German Language article on BMW801D boost systems

[Crumpp]

Your a piece of work Milo.

GIVE IT UP!! You wrong and just going to make yourself look silly.

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Your a piece of work Milo.

GIVE IT UP!! You wrong and just going to make yourself look silly.

Crumpp

Aren't you all sweetness Crumpp. LOL, I even said thanks for finally posting the description, even though it was in the wrong thread. And, you asked me if I had a 'hard on'.


Are you now changing your statement so that the spheres did not have to be moved if the rubber coated tank was fitted?

[Crumpp]

Milo,

Why don't want to continue this in the other thread?

Let's recap our visit to the 115-liter Aux fuel tank with you.

You said the tank was not optional.

It most certainly is an optional piece of equipment, just like the 300-liter drop tank.  Focke Wulf began delivering the Aircraft with the tank installed so therefore nobody could remove it was your reasoning.

You were wrong.

You said it was very difficult to remove and when Butch2k chimed in with it being impossible to remove, you changed your line to fall in with his.  You claimed it was impossible to remove as well.

You were wrong times TWO.

First the tank is removable.
Second it is not a difficult task and only takes a few minutes for one man.

The tank is not a difficult maintenance task to remove and was routinely removed and replaced at the Geschwader according to the mission set up for the day by the TO.  Same as any ordinance, drop tank, or mission specific equipment.


Dr. Timken says the O2 cylinders are "well out of the way" and the manual says nothing about having to move the O2.

Crump says:
I said it does not mention having to remove them in the Flugzeug-handbuch and the guys who removed the tank at White 1 do not remember having to remove them either.

The cylinders are mounted with quick release buckles, two per bank. Pop those and the bracket clips into the section span. Lift it up and move it and set the O2 cylinders out of the way (the line is flexible and still attached). Remove the Aux tank. That is if you have the rubber coated self-sealing sleeve. The bare metal just slides right out."

The second part is from my knowledge of the 02 Cylinders removal from the  Maintenance manual.  The manual says nothing about either type of 115-liter aux tank.  

Again you do not read what people write.

As for Bentely's excellent drawings:

I respect Bentley and do not think for a second his work is inaccurate so I offer this as a possible explanation.

After rechecking the manual and checking AGAIN with White 1 there is very little doubt IMO that Bentley is the victim of a Museum curator or his original Focke Wulf Documentation.  

Be careful when looking at Museum pictures of FW-190's.  Especially Aircraft restored to static display.  There are plenty of mistakes, especially in interior structure for static displays.  You should check out the porch screws we found in one very well known static display wingtip.  They were used and ground off so that the threads just barely poked out.   That is not to mention all the interior stucture that just does not belong or is inaccurate.

I would not be surprised if Bentley did not render a completely accurate drawing of a Museum's mistake.

Come down to the White 1 Museum sometime.  Some of my collection is on display including some "original Focke Wulf drawings" About a dozen of them, Milo.  Big fold out sheets.  All with interior structure changes to the design.  Every time they made a change, they made a drawing.  These particular ones are for different reinforcement plate designs on some of the joints in the control surfaces.

Crumpp

[Naudet]

Milo, with "rubber coated tank" i assume you refer to the protected auxilary tank type.
If yes, all the procedures described in the handbook are for the protected aux tank, as the handbook states "That the technical specifications of the unprotected tank are not available yet".

[Crumpp]

Milo, with "rubber coated tank" i assume you refer to the protected auxilary tank type.If yes, all the procedures described in the handbook are for the protected aux tank, as the handbook states "That the technical specifications of the unprotected tank are not available yet".

Naudet is absolutely correct!

Milo you are just showing your ignorance of the design.  The unprotected tank was the late war version.  The protected tank was the tank in use when the manual was written.

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Ok, lets re-cap.

From the fall of '44, the tank was a standard fit from the factory. You claimed it was an optional fit. Only later did you say optional at the unit level. Before it became a standard fit, it was optional, whether fitted at the factory or fitted at some line unit or depot. Are we happy now?

As to your description and the manual. Manuals are not always up to date, as you have said in the past.  Your pic of White 1's, an early production a/c has an uncoated tank.  (but see below). Manuals always don't tell you everything that has to be done.

Now there is the question of pre large hatch a/c fitted with the tank. The A-6 could have the tank fitted but had a small hatch. Removing the tank would be a difficult job, would it not?

