All-Aircraft-Simulations
Re FW190 A6 A8 Bullit Proof Canopy Glass Plates - Printable Version

+- All-Aircraft-Simulations (https://allaircraftsimulations.com)
+-- Forum: IL2 MODS Download & Discussion (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=267)
+--- Forum: IL-2 4.09m (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=348)
+---- Forum: IL2 MODS Discussion Section 4.09m (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=292)
+---- Thread: Re FW190 A6 A8 Bullit Proof Canopy Glass Plates (/showthread.php?tid=52760)

Pages: 1 2

Re FW190 A6 A8 Bullit Proof Canopy Glass Plates - RDDR - 27.02.2008

Is it possible?
As you can see the cockpit armor plate.These aircraft most often had bullit proof side glass plates as well.
Just wondering if it is feasible?

[Image: A6.jpg]

- Klemm - 27.02.2008

Quote:These aircraft most often had bullit proof side glass plates as well.
Only the Sturmbock variants. And there were not many of them. And such a small armor plate on the side wouldn't bring much in terms of protection and would also obstruct the view. But if the modified aircraft could be added (not replace the original.), then this would be a nice addition.
But the in-cockpit view would have to be modified as well. Don't know exactly, but this could turn out difficult.

- FANATIC MODDER - 27.02.2008

sturmbocks had the GM1 system which is not available in the IL-2

- Mamutak - 27.02.2008

FANATIC MODDER Wrote:sturmbocks had the GM1 system which is not available in the IL-2
well...you shoud try Ta-152H above 9km and you will see that it has GM1 :wink:

- GentleKiller - 27.02.2008

Mamutak Wrote:
FANATIC MODDER Wrote:sturmbocks had the GM1 system which is not available in the IL-2
well...you shoud try Ta-152H above 9km and you will see that it has GM1 :wink:

yep

- RDDR - 27.02.2008

Thanks guys,it was a thought.
I realize that Sturmbocks carried this glass and that it wasn't a normal install but thought it would be kinda kool.
I guess most of you have seen that photo of the pilot climbing out of one of these aircraft in the FW Squadron signal pub.

- Daimler - 27.02.2008

[Image: gerthssturmbock.jpg]

- MrOblongo - 27.02.2008

FANATIC MODDER Wrote:sturmbocks had the GM1 system which is not available in the IL-2

109E-7/Z and Ta-152H over 9k have GM-1

- Skunkmeister - 27.02.2008

Gawd. Cant you people read anything right? He said GM-1 is not available in the IL-2, and he is 100% right.


Tongue

- FANATIC MODDER - 27.02.2008

Thanks Skunkmeister. To make clear to everybody, The Fw 190A-8 that were sturmbocks had the GM-1 system installed. Actually if you read carefully the main difference between the Fw 190A-7 and the Fw 190A-8 was the re-design of the fuselage in order to accept an extra tank which was used as a MW50, a GM-1 or (more rarely) an extra fuel tank.In IL-2 neither the MW50 or GM-1 versions are present.The Fw 190A-8 in IL-2 runs in 1.65 ATA because the B4 fuel version is modelled.There is no chance that a Fw 190A-8 Sturmbock was ever used with a B4 fuel AND without a GM-1 system, the way it is modelled in IL-2.So if you want something more than just visual modelling of how sturmbock really was, you should be aware that there is a long way to go.

- JV69_BADA - 28.02.2008

FANATIC MODDER Wrote:Thanks Skunkmeister. To make clear to everybody, The Fw 190A-8 that were sturmbocks had the GM-1 system installed. Actually if you read carefully the main difference between the Fw 190A-7 and the Fw 190A-8 was the re-design of the fuselage in order to accept an extra tank which was used as a MW50, a GM-1 or (more rarely) an extra fuel tank.In IL-2 neither the MW50 or GM-1 versions are present.The Fw 190A-8 in IL-2 runs in 1.65 ATA because the B4 fuel version is modelled.There is no chance that a Fw 190A-8 Sturmbock was ever used with a B4 fuel AND without a GM-1 system, the way it is modelled in IL-2.So if you want something more than just visual modelling of how sturmbock really was, you should be aware that there is a long way to go.

Confusedhock: Confusedhock: Confusedhock:

None of the 190 using the BMW 801D-2 ever used B4 fuel.Only the BMW C-0->C2 used the B4.
So, since the A-3 version, all the 190 flew with C3 fuel.

A higher mannifold pressure was actually obtained with this fuel and slightly changing the compression ration of the BMWC2...and some other changes what gave the D-2 Engine!

