How about a post July 1944 version?

[DD_Fenrir]

Whilst I laud any inclusion that can make any aircraft in DCS more flexible and help represent a wider operational period it is worth pointing out that just because the A-8 is cleared to use EN boost from "July" (that's a very vague date) does not mean that on the 1st July 1944 all Fw 190A-8s across all fronts suddenly and magically would or should have this available.

 

For one, the Jagdwaffe were busy having their backs ripped open in Normandy, their base movements chaotic and the dissemination of this information to unit level highly speculative, and even if received, it could be rightly questioned as to the priority this modification would be afforded when they were under almost daily attack on the ground, undoubtedly struggling for spares and manpower to keep the aircraft they had airworthy as is.

 

I suspect this modification would have been far more representative among the Fw 190A units as units withdrew and re-equipped in August and September.

[Blackbird12]

7 hours ago, Bozon said:

I don’t see why we can’t have early/late Anton variants like the P-47D30 has.

 

Another thing that will make A-8 a better fighter is the ability to remove the outboard guns. They are great against bombers but an overkill against fighters for the performance hit you get (based on other sims, so pinch of salt).

 

I can't agree more, it saves a lot of weight to remove those guns

I suggest you to try to take only 50 % of ammuntions which saves about 150 kg if I remember correctly, the first time I tried that I was really impressed by the climb rate change (notably after take off while climbing to 5-6km), the aircraft feel way less heavy, I can only imagine the result with more weight removed and reduced drag

[MAD-MM]

1 hour ago, DD_Fenrir said:

Whilst I laud any inclusion that can make any aircraft in DCS more flexible and help represent a wider operational period it is worth pointing out that just because the A-8 is cleared to use EN boost from "July" (that's a very vague date) does not mean that on the 1st July 1944 all Fw 190A-8s across all fronts suddenly and magically would or should have this available.

 

For one, the Jagdwaffe were busy having their backs ripped open in Normandy, their base movements chaotic and the dissemination of this information to unit level highly speculative, and even if received, it could be rightly questioned as to the priority this modification would be afforded when they were under almost daily attack on the ground, undoubtedly struggling for spares and manpower to keep the aircraft they had airworthy as is.

 

I suspect this modification would have been far more representative among the Fw 190A units as units withdrew and re-equipped in August and September.

The modfication was actually done in 30 minutes by the Ground Crew was not lot of work. Posted that Document a while back in the MW50 or not discussion. Not like retrofiting complete MW50/C3 Installation. Only the Pressure Regulator was modified to run full boost that could provided by the supercharger,  mechanical Control unit of the fw190 was able to adjust fuel mixture accordingly. Think after the clearence of the EN Boost the crews quickly modified this in July. 

 

But anyway dont think this Future EN Boost or removing wing cannons will come in the near Future.

 

[Ala13_ManOWar]

You'll have that option in the form of Fw190F-8, and G-8 which removes also cowl guns, when they come. Performance wise, I'm not sure that'll be what you think, but maybe. For the A-8 variant, like an "option" to remove outer wing cannons, yeaaahhh, nope… this isn't a Thunder of a War mates. Pilots IRL didn't have an "option" to add/remove weaponry from flight to flight in a daily basis. "If you remove things the aeroplane flies better", of course they do, look at the TF-51 compared to regular P-51, but you don't want a TF-51 without all the armour and weaponless in combat, right? The basic model is what it is, and Fw190A-8 was what it was for the purpose it was. I believe removing things for the sake of "playability" wasn't a real life option for the pilots.

 

S!

[MAD-MM]

@Ala13_ManOWar removing the Cannons was actually a thing on the channel front...can not tell how widespread it was but it is not a complete sience fiction.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Yep, but remember Fw190F-8 is the factory name, the field modification was Fw190A-8/U3 same as all F models, so still "A-8" but it was actually an F-8 and so many times those models are mixed because that German stubbornness with picky names for the same thing, when not new plates for a rebuilt aircraft. The well known Fw190F-8  in Smithsonian (was it Smithsonian?) started life as A-4, then rebuilt A-5, then rebuilt A-8, then rebuilt F-8 and nobody can say (specially the caption author in that pic) what the actual model it was without looking at the plates. So, just looking at the pic a non outer canons is a field, or factory, modified F-8 ground attack aircraft, not a proper A-8 fighter.

 

S!

Edited August 3, 2021 by Ala13_ManOWar

[xvii-Dietrich]

10 hours ago, Bozon said:

I don’t see why we can’t have early/late Anton variants like the P-47D30 has.

 

 

Well, Nick Grey is not a big fan of the LW aircraft (ref), so I doubt it will ever be a high priority. At one point, there was talk about an F8/G8 variant, but that went quiet, and then the A8 moved from EA to released. We can't even get bugs fixed, so I think a new variant seems, sadly, overly-optimistic.

 

10 hours ago, Bozon said:

Another thing that will make A-8 a better fighter is the ability to remove the outboard guns. They are great against bombers but an overkill against fighters for the performance hit you get (based on other sims, so pinch of salt).

