Update#2 - Aircraft and Vehicle Service Dates

[Karnak]

Well, I looked through my books and all any of them said was 1941 for the Hurricane Mk IIc, but I don't have any Hurricane specific books.

This web site (http://www.jaapteeuwen.com/ww2aircraft/html%20pages/hawker%20hurricane.htm) claims that the Hurricane Mk IIc entered service in April, 1941 and since it is on the internet we know that it has to be true.

Seriously, 4-41 seems about right to me, but call it as you will.

[Bruno]

Originally posted by Kev367th
Not saying D9 wasn't Sep 44, but that was at 1.7ata.

I believe the D9 with 1.8 was Jan 45 earliest (big 'maybe' end Dec 44).
Yes ours is 1.8ata according to E6B.

Maybe revise the date?

Squire doesn't matter if its uber or not.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/fw190/fw190d9test.html

Toward the end -
By the end of December 1944 there were 183 Fw 190's in operation with the increased performance modification, and 60 more had been delivered with the MW 50 system and were at the point of entering service. *

*  Dietmar Hermann, Focke-Wulf Fw 190 "Long Nose", (Schiffer, Atglen, PA, 2003)

Note - "at the point of entering service" so Jan 45 wouldn't be unreasonable.

Some D-9s ran C3 injection (Erhöhte Notleistung) which came earlier then MW-50. However, if you had read the site you linked or been more honest in you selection of quotes you have seen that field conversions for MW-50 began in October for III./JG54

You selectively quoted this:

With methanol-water, maximum speed at ground level was 585 km/h at 3,300 rpm and 1.76 atm boost. In production aircraft it was planned that the MW 50 system could be used to draw fuel or methanol/water from the 115-liter tank. On account of delivery difficulties, however, it was decided to use the tank with methanol-water only, and this was dubbed the "Oldenburg System" (see III./JG 54). This system was installed in production aircraft beginning in November 1944.

But if read on and quoted the rest:

The Junkers technical field service visited III./JG 54 monthly. In October the number of Fw 190 D-9s on strength with the Gruppe rose to 68. Of these, 53 had been converted to 1,900 h.p. and one was delivered by Focke-Wulf with the MW 50 system. The remaining 14 were in the process of being converted and completion was imminent.

In its November report, Junkers noted that all the aircraft of the three new Gruppe were being converted to 1,900 h.p. and that the work was significantly more difficult at frontline airfields where there were no hangers.

By the end of December 1944 there were 183 Fw 190's in operation with the increased performance modification, and 60 more had been delivered with the MW 50 system and were at the point of entering service

So you may not like the fact that the Typhoon is at minimum '43 plane, but thats no reason to stretch the truth to 'get back' at the D-9...

[Bruno]

One more thing, don't too caught up on 1.76 ata or 1.80 ata the difference is minimal and could be that AH has E6B shows 1.80 when in fact it chould be 1.76 ata.

Also, again if you read the page, you will see that on 19, October 1944, Flight Report FW 190 D-9/210002 Nr 2., that they were able to get in a range of 1.75 - 1.80 ata over 3 three tests:

Wie aus der Auftragung ersichtlich; entsprach die Zuordnung bei den Flügen 1 und 2 am 12. und 14.10. nicht ganz den Soll werten. For the 1900 PS – power, the boost pressure below full throttle height, pLC = 1,75 ata, lay too high and for methanol operation with pLC 1,77, somewhat too low. Therefore, the speed increases of ΔVa = ~12 mph (20 km/h) (for 1900 HP) and ΔVb = ~20.5 mph (33 km/h) (for methanol) are to be used. After repeated adjustment, the maximum boost pressures lay in the correct range during flight 3 on 14.10, i.e. 1.7 ata for 1900 PS and 1.8 ata for methanol.

14.10 is 14.10.44 or 14 Oct '44...

[Kev367th]

Flight test is a flight test is a flight test - NOT in service.

Who's stretching now?

Thought the title of the thread was In Service, not 1st flew, flight tested etc.

Clearly states that no 1.8ata was ready for IN SERVICE prior to end Dec 1944, so Jan 1945 is a good bet.

[Bruno]

Flight test is a flight test is a flight test - NOT in service.

What's that got to do with what I posted?

What I said was over 3 test they achieved a range of 1.75-1.80 ata...

They were not testing 1.80 specifically for inclusion into service.

The point being as I stated in the post above it:

One more thing, don't too caught up on 1.76 ata or 1.80 ata the difference is minimal and could be that AH has E6B shows 1.80 when in fact it could be 1.76 ata.

Since in Oct, Nov, Dec III./JG 54 were installing MW-50 kits on site that they may have achieved a similiar range of ata; some lower then 1.76 some higher...

You 1.80 ata is a red herring, what really matters is performance. Have you tested AH's D-9 to see where it falls compared with the tests on Mike's site? If so please post your results... As has been shown sometimes the gages don't match expected performance in AH.

[Bruno]

Clearly states that no 1.8ata was ready for IN SERVICE prior to end Dec 1944, so Jan 1945 is a good bet.

Who said that, you? pfff...

