Author Topic: difference in FW types (Read 2125 times)

crabofix · « **Reply #15 on:** October 30, 2003, 09:33:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Batz

mgff is based on the Swiss Oerlikon cannon (as was the Japanese Type 99 mk 1). As Crobofix said above the mg151/20mm is up scaled from the mg151/15mm (used on the 109f2)

The Swiss Oerlikon is based on the German Becker Maschinen kanone. Swiss bought the patent because further development of the Becker gun was not allowed, due to the peacetreaty. So, the MGFF is really a true German design. The Becker Maschinen Kanone was used in AA installations and on some Airships/bombers during WWI.

Just like the German G3 is a spanish Cetme, what is infact a German sturmgew. 45, developed by mauser.

Flyboy · « **Reply #16 on:** October 30, 2003, 01:40:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa

I'm no expert in this stuff, but through a lot of recent discussions I've learned a few things. The "conventional WEP" systems were basically identical in all planes throughout the countries - it is simply higher manifold, higher RPM at overboosted levels, which will damage the engine if retained for too long continuously.

that's what i thought it was. but if this is the case how come some planes dont have WEP?

another thing i remember reading somewhere that the Fw190a2 or maybe it was the fw190a3 didnt had wep at all (i might be completely wrong here, it was a long time ago and maybe im confusing it with another plane)

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa

With the 190A5, field kits were provided, which were installed on the plane like internal fuel tanks, which injected C3 grade fuel, which acted in a way very simular to how MW50 worked - as an anti-detonant, enabling the engine to retain higher boost pressure for a longer time. This boost, as I recall, was available for 10 minutes at level flight, schnellflugstellung. Then it would need a cool-down time, and then could be engaged again.

The C3 injection system was widely used after the A5. I'm not sure about the MW50 on Fw190As - I hear controversial things, which one side claims the MW50s on A4s, A5s or A8s are a myth, while others claim such configuration really did exist, albeit in small numbers.

i never heard about that C3 fuel, can you write more details about it and how it worked\ used?

Charge · « **Reply #17 on:** October 31, 2003, 05:28:10 AM »

Crabo, I don't see any reason to syncronize the gondolas as they are outside the propeller arch.

I don't know what synch drivetrain he was refferring to. U got link?

-Charge+

Batz · « **Reply #18 on:** October 31, 2003, 07:15:10 AM »

I think you misunderstand "wep" flyboy.

In rl armies and air forces needed their equipment "at the ready". So working with the designers they come up with the procedures and settings to get the most out of it.

Wep is just an emergency power setting. Normally a higher boost is run for a limited time. However these time limits don’t mean that if you go over by 1 min your eng blows up or anything like that.

Aircraft engines are rated for given boost and given alts for a given time period so that you get the most out of the engine.

In games like ah where you simply hit a button to get "wep" is highly simplified for game play.

What mw50 or C3 injection does is cool down the mixture so that you can increase the pressure in the cylinders. You can run at a higher boost. Both prevent detonation and damage to the cylinders.

For the most part the allies used higher-octane fuel, and this allowed them to run at higher boost then if they ran at a lower octane. Mw50 and C3 allowed the LW to run at higher boost even with lesser octane fuel.

The allies had adi (water), which was used in the same way.

Why some planes didn’t have "wep" per se is they were only rated for a given power setting. This could be because of maintenance concerns or a weakness in the engine. Planes that were run at high boost reduced the "life" of the engine.

An air force that for instance only has 20 serviceable planes may order its pilots not to stress the engines and fly at a lower rating.

Wep is just emergency power. Pilots wouldn’t fly around on "wep" or climb or take off on wep like in ah. They were trained to fly their planes at given power bands.

Flyboy · « **Reply #19 on:** October 31, 2003, 11:06:53 AM »

thanks batz

i guess i did misunderstood the meaning of wep
you cleared it out for me!

now for those 190 models

i really intersted on what is the variens in performence between the A3 A4 and A5 though i dont see any real difference between the A3 and A4 cause you guys said it rarely used the MW50 kit

Batz · « **Reply #20 on:** October 31, 2003, 11:31:10 AM »

There would be very little difference in the 3 types. I believe the a4 was a few mph faster at alt.

The a5 is a fine substitute for the a3 or a4 in any ah event. However there are folks who don’t get that the a3 a4 a5 are very similar. If you are looking for hard data I know a few charts and a few reports were posted on the board here. You might do a search.

But turn, roll acceleration, climb and top speed would be similar.

Each used the same BMW 801D-2. They maybe some variation in weight but I doubt it was enough to have a big impact on overall performance.

Where the a5 was an improvement was its ability to carry a large variety of Umrustbausatz kits because of the c of g fix.

Flyboy · « **Reply #21 on:** October 31, 2003, 11:54:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Batz

Where the a5 was an improvement was its ability to carry a large variety of Umrustbausatz kits because of the c of g fix.

Umrustbausatz? what that?
sound like a kind of exotic food to me

P.S
i would think changing the Cof G will change the manuverability a plane a noticeble change

allso, i wonder if they elevated the pilot chair to compensate the loss of forward visibility by the longer nose?

