at Munchen Gladbach to Holzkirchen on 2nd August 1944. He had to touch down twice because of engine/Technical problems on the way. He arrived on the 3rd of August.
This plane was not his it was delivered to 5/JG300 Which was the covering group within II Gruppe. The plane by chance was asigned to him on the 9th. He also flew Red 7 (an A8/R2)/ Walter Dahls Blue 13(The one he complained about being even heavier than the Gruppes Sturmbocks)/Red14 and Red9.

The premis that individual pilots could express what they wanted. You seem to be under the impression that all pilots had theyre own aircraft. This was definately Not so.
Pilots were assigned aircraft. But when it was their turn to fly They flew what was available. Many Aces had there own planes and many pilots got to fly them.
There were many times when there were many "Greenhorn" pilots who never got a chance to fly. Or in other circumstances More planes. Not enough fit pilots.

An interesting observation The pics of outer wing gun removal of JG26 A-5s. If the guns had been removed at "Unit level" And Patches applied "Where did they get them from/ And why after applying the patches They went to the bother of going round each one and appling paint to suit perfectly the Factory applied Camo Schemes?

During 1942 JG26 were battling against Spitfires and Bostons. Prillers first assigned 190A2 was given his charge on the 11 Dec. 1941. with the 2xMgff cannon mounted inboard. He was the New IIIGruppe commander. He was a Charismatic Fighter pilot who enjoyed dogfighting. It was up to him, amongst others. Reporting back. that further development of the FW190s were observed and occured.
It was not long after that "Operation Donnerkill" took place. With all the celebrations on that success. The Commanders of each involved Geschwader/Gruppen certainly got the Ear of the Luftwaffe Hierarchy. It was with them reporting back and saying that the MGff was Not a Suitable gun anymore that the Mk151s were fitted in theyre place on the next model the A-3 then the 4/and with the advent of the Spitfire MKIX the A-5. The way things were going for the Kannal Geschwader the 2x 151s were suitable for the job.So commanders that wanted them got them. Just as Galland was able to request the moddified birds of his own. This was not the way to conduct the war though. So some planes would be built to this spec but the majority of pilots wouldn't even know about it. More planes were needed for the East and a standardisation was required.

Prillers A-7 was the result of the Mosquito attacks on the V1 sites and with the inability of the standard FWs being able to catch them. It was at High ommands request not his.He again would advise.

Interesting to note? IJG54s commander when they first got the FW. was another rising Ace.Hans Philipp.

I refer back to the RLM and FW. document preface of 15th April 1943. Stating that far to many varients were being ordered produced. All under the same Wk No. Batch that they could not be responsible
For any errors in delivery of Sub types These included not the just the "Official" Umrust-Bausatz types.

Another observation?

The FW.190D12 of Franz Gotz. Appeared to have a starboard winggun port of a Pre A-5 and A-6 port wing. Nothing surprising there.

Sources:
JG300 Vols.1&2. Lorant and Goyat
JG54. John Weal
War diaries Vols. 1&2 JG26 Donald Caldwell
Production line to frontline FW.190. Malcolm V Lowe
Focke wulf 190 Defending the Reich. Morten Jessen
JagdWaffe Vol.4 Section 3 The War in Russia. Christopher Bergstrom and Martin Pegg
Focke Wulf 190D Walkaround. Squadron signal
Focke Wulf 190A.Squadron signal
Fw.190 in Combat. Alfred Price
Focke Wulf 190 A/D and Ta 152 Heinz Nowarra
Focke Wulf 190 Vol.1 Smith and Creek
JG301/302. Willi Reschke

JtD
12-13-2011, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The two MG-FF/M can be installed as desired."

The MG-FF and MG-FF/M are two different weapons. Yes they are completely interchangeable in the FW-190 series outboard weapons bay.

That is not the same as it is optional to remove the outboard weapons in the FW-190A5 series fighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif WTF? What's the MG-FF suddenly got to do with it? The outer wing gun installation is MG-FF/M and was optional. So hard to get?

Where's the A-8 Ladeplan?

Bremspropeller
12-13-2011, 08:38 AM
Prillers first assigned 190A2 was given his charge on the 11 Dec. 1941. with the 2xMgff cannon mounted inboard. He was the New IIIGruppe commander. He was a Charismatic Fighter pilot who enjoyed dogfighting. It was up to him, amongst others. Reporting back. that further development of the FW190s were observed and occured.
It was not long after that "Operation Donnerkill" took place. With all the celebrations on that success. The Commanders of each involved Geschwader/Gruppen certainly got the Ear of the Luftwaffe Hierarchy. It was with them reporting back and saying that the MGff was Not a Suitable gun anymore that the Mk151s were fitted in theyre place on the next model the A-3 then the 4/and with the advent of the Spitfire MKIX the A-5.

