109 article (from www.virtualpilots.fi)

[Angus]

hEHE...GROFLLL
Well, to cut a long story short, IMHO, the 190 is a very very very well designed aircraft. So is the 109, and amazing for it's time.
However, for a knife fight between 109, 190 and a Spitty (since it was mentioned) given the same horepowers, I'd pick the Spitty, for some odd reason.
Maybbe that's  just me...

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Actually all of these aircraft were captured within weeks off one another.  All from mistaken landings at night and came from SKG10.

The simple fact is that these planes contained the real thing ie adjustable cooling gills and these were late production A-4s.

This is hard evidence and it's supported by for example Baugher and Beaman. Your argument is based on one document which might be incomplete and the rest of your argument is plain speculation.

Originally posted by Crumpp
Too bad they were not air superiority fighter versions. According to Focke Wulf and BMW, the motors are not the same as per their instructions to Luftwaffe personnel.

Again you don't show the complete document and you don't point out why a 801D2 should run differently than another 801D2. It's documented that RAE was able to run a 801D2 up to it's specs and no problems were claimed with other 801s, the rest is again speculations from your side.

Originally posted by Crumpp
The document I posted goes on to spell out the engine differences.

Actually it states only "BMW 801", iand it's know that the BMW 801D2 was not the only BMW 801 version used in the Fw 190s. The rest is again speculations from your side.

Originally posted by Crumpp
Eric Browns comments on the FW190G1

Again the plane was a A4/U8, you just try to read Baugher ackwardly, see the second page  in Baughers article:

"During the development of this new version, elements of the Fw 190A-4/U8 long range fighter-bomber were used, in which range extension was obtained by use of two droppable underwing fuel tanks of 300 litres capacity each. These tanks were carried on VTr-Ju87 pylons produced by the Weserflug company, with duralumin profiled fairings.

However, the increase in fuel weight to 880 kg could considerably reduce aircraft performance and extend takeoff length to the point of reducing the operational ability of the plane from smaller airfields. Therefore it was necessary to keep down the overall weight by simultaneous reduction of armour or armament. The designers applied the second solution,  removed the fuselage mounted MG 17 7.9 mm machine guns and resisted applying a second pair of cannons in the wings. Thus the new Fw 190G-1 had armament reduced to only two MG 151/20 E 20 mm cannons mounted in the wing roots with a reduced 150 rounds per cannon ammunition.

For offensive armament the under-fuselage ETC 501 bomb rack could carry 250 and 500 kg bombs or four small 50 kg bombs after the ER 4 adapter applied.

The radio equipment suite deleted the FuG 25a IFF device and often the radio altimeter was not mounted.

Because of the extended engine operational time it was suggested that an additional oil tank be mounted under the cowling, near the windshield, in the place of the previously used MG 17 machine guns.

About 50 Fw 190A-4/U8 planes were produced that were included in the G series and got the official designation Fw 190G-1. During production, the shields of the underwing munitions locks were slightly enlarged and stiffened."

Shortly the G-1 was based on A4/U8 but it was not the same plane.

Originally posted by Crumpp
The middle manifold pressure ran fine on all engines captured by the allies.  Trouble was only experienced  at the edge of the operating pressures, idle and emergency power.

Speculations again, there is no documented problems in RAE after MP499 and it's documented that they could run even that engine succesfully after small changes.
 

Originally posted by Crumpp
Yes Gripen.  Don't believe everything you read in a book.

It's up to you to bring in the evidence but for one reason or another you make just endless speculations.

Originally posted by Crumpp
Or call an FW-190A5/U8 (G3) an FW-190A4 as was the case with EB-104.

I have only claimed the documented fact that the EB-104 had adjustable cooling gills and you have claimed that it had not.

Originally posted by Crumpp
It is certain that if it does not show up in the supply codes, it was not in the Luftwaffe supply system.

There is a supply code for the A-5 part which apparently could be fitted to the A-4 and there is evidence which supports that.

Originally posted by Crumpp
It most certainly though was not a common item and very unlikely it was "serial production".

Well, here we have your speculations based on one document against the hard evidence and Baugher and Beaman.

gripen

[Crumpp]

Shortly the G-1 was based on A4/U8 but it was not the same plane.

That is what was thought in the immediate post war.  However we now know that the FW-190A4/U8 was blanket redesignated the FW-190G1 when the decision to no longer produce umrüstzustand kits was made.

It was too complicated for a rüstzustand kit and was designated a seperate varient.  

Fighter-bomber with underwing drop tanks; later re-designated FW 190 G-1

http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/variants.htm

Andrew's book:

http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/afrika.htm

Again you don't show the complete document and you don't point out why a 801D2 should run differently than another 801D2. It's documented that RAE was able to run a 801D2 up to it's specs and no problems were claimed with other 801s, the rest is again speculations from your side.

This is a whining statement coming from you, Gripen.  I have never seen you post a complete document.

Mainly though I am saving the juicy details for the book.

Actually it states only "BMW 801", iand it's know that the BMW 801D2 was not the only BMW 801 version used in the Fw 190s. The rest is again speculations from your side.

Nope, it's talking about BMW801C's and D's.  Production of the first BMW801T series motors is several months away though!



There are about 5 pages of non-standard size fold out charts listing all the parts of the engine/power egg by supply code showing what is compatible with what.

There is a supply code for the A-5 part which apparently could be fitted to the A-4 and there is evidence which supports that.

Nonsense.  There is not a supply code for it.  If it could be fitted it would have a code listed in the appropriate block.  Notice the cooling gills part number is the same for all the FW-190A5 and above.  





Parts that are different get their own code.  As you can see, all serial production variants are listed.