All I can say is is your understanding of what 'difficult' and 'easy' is, is different than mine. For instance, I just had to replace the power steering hoses on my vehicle. The dealer said it was an easy job, and looked like an easy job, only taking a few minutes, but took me a couple of hours to do (I am not mechanically inept).

Now to White 7. Are you saying the craftmen who did the restoration at the Gerber Facility did not do a compentent job? My understanding is that they are very meticulous, going so far as to even adding a medical kit to the a/c. Spending almost 3 years and 13,458 dedicated man-hours to the restoration is not, imo, a Mickey Mouse restoration. They even ordered the same 6 self-aligning bearings for the elevators from the original manufacurer, studmuffin, that made them during WW2. Also applying stencilling to areas that would not be seen. Will White 1 go this far?

Bentley states on his 1/48 drawings of the A-8 (the one posted Naudet), " All dimensions shown have been obtained from official Focke-Wulf drawings, reports specifications and data sheets."

If I go to Bike Week in Feb, I will drop in.

For the record, and not in any particular order, the F4U, Tempest and Tank's a/c are what most interest me.


Naudet, maybe so, but the NASM F-8 photos show 6 spheres, 3 on one side and 3 on the other side. Can we believe what the Handbook says?  I see you did an edit while I was typing.

The NASM a/c has W.Nr. 931 884 and White 1 has W.Nr. 931 862. Now Crumpp posted a link to a pic of the tank of White 1 uncoated, yet the NASM F-8 has the coating and they are very close to each other in W.Nr. So the tank of White 1 was a replacement tank?


LOL Crumpp, with the attitude again when things seemed to going better. Why is it the Luft luvers get in a big snit when questioned on their precious a/c?

[MiloMorai]

Crumpp, how would you rate this article on this site?

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2004/11/stuff_eng_fw190_01.htm

I have not read through it yet, later as will be busy for awhile. Bloody deadline moved up.

[Crumpp]

look again, more closely this time, at the drawing at the position of the forward of the 3 oxygen spheres. The distance is 455mm (to the closest 5mm) .  

This is where I think the enigma lies.  Not in Bentley's drawings, the Manual, or the actual aircraft.

I think the mystery lies in your estimation error.  It is a tight fit.

I have not read through it yet, later as will be busy for awhile. Bloody deadline moved up.

I just thumbed through it real quick.  It seems to have some good info but I was also able to pick out some major errors.  I think the author used some previously published books.

Crumpp

[Naudet]

Milo, i edited cause i found a picture of the oygen bottles in the FW190 manual.

They have an unusual form and so in the drawing it looked like there were to many. The drawing only contains 3 oygen bottles, as the handbooks notes.
2 are mounted on the right fuselage side, 1 on the left, directly beneath the port access hatch.

The handbook part about the general equipment also contains information about removal/installation of the oygen bottles.
There is also nothing noted about that they need to be removed when the aux tank should be installed/removed.
Btw the procedure to remove the bottles will not take long anyway.

So even if the tank doesn't fit past the bottles, it will still not be a difficult thing to add/remove it from the fuselage.

The aux fuselage tank is in the handbook treated as an optional piece of equipment that can be installed/removed according to a mission profile.
The only requirement for the aux tank installation is the repositioning of the ETC501 rack 10cm further forward for CG reasons.
If this is the case, the tank can be installed/removed "at will".
This indicates that it can't be a difficult or longtime task to do.
And as it is an optional piece, we should not be surprised by the fact that two planes, close in Wk.-Nr. are fitted with different types of this tank.
As the tank might either not be factory installed and later added in the field or it was changed due to battlefield damage.

The A-6 could have the tank fitted but had a small hatch.

I honestly doubt that any A6 or A7 series planes would have that tank installed, the layout of the "Geräteraum" between frame 8 and 9 is different to the A8 or A9 and doesnt allow the aux tank to fit.
You would have to rearange the oxygen system in the A6/A7 as they occupy the space were the aux tank is installed in the A8/A9.
Also as the A6/A7 fuselage only have the small bottom access hatch you would have to remove the entire back fuselage to install the aux tank.
Not to mention the missing filler point or the "wrong" position of the ETC501 rack on the A6/A7.

[Crumpp]

Good Post Naudet.


Milo,
The FW-190A8/9 series is the only FW-190A to have the tank.  Of course the G and F series and after with the A8 fuselage as well.

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Break time while the 'pute is doing its thing.

Naudet, there might be a language problem here. If the spheres have to be removed from there mounting position, as Crumpp suggested, in my mind this is a removal (not a removal from the a/c but a removal from their mounting). Granted it would not be a big deal but is still one more thing that has to be done. Crumpp, the NASM F-8 a very small line coming from the back of the rear right side cylinder and is metallic in colour. I would say too small in dia. to be a flexible line.

I have to ask, how current is the handbook? See the text on the NASM F-8. Maybe it was found that 6 spheres were not necessary.

I already suggested that the uncoated tank was a replacement.

I have the A-6 with the option of carrying the tank but could be like many /Rx and not used. I did mention that the A-6 had a small bottom hatch. Crumpp did mention a smaller tank. Anyways, don't dwell on it.

From the fall of '44, the tank was a standard fit from the factory. I think Crumpp and I have this word 'option' sorted out now. So how does this sound? 'The tank, though a standard fit from the factory from the fall of 1944, was an option if it was in the a/c or not, at the unit level.' Are we in agreement now?

One should also remember a removal is, usually (might regret this word), easier than a install.

Crumpp what do you call a tight fit? The difference in dimensions is, lets say, around 45-50mm (~2").

As a side note, the NASM F-8 has wooden hatches.

Now back to working on that PCB layout.

[Crumpp]

Crumpp what do you call a tight fit? The difference in dimensions is, lets say, around 45-50mm (~2").

Just a guess from looking at it...

Yes I think 2 inches or less is about right.  You have to remember that the tank itself is forward of the hatch.  It is completely "detached" from the aircraft then moved over the hatch and extracted.  Installing it is just the reverse.  Lift the tank up, slide it forward and install it.

It was not a major undertaking either way.  With that said you are correct in that removal is generally easier than installation of anything.  

If you have documentation on the FW-190A6 carrying a aux tank please post it.  I have never heard or seen one with it and the POH does not say it is an option.

As a side note, the NASM F-8 has wooden hatches.

Panel construction is a good way to date FW-190's.

You see laminated wood on many late war FW-190's as a strateagic material saving measure.  The majority of the frame of the FW-190 was constructed out of high grade duraluminum and elektron.  High grade steel was used in fasteners for load bearing structures.  Low quality, soft steel is used in non-load bearing fasteners.  There are other very surprising alloys/metals that are used in the construction.  Including some that have been lumped in the mythical "Germans were not capable" pile.

Your gonna have to buy the book to find out exactly what and where they were used.  Or copy it at your local library.

There is not a language problem.  Naudet says the bottles do not have to be moved.  IF they did for ANY reason, it is not a difficult procedure to remove them.

Crumpp

[Angus]

Hello all.
A wee input.
I have this nice book about LW aircraft.
"Warplanes of the Luftwaffe"
Editor: David Donald
ISBN: 1 874023 56 5

If you don't have it, I reccomend it.
Well, it's not as deeply detailed as some may want to dive within some certain aircraft categories, but it's still pretty exact.

Just my wee cents....

[MiloMorai]

Crumpp, like I said, it could have been like other Rustatz kits and not used/fitted. example: the /R3 with the MK103

The 109 had wooden tails. At least one 152 had one as well.

Late war copper shortages had the 190 using zinc-aluminum alloy skins rather than the copper-aluminum usually used.

On your book. Butck2k is working on a 109 book that will be its bible like the "Spitfire: The History" is for the Spit. He expects it to be at least 4 more years before it goes to a publisher.

[Naudet]

Milo, Part 7 (that is about the engine and tank installations) is Releasedate January 1945 state August 1944 (Ausgabe Januar 1945, Stand Ausgust 1944).

Part 9a (this is the part including the describtion of the oygen system) ist releasdate August 1944, state April 1944 (Ausgabe August 1944, Stand April 1944).

And what exactly do you mean with sphere? Do you refer to the entire oygen bottle? Because i am not sure we speak of the same thing here.
As i said earlier the oygen bottles have a unique shape, they actually consist of three spheres.
If you look at Bentleys drawing, a group of 3 spheres is only 1 oygen bottle.

So if you see 6 spheres in the NASM F-8, there might very well only 2 bottles installed.
Would make absolute sense that a ground attack plane has less oygen bottles than a fighter variant that is supposed to stay longer at high alts.