I need more info on the 190A-8/R2 and A-8/R8. I'm looking to make one of each, using either Revell or Hasegawa 1/72 A-8s as donors. I know both replaced the outer MG151's with MK108's and the R8 had the Rammjager armour as well.
I know about the etch set for the Rammjager armour, so thats ok. My questions relate to the MK108 installation.
First off - how much did the barrels protrude from the wing? I know they are shorter barrelled than the MG151 but not sure how much so.
Secondly is about the covers/shell ejector housings on the top and bottom of the wings. The MG151's has some kind of rectangular cover on top - should this still be there with the MK108? If not what should it look like? Same goes for the underside covers for the MK108 - I have no idea what they should look like.
Can anyone help?
thanks
Mike
Hosted by Rowan Baylis
Focke Wulf 190 question
MikeMx
Joined: May 22, 2008
KitMaker: 649 posts
AeroScale: 434 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 - 10:49 PM UTC
ShawnM
Joined: November 24, 2008
KitMaker: 564 posts
AeroScale: 510 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 09, 2010 - 03:51 AM UTC
MikeMx
Joined: May 22, 2008
KitMaker: 649 posts
AeroScale: 434 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 09, 2010 - 11:20 AM UTC
Thanks for that - it provides some clues. It doesn't show the upper wing on the A8R2/R8 though or answer how short the Mk108 barrels were. All I can tell is they only protruded a little bit, which I already knew. The key thing is the upper wing covers for the Mk108's, are they the same as the MG151's of something else?
thanks
Mike
thanks
Mike
FalkeEins
Joined: March 07, 2005
KitMaker: 868 posts
AeroScale: 690 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 09, 2010 - 10:38 PM UTC
Mike
..just to confirm that the square wing bulges were standard for MG 151 and/or Mk 108. IIRC the wing was of standard manufacture externally - only internal 'structural' changes were made to accomodate the Mk108..if you do a search here on aeroscale for 'sturmbock' you'll see lots of builds which should give you some idea of what these areas looked like. The Revell A-8 is perfect for a Sturm variant ..I've done a few myself....hand-painted a few years ago
My Luftwaffe blog
..just to confirm that the square wing bulges were standard for MG 151 and/or Mk 108. IIRC the wing was of standard manufacture externally - only internal 'structural' changes were made to accomodate the Mk108..if you do a search here on aeroscale for 'sturmbock' you'll see lots of builds which should give you some idea of what these areas looked like. The Revell A-8 is perfect for a Sturm variant ..I've done a few myself....hand-painted a few years ago
My Luftwaffe blog
MikeMx
Joined: May 22, 2008
KitMaker: 649 posts
AeroScale: 434 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 09, 2010 - 11:31 PM UTC
Thats what I wanted to know!
So for an A8/R2, I build oob but shorten the outer cannon barrels and use appropriate markings and for the A8/R8 I do the same but add the etch Rammjager armour. Would that about sum it up?
thanks
Mike
So for an A8/R2, I build oob but shorten the outer cannon barrels and use appropriate markings and for the A8/R8 I do the same but add the etch Rammjager armour. Would that about sum it up?
thanks
Mike
Emeritus
Joined: March 30, 2004
KitMaker: 2,845 posts
AeroScale: 1,564 posts
Posted: Friday, September 10, 2010 - 02:39 AM UTC
Quoted Text
So for an A8/R2, I build oob but shorten the outer cannon barrels and use appropriate markings and for the A8/R8 I do the same but add the etch Rammjager armour. Would that about sum it up?
