Basuroy Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 Hey guys , basically my problem is this - I have a 1/72nd scale BMW engine brassin set for a FW190 A-8 kit from eduard. But I want to build an A-5 . My question is are there any day and night cosmetic difference between the engine used in these two models ? I understand there are some minor ones but are the fuselage of both the a-5 and a-8 identical ? Are there any differences regarding the placement of the engine within the airframe which might cause assembly issue ? Also , can an engine meant for an A-8 be passed off in a F-8 as well ? I really don't wanna build another a-8 . A-5 is my preference followed by F-8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck1945 Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 Basically, at least for model purposes, the A-5 and A-8 engines were identical. Fuselage and wing differences between the two were for reasons other than engine. If you are asking if the Brassin engine will fit the A-5 kit, no clue since the Eduard ones I have finished used the kit engine. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parabat Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 Short answer - no, you will struggle to see any difference as all the variants you mention used the 801D-2 engine. If you wanted to an A-9 then you would have to source different fan blades and prop blades. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tempestfan Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 Certainly soon people will be around with more knowledge on the subject, but: No, 5 and 8 fuselages are not identical, versions post the 5 were slightly longer between engine and cockpit, something like 40cm or so. The basic engine should be alright for all three versions I think, especially in 72nd. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackG Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 Looking at Eduard's pdf files, their engines are exactly the same for either 190 model - just some differences in the sequence of construction: https://www.eduard.com/out/media/672117.pdf https://www.eduard.com/out/media/672088.pdf regards, Jack 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parabat Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, tempestfan said: Certainly soon people will be around with more knowledge on the subject, but: No, 5 and 8 fuselages are not identical, versions post the 5 were slightly longer between engine and cockpit, something like 40cm or so. The basic engine should be alright for all three versions I think, especially in 72nd. The movement of the engine forward of the cockpit (by 15cm) is really evident from the A-5 and was continued with the rest of the A and F series. The engine pack, known as the 'kraftei' or 'power egg' was a modular pack which could be removed or bolted on without major disruption. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
72modeler Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 Parabat, Neat photo! Is that an Fw-58 I see in the background? I'm guessing the black gang is unloading that engine from an Ar-242 or 244? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basuroy Posted August 8, 2019 Author Share Posted August 8, 2019 2 hours ago, tempestfan said: Certainly soon people will be around with more knowledge on the subject, but: No, 5 and 8 fuselages are not identical, versions post the 5 were slightly longer between engine and cockpit, something like 40cm or so. The basic engine should be alright for all three versions I think, especially in 72nd. 2 hours ago, Parabat said: The movement of the engine forward of the cockpit (by 15cm) is really evident from the A-5 and was continued with the rest of the A and F series. The engine pack, known as the 'kraftei' or 'power egg' was a modular pack which could be removed or bolted on without major disruption. I am bit confused , was the A-8 engine module 15cm longer than the A-5 or both are same length ? the brassin engine set I have comes with the entire firewall and everything so if the forward fuselage length is different between a5 and a8 , I doubt it will fit . Thanks a lot to everyone here for the awesome help so far btw , this forum is a gem ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 The engine modules are the same size. The fuselage is longer between the engine and the cockpit, from the A-5 onwards, as I understand. Which is why the Hasegawa Fw190 does not come with options for earlier variants. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Smith Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 12 minutes ago, Basuroy said: was the A-8 engine module 15cm longer than the A-5 or both are same length ? The same The A-5 introduced a 15 cm extension, so the A-5 throughA-9 (and corresponding F and G models) are the same length. the A-1 through A-4 are the same shorter length. this should help sort out what is what Quote Focke-Wulf 190 Part One - Würger Genesis A Modeler's Primer to the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 A, F and G Series by John R. Beaman, Jr. see http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/fw190jb_1.htm the only main difference between the A-5 and A-8 fuselage is the armament fit, so you can fit the A-8 engine set into an A-5. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattlow Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 Hi From IPMS Stockholm's excellent account of the 190s versions and changes. Fw 190 A-5 On the basis of data collected during tests of the experimental Fw 190A3/U1, Blaser's designer team became convinced that the planned additional armament would move the plane centre of gravity forward. The best solution to offset this was to move the engine forward. This was done with a 15 cm steel tube engine mount extension. This change (new engine mount) was introduced on the all production lines. It also led to an increase of the plane length to 9.10 m So you should be fine for taking the engine and putting it into an A-5 airframe. The F-8 was essentially a ground attack A-8 and so the engine arrangement is identical (there may have been some armour around the lower cowl, but doubtful it'd show up in this scale). Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 (edited) Hang on - if the armament moves the cg too far forward then moving the engine further forward is entirely the wrong thing to do. Whatever the reason was, that wasn't it. PS According to Smith & Creek (Classic 18, Fw190 vol 1) the engine was moved forward to improve the cooling. Edited August 8, 2019 by Graham Boak 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basuroy Posted August 8, 2019 Author Share Posted August 8, 2019 Thanks a lot gents , will order the a-5 with eyes closed now Intend to make a hangar diorama with the airplane undergoing service and all. Got myself a very good 72nd scale airfield crew set by Zvezda as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattlow Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 Good point. A-5 wasn't slated for MG 131 so I think the armament they're talking about was the wing armament? Nothing changed at the rear, so it is all happening around the wing/mid-fuselage. I think it is the bringing in of more exotic, heavier wing weapons and the increasing use of the centreline rack for drop tank and bombs (either actual or envisaged). The A-8 had the MW 50 tank installation behind the cockpit which shifted the centre of gravity backward and, as a cure, the under-fuselage mounted ETC 501 bomb rack was moved 20 cm forward. This rack became a standard from the A-8 model. Matt 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Smith Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 4 minutes ago, Basuroy said: Intend to make a hangar diorama with the airplane undergoing service and all Note, the armament difference will be visible if the gun panel is open, the A-5 has 7.9 mm MGs, the A-8 the 13mm, hence the bulged gun cowl panel of the A-8 compared to A-5. Is there not an A-5 set? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattlow Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 Eduard Brassin 1/72 Focke-Wulf Fw 190A-5 Engine # 672117 That'd take any guess work out of it.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basuroy Posted August 8, 2019 Author Share Posted August 8, 2019 (edited) Budget restriction folks , the engine set costs almost same as the model itself and the A-5 kits have such nice decals that it is what I want(otherwise would have just got the a-8 as well) .... I have like 4 different e-modelshop tabs open on my browser , the less I buy , the better Edited August 8, 2019 by Basuroy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattlow Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 Maybe just add the A-5 gun set. That'd give you the MG 17s and their decking and the smaller cover...? Less expense. Matt 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basuroy Posted August 8, 2019 Author Share Posted August 8, 2019 28 minutes ago, Mattlow said: Maybe just add the A-5 gun set. That'd give you the MG 17s and their decking and the smaller cover...? Less expense. Matt Yup that is a good idea and I will infact do that. When I am doing it , might as well go the full length . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWM Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 1 hour ago, Graham Boak said: Hang on - if the armament moves the cg too far forward then moving the engine further forward is entirely the wrong thing to do. Whatever the reason was, that wasn't it. Exactly! So I think that newer and stronger (more heavy) armament moved the center of gravity backward, what had to be compensated by moving engine forward The more effective cooling could be an additional benefit. Cheers J-W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 I doubt it. The position of the guns in the wing would not produce a significantly aft movement to compare with the mass of the engine moving forward. Compare other aircraft types that saw significant increases in wing armament. The Fw190 was already notorious for poor engine cooling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, Graham Boak said: Hang on - if the armament moves the cg too far forward then moving the engine further forward is entirely the wrong thing to do. Whatever the reason was, that wasn't it. The reason I have seen for the engine move was to improve external stores carrying capacity for the ground attack role i.e. to move the empty CoG forward so that more/heavier bombs could be slung aft of the CoG, without moving the CoG too far aft in the fully loaded state. Edited August 8, 2019 by Vlad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Smith Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 3 hours ago, Graham Boak said: Hang on - if the armament moves the cg too far forward then moving the engine further forward is entirely the wrong thing to do. Whatever the reason was, that wasn't it. PS According to Smith & Creek (Classic 18, Fw190 vol 1) the engine was moved forward to improve the cooling. Quote http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/fw190jb_1.htm A-5 Now comes the first big change In an effort to overcome both weight distribution problems and the eternal engine-heat problem, the entire engine was moved forward 5+ inches. This results in a longer cowling for the MG cover, fuselage side panel, and a special insert near the wing roots. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now