Donnerkeil had mostly A-1s and possibly some A-2s involved.
Also, MG151/20s in the inner gun-wells were introduced with the A-2s.
No such thing as an A-2 with inner MG-FF/Ms.


If the guns had been removed at "Unit level" And Patches applied "Where did they get them from/ And why after applying the patches They went to the bother of going round each one and appling paint to suit perfectly the Factory applied Camo Schemes?

Were is the difference between removing them or getting the a/c with guns removed in the first place?
The outcome is the same http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
You're focussing too much on the "removal"-part.


The FW.190D12 of Franz Gotz.

I always had the impression he had a D-13 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kettenhunde
12-13-2011, 10:00 AM
Were is the difference between removing them or getting the a/c with guns removed in the first place?

Night and Day....

Kettenhunde
12-13-2011, 10:05 AM
The outer wing gun installation is MG-FF/M and was optional.


And the option is to replace the MG-FF/M with an MG-FF.

It is not an option to remove the outboard weapons completely and fly with empty bays.


So hard to get?

Apparently so for some....


Where's the A-8 Ladeplan?

In the file cabinet at home and in the archives.

Why don't you go look for it instead of hounding me for it and attacking me when you don't like what the documents say?

Spend your money and time.....tear your throat over it in the meantime.

JtD
12-13-2011, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
And the option is to replace the MG-FF/M with an MG-FF.
No, it's not. And I guess you even know that, and just keep spouting nonsense to appear important. There's no document indicating that the idea of the MG-FF/M Rüstsatz was to be replaced with a MG-FF Rüstsatz. In fact I'd be surprised if the MG-FF still saw service when the A-5 was designed, let alone fielded.


It is not an option to remove the outboard weapons completely and fly with empty bays.
As it has been established by a large number of historians in the past 50 years, it is an option, and was done this way.

Regarding the A-8 Ladeplan, it's the only proof you could possibly present to back up at least one of your claims. You don't do that, fair enough. You just look like a clown, and I really have no problem with that.

Btw, getting a Ladeplan costs no money and 1 minute of writing an e-mail. You just need to know who to ask. Internet's scary. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

JSG72
12-13-2011, 11:43 AM
I totally agree with you on the 190A-2 mistake I made. But the actual findings of these craft and the A-2s that also had MGffs as well!
And also the 190D13 error. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif
However you appear to be changing your tack on your initial proposal. That guns were removed at Unit level, at the will of Any Pilots who just fancied not having them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Other than picking Typing errors out of my post.
(I'm not Nit picking your posts)I am adding additional info! (Erm . And your Pics. Which you could easily add captions to BTW.)

Why not do some research yourself?. Or are you not really all that interested and just enjoy winding Kettenhund up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

Bremspropeller
12-13-2011, 12:03 PM
That guns were removed at Unit level, at the will of Any Pilots who just fancied not having them.

I never suggested that.
What I said was they could be removed on unit level or at approval from above.
IF that approval came or not was a funcion of the people involved, not of the capability of the aircraft.
I'm interested in the aircraft's capability here - as well as the initial poster, I guess.
You're trying to drag it into the "history"-department.


Why not do some research yourself?.

Because I'm not the one with the controversial thesis, saying the A-5 and later versions couldn't leave the outer guns at home.

JSG72
12-13-2011, 12:43 PM
So you didn't post?
"The point I'm trying to get accross is that there were a/c flying with their outer guns taken off. The decision to approve this or not was on a unit-commander level. It was propably the Gruppenkommandeur who either approved it, or not. Asking for this was propably down to individual pilots, but it could be done."

Anyways. I totally agree that some planes That flew missions had outer guns missing But my findings are that they were supplied as so. No?

Just as your example of Ernst Schroders Red 19 and your Supposition of IV(Shturm)JG3s was. A wee bit more Historical research http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Many publications have copies of much original data printed within them. And I have to say I am not always that interested in it. However as This is a Sim Forum with an interest in the Craft and its FM and nuances. So I guess you are right. I am more of a Historical enthusiast. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Btw. I see you have just read "Fw. 190s Over Scicily". Have just read it myself. Very good. I also agree that Kurland should be their next title.
Sure you noticed that the Sch and SKG craft were flown as fighters as well?