 

I agree with you. It would be a great thing to have and it would increase the range of the aircraft (which, in the absence of an F8/G8, is something I would appreciate). I'd even go as far as to request the option to remove _all_ the guns, but as far as I know, there is only historical evidence for the outer wing guns being removed.

 

 

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Yeah, but the difference is LW aircraft are a way more hairy subject whenever you search for info. Not that easy, and even P-47 was a pain in the ass for wind tunnel data. People usually say it's just copy/paste, but I believe it's quite more complicated than that if you try to keep it out of speculation.

 

S!

[S.E.Bulba]

Fw190 A8 Engine performance missing - Bugs and Problems - ED Forums (eagle.ru).

Цитата

Edit: adding two pages from the FW190A8 manual to this…

@141-Emperor, sorry, but are you sure that these are pages from the "FW190A8 manual"? It's just very similar to pages 13–15 of the D. (Luft) T.2190 A-5/A-6 Teil 7.
 

Скрытый текст

Original in Russian

 

@141-Emperor, извините, но Вы уверены в том, что это страницы из «руководства FW190A8»? Просто это очень похоже на страницы 13–15 из D. (Luft) T.2190 A-5/A-6 Teil 7.

 

[Cunctator]

These pages in the other thread say that the C3 injection is only intended for fighter bombers and altitudes below 1000 m, thus the section is not really relevant for the A series fighter version until ED eventually decides the time for the F8/G8 has come.

[grafspee]

Late Antons got increased ratings to 1.58/1.65 for low/high blower, without any additional injections.

[Lynchsl62]

Excellent presentation on Luftwaffe Fuel and Engine Development in WW2 especially regarding the limits on late FW-190 Manifold Pressure despite high fuel octane ratings.

 

Overall the more that I can learn about the luftwaffe is that they were not in the same league as the Allies, somewhat similar the IJAAF and the IJN - excellent training at the start of the war then overwhelmed by the scale and industrial demands of the war. Luftwaffe was further hindered by wasted effort on too many wonder weapon projects/blind alleys

 

[NineLine]

On 8/3/2021 at 11:46 AM, xvii-Dietrich said:

Well, Nick Grey is not a big fan of the LW aircraft (ref), so I doubt it will ever be a high priority.

 

Sorry to dig up a slightly older post but based on him raving about Allied aircraft in the GR video?

[141-Emperor]

Am 13.8.2021 um 21:20 schrieb S.E.Bulba:

Fw190 A8 Engine performance missing - Bugs and Problems - ED Forums (eagle.ru).

@141-Emperor, sorry, but are you sure that these are pages from the "FW190A8 manual"? It's just very similar to pages 13–15 of the D. (Luft) T.2190 A-5/A-6 Teil 7.
 

  Inhalt verstecken

Original in Russian

 

@141-Emperor, извините, но Вы уверены в том, что это страницы из «руководства FW190A8»? Просто это очень похоже на страницы 13–15 из D. (Luft) T.2190 A-5/A-6 Teil 7.

 

Sorry for the late response. 
Afaik these are from an early A8 manual. They are missing the handle for the Notleistung that later A8s had.
I might be able to post some later A8 manuals soon, someone I know is going to get some originals from an archive.

[S.E.Bulba]

43 минуты назад, 141-Emperor сказал:

Afaik these are from an early A8 manual.

I believe that you are wrong. Apparently you have provided pages 13–15 of the following Manual.

27.08.2021 в 06:29, Krez сказал:

http://degnans.com/markd/Fw-190A5 Part 7 Engine.pdf

 

Скрытый текст

Original in Russian

 

Я полагаю, что Вы ошибаетесь. Судя по всему Вы привели страницы 13–15 из следующего Руководства по эксплуатации.

 

[Flanker35M]

S!

A bit of a wish here too. Outer wing guns were removed by many pilots in a lot of squadrons. An exception would be JG300 for example that was tasked for bomber intercept. But JG11, 26, 54 etc. had planes with removed outer guns even in their earlier A models. Removing the guns and ammo would save about 178kg of weight, increase performance and make rolling snappier among other things. Even many 190A-9 had their outer guns removed by ground crew. I doubt it would take ED long to implenment this?

Engine. At july 1944 FW190A-8 was to get the improved 801TU engine replacing the 801D2. New engine was fully compatible requiring just replacement. As an intermediate measure parts from the TU engine could be installed on the D2 engine upgrading it. At the same time came the clearance for higher boost levels. Add this to the above mentioned outer gun removal and the 190A-8 is all of the sudden a more capable plane. Not the slug every single game up to date models it. Priller flew 190 exclusively and got most of his kills in the 190A against Spitfires of various marks, never shot down by one

Another neato feature for the 190A would be the bubble canopy, same that was used on the 190D-9. It is exactly the same canopy assembly. It came later in autumn of 1944, but was more or less standard after that in new planes. 

Saying it is not in the timeline of WW2 module. Well, we have planes and models that were not in use at time of Overlord, so kind of a moot excuse. And lacking even more of planes as well. 