Here we see #19, the MG cover:



The parts numbers are different based on the MG set up:

Well, here we have your speculations based on one document against the hard evidence and Baugher and Beaman.

Produce the hard evidence!!

Frankly, you don't know where they got their information and to you it is second hand anyway.

I'm just looking at the original documentation, pilots who flew it, and actual aircraft.

Additionally, I am not researching the FW-190G series.  My subject is the FW-190A8/A9 specifically.   However I come across a large amount of data on all the FW-190 series in my research.

I read that information on the cooling gills off a test of a prototype G series, WNr. 669 and 670.

However the 1943 Focke Wulf instructions for the use of BMW 801 engines confirm that the engine/intake/oil cooler changes did occur.

The parts manual points to a KB runs for the FW-190A4/U8 for the cooling gills.

That's the facts according to Focke Wulf documentation.

All the best,

Crumpp

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp
However we now know that the FW-190A4/U8 was blanket redesignated the FW-190G1 when the decision to no longer produce umrüstzustand kits was made.

Not according to Baugher, infact it could be said that the G-1 was just a redesignated A4/U8 with some modifications ie an A series airframe.

Originally posted by Crumpp
This is a whining statement coming from you, Gripen.  I have never seen you post a complete document.

I have given the source, it's from PRO, it should be easily findable for you. Besides the conclusions tell about all we need to know and I also posted page giving the specific gravity. If you are interested about the rest, just go and get it.

Originally posted by Crumpp
Nope, it's talking about BMW801C's and D's.  Production of the first BMW801T series motors is several months away though!

I can't really follow you now, first you claim that it's proves something about differences between engines of these planes (MP499, PE882, PM679 and PN999 had all the 801D2), now you say that it's about 801C and D?

Originally posted by Crumpp
Nonsense.  There is not a supply code for it.  If it could be fitted it would have a code listed in the appropriate block.

There is evidence that it could be fitted and the evidence is supported by Baugher and Beaman.

Most probably your information is incomplete and including it to your every post does not make it more complete regardless how many time you post them.

Maybe you should contact Mr. Beaman or Mr. Baugher instead repeating same mantra time after time.

Originally posted by Crumpp

Produce the hard evidence!!

I don't need to produce the hard evidence because the Germans allready made the evidence over 60 years ago.

gripen

[Angus]

Informative thread.
Lacks a thesis.
Can you guys post a thesis? A one-sentence theory in which there is a statement where you presumably disagree?
Just my five cents again

[gripen]

Originally posted by Angus

Can you guys post a thesis? A one-sentence theory in which there is a statement where you presumably disagree?

All I said originally about the cooling gills is that these were adjustable in the certain planes (PE882, PM679, PN999 and EB-104) tested by allies.

gripen

[Crumpp]

All I said originally about the cooling gills is that these were adjustable in the certain planes (PE882, PM679, PN999 and EB-104) tested by allies.

Gripen,

Do you understand what KB stands for?

Keinebau is a short non standard production run.  

Nothing more.

Next you are trying to claim that an FW-190A4/U8 is the same as an FW-190A4 fighter.

It is not and unless the RAE exchanged a some key components no matter how good their motor ran it would not equal a fighter varient.

The Focke Wulf documents show this.

The C3 issue has been covered as well.

You seem to be very selective in your facts Gripen.

This is getting like "smoothed and polished" and you wonder why folks do not take you seriously.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Angus]

So, cooling gills were adjustable in certain aircraft, yes or no?
And how big was their difference?

[Crumpp]

So, cooling gills were adjustable in certain aircraft, yes or no?

Obviously they were made and my info about the gills comes from a test on the prototype.

Just as obvious is the fact they were not a "standard" item as they do show up in the Luftwaffe supply system.

The engine differences come from multiple sources.

Luftwaffe manuals, BMW, and Focke Wulf documentation to be exact.

Without a Focke Wulf or BMW trained personnel and the correct parts, it would have been impossible to put a G series back to the same performance as a fighter.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Angus]

How much would the performance difference have been.
That's after all what it boils down to, right?

[Crumpp]

All the flight test I have seen of clean configuration G series show them slower in level speed and better in sustained climb but use a slower best climb speed.

The differences vary with the later series G's almost closing the gap in performance.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Kweassa]

My meager brain is about to explode.... I'm not sure why the issue is becoming so complicated..

 It seems like its a classic "my word against yours" situation, except on one side, we have the documents from the guys who made the plane, and the other, the "Baugher" guy.

 Isn't the discussion basically over if we know where this "Baugher" guy gets his info from?

 So where does this "Baugher" guy get his info on the "gill" thingys from?

 Can't we simply compare this "Baugher" guy's source with the Luftwaffe/Fockewulf documents and determine which is more credible?

[BlauK]

I suppose the point gripen was trying to make in the 109 issue was to always go after the original sources, but then in the 190 issue some book is much better than the original sources

Should I draw a conclusion from this that each person's primary sources are what he himself believes them to be... which ever suits the best in various issues

[Angus]

So, where does the book come from???

[Crumpp]

Baugher information comes from this:

The IPMS Stockholm site is maintained solely by the voluntary submissions of text, articles, photos and drawings.  There is no editorial team in the word's traditional meaning, just a network of individuals who have been kind enough to support this project with documentation of their work.

It's a free article someone wrote.  They did a great job for the most part, BTW.

We'd be more than glad to see your personal story about the subject - there is no requirement for any formal kit reviews, previews, ratings, technical data or the like. I always encourage our contributors to make their own choices of what particulars they'd like to write about. Some focus on modelling techniques, some on history, others on the kit. Your imagination and personal interest should be the best advisors here.

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/submission_guidelines.htm

All the best,

Crumpp