Kettenhunde
12-13-2011, 01:11 PM
I'm not the one with the controversial thesis,

There is nothing controversial about it except in a few gamers minds.

The facts are clearly presented in the ladeplan. removing the outboards guns is not an option in the fighter variants.

Bremspropeller
12-13-2011, 01:40 PM
So you didn't post?
...


That doesn't collide with what I posted, does it?


Anyways. I totally agree that some planes That flew missions had outer guns missing But my findings are that they were supplied as so. No?


All of them? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Just as your example of Ernst Schroders Red 19 and your Supposition of IV(Shturm)JG3s was.

Nothing wrong with my example:
After all, he was allowed to fly that machine, wasn't he? Guess who approvd that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Nothing wrong with my "supposition" about IV.(Sturm)/JG 3 either.


Sure you noticed that the Sch and SKG craft were flown as fighters as well?


On how many missions in relation to the overall mission-count?
There's no point in pulling things off the aircraft when you're flying one fighter-mission and three atack-missions.
Modifying the aircraft only makes sense when the mission stays the same over a longer period of time.
I have written that before.

Kettenhunde
12-13-2011, 03:20 PM
All of them?

Lex Parsimoniae...

All of them being factory supplied without the outboard guns fits the facts.

Supposition that the outboard guns were removed by maverick pilots who thumbed their noses at the aircraft's operating instructions in order to put the aircraft in a load condition that is a performance detriment does not.

JSG72
12-13-2011, 03:25 PM
Bremspropeller.
You are not progressing the answer to RegRags question at all.
Your surely having a Laff. And actually have nothing to contribute.
Other than to agree. That you, have seen pics of outer gunless fighters.And can only quote that the guns could be removed. and saying that. "This they could do in a matter of minutes".(Whilst applying the necessary Supplied patches to ports and hatches and painting them up(A lengthy process) to look like it never happened?)

So perhaps you may, then be able to supply us with the evidence that planes. Other than those within the designated Schturm gruppes were supplied with Armour plates and blinkers as well as 30mm cannon to convert their planes into Sturmbocks. Because a Pilot/Unit commander fancied them? That'll be the R2/R8 Yes those "Field applied" kits.

As usual. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Your answers to my posts again contain nothing but "Your" Suppositions

The question of Shroders plane. I have already answered. And there are quotes from him supporting this.
Do you suppose if he had said he would rather fly around without the outer wing guns. He would have been allowed to? He was Alloted this plane!!(He didn't even want to fly!!!) and he had to fly many other versions (uncalibrated). (Naa! you'll skip this and pick me up on some Typo. Or another supposition of yours).

Now's your chance to strike.

Hit us with a grand unavoidable truth. Other than that. "Outer wing guns could be removed and that's a fact " But you dont Know the Rusatz No. (Darn.)Nor the Supply situation. Nor the Chain of Command.

But let's face it. That is, what someone posted. More interested than you said. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Paper planes.. Paper planes? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Bremspropeller
12-13-2011, 04:16 PM
Original question:


Btw, i forgot to ask: i have noticed on some pictures that what you call "Erla Aufhängung" was sometimes used along with the outer 20mm canons removed on some machines (A7 and A8)? I'm not sure but i think one picture i saw was actually Josef Priller's machine (A8 W/Nr 170346).
Is that possible? Was this configuration common on the Western front or was it just used by JG26? It's a question i've asked myself many times.

Original answer:


Reg, there were quite some Antons around with no outer guns installed.
As the situation got evermore hopeless for the Luftwaffe, however, the aircraft with the guns removed were getting less and less.
Priller (Kommodore JG26) might have had intervened and prefered to fly without them.

Getting the guns out wasn't a big deal anyway. On the A-8 and A-9, you could even re-equip the plane with either an MG151 or MK108, as the outer wing-bay was universally useable.
As the average airframe's dervice-life was only a couple of hours, I doubt this was done too often, though.


Any questions left?



And actually have nothing to contribute.

Funny, coming from a guy fixiation on details instead of the question if there were fighters flying around without outer guns.

Facs are:

They could be removed.
They could be not installed in the first place.

No difference in the outcome - wiring aside.


And can only quote that the guns could be removed.

So according to you they couldn't be removed?