I think that's about it. Don't forget the wing bottoms though. The access panel was different for the MK108 as well as the shell ejector chutes. Here's Eduard's take on it: -click-
I checked the drawings of the Aero Detail Fw 190 book and they portray the detail similarly as in this one from the site Shawn posted a link above: -click-
On the subject of the upper wing outer cannon fairing, I'm not that sure. At least the A-6 seemed to have had MG151 outer wing cannons without the upper wing fairings. According to this article on IPMS stockholm, the upper wing fairings for the outer cannons were introduced on the A-8. If that's the case, then A-8s with earlier wings without the fairings would be examples of overhauled aircraft receiving replacement wings from earlier types?
stonar
Joined: August 15, 2008
KitMaker: 337 posts
AeroScale: 309 posts
Posted: Friday, September 10, 2010 - 04:42 AM UTC
Re armour: I think the R2 and R8 had essentially the same armour. The only extra could be the extra armour around the oil cooler associated with later engines. Please don't ask if that should make them an A-9! There is so much argument and opinion about this that I have been confused for years!
It must be entirely possible that the R8 designation was introduced to cover all the airframes which,when armoured, had been referred to as "Sturmjager".
Cheers
Steve (still confused)
It must be entirely possible that the R8 designation was introduced to cover all the airframes which,when armoured, had been referred to as "Sturmjager".
Cheers
Steve (still confused)
MikeMx
Joined: May 22, 2008
KitMaker: 649 posts
AeroScale: 434 posts
Posted: Friday, September 10, 2010 - 06:25 AM UTC
According to the planes and pilot fw190 book only the R8 had the armour but I accept that book may not be 100% correct.
Thanks to all, I think I should be able to make both the R2 and R8 out of the Revell A8.
thanks
Mike
Thanks to all, I think I should be able to make both the R2 and R8 out of the Revell A8.
thanks
Mike
Emeritus
Joined: March 30, 2004
KitMaker: 2,845 posts
AeroScale: 1,564 posts
Posted: Friday, September 10, 2010 - 07:14 AM UTC
Quoted Text
According to the planes and pilot fw190 book only the R8 had the armour but I accept that book may not be 100% correct.
Thanks to all, I think I should be able to make both the R2 and R8 out of the Revell A8.
Add the external armor, modify the armament, and you should be fine.
IIRC, the sturmbock variant received additional internal armoring (in front of the wing cannons, around the ammo boxes, etc) as well as the fuselage and canopy side plating, but of course those won't be visible so no worries there.
The windscreen also had thicker armored glass, but I doubt hardly any kit parts in 1:72 scale would need thickening.
On the A-9 variant: The Aero Detail book says the A-9 quite similar to the A-8 on the outside, the engine was changed to a more powerful BMW801TS, it had the 14-bladed engine cooling fan, wide-bladed wooden propeller and standardized the bulged canopy.
stonar
Joined: August 15, 2008
KitMaker: 337 posts
AeroScale: 309 posts
Posted: Friday, September 10, 2010 - 07:57 AM UTC
The problem is the confusion within contemporary documents from different organisations. Rodeike (from various sources) seems to imply that an R2 became an R8 by virtue of the installation of the later (TS) engine,with it's extra armour. Other documents seem to imply this would make an A-9R/8. As I said,I remain confused!
What's an A7 sturmjager? I think as of the end of 1944 this was an A7R/8 too.
Steve
What's an A7 sturmjager? I think as of the end of 1944 this was an A7R/8 too.
Steve
FalkeEins
Joined: March 07, 2005
KitMaker: 868 posts
AeroScale: 690 posts
Posted: Saturday, September 11, 2010 - 05:23 AM UTC
yes, I'm one of those who believes that R2 and R8 were the same thing to all intents and purposes - these designations were purely 'administrative' terms introduced by the manufacturer for certain fits - and had very little or nothing to do with what was happening at unit level - eg Rodeike's 444 page book on the Fw 190 doesn't show a single A-8/R8 and there are none in the loss lists of JG 300. The R8 designation didn't appear until November 1944 by which time JG 300 was already starting to remove the armour on its machines. You can do an R2 with or without the armour - the early Sturmgruppen machines had any number of different configs well ahead of any R8 designation appearing
MikeMx
Joined: May 22, 2008
KitMaker: 649 posts
AeroScale: 434 posts
Posted: Saturday, September 11, 2010 - 05:27 AM UTC
According to Planes and Pilots FW190.
