IGNORE the above post. One type and missing sentence change the whole thread!!
Here is the corrected post:
Please check construction plans of the Anton or if you do not have access to them the plan Bentley produced. There is absolutly no way to remove the tank once fitted exactly as in the 109, which used the same 115l tank.
Well,
According to:
Teil 7
Triebwerkbedein und versorgungsanlage
Heft 1 nur fur FW 190 A7 und A8
(stand Aug 1944)
Ausgabe Januar 1945
It is not only an OPTIONAL accessory that comes delivered from the factory installed.
It is removeable by undoing countersunk screws and removing a plate between spans 9 and 10.
The tank itself is self sealing and self-contained. The fuel pump for it is located under the top plate. The filler plate removes as one piece and has the fill hose and vent line attached. The vent line must be unplugged from the bottom and the fuel line runs to a T-block valve which is turned off and the line disconnected. The two horizontal bands are undone and the whole tank comes out the panel.
Is it 30 or 40kg dry?
Depends on the tank that is fitted.
Glad to see that you say the aux tank is not removable in the Ta152. That section of fuselage is the same as on the Fw190As and Ds.
It's not optional is what I should have said, because the Ta 152 came standardized with MW-50. You will also see the Aux tank installed on Doras after Jan 45 when MW-50 equipped ones started rolling off the lines. Of course it is removeable. All components of an Aircraft are removeable. How else would you repair them?
The inside tank was reffered as optional in the meaning of not "standard" equipment. i.e. : not all produced a/c were so equipped.
The translation of the words used in the manual under the description of the "Zusatzkraftstoffbehalter im rumpf" is "if necessary" to use this equipment.
That is from the technical description of the equipment. It is found underneath the Drop Tank description, which uses the same language, and the aux tank is the very last thing covered.
All you have to do is look for the "C3" warning triangle on the right side of the fuselage.
It is easy to see why both the RLM decided to include the 115 liter Aux tank as a standard delivery item and why it was not popular with the Jagd-einsatz pilots. All you have to do is cross-reference the Operational realities with the "on demand power" development of the BMW801D.
FW-190A5 is the first version to be fitted with C3 erhöhte Notleistung. It was ONLY fitted to jabo-einsatz's and for use UNDER 1 KM. Jagd-einsatz's could not use it and were restricted to 1.42 ata.
FW-190A8 comes along. Jagd-einsatz's are cleared for 1.65ata @ 2700U/min for 10 minutes without any other boost system.
Jabo-einsatz's are still using C3 erhöhte Notleistung under 1Km.
Generally speaking, the FW-190's on the eastern front were mainly jabo-einsatzs and on the Western Front the majority of FW-190's were jagd-einsatz's. Each front had some of both of course. Considering the ratio of jabo - jager we can see that a large number of end users are ordering the 115 liter aux tank and installing it.
When C3 erhöhte Notleistung was approved for higher altitudes shortly after the FW-190A8 came into production the RLM probably felt that there would be a sharp rise in demand for the 115 liter Aux tank since all FW-190 types can now use C3 erhöhte Notleistung. Save the units the trouble of having to order it through the supply system and just include it in the base model. Good move for all of the FW-190 jabo-einsatz and some of the jagd-einsatz's.
For the Jabo-einsatzs:
Even with climbing to altitude, the jagd-einsatz's burn less fuel distance for distance than a Jabo-einsatz. Weight and flying at lower altitudes are the cause. An internal tank which carries some fuel, doesn't touch their main fuel tanks, and allows them 7 minutes more of "on demand power" over the previous FW-190 C3 erhöhte Notleistung is a quantum leap in performance at the tip of the spear for the jabos.
For the Jagd-einsatz's the story is different. Their "on demand" power system burned fuel but nothing like the fuel hungry 70 liters in 5 minutes rate of C3 erhöhte Notleistung. When the fuel consumption is considered for just getting to and from the combat box C3 erhöhte Notleistung did not represent a quantum leap in "on demand power" performance for the jagd-einsatz's in practical combat. Depending on fuel it ranged from better to worse. It was extra weight for small gains over the 1.65ata for 10 minutes without it. When you consider that after December '44 the jagdwaffe were being bounced on take off with increasing frequency by Allied fighters, an extra 264.5lbs just does not make sense.
For the R7/R8 rustsatz's the 115-liter tank makes perfect sense as well. They needed the extra fuel to go the same distance as the fighters protecting them and the extra weight certainly was not going to make a difference in their performance.
Different tanks Milo, as in 85 liter GM-1 tank and 115 liter aux tank.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Different GM1 tank sizes? The GM1 tank was of 85l capacity, as noted in Fw docs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Butch,
the chapter for GM-1 actually reads:
Refer to D.(Luft) T 2190 A-8 und A-9, Teil 7 Beiheft 1.
It refers to a Luftwaffe Technical bulliten and that is all. So unless that bulletin says "GM-1 cannot be installed on FW-190A8's" then the manual is inconclusive. Evidence points to FW-190's using it, as is seen in this flight graph. Operationally for the Altitudes the Luftwaffe was forced to operate, an 85 liter GM-1 tank makes much more sense than a 115 liter aux tank.
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/190-2-1024.jpg Thanks for checking on the props. You wouldn't have any information on FW-190A8's being fitted with the broad chord wooden props? I have come across several references but the only ones I can point to for a fact are a few R7/R8's.