You may then be able to supply us with the evidence that planes Other than the designated Schturm gruppes were supplied with Armour plates and blinkers as well as 30mm cannon to convert their planes into Sturmbocks.

Not neccessary, as the Sturmböcke came right off the factory.
MK 108s couldn't be fit into the outer gun-bays just like that, they needed a special port with a wing-skin-bulge in order to attach the upper rear bolts of the gun.

Of course, the blinkers could be removed on - guess what - unit-level.
Same goes for the additional 5mm armor-plates on the fueselage-sides. *


Congratulations for once again not getting the point.


Do you suppose if he had said he would rather fly around without the outer wing guns. He would have been allowed to.


No, because he said that he jokingly wanted to have the outer guns removed, but wasn't allowed.
Quoted out of Peter Rodeike's book on the subject.



(Naa! you'll skip this and pick me up on some Typo. Or another supposition of yours).

I'm not the one claiming "35 years of savvyness" on the subject, and then rolling the dice on aiplane-types. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif


But you dont no the Rusatz No.

No Rüstsatz-Nummer issued.
Sorry http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

*Need a Rüstsatz-Nummer for those, too?
See above!

JSG72
12-13-2011, 05:39 PM
Your at it again!! Bremspropeller. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Nothing to contribute. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
If this Isn't your your specialised subject? Then just say so!
There are many amongst the internet. That do care.
You are now trying the. How come "Old Fella" assumption?"
Of course. I have been interested in the Luftwaffe for 35 years.
Just because, again. "Your" suppositions say that "I Should Know" and as to what I post.
Does not mean to say That In 35 years I should still appear ignorant.

Off course I know The same stuff that you do(And more apparantly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif)PM. If you like. I am happy to be re-educated

It is within your replies on this thread. That "YOU" appear Sooooooooooo......"os"
ignorant.Had to apply a few more Os

Sorry. If this is not your specialised subject. Or indeed you havent read the "Latest/relevant" Publication on The subject.(Ans.. Yes! On both counts. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif)

I do have an interest.

Just Do not spout "As you see it" nonsense. As if you are "The IL2 Luft Guru". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif
As if, most of us know. "Hee Haw". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You may be Struggling to split this one down???

Bremspropeller
12-14-2011, 07:05 AM
I've got some *contribution*-riddles for you:

1) Which Rüstsatz-Nummern did those planes have that were delivered without outer guns?

2) What were the reasons for delivering those aircraft in the first place?

3) Why don't you recognize that downgrading-modifications (taking stuff off the aircraft) are easier than upgrading-modifications (adding stuff to the aircraft), as in your stupid Sturmgruppe-example?

Those questions should be answered in a heartbeat by a savvy historian of your experience...
Feel free to not-answer, if you're incapable of answering those questions.

TipsyTed
12-14-2011, 09:38 AM
Talk is cheap because supply greatly exceeds demand.

Some of us which were drawn here by genuine curiosity as to what's the real deal with the issue in question are still quietly and patiently waiting for some ladeplans or any other kind of hard evidence for any of the numerous claims here, from both sides...

K_Freddie
12-14-2011, 12:14 PM
.. and to think you lot were nasty to Gastonxx..(what's his name) when he came up with funny's like this. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JtD
12-14-2011, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by TipsyTed:
Some of us which were drawn here by genuine curiosity as to what's the real deal with the issue in question are still quietly and patiently waiting for some ladeplans or any other kind of hard evidence for any of the numerous claims here, from both sides...

Anything you'd expect from me? I simply don't perceive me in a position where I need to supply any evidence, given that you can pretty much open up any book and find confirmation.

So let me know if you feel that there's something I need to back up.

Kettenhunde
12-15-2011, 03:45 AM
1) Which Rüstsatz-Nummern did those planes have that were delivered without outer guns?

GM-1 is one example.


2) What were the reasons for delivering those aircraft in the first place?

Better performance....in fact all authorized load outs come down to capability. What do want the aircraft to do? The different answers correspond to the different load outs.

Removing the outboard weapons is just not an authorized load out for the fighter variants.


3) Why don't you recognize that downgrading-modifications (taking stuff off the aircraft) are easier than upgrading-modifications (adding stuff to the aircraft), as in your stupid Sturmgruppe-example?

Because it is just not true. Aircraft maintenance is tightly controlled for good reason. Any major modification requires the exact same procedures and maintenance control.

Bremspropeller
12-15-2011, 05:59 AM
GM-1 is one example.