R2 = outer Mg151's replaced by MK108's
R7 = Sturmbock armour added
R8 = R2+R7
hope that helps to clarify things but as I said I make no claims that this book is the bible on the FW190.
thanks
Mike
R2 = outer Mg151's replaced by MK108's
R7 = Sturmbock armour added
R8 = R2+R7
hope that helps to clarify things but as I said I make no claims that this book is the bible on the FW190.
thanks
Mike
FalkeEins
Joined: March 07, 2005
KitMaker: 868 posts
AeroScale: 690 posts
Posted: Saturday, September 11, 2010 - 05:31 AM UTC
no its not - hate that book with a vengeance. Crap drawings and rubbish text. A good reference on the Fw 190 Sturm variants is the 15-page March 2001 SAM Sturmgruppen article (even if I do say so myself...although my drawings weren't brilliant either !)
when the MK 108 cannon armed Fw 190 A-8/R2s entered service with IV./JG 3 in April/May 1944 they already had the armour in the optimal 'Sturm' configuration ...after the first 'successes' and the heavy losses, canopy and fuselage armour was progressively removed by most pilots - an 8./JG 300 pilot comments that he wanted to remove the Mk 108 cannon as well - the entire raison d'etre of the type - although this wasn't allowed - so you have a situation where 190 Sturm variants at unit level have very few of the Sturm features at all...
and this was all prior to the manufacturer even issueing the R8 designation....
MikeMx
Joined: May 22, 2008
KitMaker: 649 posts
AeroScale: 434 posts
Posted: Saturday, September 11, 2010 - 06:49 AM UTC
I bought it after reading someone's review on here - they gave it 80% or so and it wasn't expensive. I think I need to be educated on FW190 books. Have they even got the official Ruststatz kits correct?
thanks
Mike
thanks
Mike
stonar
Joined: August 15, 2008
KitMaker: 337 posts
AeroScale: 309 posts
Posted: Sunday, September 12, 2010 - 05:17 AM UTC
So Neil ,if I understand you correctly,you feel that the R8 designation was an administrative "catch all" to cover all the heavily armoured airframes whatever their dash number. That would make sense and be an effort to bring the various interpretations by different organisations together.
I've always thought that the R2/R8 debate was a can of worms since they were essentially the same thing!
Mike there are pictures of 190s with all sorts of combinations of armour. As Neil says pilots removed or added the external elements to suit themselves.
Cheers
Steve
I've always thought that the R2/R8 debate was a can of worms since they were essentially the same thing!
Mike there are pictures of 190s with all sorts of combinations of armour. As Neil says pilots removed or added the external elements to suit themselves.
Cheers
Steve
MikeMx
Joined: May 22, 2008
KitMaker: 649 posts
AeroScale: 434 posts
Posted: Sunday, September 12, 2010 - 08:29 AM UTC
I think therefore, the book lists the 'official' Ruststatz kits and the individual units as stated did as they saw fit in the heat of battle.
I conclude that unless you are entering a modelling competition (where a lot of research is needed) you can get away with modelling the 'official' Ruststatz as I imagine in many cases it would be hard to prove either way exactly what was fitted and any particular time.
For example, a plane may have officially been a FW190A-8/R8 but the pilot may have had some or all of the armour removed or even the MK108's removed and the MG151's put back in.
Does that seem a fair assumption for general modelling?
thanks
Mike
I conclude that unless you are entering a modelling competition (where a lot of research is needed) you can get away with modelling the 'official' Ruststatz as I imagine in many cases it would be hard to prove either way exactly what was fitted and any particular time.
For example, a plane may have officially been a FW190A-8/R8 but the pilot may have had some or all of the armour removed or even the MK108's removed and the MG151's put back in.