[Marduk879]

On 2/23/2024 at 8:11 AM, Flanker35M said:

S!

A bit of a wish here too. Outer wing guns were removed by many pilots in a lot of squadrons. An exception would be JG300 for example that was tasked for bomber intercept. But JG11, 26, 54 etc. had planes with removed outer guns even in their earlier A models. Removing the guns and ammo would save about 178kg of weight, increase performance and make rolling snappier among other things. Even many 190A-9 had their outer guns removed by ground crew. I doubt it would take ED long to implenment this?

Engine. At july 1944 FW190A-8 was to get the improved 801TU engine replacing the 801D2. New engine was fully compatible requiring just replacement. As an intermediate measure parts from the TU engine could be installed on the D2 engine upgrading it. At the same time came the clearance for higher boost levels. Add this to the above mentioned outer gun removal and the 190A-8 is all of the sudden a more capable plane. Not the slug every single game up to date models it. Priller flew 190 exclusively and got most of his kills in the 190A against Spitfires of various marks, never shot down by one

Another neato feature for the 190A would be the bubble canopy, same that was used on the 190D-9. It is exactly the same canopy assembly. It came later in autumn of 1944, but was more or less standard after that in new planes. 

Saying it is not in the timeline of WW2 module. Well, we have planes and models that were not in use at time of Overlord, so kind of a moot excuse. And lacking even more of planes as well. 

Exactly this. +1

1) Implementing the Erhöhte Notleistung(EN) - This is the bare minimum i expect to be implemented on our A8. The boost was achieved by at first tricking the Komandogerat to accept a higher ATA and by a boost fuel circuit that circumvented it enabling the higher ATA. This modification was tested and distributed to squadrons shortly after the introduction of A8 in February 1944.

The date of July 1944 marks the implementation of this boost system into the production itself in production plants meaning every Fw-190A8 leaving the factory in July 44 and after had EN installed in it BY DEFAULT.

Interesting fact #1- The EN implementation into factory production changed how it looked inside the cockpit - the classic red pull handle was completely removed. The EN boost was implemented directly into the throttle in a similar fashion the MW-50 boost was integrated on throttle in Bf-109. Pilots no longer had to pull the red handle, activation of EN required simply pushing the throttle into the very top position (same system as modern jets use for entering into afterburner stage - perhaps this is where it originaly comes from).

Interesting fact #1 - The EN boost to the BMW engines happened two more times in a history of Fw-190 (3 times in total) further increasing the manifold pressure. Every time this was achieved by refining the engine (making it able to survive the increased pressure) and allowing the Komandogerat to provide and control the increased ATA values.

FW190A8.pdf

2) C3 injection for Fw-190F8/G8 - It is needed to mention this boost system HAS NO CONNECTION to the EN boost. They are two completely separate systems and C3 injection even predates the EN. It is needed to distinguish between them to retain clarity on this topic.

I expect this injection boost system to be implement when/if the F8/G8 releases.

 

3) MW-50 and GM-1 boost systems - I do not support these systems being implemented for A8 at all. Theres simply not enough evidence supporting its use operationaly on Antons in any way apart from the development branch (which was the base for the D-9 variant and other testbeds)

 

Edited April 26, 2024 by Marduk879

[Pilpoil65]

On 3/26/2020 at 5:01 AM, Al-Azraq said:

ED already stated in the Newsletter that they are going to introduce F-8 and G-8 variants so I am sure injection will come but only with those models.

4 years later, still hasn't happened...

[felixx75]

3 hours ago, Pilpoil65 said:

4 years later, still hasn't happened...

WW2 priority currently has the F6F and the WW2 Marianas Map

Edited May 9, 2024 by felixx75

[Pilpoil65]

On 5/9/2024 at 12:36 AM, felixx75 said:

WW2 priority currently has the F6F and the WW2 Marianas Map

 

Those things weren't the priority 4 years ago though XD

[felixx75]

10 hours ago, Pilpoil65 said:

Those things weren't the priority 4 years ago though XD

But that doesn't change the fact that these are the current priorities...

[Lyrode]

Anton is considered finished by ED, so don't expect anything soon.

Even Mossi is still in EA, and with F6F and pacific coming, the to do list is just too long for any Anton change or F8.

[felixx75]

I wouldn't buy another version of a 190. There are enough other interesting warbirds (apart from the upcoming ones) before you implement another variant of an existing module.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Not to mention you would be as wasted in front of your enemies with that version as with the one we have. The plane is what it is, a 1941 airframe which mostly kept its performance well into 1945 without major changes aside from D and Ta versions. I like 190, but enthusiasts have to face that reality and fact.

Edited June 13, 2024 by Ala13_ManOWar

[Slippa]

It’s the only prop I own that I haven’t flown really. I’ve got two 190s I don’t fly so wouldn’t buy another one.

Nothing against it, I just moved onto other modules for a bit.

If we could have anything of the period we could all come up with better candidates. If we were to be getting different variants of stuff we already have, let’s have a Griffon engine . We need more props though, always.