Author Topic: 190A/F boosts (Read 3380 times)

niklas · « **Reply #30 on:** September 22, 2004, 03:08:59 PM »

I only read about a delay in boost with the usage of GM-1. The pipes were rather warm before the usage, so GM-1 vaporized at the beginning. It took a while until GM-1 cooled down the pipes and reached the engine in a liquid state, especially for bombers.

niklas

GODO · « **Reply #31 on:** September 22, 2004, 03:25:46 PM »

Can we confirm that early 190A8s did not have C3 injection system / Aux tank? Can we confirm that most 190A8 with Aux tank were also fitted with C3 injection?

Crumpp · « **Reply #32 on:** September 22, 2004, 04:01:16 PM »

Quote

I only read about a delay in boost with the usage of GM-1. The pipes were rather warm before the usage, so GM-1 vaporized at the beginning. It took a while until GM-1 cooled down the pipes and reached the engine in a liquid state, especially for bombers.

Me too, Niklas. It was defiantly NOT GM-1 he was talking about. I specifically asked him and pressed him for information on the boost systems. He spelled the name out in German for me and it seems to correspond to the EW system late war 109's had in use.

Quote

Can we confirm that early 190A8s did not have C3 injection system / Aux tank?

Yes. C3 "emergency power" was only available to Jabo-einsatz's. FW-190F,G and A models assigned to the Jabostaffel.

Around mid-production of the FW-190A8 it was approved for use above 1KM.

Quote

Can we confirm that most 190A8 with Aux tank were also fitted with C3 injection?

No I cannot. However at that exact same time that C3 "emergency power" was approved for altitudes above 1 Km, FW Bremen issued the order to include the Aux tank in delivered FW-190A8's.

Before that date the Auxillery tank was available but it had to be ordered through the Geschwader supply along with the mounting braket.

I have the polar plots from the FW-190A5 test aircraft used to test 1.58/1.65 and C3 "emergency boost" for altitudes above 1 km. It includes a power chart for the BMW-801D2 at those manifold pressures. I mailed Pyro a copy along with the "Drag data for aircraft" Focke Wulf, Bremen report.

FYI Godo,

The FW 190A has less drag throughout most of its flight envelope than the Spitfire. The Spitfires Wingtip efficiency is around .88. The FW-190A's is .87. Only in the very low speed flight realm does the Spitfire have a drag advantage and in maneuvers over about 4 G.

Crumpp

BPNZ · « **Reply #33 on:** September 30, 2004, 07:02:09 PM »

Hi Crump,

>I have the polar plots from the FW-190A5 test aircraft used to test 1.58/1.65 and C3 "emergency boost" for altitudes above 1 km. It includes a power chart for the BMW-801D2 at those manifold pressures.

I have been looking for this power curve for over two years. I was wondering if you are able/willing to swap it for for something I have. I have quite a number of scans for the Bf109 series as well as the DB 601/605 series of engines.

If you are interested my email is:
bandcpurcellparadisenetnz

Regards
Brian

Crumpp · « **Reply #34 on:** October 08, 2004, 02:51:21 PM »

Quote

He primarily TURNFOUGHT Mustangs, Yaks, and La 5's.

Let me clarify this statement. After talking with him a few more times I want to say:

He did NOT level turnfight these planes. He use a High Yo-Yo and a Low Yo-Yo to gain advantage. He would get in close and use the initial accelleration performance of the FW-190A8. Remember 1.58ata/1.65ata was a throttle setting on the FW-190A8 not a function of boost.

He said you could drop the take-off flaps and considerable tighten the turn. First he would back off the throttle, drop flaps, and then increase the throttle. When fitted with the VDM 9-12157H3 the initial accelleration of the FW-190A8 was much better than his 109G6 and would easily overcome the drag of the flaps leaving you with plenty of energy to yo-yo.

He also flew the 4 MG151's loadout.

Quote

I only read about a delay in boost with the usage of GM-1. The pipes were rather warm before the usage, so GM-1 vaporized at the beginning. It took a while until GM-1 cooled down the pipes and reached the engine in a liquid state, especially for bombers.

All the Luftwaffe boost systems took time to develop power the pilots are telling me. It took time to clear the lines.

They are also saying that boost was not used in actual combat. It was used more to:

1. Get into position to attack
2. Break Contact

During Combat the pilots used their throttle frequently. Incorrect throttle usage could "pork" the manuver.
Bud Anderson confirms this as well for the P 51D pilots. Running around at full throttle constantly was a ticket to getting shot down.

Crumpp

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #35 on:** October 08, 2004, 03:37:49 PM »

Milo drop me a line funkedup308@hotmail.com

osage · « **Reply #36 on:** October 08, 2004, 11:22:42 PM »

Pop quiz for luftwobbles:

Who's plane is this?

Flies real nice on a brushless/LiPo set up. 60 mph+ and just floats on landing.

Extra credit: Who was the pilot's rival (a real scumbag).

Crumpp · « **Reply #37 on:** October 08, 2004, 11:39:15 PM »

Heinz Bär

Which Rival? Welter?

Crumpp

osage · « **Reply #38 on:** October 09, 2004, 12:20:27 AM »

Correct! It' the 8th ranking LW top gun "Pritzl's" red 13.

Gordon Gollob was his nemesis, and tried to rat him out to Goering for womanizing and drinking when the end was near. Major Bar was a fun loving guy and didn't give a hoot about the party line.

He died in '57 in a light plane accident, of all things. What an incredible life.

Crumpp · « **Reply #39 on:** October 09, 2004, 12:42:25 AM »

Quote

Gordon Gollob was his nemesis, and tried to rat him out to Goering for womanizing and drinking when the end was near. Major Bar was a fun loving guy and didn't give a hoot about the party line.

Yep

He had numerous rivals during his career. Bär was the top scoring NCO during the BoB and Welter was his main rival for top scoring jet ace.

Nice Model, BTW. Do they make a 3 bladed prop for those?

Crumpp

osage · « **Reply #40 on:** October 09, 2004, 05:11:08 PM »

I could put a three-blade prop on her, but I would lose some performance and many report frequent prop breakage on landing with the three blade (this is a belly flopper).

It's an Alfa model from Czechoslovakia. All of their stuff is incredibly nice looking and sweet flying, especially this one, the Corsair and the Jug.

Mine flies like a dream and does 60mph+ full throttle on a really quiet Czech brushless motor and some lithium polymer batteries.

They are coming out with a Ki-84 in a week or so.

Angus · « **Reply #41 on:** October 10, 2004, 07:36:06 AM »

From far above:
"Oh he mentioned he always performed a 3 point landing and take off in the FW-190. Said prop strikes were common if you did not. "

The Spitfire only had 6 inches prop clearance BTW, so one had to be careful.
Nothing unique for just the 190.

I've always wondered why the allied pilots considered the 190 to be a much more dangerous foe than the 190. Look at sheer sperformance specs, say the 190A5 and the 109G2, - the 109 is better mostly and also is a better turner.
So, it leaves roll rate, gunpower and perhaps acceleration to the 190.
My feeling is however that engine power and engine durability played some part.
I am digging in a source on that, will let you know as soon as I find something.

Crumpp · « **Reply #42 on:** October 10, 2004, 09:23:57 AM »

Quote

I've always wondered why the allied pilots considered the 190 to be a much more dangerous foe than the 190. Look at sheer sperformance specs, say the 190A5 and the 109G2, - the 109 is better mostly and also is a better turner.

109K - One of the Fastest 109 varients. Below 6Km it is slower than the FW-190A8.

Various 190's level speed.

At high Altitudes the 109 was superior. It worked in the same manner as the Tempest and Spitfire complemented one another. The Spitfire excelled above and the Tempest could take them on below.

Here is an exerpt from the Rechlin's tactical trials of an FW-190A2 (BMW-801C) and a Bf-109F4.

Crumpp

Meyer · « **Reply #43 on:** October 11, 2004, 01:15:00 AM »

Crumpp, that 109 chart its a calculation (AFAIK the K4 never had GM1) without MW50, so is hardly representative of the K-4's performance.

I'm sure the Kursfurst was faster than 510km/h at SL

Thx for the 190 charts btw

Crumpp · « **Reply #44 on:** October 11, 2004, 05:18:42 AM »

Quote

Crumpp, that 109 chart its a calculation (AFAIK the K4 never had GM1) without MW50, so is hardly representative of the K-4's performance.

It's not a calculation. Its a flight test. Same with the FW-190 chart I posted. It was part of several hundred comparision flights done during a 3 month period for the Ta-152 program.

Your Welcome for the chart, enjoy.

Here are some other 109 Speed graphs to compare:

Bf-109F4 - Easily left behind by the FW-190A:

Bf-109G2:

There is no time that the 109 is faster than the 190 at lower altitudes. The fastest I have seen, is a 109K4 with MW-50, and it only hit just under 550Kph at sea level. Just slightly worse than the FW-190A8.

Crumpp