Draining E in turns

[Angus]

Faber's 190 had some trouble as well.
It raced with a Spitfire and a Typhoon, but soon had to pull out due to engine trouble.
Something boggles me there, - after all it was not used much, and I am surprized they could not keep it running so well.
Anyway, it ran for the time it gave on very good power, however I belive it was outrun by both contemporaries.
Will look it up and post in 10 mins.

[TimRas]

Originally posted by Angus
It raced with a Spitfire and a Typhoon, but soon had to pull out due to engine trouble....
it was outrun by both contemporaries.

If this was the same race Quill tells in his book, he was flying Griffon Spitfire prototype.

[Angus]

Exactly.
At 1000 feet, 6 cannon development design (I see 4 cannons on the pictures though) DP845, single stage early Griffon, flying in July 1942 already. Other contemporaries a Typhoon and a 190.
Opening up from cruising speed, the 190 giving the signal to start (opening up first?).
It seems that the 190 accelerated the fastest, since Quill mentions overhauling it,- either that or the 190 being ahead in the start. Anyway, the Spitty left both behind, the 190 having to abort due to engine troubles, but the Typhoon simply being outrun.

As Quill nicely put it regarding the Spitfire, "The cat was well and truly among the pigeons"

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp

It called "NOT the same power setting".  In the USN test the BMW801 develops over 100 hp less than the 801 in the Luftwaffe test's.  Got the Horsepower graphs to prove it.

That explains the difference between the Fw 190 in the US navy test and the Fw 190A-8 but not the 20-30 km/h difference between these and Fw 190A-5 graph.

gripen

[Crumpp]

That explains the difference between the Fw 190 in the US navy test and the Fw 190A-8 but not the 20-30 km/h difference between these and Fw 190A-5 graph.

The USN was an FW-190A5 Gripen NOT an FW-190A8.
The graph I posted is a Focke-Wulf factory test flight and matches up perfectly with:

1.  The Rechlin flight test report on a Tropicalized FW-190A5.

2.  The Rechlin flight test report on investigating raised manifold boost pressures in the BMW-801 series engines

3.  The Focke-Wulf flight test investigating the effect of a 12 bladed cooling fan on the FW-190 series.

4.  The Focke-Wulf flight test report investigating the BMW801TH/TS and BMW 801F series motors.

5.  The Rechlin flight test report investigating the effect of propeller width on aircraft performance.

All of these test use an FW-190A5 with a BMW801D2 motor as a comparison.  All the level speed and climb performance is within a 2-3% margin.  In fact that graph I used in the calculations hardly represents the top performance for the FW-190A5.

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

Anyway, it ran for the time it gave on very good power, however I belive it was outrun by both contemporaries.

Yes it was.  Faber FW-190A3 was a derated motor.  I can send you the complete performance trials and power tests for Faber FW-190A3.  It performed very poorly for an FW-190.  I am surprised it did so well in the tactical trials.

I also have the same report for the RAE FW-190A4 and the USAF trails on it conducted at Wright Patterson.  It is interesting to compare the engine power/performance with the German test's.  Having trained mechanics makes a big difference.

Crumpp

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp
The USN was an FW-190A5 Gripen NOT an FW-190A8.

No one has claimed so but from the drag view point there is no difference between the Fw 190A-5 and the Fw 190A-8. Basicly same airframe, the main difference being weight.

Originally posted by Crumpp
The graph I posted is a Focke-Wulf factory test flight and matches up perfectly with:

I don't see any kind evidence here.

gripen

[Crumpp]

No one has claimed so but from the drag view point there is no difference between the Fw 190A-5 and the Fw 190A-8. Basicly same airframe, the main difference being weight.

Actually there is some difference.

The FW-190A8 gained slightly more drag from the MG131 cowl machineguns and added considerable amounts of horsepower.

The FW-190A5 gained considerable weight over the FW-190A4 and no Horsepower.  According to the pilots it was the worst performing FW-190 AFA manuerability.

I don't see any kind evidence here.

And your not going too.  

Crumpp

[Charge]

"Having trained mechanics makes a big difference."

AFAIK FW190 was very dependent of professional groundcrew, especially the early models which suffered from overheating problems so I'd imagine even the A3 not to be "service free".

-C+

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp

The FW-190A8 gained slightly more drag from the MG131 cowl machineguns

That won't explain the speed difference at  same power rating (1,42 ata 2700rpm).

Originally posted by Crumpp
And your not going too.

Oh well, so just statements after statements without proof.

gripen

[Angus]

This here got me the hickups:
"Faber FW-190A3 was a derated motor."

So, Faber's 190 had a derated engine?

I've heard that for more sources, however on captured 109's.
Seems that the LW aircraft had troubles with the London fog or something , - i.e. as soon as they were tested by the Brits, their performance output dropped drastically.

Anyway, seriously, was that the case? Was Faber's 190 late "on the clock"?? I mean, it was an operational 190 whose pilot got disorientated and landed his operational and operating aircraft on a British airfield, without damage.

I remind you, that the before mentioned "race" between the 190, Tiff, and Spit was partially politically influenced. The 190 had been around for almost a year or so, outperforming the Spit V's (and the Spit II's(?)) with speed, roll, firepower and climb.
So, Hawker's had a candidate, and the whole spirit of the show seems to have been to demonstrate that the 190 was indeed very fast, and that new designs would be the answer to the threat, a comparison was definately needed.
Quill mentioned this about the role of the Spitfire in the race:
"Mr average contemporary fighter. It's job would be to come in the last..."
So I rather have the feeling that Faber's 190 ran nicely until it failed, that's my point.

[gripen]

Originally posted by Angus
This here got me the hickups:
"Faber FW-190A3 was a derated motor."

So, Faber's 190 had a derated engine?

All the early BMW 801s were so called "derated". Basicly it means that the higher ratings were not cleared for service.  The Brits just flew the tests without knowing that they used higher ratings than LW in service.

gripen

[Nashwan]

As Gripen said. Faber's 190 was derated, like all 190s at the time.

The limit was supposed to be 1.42 ata, 2700 rpm, but in service they were all limited to 1.35ata, 2450 rpm.

The British didn't understand the correct ratings to begin with, and the AFDU test (the test where they compared Spit V, Spit IX, 190, P-51, P-38, Typhoon) was run with the Fw 190 using 1.42 ata, 2700 rpm.

When the RAE got Faber's 190, they worked out the correct (derated) ratings. So depending on the test, it could be derated or not.

[Crumpp]

Anyway, seriously, was that the case? Was Faber's 190 late "on the clock"?? I mean, it was an operational 190 whose pilot got disorientated and landed his operational and operating aircraft on a British airfield, without damage.

I remember reading that Faber's normal A/C was in maintenance and he took an excess fighter that morning.

All the early BMW 801s were so called "derated".

Wrong.  A motor was de-rated for several reasons:

1.  To conserve high grade aviation fuel for combat operations motors would be de-rated and set up to run lower quality fuel.  This involved changing spark plugs, regapping the plugs, and adjusting the fuel feed.

Source - Larry Wilson, Simithsonian Garber Facility, Curator Axis Aircraft Archives


2.  Depot level maintenance could derate a power egg for minor deficiencies that did not effect operational safety.

Source - Luftwaffe pilots I have interviewed.

Crumpp

[Angus]

So, when Quill's Spitfire overhauled Faber's 190, the 190 was already running on more boost than it could take?