Tha maniffold pressure increased through the war just because of the developpement/evolution of the engine, just like in the allied planes happend the same and because of the C3 injection into the compressor to minimize the knocking effect.

The A4 version was build to allow the use of the MW50 but due to production problems of the kits, it never happened, but the A4 fuselage was already ready to accept a 115 Litres fuel tank behind the pilot.

The mw50 was back on rail with the A8 version but it seems none has flew operationaly with it, so it received the fuel tank in the fuselage behind the pilot, but due to the changes of the CoG, the ETC501 was moved 20cm forward to compensate.Some of the A8 had this fuel tank removed and the ETC501 was replaced by an ERLA ETC for a jettisonable fueltank. Those planes were only used as fighter, they hadn't any JABO capacities.

- FANATIC MODDER - 01.03.2008

sorry but I understood the evolution of the A-series a bit differently

Q1: Why then it existed a A-5 1.65 ata?
Q2: Why the performance lines of A-5 1.65 and A-8 are similar, with just slight drop in performance (because of the extra weight I presume- should I show a screenshot from IL-2 compare?)
Q3: What was the problem and the MW50 was not used in the A-8 version?
Q4: If the A-4 had already provision for the MW50, what was the difference then between the A-7 and A-8 versions?

- JV69_BADA - 01.03.2008

R1: The only A5 that used D2 1.65 were those overhauled. getting new engine.
(maybe that's why they are tagged as late 43 by oleg)
Those planes were JABO's, there were tuned to develop the max power around 1000m.
They should loose the most of their power above 3000m just like the Spit Mk5LF-ccc
called CLipped-CRapped-Cropped.
The pb is that in the game, it doesn't happend! For exemple, the Spit Lf ccc should devlop
something like a max of 600HP above 3000m!.

R2: because oleg focked it up? (see R1)

R3: Because the C3 injection did the job for allowing an emergency power without the weight
penalty of all the MW50 system.

R4:difference btwn A7 and A8 are : serial(factory) mounting of the 3rd fuel-tank behind the pilot,
moving the etc501 20cm forward to compensate the CG and moving the pitot tube on the end
of the wing instead of the middle.and something with the radio...That's all!


The 190 didn't evoluate as the others planes. The main changes were mostly light-structural ones
and weaponnery.The engine stayed the same but did increase it's admission from 1.42 to 1.85ATA
through the years...and then came the Dora...

- FANATIC MODDER - 01.03.2008

sorry, but really difficult to believe what you wrote.
The weight penalty was already there since the installment of the extra tank and the weight of the system itself was not that much that could create a significant performance deficit when the system was not working, while it created a real performance difference when it was working.The main problem was the increase of fuel consumption when the system was working.I cannot think of anything else that problems with the engine life of the BMW801 and operational restrictions that could make its operational usefulness marginal: For example the limit of 6 min max MW50 power/10 min without MW50 that was -roughly- applied in the DB605 to be reduced in a level that was decided as dissapointing. A way to ensure this could have been via manifold pressure -which by coincidence, can help you reduce detonation, therefore use lesser fuel.MW50 was a smart way to extract more power out of engines that were using lesser quality of fuel but not so as the quality of the fuel is improved (I am in a bit of difficulty with the Bf 109K-4 C3,I think that in order to achieve this improvement in power there should have been various improvements in the engine). Fw 190s had already a hard job against La-5s in low alt, I don't think that anyone in the german fighter command would had ever thought that MW50less Fw190s were "doing the job".
Now about A-5 1.65s, I think that we all know that the main difference in the power/alt graph is made by the difference in supercharging, and we haven't been informed for a change as such in the 1.65, neither a change in ATA could result in a change in the performance curve by itself.In fact, a reduction in ATA is an indication that lesser fuel was used.

- JV69_BADA - 02.03.2008

it's not a question of beleiving, it's a question of reading.

It's simple: A2->A7 included : no third fuel tank
A8+A9= third fuel tank (sometimes removed on A8-Field Convertion)

Why bother on a MW50 if the C3 compressor injected system allowed a higher ATA without
having about 115Kg penalty (third fueltank system empty).
Tho role of the MW50 is not to GIVE power, it's the same as the C3 injection: allowing the engine to turn faster with a higher load without having any knocking! what means without destroying the engine when it's running on full capacity. = giving a higher power that the angine is able to sustain on maximal continuous power.

Here a link of the 190A8 pilot manual, it's in english, so it's much easier to understand than in german, at least for me :wink:
http://files.filefront.com/fw190a8small ... einfo.html