A completely useless example, when talking about eastern-front aircraft.
It would make sense for some Mosquito-hunters in a relatively well-defined timeframe, though.

Got a Rüstsatz-Nummer for the GM-1 modification WITHOUT the outer guns?


Better performance....

No brainer...
Did it have any connections to gun-shortages?
Did the a/c without outer guns have the gun-ports installed (e.g. could they be retrofitted with guns in the field?), or were they completely "naked" in the outer ports?

Were those aicraft special orders by "aces", or did they just produce them for special tasks?

Why no Rüstsatz-Designation?


Removing the outboard weapons is just not an authorized load out for the fighter variants.


5 pages of claiming that and still no proof.
You know, you cold shut everybody up in here with just one piece of paper http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Any major modification requires the exact same procedures and maintenance control.


Granted, yes - with two very important notes:

Aircraft had a general life-span of ±50 hrs back then, so chances of going through two major overhaul-intervals were slim. Maintenance-programmes were somewhat primitive compared to ours' today - with an additional 70 years of experience and learning from errors.
Couldn't think of too many of today's regulations being enforced then as tighly as they are today.

People could add as well back then. Screwing-on or -off an armor-plate within the CoG-envelope was not a very difficult task back then - just as it isn't today.
Same is valid with the outer wing-guns.

JSG72
12-15-2011, 09:12 AM
Why are you insisting on Rausatz Nos'? When there are already Factory supplied as Umruest- Bausaetze. A-3/U3 A-4/U3 A-5/U3.

Now can I put it to you that since you have no Pics of cannons being removed in field. Before/after but there is definate proof of ETC racks being fitted/removed to Fighters/Schlacht/SKG Staffel.Happened all the time in the fluid War situation
Wouldn't it make sence to have aircraft aleady built to accept such a case as opposed to trying to supply these Imaginary Rausatz conversion kits. (The ones that apparently anyone could ask for and were supplied with the necessary Hatches/patches and self colouring kits. Oh and now compensating weights?) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

And Of course you are aware that Rausatz were not standard No.s between each Model/Type. And were not supplied at Commanders request but were ordered by higher command when a UnIts/ Gruppe/Staffels role was expressed to change?

What's the bait this time?

Bremspropeller
12-15-2011, 09:54 AM
The A-3/U3 is a fighter with an ETC, capable of carrying 500kg bombs.
The A-4/U3 and A-5/U3 are the F-1 and F-2 respectively, and as such Schlachtflugzeuge, not fighters.


Before/after but ther is definate proof of ETC s being fitted to Fighter Staffel.

Yes, as it was needed to carry an auxiliary tank anyway (if the airplane didn't feature the JG 26 specific Erla-Aufhängung) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
Guess what: No (Um-)Rüstsatz-Nummer for the ETC-installation http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


Happened all the time in the fluid War situation

Gosh!


Wouldn't it make sence to have aircraft aleady built to accept such a case as opposed to trying to supply these Imaginary Rausatz conversion kits.

?
Guess hat I'm talking about all the time.
There were no "conversion kits" concerning wing-gun installation.


(The ones that apparently anyone could ask for and were supplied with the necessary Hatches/patches and self colouring kits
Oh and now compensating weights?

1) Take a brush and make the finish of the nose-cap blend with the rest of the paint-scheme:
Takes 30s. Big deal!

2) I never suggested that fitting a weight was neccessary - that's what our friend Kettenhunde tries to makes us believe. Ask him, he's got the holy-grail-document.
Anyway: fitting a weight (as part of the imaginary kit) takes about 30s more time.


And Of course you are aware that Rausatz were not standard Nos and were different for each Model/Type.

Were they?
Just like those A-3/U3, A-4/U3 and A-5/U3, I guess? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif


And were not supplied at Commanders request but were ordered by higher command when a UnIts/ Gruppe/Staffels role was expressed to change?

So Santa (Goering) and his Little Helpers had a special list of "good" and "naughty" pilots... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

JSG72
12-15-2011, 10:00 AM
Now you are either. Drunk or a Fool?

JSG72
12-15-2011, 12:18 PM
"The A-3/U3 is a fighter with an ETC, capable of carrying 500kg bombs.
The A-4/U3 and A-5/U3 are the F-1 and F-2 respectively, and as such Schlachtflugzeuge, not fighters".

Got proof? Do you know how many?
What about all those planes without outer guns that can have the bomb rack fitted that you have seen on fighter airfieds?.

