Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Up-rate the engines ASAP, via increased boost. Works fine under 6 km.
Remove the fuselage MGs, retain 4 canons (hopefully all 4 MG 151/20E) since there are plenty of Il-2 and Pe-2 around, plus LL A-20s and B-25s. A more streamlined belly rack will also be good, for less of the speed loss.
The BMW 801D was fully rated (2700 rpm, 1.42 ata) by October 1942. About in the same time the Fw-190 was introduced in the Eastern Front, and was certainly better than the La-5, or anything the Soviets were able to throw in. The La-5F evened that a bit in second half of 1943.
Fw-190s used overbosting via C3 injection by that time, tough the system seem to be limited for Jabo versions only, and only for 1st supercharger gear. So a more prolific use of that system will benefit all of the Fw-190s, also using it in 2nd S/C gear. The 'plain' overboosting was tested in second half of 1943 (~ 1st Sept 1943), so usage before 1944 was probably out of question. The C3 injection involves smaller rise of cylinder temperatures, the 'plain' overboosting is simpler and uses less fuel.
What is C3 injection and how is it different than normal boost?
The 4 cannon set-up has about twice the firepower vs. the 2 cannons and 2 LMGs. The fuselage MGs might be accurate, they don't mean anything for killing an Il-2 or any of decent twin the VVS was operating.
Erich Hartmann made a carrier of downing Sturmoviks in his Bf109 whose heaviest weapon was the MG151
I'm not clear on what you're saying here. What was the reason the A-8 was slower? I thought it was the extra armor, addition of the 30mm cannons, a larger fuel tank, and more powerful, heavier engine. Not sure if the new canopy changed the aerodynamics.The MG 131 installation involves adding the drag, that will be as great as 2 extra cannons? Part of the reason the Fw 190A-8 was 6-10 km/h slower than the 190A-6/A-5. And it still has maybe 60% of firepower than a 4-cannon Fw-190.
Problem was that there was maybe 1% of German (or other country's) pilots that were as good pilots/marksmen as Bubbi was. The run-on-the-mill pilot needed plenty of firepower vs. the target Hartmann will kill with a single cannon.
We can recall that Germans were not shy to use the gondola cannons on the Bf 109, despite the known performance maneuverability loss induced.
I'm not clear on what you're saying here. What was the reason the A-8 was slower? I thought it was the extra armor, addition of the 30mm cannons, a larger fuel tank, and more powerful, heavier engine. Not sure if the new canopy changed the aerodynamics.
List of Focke-Wulf Fw 190 variants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bubi was only as good as he was due to getting close where he did not need to be a marksman and he was coached on that by more senior pilots, so it was not unique to him.
In fact I've seen FW190 handbooks that recommend the same.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the gondola guns were only used against Western heavy bombers (the viermots) and not on the Eastern Front. Bubi was only using standard gun layouts in the East, sans gondolas. The only reason other pilots needed the extra guns was due to opening up too far away and wasting a lot of ammo trying for long range kills; basically using 'spray and pray' tactics.
Then the argument is what is more valuable, the higher velocity Mg131 with greater accuracy due to mounting and speed, or the hitting power and greater speed of the 2 additional cannons in wing mount?The A-8 have had the same engine as, for example, an A-4 - BMW 801D. It was allowed for over-boost, however. 30mm cannons were not a standard on the A-8, nor it was a heavier armor suite. The extra fuel tank will cost some speed, indeed. Here is how much the MG 131 vs. MG 17 cost in speed (source):
From this loss is about 3 mph (5 km/h) from the two additional MG 151 runs and ~ 6 mph (10 km/h) due to the changes for the installation of the MG 131 cover front windscreen (see Flight Report Fw 190/861 with 2 MG 17 + 4 MG 151).
I'm not saying a single would be enough, rather that a pair of MG151/20s in the wing roots and a pair of MG131s in the fuselage would suffice, especially if they closed in enough (IIRC within 300m for best effect).Hence I've mentioned 'pilot/marksman' - you need to have at least one of the two if you want a single cannon to suffice. Not granted for any airforce of ww2.
They were in here:Could you please point me to the excerpts?
Any idea how common they were in the East? Also when did they get ahold of them? They tested a Me410 too, but AFAIK those weren't used in the East either, but were captured at the end of the war.The Soviets have tested the captured Bf-109G2 with gondolas, and same 109s were used on the MTO. LW certainly judged the Bf-109 to be under-armed as-is, hence such boost in the firepower even if it involves speed, RoC and roll penalties.
Then the argument is what is more valuable, the higher velocity Mg131 with greater accuracy due to mounting and speed, or the hitting power and greater speed of the 2 additional cannons in wing mount?
The Mg151/20 was 700mps velocity, the Mg131 was 750mps.
I'm not saying a single would be enough, rather that a pair of MG151/20s in the wing roots and a pair of MG131s in the fuselage would suffice, especially if they closed in enough (IIRC within 300m for best effect).
Any idea how common they were in the East? Also when did they get ahold of them? They tested a Me410 too, but AFAIK those weren't used in the East either, but were captured at the end of the war.
...
I would also propose fowler type combat flaps but as far as i know the german did not ever developed such devices
The ultimate performing Fw would be all the above in combination with Db603 with C3,( no extentions,standart A5 fuselage)
I believe the 190 had fairly high wing loading. for dog fighting under 20K feet I would remove the MG/FF's or later the MG151/20's from the outer wings to ease the wing load. Definitely keep the fuselage guns.