Does that seem a fair assumption for general modelling?
thanks
Mike
stonar
Joined: August 15, 2008
KitMaker: 337 posts
AeroScale: 309 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 - 04:21 AM UTC
I don't think that he could have removed the armament. Removal of armament is something else that I have seen hotly debated!
I think you are absolutely correct about the external armour.
Steve
I think you are absolutely correct about the external armour.
Steve
MikeMx
Joined: May 22, 2008
KitMaker: 649 posts
AeroScale: 434 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 - 11:04 AM UTC
That suits me fine! I think I will model R2's and R8's as per the official Ruststatz guide then. I'm not entering them for competitions plus I enjoy modelling the many varied combinations anyway!
I've currently already completed a standard A3 and A8, A8/R1b, A8/R11 (antler type antennae), F8/U14, F9 panzerblitz and D9 (JV44). In my stash I have the A8 with Hagelkorn, A4, A5, A6, F8, another D9 (Rudel) so the more the merrier! Just need to do an A8/R6 as well the Sturmbock models!
thanks
Miek
I've currently already completed a standard A3 and A8, A8/R1b, A8/R11 (antler type antennae), F8/U14, F9 panzerblitz and D9 (JV44). In my stash I have the A8 with Hagelkorn, A4, A5, A6, F8, another D9 (Rudel) so the more the merrier! Just need to do an A8/R6 as well the Sturmbock models!
thanks
Miek
stonar
Joined: August 15, 2008
KitMaker: 337 posts
AeroScale: 309 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 - 11:21 PM UTC
Quoted Text
That suits me fine! I think I will model R2's and R8's as per the official Ruststatz guide then. I'm not entering them for competitions plus I enjoy modelling the many varied combinations anyway!
I've currently already completed a standard A3 and A8, A8/R1b, A8/R11 (antler type antennae), F8/U14, F9 panzerblitz and D9 (JV44). In my stash I have the A8 with Hagelkorn, A4, A5, A6, F8, another D9 (Rudel) so the more the merrier! Just need to do an A8/R6 as well the Sturmbock models!
thanks
Miek
Wow,that should keep you busy for a while!
Happy modelling.
Steve
MikeMx
Joined: May 22, 2008
KitMaker: 649 posts
AeroScale: 434 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 - 04:55 AM UTC
I like FW190's!
thanks
Mike
thanks
Mike
FalkeEins
Joined: March 07, 2005
KitMaker: 868 posts
AeroScale: 690 posts
Posted: Friday, September 17, 2010 - 10:33 PM UTC
me too..!
as far as the R2/R8 debate is concerned, yes Steve has understood the point I was trying to make....based on my readings of Rodeike, correspondence with Sturm pilots from II./JG300 and IV./JG 3 and Lorant's two volume history of JG300, its is my opinion that the 'R8' designation was a manufacturer's 'catch all' issued long long after the various 'Sturm' units had all but given up on the armour, the blinkers etc etc. But although most pilots weren't happy with the heavy wing cannon (MK 108) they were not allowed to remove them...don't forget by Spetember 1944 through November, December and culminating on 14 January 1945 when huge numbers of them were shot down -the Sturm 190s were having to fight for their lives, invariably being caught by the P-51s before being able to reach the bombers....
as far as the R2/R8 debate is concerned, yes Steve has understood the point I was trying to make....based on my readings of Rodeike, correspondence with Sturm pilots from II./JG300 and IV./JG 3 and Lorant's two volume history of JG300, its is my opinion that the 'R8' designation was a manufacturer's 'catch all' issued long long after the various 'Sturm' units had all but given up on the armour, the blinkers etc etc. But although most pilots weren't happy with the heavy wing cannon (MK 108) they were not allowed to remove them...don't forget by Spetember 1944 through November, December and culminating on 14 January 1945 when huge numbers of them were shot down -the Sturm 190s were having to fight for their lives, invariably being caught by the P-51s before being able to reach the bombers....
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 AeroScale and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.