Dr Zhivago · « **Reply #22 on:** October 31, 2003, 12:08:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Flyboy
Umrustbausatz? what that?
sound like a kind of exotic food to me

P.S
i would think changing the Cof G will change the manuverability a plane a noticeble change

allso, i wonder if they elevated the pilot chair to compensate the loss of forward visibility by the longer nose?

U = Umrust-Bausatz --> Factory conversion set

At least D-9 got F series bulged hood/buble canopy to give better visibility...

HoHun · « **Reply #23 on:** October 31, 2003, 03:52:14 PM »

Hi Flyboy,

>i would think changing the Cof G will change the manuverability a plane a noticeble change

The manoeuvrability would actually not change much. What would change - and the change could be dramatical - is the controllability of the aircraft.

In other words, with a misplaced centre of gravity, you very likely could still pull the same amount of Gs in a flight situation - but you might end up in a spin if you try it if the plane is lacking controllability as a result of the centre of gravity change.

I think in the case of the Focke-Wulf, the decisive factor was that the centre of gravity changed too much when carrying ordnance (or dropping it). Without ordnance, the change probably was hardly noticable.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

GODO · « **Reply #24 on:** October 31, 2003, 07:28:41 PM »

Found this table about all 190A fighter versions:

This table shows 190A4 with MW50 doing 416mph, while 190A5 gets only 379 mph. Even 190A8 (405 mph) is slower than A4 with MW50. If these figures are ok, 190A8 was a real improvement over A7, A6 and A5.

HoHun · « **Reply #25 on:** October 31, 2003, 07:56:44 PM »

Hi Godo,

>This table shows 190A4 with MW50 doing 416mph, while 190A5 gets only 379 mph.

German figures show that the Fw 190A-5 was capable of 674 km/h @ 6.5 km (419 mph @ 21300 ft). US tests arrived at a top speed of 415 mph @ 22000 ft, which is remarkably close.

The information on the Fw 190A-4 ("New model featured fuel-injection MW50 boost gave 416 m.p.h. at 20,600 ft") is bogus, as MW50 injection gave the highest power due to a higher boost only attainable at lower altitudes.

The Fw 190A-5 with (experimentally) increased emergency power ran higher boost pressures just like an MW50-equipped aircraft would, and gave a top speed of 680 km/h @ 5.2 km (423 mph @ 17100 ft). If MW50 injection would have given 2100 HP at sea level, I'd extrapolate that the A-5's top speed would have been 682 km/h @ 4.7 km (424 mph @ 15400 ft).

That's just a quick and dirty estimate, but it shows illustrates how the critical altitude drops with the boost increase that's necessary for increased engine power.

The quoted 416 mph @ 20,600 ft would be perfectly in line with the available data for a Fw 190A-4 using war emergency power without MW50.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun · « **Reply #26 on:** October 31, 2003, 08:03:31 PM »

Hi Batz,

>For the most part the allies used higher-octane fuel, and this allowed them to run at higher boost then if they ran at a lower octane. Mw50 and C3 allowed the LW to run at higher boost even with lesser octane fuel.

Actually, I've been told that 100 octane C3 fuel was equivalent to 100/145 grade fuel by Allied standards, which is remarkably good.

MW50 would allow higher boosts for any fuel, and in fact the inferior 87 octane B4 fuel would yield similar power as C3 fuel if the B4 was used in combination with MW50 injection. (That's probably what you had in mind.)

>The allies had adi (water), which was used in the same way.

I think they also added alcohol though they simply referred to it as water. Anti-detonant injection had actually been perfected on Indianapolis racers in the 1930s :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Batz · « **Reply #27 on:** October 31, 2003, 09:59:40 PM »

Hohun,

Yeah something like that

Godo,

Even the ah a5 hits 415 or so @ 21k w/wep.

What I have read was the a4 hit 418 @ 21k without mw 50. The a5 (from US tests) hit 419 @ 21300 as hohun said.

The a8 is actually slower then the a5 at alt.

GODO · « **Reply #28 on:** November 01, 2003, 06:06:47 AM »

I have several questions: had 190A8 really increased its boost over previous versions? Did it really reach 2100 Hp? Was MW50 totally useless avobe 15k? Were GM1 kits standarized for western front A8s?

HoHun · « **Reply #29 on:** November 01, 2003, 06:45:55 AM »

Hi Godo,

>had 190A8 really increased its boost over previous versions?

Yes, but only from mid-1944 on (while being introduced January 1944).

>Did it really reach 2100 Hp?

No. From the performance increase at sea level, I'd say it reached 1900 - 2000 HP. The Fw 190A-5 aircraft tested with the boost increase had 1880 HP instead of 1660 HP.

>Was MW50 totally useless avobe 15k?

No. It still provided a charge cooling effect that gave a 4% power increase. The much more powerful anti-detonant effect was lost, however, as the supercharger couldn't sustain the boost to exploit it.

>Were GM1 kits standarized for western front A8s?

No, at least not in the sense that they were standard on every aircraft.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)