109 article (from www.virtualpilots.fi)

[Angus]

It's just a sheet of metal anyway

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Angus
Crumpp summed this up nicely when he said that foreign testing would usually show what the aircraft was AT LEAST capable of doing.
Just my 2 cents....

And this what our dear old Kurfie can't grasp.

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp

The FW-190A4/U8 was not a prototype.  It was the production FW190G1.

According to Baugher it was a prototype:

"Fw 190A-4/U8 - long range fighter-bomber with two drop tanks of 300 litre capacity each, mounted under the wings (on the VTr-Ju 87 racks produced by Weserflug company, with duralumin fairings); bombs were placed on the under-fuselage ETC 501 rack. In an attempt to reduce weight, only two MG 151/20 E cannons were retained. This modification was a prototype of a new fighter-bomber Fw 190G version and its first variant (G-1) simultaneously. There also existed a transitional variant similar to the U8 (probably in one copy) with modernized V. Mtt-Schlos type racks for underwing fuel tanks; armament: 2x1 MG 17 and 2x1 MG 151/20E."

gripen

[Crumpp]

It's pretty much irrelevant what should the configuration of the supposed standard Fw 190G or what ever if we know with 100% certainty that these tested planes (EB-104 and PE882, planes used for speed testing) had adjustable cooling gills.

That is the rub, Gripen, that strikes at the heart of these test legitmacy.

Take a look at EB-104.  In some sections it refered too as an FW-190A4.  Others an FW-190A5 or sometimes an FW190G.  All in the same file!

Facts are allies did not know the nomenclature of the varient they were testing much less the operational details on how to maintain the aircraft or convert the engine set up.  They certainly did not know the design differences other than the obvious external ones.

It is just silly to hold them up as the expert and final word on the design's performance.

According to Baugher it was a prototype:

Well that internet modeler site certainly knows more than the Luftwaffe and Focke Wulf on the FW190 too.

That is a great site with quite a bit of correct information.  However it does make some mistakes.

All the best,

Crumpp

[gripen]

Well, I have not said anything regarding the performance reached with these captured planes; anyway the PE882 and EB-104 seem to have been quite bit faster than the MP499, most probably the engines were running better and the drag configuration might have been also better.

What I have said is that Mr. Crumpp's statements, like these planes were crashed or cooling gills were fixed, are wrong. The situation is exactly same as what I said about the claims in 109 myths article regarding the RAE report on AE479.

Regarding the internet sources, which is better, my source in the net or Mr. Crumpp's source in the net? The point here is that I'm refering  primary sources on these planes (PE882 and EB-104).

gripen

[Crumpp]

Regarding the internet sources, which is better, my source in the net or Mr. Crumpp's source in the net?

Bookie just has the correct information.  My info is coming from the Beanstandungen.

All the best,

Crumpp

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Bookie just has the correct information.  

What if Baugher has the correct information? Mr. Crumpp's opinion on this might be a bit biased BTW.

gripen

[Angus]

Oh, dear.
On a flip side, are there some good graphs or datasheets around from properly adjusted 190's?
I mean, when it comes to i.e. the Spitfire, I have a lot of data on many variants of many models, - when it comes to 109's it goes more scarce (particularly looking for 109E's) and on the 190 very little.
So, to keep comparisons civilized, maybe look at the figures of real 190's vs the same models that the allied tested? If there are any.

[Crumpp]

This modification was a prototype of a new fighter-bomber Fw 190G version and its first variant (G-1) simultaneously.

Baugher is not really wrong in this case Gripen.  
The wording is just akward.

Facts are the cooling gills did not exist for the FW190A4 or the G1.

At least according to the Luftwaffe and Focke Wulf.

The point here is that I'm refering primary sources on these planes (PE882 and EB-104).

The British however say differently that the gills did exist for the FW190A4.

BTW can you explain to us how either an FW-190A4/U8 or an FW-190G1 can have adjustable cooling gills when the Germans say the parts do not exist?





All the best,

Crumpp

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Baugher is not really wrong in this case Gripen.  
The wording is just akward.

Facts are the cooling gills did not exist for the FW190A4 or the G1.

Direct quote from  Baugher :

" Fw 190A-4 could be distinguished by the following external features:

 * Fixed cooling slots behind the engine (except for final production batches which were fitted with adjustable slots of the A-5 version)"

And the facts are that there is plenty of pictures of showing the PE882 with adjustable cooling gills as well as above  posted report.

gripen

[Crumpp]

Again Gripen,

How do you explain a part that is not available according to the manufacturer?

Others can make whatever claim they wish, facts are Focke Wulf Bremen says the part is not available for the type.

All the best,

Crumpp

[gripen]

Why don't you just read the quote from Baugher, it gives you a direct answer:

"except for final production batches which were fitted with adjustable slots of the A-5 version"

gripen

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Again Gripen,

How do you explain a part that is not available according to the manufacturer?

Others can make whatever claim they wish, facts are Focke Wulf Bremen says the part is not available for the type.

All the best,

Crumpp

Maybe you have an early parts list Crumpp. Did not sometime through the A-4's production did it not receive adjutable gills?

[gripen]

There is plenty of pictures of PE882 in the LEMB showing the adjustable gills clearly.

gripen

[Crumpp]

W.nr.7155

Certainly is an anomoly.  The WerkNummer does not correspond to any FW190A4/U8's.

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

Given that it is an SKG 10 aircraft conducting night bombing of England, I would say the RAE got ahold of one of the few special construction birds designed for that purpose.

It probably started life as an FW-190A4/U8 before it was modified.

Certainly is not a fighter varient.

The engines were different.  For example different wiring harnesses were mounted:







Lets check out a portion of BMW's instructions for their engines to Focke Wulf:



In 1943, the FW190 was using 6 different motor set ups.

Think of the 801 series like the "Dodge Hemi" of the Luftwaffe.  Same motor with a variety of set ups and performance.

http://www.allpar.com/mopar/new-mopar-hemi.html

All the best,

Crumpp