floatplane Finnish Arado Ar 196 A-5

[Pony51 6,572]

As he posted there, I post this here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[OldDeadMan 1,299]

I'm not usually one for self-promotion, but as Alexandros requested this one, I feel it's appropriate.

 

 

[Kasukaru 2,164]

It goes without saying that this Arado 196 lover is totally supporting this great suggestion. 

[Alexandros11 100]

2 minutes ago, Kasukaru said:

It goes without saying that this Arado 196 lover is totally supporting this great suggestion. 

Thankyou! You are from Greece too? 

[avp216 23]

I just hope, that if they DO bring it in, that they give it the same "new cockpit" treatment they have been giving other newer aircraft.

 

This DEMANDS to be played in SIM!

 

Do you think the flight model will differ greatly from the other variant?  It should balance itself out right?

[Chomusuke1 1,219]

On 26/05/2022 at 17:33, avp216 said:

will differ greatly from the other variant?  It should balance itself out right?

Technical Instruction from the "Generalluftzeugmeisters" (loosely: general aircraft master - responsible for technical aspects of the Luftwaffe i.e. development, testing and procurement; position filled by Ernst Udet and later Erhard Milch)

 

Concerning: Ar 196. - Changes of the production series designation Ar 196 A-3 into Ar 196 A-5.

 

The Ar 196 aircraft of the production series A-3, which are equipped with the FuG XVI (radio) , will receive from c/n 196 0212 onward the production series designation A-5, provided the following listed change instructions and TAGL (technical instructions of the GL ("Generalluftzeugmeisters") ) are being performed:

1. Change instruction No. 43 (Installation MG 81Z),
2. Change instruction No. 44 (cage-able artificial horizon),
3. TAGL lfd. (generally acronym for "laufend" = continuous) No. 718/42 (Mech. Compensation Installation), - (Unsure what the "Kompensiereinrichtung" should compensated for)
4. Engine change, Installation of VHF-interference-suppression by company BMW (caused by FuG XVI-installation).

After completion of these four points, the designation Ar 196 A-3 is to be changed to Ar 196 A-5 in the data card, type data plate, and aircraft logbook.

Edited May 31, 2022 by Chomusuke1

[Alexandros11 100]

On 26/05/2022 at 22:33, avp216 said:

I just hope, that if they DO bring it in, that they give it the same "new cockpit" treatment they have been giving other newer aircraft.

 

This DEMANDS to be played in SIM!

 

Do you think the flight model will differ greatly from the other variant?  It should balance itself out right?

Well the cockpit is already actually really beautiful modelled, it was also made by a user and is superbly detailed - definitely in the upper echelon of cockpits already in game.

 

In terms of the flight model, the A-5 is only around 50kg heavier (a 1.6% difference). this is equivalent to 50L of fuel, in a tank (I estimate) to hold around 500-600L. So really the added weight is roughly equivalent to 10-15 minutes worth of fuel? - so yeah I think the flight model so be essentially the same as the A-3.

[Chomusuke1 1,219]

Does anyone know the difference between the BMW 132 K vs a BMW 132 W?

 

[Alexandros11 100]

55 minutes ago, Chomusuke1 said:

Does anyone know the difference between the BMW 132 K vs a BMW 132 W?

 

I just researched every website I could find about the BMW 132 and none of them reference a W model.. that's strange. Do you think the engine on the A-5 was upgraded?

[Chomusuke1 1,219]

22 hours ago, Alexandros11 said:

Do you think the engine on the A-5 was upgraded?

Well this book clearly states BMW 132 W as I pictured and underlined above:

https://usa1lib.org/book/3202658/4b23af

[Alexandros11 100]

5 hours ago, Chomusuke1 said:

Well this book clearly states BMW 132 W as I pictured and underlined above:

https://usa1lib.org/book/3202658/4b23af

I can't read German. Do you know what exactly the 132W was in terms of upgrades? Did it have a higher power output?

[Folfy 4]

Glad to see this has gotten the attention this deserves. Hopefully we'll see this beauty soon.

[Chomusuke1 1,219]

17 hours ago, Alexandros11 said:

Do you know what exactly the 132W was in terms of upgrades? Did it have a higher power output?

I have no idea...Anybody know?

[Alexandros11 100]

10 hours ago, Chomusuke1 said:

I have no idea...Anybody know?

I will try and find some books that reference the 132 engine, but it's hard because I think they will be in German

Edited May 31, 2022 by Alexandros11

[avp216 23]

On 28/05/2022 at 09:56, Chomusuke1 said:

Technical Instruction from the "Generalluftzeugmeisters" (loosely: general aircraft master - responsible for technical aspects of the Luftwaffe i.e. development, testing and procurement; position filled by Ernst Udet and later Erhard Milch)

 

Concerning: Ar 196. - Changes of the production series designation Ar 196 A-3 into Ar 196 A-5.

 

The Ar 196 aircraft of the production series A-3, which are equipped with the FuG XVI (radio) , will receive from c/n 196 0212 onward the production series designation A-5, provided the following listed change instructions and TAGL (technical instructions of the GL ("Generalluftzeugmeisters") ) are being performed:

1. Change instruction No. 43 (Installation MG 81Z),
2. Change instruction No. 44 (cage-able artificial horizon),
3. TAGL lfd. (generally acronym for "laufend" = continuous) No. 718/42 (Mech. Compensation Installation), - (Unsure what the "Kompensiereinrichtung" should compensated for)
4. Engine change, Installation of VHF-interference-suppression by company BMW (caused by FuG XVI-installation).

After completion of these four points, the designation Ar 196 A-3 is to be changed to Ar 196 A-5 in the data card, type data plate, and aircraft logbook.

Thank you for that information!  Love the details here!  This will make the A-5 stand out if they put it in game compared to the A-3, even if just a little   Better than copy paste stuff!

On 29/05/2022 at 03:28, Alexandros11 said:

Well the cockpit is already actually really beautiful modelled, it was also made by a user and is superbly detailed - definitely in the upper echelon of cockpits already in game.

 

In terms of the flight model, the A-5 is only around 50kg heavier (a 1.6% difference). this is equivalent to 50L of fuel, in a tank (I estimate) to hold around 500-600L. So really the added weight is roughly equivalent to 10-15 minutes worth of fuel? - so yeah I think the flight model so be essentially the same as the A-3.

Yes, the cockpit is beautiful, and I hope they maintain that, is what I meant.

 

Essentially the same, but still different   I like aircrafts having their full personalities on show, and this aircraft deserves that as well! 

 

Thank you for letting me know the difference though!  The research being done here is awesome!  Gaijin will have plenty to work with

 

 

[Alexandros11 100]

14 hours ago, avp216 said:

Thank you for that information!  Love the details here!  This will make the A-5 stand out if they put it in game compared to the A-3, even if just a little   Better than copy paste stuff!

Yes, the cockpit is beautiful, and I hope they maintain that, is what I meant.

 

Essentially the same, but still different   I like aircrafts having their full personalities on show, and this aircraft deserves that as well! 

 

Thank you for letting me know the difference though!  The research being done here is awesome!  Gaijin will have plenty to work with

 

 

Actually I did just discover, thanks to Chomosuke1, that the A-5 had the 132W engine variant rather than the 132K. This gives max output of 1050HP (compared to 970HP on K variant) and standard output of 920HP (compared to 755HP on K variant) which is a pretty significant performance boost that should totally negate the added weight, and then some. the A-5 should have better characteristics/upgraded performance in most areas where the A-3 occasionally fell short due to the underpowered engine. It's not going to be winning any races or competing with fighters but it's a good upgrade nevertheless.

[avp216 23]

On 03/06/2022 at 02:54, Alexandros11 said:

Actually I did just discover, thanks to Chomosuke1, that the A-5 had the 132W engine variant rather than the 132K. This gives max output of 1050HP (compared to 970HP on K variant) and standard output of 920HP (compared to 755HP on K variant) which is a pretty significant performance boost that should totally negate the added weight, and then some. the A-5 should have better characteristics/upgraded performance in most areas where the A-3 occasionally fell short due to the underpowered engine. It's not going to be winning any races or competing with fighters but it's a good upgrade nevertheless.

HELL YES!

 

A worthy upgrade indeed!

[WorromQ 6]

Sweden needs more vics, I fully support this idea!

[Artienia 12]

As a swedish only main i wish to play this finnish beauty!

[Miraz05 255]

+1

[Bunirules109 2]

Nice post. Only thing is that the BR should probably be higher with the drastic increase in firepower, i am thinking 2.0 or 2.3 in RB. It would be bad for this thing to face thing like Ki-10 and outgun it’s twin 7.7mms with the defensive turret of 2 MG-81Zs. Also the existing arado gets bomber spawn, maybe this one could be a little more multi-role.

[Alexandros11 100]

On 11/06/2022 at 19:26, Bunirules109 said:

Nice post. Only thing is that the BR should probably be higher with the drastic increase in firepower, i am thinking 2.0 or 2.3 in RB. It would be bad for this thing to face thing like Ki-10 and outgun it’s twin 7.7mms with the defensive turret of 2 MG-81Zs. Also the existing arado gets bomber spawn, maybe this one could be a little more multi-role.

Not sure about that, keep in mind that despite its good firepower its either slower or slower turning than essentially everything it will face. It's climb rate is slow and the gunner has a significant dead spot directly behind and all below the fuselage. It loses speed quickly in turns and has virtually no energy retention - I really think 2.0 is the limit of how high it should go. Reserve planes get outgunned by essentially everything, imagine a Ki-10 verses a Catalina, or a hurricane - there's not really any competition. Against other EC1 aircraft like the Hurricane, 109 B-1 or I-153 its already outclassed and at a disadvantage. This is why I don't think it should go higher than 2.0. This Arado, if anything, is more of a CAS than a bomber, as it has no bomb sight and has a 400kg bomb load. Perhaps it should get an interceptor spawn or something.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Alexandros11

[gihrenzabi 5]

Interesting BR discussion. I do think it should be 2.0 (SB) at the most, the engine power upgrade is mostly to compensate some added weight/armor/weapons. So performance wise, just a slight step up from the original A-3. Reserve planes like Ki-10 are hopeless by design, but a Ki-27 Nate or A5M should be fine against it (well, torn apart by the 81Z if they're not careful). And then there are Hurricanes...

 

..though another part of me says no way it's EC1 since this was a 1944 modification historically speaking..

[Alexandros11 100]

19 hours ago, gihrenzabi said:

Interesting BR discussion. I do think it should be 2.0 (SB) at the most, the engine power upgrade is mostly to compensate some added weight/armor/weapons. So performance wise, just a slight step up from the original A-3. Reserve planes like Ki-10 are hopeless by design, but a Ki-27 Nate or A5M should be fine against it (well, torn apart by the 81Z if they're not careful). And then there are Hurricanes...

 

..though another part of me says no way it's EC1 since this was a 1944 modification historically speaking..

I know what you mean, but BR has never been by date - and other aircraft in EC1 (Boston, Catalina) saw service throughout the entire war. I can see 2.0-2.3 in RB might make more sense though.

[egos19 0]

when it comes to floatplanes I say more the merrier