You know the ones that are "Factory Built". A-3s/4s/5s http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Penny dropped yet?

thefruitbat
12-15-2011, 01:07 PM
So, we decided anything yet.

As far as i can tell, i've seen lots of photos posted that show planes that can't possibly have existed.

Is that about right?

JSG72
12-15-2011, 02:35 PM
Erm....

No. But then neither were Focke Wulf judging by my previous Preface of Document posted http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Bremspropeller
12-15-2011, 05:01 PM
As far as i can tell, i've seen lots of photos posted that show planes that can't possibly have existed.

Is that about right?


Yes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

===========

Got proof?

Yes.


Do you know how many?

Don't care: Irrelevant.


What about all those planes without outer guns that can have the bomb rack fitted that you have seen on fighter airfieds?.


It's not about the airfield, it's about the unit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

JSG72
12-16-2011, 01:56 PM
If you are meaning planes of 10(Jabo) 26+2 Loss reports are inconclusive and so are described as either A4/u4s or just A-4s or A5s. Also JG2 Fighter Staffel also took part in at least one Jabo raid carrying bombs and not just as escort.

However on another note. I have got pics of planes with outer cannon removed where holes are apparent and not just the 4/Jg54 craft previously posted. The A-3 of IIIJG2 and IJG54 that I also have. Are outergunless with holes and bulged lower covers inplace with Muzzle holes still apparent. As I would expect on gun removal. Also pics of a muzzleholed F8 with with wing racks!!!

So now it's Kettenhunde as well I have to answer to. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

All others? Factory built I say. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Bremspropeller
12-16-2011, 02:38 PM
If you are meaning planes of 10(Jabo) 26+2

No.
10.(Jabo)/ JG2 and 26 were designated Jabo-Staffeln.
They were not fighter-units.
They were the nucleus of what would become SKG 10 and thus one of the first dedicated Fw 190 Jabo-units.


Also JG2 Fighter Staffel also took part in at least one Jabo raid carrying bombs and not just as escort.

Doesn't surprise me at all.
The ETC 501, wich was first carried on the 190A-3/U3 (on later versions without an Umrüstsatz-designation), did allow that.

JSG72
12-16-2011, 03:53 PM
What!! (Jabo) means Jabo. No **** Sherlock. and Staffeln means Squadron.

Yes and "Luftwaffe Hit and Run Raiders" by Chris Goss. is also a good read. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Now what's the point you are trying to make again?
Something about Fighters in Designated fighter Staffeln being described as having their guns removed "In Field"

When Authors/Historians/FockeWulf manufacturers/Pilots/Loss recorders don't seem to be to bothered.

Also.If you have Kenneth A Merricks Luftwaffe Camouflage and markings Vols 1 and 2. You may then be able to comment on how easy it would be to paint the required blanking panels at "Field level"

I've just posted of seeing couple of examples of pics I have. which support that the MGFFs Could be removed and with original panels with holes. But they are not the ones that have been flaunted here to prove it. You know the ones that were "Factory Built". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Bremspropeller
12-16-2011, 04:23 PM
You may then be able to comment on how easy it would be to paint the required blanking panels at "Field level"

I have the impression that I already did that.


I've just posted of seeing couple of examples of pics I have. which support that the MGFFs Could be removed and with original panels with holes. But they are not the ones that have been flaunted here to prove it. You know the ones that were "Factory Built".

So we can agree on the issue that outer-guns could and would be taken out if fancied.
Great - it only took you 4 or 5 pages to come to the same conclusion as everybody else did. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Bremspropeller
12-16-2011, 04:48 PM
Loss reports are inconclusive and so are described as either A4/u4s

I don't think so http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


Something about Fighters in Designated fighter Staffeln being described as having their guns removed "In Field"


No:
Something abought fighters without outer guns, that could be both, removed in the field, and/ or have ben left out during production - as in "outer guns were a Rüstsatz in-between the A-2 and A-5".

It's actually not that hard to understand, after all.

JSG72
12-17-2011, 03:08 AM
And I say No Rausatz!Why need one for planes that never had guns fitted in the first place? And just removing them and leaving the covers intact. Does not require anything official! and loss reports are inconclusive to type and Werk nos don't prove anything.

That Fockewulf were building planes to RLM request and not recognised Factory paperwork.

Your idea of paint finish is nonsence

And also that You are still to produce anything.And have to conclude that you are purely fishing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif