Jump to content

Fw 190 D

  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

GonerNL #1 Posted 29 June 2020 - 09:57 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Advanced Member
  • 13353 battles
  • 2,993
  • Member since:

I finally specialized it !!

More or less postponed it because I love the 4x20mm (high RoF) guns and specialist says 30mm is 'top weapon' (lower RoF and much less range, yeah top).

Specced it anyway to get more speed - its unspecced speed is pathetic - and also the GOA for the 30mm so I can at least spray a bit.

Fly it like a heavy - stay high, prey on bombers and heavies, now & then swoop down on an unsuspecting fighter or GA - and it's very nice, so now I should try the Ta-152 a bit more.


Merkwuerdigliebe #2 Posted 30 June 2020 - 04:19 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 7301 battles
  • 140
  • Member since:
Ah, Dora! My second specced plane and still among the worst. Still have to realize what's WG's problem with FWs. Tier 5 should be a wunderplane and it's one of the worst tier 5 out there. Tier 7 should be a high alt interceptor, but in game we have this:  (not at all a faithful rendition, tho, since the log clearly climbs better than Dora).

Edited by Merkwuerdigliebe, 30 June 2020 - 04:21 AM.

GonerNL #3 Posted 30 June 2020 - 06:02 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Advanced Member
  • 13353 battles
  • 2,993
  • Member since:
Yeah, I wish there was some equipment to give a bit more alt. P-47 could use that too ... 

Aimless #4 Posted 30 June 2020 - 08:12 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 5240 battles
  • 556
  • Member since:
My Dora was ready to be specialized for some months, since then I was wondering if it would be worth it anyway. Last week I gave it a try - now I know it wasn't worth it :)

levlos #5 Posted 01 July 2020 - 08:38 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 7549 battles
  • 340
  • Member since:



This probably has to do with the stupid "multi-role" label that sticks like dog poo to aircraft. I wonder why WG is so dogmatic about it and wants to FORCE players to play aircraft exclusively in only one of the roles they were used in. Currently, "multi-role" means you are optimized for low altitude and must attack ground targets to make up for your inability to be used as an energy fighter. Yes, ahem, right, that would be fine if that were an accurate portrayal of design or real use. While I agree that planes without a supercharger like the P-39 would perfectly fit that bill, there are problems that arise when the multi-role plane has an engine that is optimized for high-altitude. There, the crap hits the turbo-charged fan.


For instance, the P-47 series and its earlier brethren (AP-4, successor to the XP-41 and the P-43,/ XP_44) had a  two-stage supercharger, the second part being a turbo-charger.


In general, the Flying Tigers were much impressed with the P-43. They liked its excellent speed at high altitude. This was something that their Curtiss Tomahawks lacked, having only a single stage supercharger. The little barrel-bellied P-43 made good power right up through 30,000 ft. The Tomahawk, on the other hand, was running out of breath by 20,000 ft.


"Kartveli decided to design the XP-47B fuselage around the large turbo-supercharger from the start, rather than to add it onto the aircraft later as sort of an afterthought. In order to preserve a streamlined fuselage with a small cross-section, the large turbo-supercharger was placed in the rear fuselage. It was fed by an air duct located beneath the large R-2800 engine. Engine exhaust gases were directed back to the rear fuselage in separate pipes to the turbine and were expelled through an exhaust under the rear tail. Ducted air was fed to a centrifugal impeller and was returned to the engine under pressure via an intercooler. The system that was durable and less susceptible to battle damage."


The P-47 was designed as a high-altitude interceptor: "the Thunderbolt’s speed and natural habitat (above 30,000 ft) presented additional challenges. ". It was only when its role was taken over by the P-51 that it was used in ground attack -not optimal, sure, but you got to use what you are given, right ?


About the Fw-190D


Focke-Wulf then concentrated on an improved high-altitude fighter variant, the "Fw 190C", with the DB 603 inline engine. Following an initial prototype adapted from an Fw 190B, six Fw 190C prototypes were built. They featured a DB 603 inline engine, an annular radiator that gave the engine some appearance of a radial installation, and a four-bladed propeller. The six final prototypes featured an elaborate turbocharger installation, with two fitted with a Hirth 9-2281 turbocharger and four with a DVL TK-11 turbocharger.

Fw 190C

The turbocharger scheme had some similarities to that on the US Republic P-47 Thunderbolt but wasn't as clean, resulting in a large assembly on the belly that gave the type the nickname "Kangaruh (Kangaroo)", since it suggested a kangaroo's pouch. The program was finally abandoned in the fall of 1943, the turbocharger systems having proved unreliable. (you can see a kit of the plane here)

Tank's engineering team was also working on another inline-powered variant, the "Fw 190D", in principle for the high-altitude fighter role. The Fw 190D was fitted with a Jumo 213A-1 engine providing 1,325 kW (1,775 HP), or 1,670 kW (2,240 HP) for short periods with MW 50 water-methanol boost.


Tank made it plain that he regarded the Jumo-powered Fw 190D-9 as an "interim solution", leading Luftwaffe pilots to believe that they were going to get an indifferent and clumsy lashup. Once they got their hands on the machine, they found out that the "Dora-Nine", as they called it, was a superb aircraft. It was faster, climbed more rapidly, and handled better than an Anton, and almost certainly the best piston fighter to be fielded in numbers by the Luftwaffe. The Dora-Nine proved to be a nasty handful for American P-51Ds and late-mark RAF Spitfires. Tank was just being fussy.


Compared to the Fw 190 D9 the Fw 190 D-13 can be differentiated by:

1 Lack of synchronised machine guns over the cowl, the fire power being compensated by a motor canon mounted between the engine V firing through the propeller boss.  (The most common Fw 190D-9 used Junkers Jumo 213A engines surplus from the bomber program that was abandoned post D-day and did not have the neccessary mounting provisions)

2 The Jumo 213F engine had a 3 speed two stage supercharger compared to the single stage two speed unit of the Jumo 213A of the Fw 190D-9. However unlike the 2 stage 3 speed Jumo 213E-1 of the Ta 152H (itself essentially a  Fw-190 with high aspect ratio large wings  wings)  there was no intercooler although high pressure water-methanol injection provided for charge cooling."


Unlike the Fw-190As, the "D" was a design clearly intended at intercepting the allied bomber streams at high altitude.


It is limiting and monomaniac to lump the P-47s, Fw 190s, F4U, Tempests into a single slot. The late use might have had things in common, but the planes clearly behaved in great different ways. I piloted the P-47s and was saddened that above 1200m the plane's performance was going down. Give us some different experiences.


Oh, and for god's sake, give us a real fighter-bomber armament for the Fw-190, or even Fw-190F or G version with real armament to play with.


"Fw 190A-5/U3

The A-5/U3 was a fighter bomber that became the basis of the Fw 190F-2. It carried extra armour and an ETC 501 bomb rack under the fuselage. It also had bomb racks under the wings, although once again there is some disagreement on what types. Most sources say the aircraft could carry up to 1,000kg/ 2,205lb of bombs, which would require it to be able to carry 250kg under each wing. However the type appears to have carried two ETC 50 bomb racks under each wing, for a total of four 50kg bombs under the wings. This would give the U-3 a total payload of 700kg."


Fw 190 G-1: The first Fw 190 Gs were based on the Fw 190 A-4/U8 JaBo Rei's. Initial testing found that if all but two wing root mounted 20 mm MG 151 cannons (with reduced ammunition load) were removed, the Fw 190 G-1 (as it was now called) could carry a 250 kg (550 lb) or 500 kg (1,100 lb) bomb on the centerline and, via an ETC 250 rack, up to a 250 kg (550 lb) bomb under each wing.


Now, that is a real multi-role fighter-bomber we are talking about !


But, sigh, one can always dream...

- You can't shoot me! I have a very low threshold of death. My doctor says I can't have bullets enter my body at any time.-

- Handle these capsules with care. Dr. Noah's bacillus is highly contagious. This germ, when distributed in the atmosphere will make all women beautiful and destroy all men over 4'6."-

ApartClassic - 'may all your certainly illegitimate progeny suffer pox or at least perpetual flu'

apartclassic #6 Posted 01 July 2020 - 01:43 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Advanced Member
  • 26561 battles
  • 1,189
  • Member since:

That's what happens when one starts to modify core game's mechanics, to address other issues. The initial balance of low/mi/high altitude planes, with the class division, coupled with agility/speed impact of ordnance, coupled with stall mechanics, was rather clear in terms of rock/paper/scissors. True, some decisions as to particular planes chosen for each class or role were controversial, but in part we owe that to history, not WG itself (as the classes of planes or clear definition of their roles were evolving during WW2 and later, plus certain air forces composing their strenghts in different ways, like e.g. Soviets basically ignoring the whole strategic bomber thing, because US covered that angle). You know what I mean, I've carped on this subject often enough.


Suffice to say, complete inaccuracy of how Fw190 or P-47 behave in the current build, is rather dissapointing.

You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day


Frateras #7 Posted 04 July 2020 - 01:37 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 10687 battles
  • 800
  • [JV44] JV44
  • Member since:
The FW-D can be fixed in this game. But it's a long way to do so. I go for maneuverability and distance shooting not for speed although it's a good idea to fly straight forward if a spitfire survives the first approach. (Somehow they never looses their maneuverability even with 70% less points.) They all say stay on speed but I like the breaks for a faster turn. But its about boost management. It's really not convincing at high altitude 2500 m with permanent boost.

Edited by Frateras, 04 July 2020 - 01:53 AM.

Black Ships Ate The Sky                                                                                                                              Exterminating Angel

Lucifer over London

30 Seconds Over Tokyo


The Mercy Seat                                                                                                                                                                    Room To Live

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users