The Fw 190A-5 fallout

[straffo]

Bruno , as I see you're new to this BBS (at least with this handle).

You need to know my post is a symetric of several thousand LW Taliban posts made here.

If we follow the will of those Talibans, the game we will end with a Spit I and all the secret weapon of the luftwaffe.

sarcasm
PS : You should not ignore the complete inexperience of htc when it come to modelling correctly a LW plane.  
/sarcasm

[Crumpp]

That`s nice and all, Crumpp, but little more than wishful thinking, for I have just checked and the number of A-9s (inc. various Rustzustand variants) were less than a hundred in December 1944.

Sure Kurfurst.  Only one factory, Focke Wulf, was producing FW-190A9's from September 1944 until December 1944.  In December three more companies began rolling the type off the productions lines GFW, NDW, and Arado.

NDW being the most difficult to track down.  Their production was a closely guarded state secret.  It actually caused a bit of political spat between Norway and Sweden when the Foundation discovered some of NDW production documents in an Eastern European Archive.  Planes were being manufactured in Sweden!

Knegel no A series 190 used 'MW-50' as standard with the exception of a few odd ball A-4s for vengeance jabo raids against England. The A-9 like the the A-8 utilized C-3 injection.

No it did not.  The BMW801TS1 was specifically forbidden to use any boost system at all.  Once more, none was under development for it.  From the BMW801S installation and operation manual:



The BMW801TS2 could use MW50 and was tested in Jan'44.  That same month a directive come down to begin installing an emergency Alkohol-Einspritzung on the FW-190.

C3-Einspritzung was used on ground attack variants starting with the FW-190A5.  It gave excellent performance but could only be used below 1 KM in altitude.  It also was a different system from the "Erhöhte Notleistung" used in 1944 by the fighters.

That system is here:



Alkohol-Einspritzung was tested by simply did not perform as well and added the additional weight of antiknock agent tank.



I believe the emergency MW system ordered into use in Jan 45 had more to do with fuel shortages than perofrmance increases.  While "Anlage für Erhöhte Notleistung" used a different injection rate from C3-Einspritzung, it was still a fuel thirsty system.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Knegel]

Hi,

Kurfürst, only the JG301 already had 67 190A9 losses in 1944, do you realy think there was only 100 in 1944 all over??

Do you have autentic sources regarding the available planes ?

Alone in the few links of "Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen" i did post some posts above, i can count around 200 new FW190A-9(mainly November/December), while there is NO 109K listed.

If you wanna see which plane got used more often, you need to look to the 'new planes' and 'losts' not to the 'Flugzeugbestand'.
Since the 109A´s in late 1944 got used mainly as 'Schwere Gruppen' and cause the K4´s could compare better with the enemyfighters, i guess the 190A´s had the highest losses and therfor a relative low 'Flugzeugbestand'.

Greetings,  Knegel

[Wotan]

I see Crumpp is back to claiming MW-50 use as standard on the A series again..

No A series 190 used MW-50 as 'standard' with the exception of a few A-4s.

A past claim of his:

190A5 was the first Wurger produced that came with MW50 standard.

He went on and on how he prove this or that but never did.

No 190A series used MW-50 as standard. Every one knows there were tests with MW-50 systems on the 190s As but they never saw standard service.

Butch2k has said this:

There was no serialized installation of MW-50 system on the 190A, but tests were made on some prototype though.

Crumpp has also made claims that GM-1 was standard on A-8s etc. as well as a whole host of other nonsense.

Posting irrelevant documents does nothing at all to prove or support anything he says. In fact it often contradicts what he claims like the above.

His claim that  the A-9 was forbidden to use C-3 injection is incorrect as well. In fact as you can the handbook scans he posted cover:

zur Fw 190A-7 bis Fw 190A-9, Teil 7

The scan he provides from  'BMW801S installation and operation manual' is unreadable on my end.

[Crumpp]

I see Crumpp is back to claiming MW-50 use as standard on the A series again..

Feel free to point that out, Wotan.  If anything that was made years ago based off what I had read in Barnes and Noble history books.  I will be the first to admit that I have learned an enormous amount about the aircraft since I began visting archives and sitting on the Board of Directors for the "White 1 Foundation".

Just because your pissed that I denied your request to join the FW190 discussion group is no reason to make things up.

If you read my post, MW was not used until very late in the war.



Your statements about GM-1 are also untrue.  I made no statements about how common it was, just that it was used.

I have the GM-1 installation manual as referenced in the Flugzueg-Handbuch.

As for the FW190A9, please get a copy of the handbuch.  That portion is specific for the BMW801D2 which the FW-190A9 could also use.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Wotan]

I made no statements about how common it was, just that it could be used.

