Blackbird12

I agree with you, but some variables can be missed and affect the TAS (conversion between IAS and TAS)

I don't think it's very fair to use only one source, and as I say above on a test with a D9 they managed to be 5 km/h slower than calculations, so many things can change the speed in real test flight, I think we can assume that calculations are better but a good indication, because calculations can be very precise if we take a littlle margine of course, (there is nothing more precise than mathematics I think) All sources calculations, test flight should be observed. For the d9 http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_D-9_210001_FB_Nr3.pdf For traduction look for Flight Report FW 190 D-9/210001 Nr. 3 on http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190d9test.html I will take one more look on the others versions like A4 A5, the main différence is mg131 instead of mg17 and and mg151 in the wing instead of mg FF

So how do we know these are calculated values ? Because for me "Flugleistung" is "Flight performance" and that says what it says, and for the test flight (notably the 4 we have on http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a8.html) we don't even know how they could transform (accurately) the values from IAS to TAS (wind, temperature, airspeed indicator accuracy), the state of the radiators flaps (cause I think they can't go with ATA 1.42 2700rmp with them closed for too long) so wich is the more imprecise ? I think we should take all of these charts and make something like an average. I would like to add that in a test on the A8 they changed the supercharger caused it failed and the plane gained 10 km/h, a "little" change that changed the speed, the aircraft was the same.

You confused the 1.58 and 1.65 at sea level, the 1.42 et 1.58 are the only possible at sea level, 1,65 is for second superchagarger so ~ Level 0 to 1500 meter = 1.58 for the maximum speed and ~ 2300 meter to 5500 is 1.65 for the maximum speed too, the gap is for the speed difference between 1.42 and 1.58 or 1.65. January 1944 2700 @ 1,42 ATA 555 km/h 2700 @ 1,58 ATA 578 km/h March 1944 2400 @ 1,32 ATA 530 km/h 2700 @ 1,42 ATA 555 km/h 2700 @ 1,58 ATA 580 km/h May 1944 graph of bad quality, but seems the same like the one from March 1944 October 1944 2700 @ 1,42 ATA 545 km/h 2700 @ 1,58 ATA 565 km/h January 1945 2700 @ 1,42 ATA 545 km/h 2700 @ 1,58 ATA 565 km/h Unknown one 2700 @ ? ATA 556 km/h For this one very hard to tell if it's a 1,42 or the 1,58 but when there is 1,58 they specify it There is also the calculated estimation wich tell 558 km/h @ SL @ 1,42 ATA. In a test flight for a Fw 190 D9, they managed to be 5 km/h slower that calculeted estimations (with polished surface) but I read a lot of test flight for 190 and speed are always differents, never the same in same configuration. I think those charts are for aircraft in their best configuration for the moment, and with closed radiator flaps and maybe polished surface.

I can't be confident with secondary sources since almost all of them speak about MW50 on the A8 wich never had it ( I don't say it is the case of this one) I have some sources form wich I conclude the 550 without EN : I post them in the chronogical order January 1944 March 1944 ( I attach the pdf to the post) May 1944 (the document is from november 1944 but you can see may 1944 on the bottom of it The other sources from october 1944 and january 1945 tell for 545 km/h I have this one too but don't know the date ​ The speed seems to drop gradually, since the war end approach so maybe the production quality or small changes on the aircraft ? I can't tell Sorry for the long post but looked a lot for A8 and want to share, I have looked for the other version too, wich are a little bit faster due to better aerodynamics (less and smaller weapons) Fw_190_A-8_15-3-44.pdf

From my research, A8 should fly at about 550-555 km/h (SL) without EN and 570-580 km/h (SL)with it and if we could remove the outboard mg, we can add 6-7 km/h, so it could be very competitve (in fighter role) with or without the EN

I think the P-47 is way too fast, from the little I investigated, I can't tell for the spitfire and the 109 but I searched a lot for 190 A8, and the A8 is still missing ~ 10 km/h and (sea level at least).I don't want to say that allied fighter are biased (for the p47), but those numbers seems to be the worst we can find on performance charts for the A8

You have used IAS instead of TAS but you're on sea level, so anyways, it seems to lack power, about 15 km/h less at 1.32 ATA

This one http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-25oct44.jpg And this one says 578 km/h http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-12jan44.jpg I don't understand the gap on the graph and why there is a so big gap between graphs with the same plane maybe I forgot something ?

I think it's still a little bit too slow, it should be able to go at 558 hm/h at sl and some source says more than 560 km/h (without 1.58 ata) I think the quality of the aircraft can easily change his effieciency

Hope they will still upgrade the A-8

Really interesting, it seems to be the Erhöhte Notleistung but i thought it was mounted only in july 44. I saw we could see the installation by a yellow circle on the cowl It's frome herehttps://www.deutscheluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Motoren/BMW/Leistungssteigerung/BMW%20801%20D%20Leistungssteigerung.html

So it's the first time I post something on the forum but I do it because I think that the Buccaneer and the Sea vixen are two very different aircraft : the Sea vixen was a fighter and the Buccaneer an attack aircraft and I think that the Sea Vixen could be a good opponent to the Mig19 (and maybe the Mig21). For me those aircraft are brother, they need each other.