You claimed on numerous forums (including this one) that GM-1 was standard and when I mentioned that it was not you replied something like 'maybe not by your definition of standard. Your other line of lie was something like it was ''used more then one would imagine'. I can quote you if you like...

You keep saying you have 'proof' but much like your 'MW-50 was standard on the A-5' you never provide any...

In fact Butch replied to you in one of those threads where you make claims about GM-1:

First the GM-1 tanks while being referred in the A-7/A-8/A-9 manual of which i own two different versions, was never fitted.

Just because your pissed that I denied your request to join the FW190 discussion group is no reason to make things up.

I only asked that to join that forum to follow up on what Naudet had been posting recently on the D-9. I have no interest in the A series or any any of your fairy tails. In fact I hadn't realized that Butch set that forum up at your request until I went back and read that thread after seeing your reply here. Had I known prior I wouldn't have bothered.

 I also have or had no way of knowing if I was given access or not until your tough man stance here in this thread. After all butch is AFK...

Anyway with a man of with such an important position as a member of the "Board of Directors for the White 1 Foundation" or in charge of "running the membership for the museum" one would think that you would be mentioned some where on their site, or at least able to post on their forums as someone other then 'guest', ey Gene?

[Crumpp]

You claimed on numerous forums (including this one) that GM-1 was standard and when I mentioned that it was not you replied something like 'maybe not by your definition of standard.

Please post it.

As for the "White 1 Foundation" I encourage you to join, we could use the support.  Contact numbers and how to join are on the sight.

Naudets findings are on the main board, BTW.  He did a great job.

As for "fairy tales", given the fact that over 30,000 documents on the FW190 are finally recorded and many are on a computer searchable database with more being added everyday, chances are that new discoveries are going to come to light.  Combine that with the fact we are restoring an FW190 to authentic condition and going to fly it, you think we might be in a position to bring to light many details about the design.

Why don't you prove your allegation, Wotan?  If I am "creating" fairy tales, it should be very easy to dispute.  

All the best,

Crumpp

[Wotan]

Facts are that GM-1 WAS serialized for production in the 190A8...

GM-1 was not rare on the 190A8. It was a standard kit ...

GM-1, MW-50, and C3 "emergency power" were ALL used on the FW-190A.

GM-1 and MW-50 were more common than we would believe.

The above are all quotes from Crumpp in different replies. These are just the most recent posts I found in quick search. I am not going waste my time filling this thread with the tales of Crumpp but they are on record for anyone to see.

Anyone wanting more proof of Crumpp's fairy tales just search this forum.

As for 'White 1' I wouldn't join any club/foundation that would have you as a member. In fact with your reputation for fairy tales going around the net telling folks you are  involved with 'White 1' can only hurt them in the long run.

That's the problem with Foundations that rely on volunteers. They are forced in many cases to except the most eager beaver without much regard initially to integrity.

Naudets findings are on the main board, BTW. He did a great job.

That's good to know, I feared I had missed something...

[Crumpp]

The above are all quotes from Crumpp in different replies.

Why don't you link the replies so people can read?

Facts are that GM-1 WAS serialized for production in the 190A8...

True statement.  The aircraft was set up for the installation of the GM-1 tank during production.  Here is a picture of the mounting hardware:

http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/mw50behalter.jpg

GM-1, MW-50, and C3 "emergency power" were ALL used on the FW-190A.

True statement.  All three systems were used on the aircraft.  I have already provided documentation.

GM-1 was not rare on the 190A8. It was a standard kit ...

It was a standard kit.  

Here are the instructions for it:



Here are the installation and inspection regulations:



On the use of C3 Einspritzung with GM-1, an interesting note I just through in for the enjoyment of all:

GM-1 and MW-50 were more common than we would believe.

They certainly were more common than I thought.  Especially in the late war as an emergency “primitive” system was ordered into use.  In December 1944 Oscar Boesch says he used "Ribben-nol" to escape attacking P51's.  

As for the White 1 Foundation, again we could use the help and I encourage you to join.  You probably learn some things about the air war.

All the best,

Gene

[teufl]

I have seen in some books where the d9 also had a 30mm and 2 20 mm, was this the beginning of the ta 152 C as far as experimenting with gun packages?   I have read where the ta 152c had 4 20mm and 1 30mm(licks chops)

[Krusty]

Teufl, yes, that was the beginning of the 152. The later 190Ds sort of became the 152 (there's a difference, yes, but I believe the 190D was a stand-in until the 152 was ready/completed, so it stands to reason they'd try new setups on it.)

[Wilbus]

Prototype 152's Teufl. I belive the D11 used 2x20mm and 2x30mm.