Here is the quote where you 'deduced' that from:

bold by you:

By the end of December 1944 there were 183 Fw 190's in operation with the increased performance modification, and 60 more had been delivered with the MW 50 system and were at the point of entering service.

This is where you conclude:

Note - "at the point of entering service" so Jan 45 wouldn't be unreasonable.

I will re-post that quote with my bold:

By the end of December 1944 there were 183 Fw 190's in operation with the increased performance modification, and 60 more had been delivered with the MW 50 system and were at the point of entering service.

183 in operation by the end of Dec...

But not only that:

The Junkers technical field service visited III./JG 54 monthly. In October the number of Fw 190 D-9s on strength with the Gruppe rose to 68. Of these, 53 had been converted to 1,900 h.p. and one was delivered by Focke-Wulf with the MW 50 system. The remaining 14 were in the process of being converted and completion was imminent.

53 converted in October, 1 delivered from the factory, 14 more in the process of conversion...

So your conclusion about Jan '45 is just you making things up.

[Kev367th]

No you read this -
"[...]In September 1944 an equipment kit was installed which raised boost pressure and increased the Jumo 213 A's emergency output from 1,750 to 1,900 h.p. The installation was carried out on-site by Junker's Tecnical Field Service (TAM). This increased emergency power could be used at altitudes to 5000 meters. At the same time, use of takeoff power (1,750 h.p.) was extended to 30 min., while authorization was given to use combat power (1,620 h.p.) without restriction. "

1900hp was possible on ata1.7  - this is the increased performance mod referred to in your

By the end of December 1944 there were 183 Fw 190's in operation with the increased performance modification, and 60 more had been delivered with the MW 50 system and were at the point of entering service.

It is NOT the MW-50 and ata1.8 modification.

Let me simplify -
183 Fw-190D9 with the 1st mod by end Dec 1944, 60 with the MW-50 ata1.8 modifcation ABOUT TO ENTER SERVICE by the end of Dec 1944.



You can 'fudge' all you want with dates, but they were still trialling/testing 1.8ata in October 1944.
It was starting to be fitted to production aircraft November 1944
Deliveries to units began end December 1944.

[Karnak]

That is all academic and interesting but misses the point.

We are not going to get multiple Fw190D-9 versions in AH.  Therefor the Fw190D-9 we have, regardless of where it's performance puts it, will get used in all situations where the Fw190D-9 is appropriate.  Thus the date on the Fw190D-9 in AH is 10-44.  That is just the way it is.

[Nashwan]

From The Hawker Hurricane, An Illustrated History by Francis Mason:

The first Squadrons to recieve the Hurricane IIC, both in April, were No. 3 at Martlesham Heath (squadron leader Russell Faulkner Aitken, later Grp Capt. CBE, AFC) and No. 257 at Coltishall (still commanded by Sqn Ldr Bob Standford Tuck, DFC). The first Service deliveries of Mk IICs with Chatelleraut gun feeds were made to No 46 squadron (still led by Rabagliatti) at Sherburn-in-Elmet at the end of April, it being intended the squadron would take them to the Middle East in May, at the last moment this plan was dropped and, after removal of the tropical filters, the aircraft were handed on to No 87 squadron in Charmy Down

He goes on to say the first Hurricane IICs in the Middle East were with 229 squadron "newley arrived in September".

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by Karnak
That is all academic and interesting but misses the point.

We are not going to get multiple Fw190D-9 versions in AH.  Therefor the Fw190D-9 we have, regardless of where it's performance puts it, will get used in all situations where the Fw190D-9 is appropriate.  Thus the date on the Fw190D-9 in AH is 10-44.  That is just the way it is.

Come off it Karnak -
If your going to base 1 plane at a certain date because of its performance, you place ALL planes at a date because of its performance.
Lets stop this selective date fudging.

We are unlikely to get multiple versions of various planes, yet it's service date should be determined by it's specs, NOT by the base aircraft.

Good e.g. is the current Spit V, at 16lbs boost could hardly be classed as a 1941 aircraft, yet by your standards it would be.

Or just rename thread to -
Aircraft In Service Date (with the best fudging/workarounds/compromises/slanting).

After all it doesn't seem like actual in service dates matter.

[Karnak]

The difference is that the Spit V is not an end of war fighter and, as you are aware, I advocated for a reduction in it's boost settings to make it applicable to 1941 settings for that reason. If you look at the original list I had suggested and it had been adopted with the actual introduction to service dates.  They have changed it to introduction to combat.  It is still a moot point as demonstrated in the next paragraph.

With a 10-44 introduction date the Fw190D-9 is already going to be facing everything the Allied set in AH has to offer and still have less than a year of coverage.  Saying that it is for March, 1945 and April, 1945 only is silly and it changes nothing.  In 10-44 it will already be facing P-38Ls, P-47D-40s, P-51Ds, Spitfire Mk XIVs and Tempest Mk Vs.  Pushing it further back does nothing but establish titular and boring Allied dominance.

[Kev367th]

Early/mid/late makes no difference.

At 1.8ata its a Jan 1945 aircraft.
You want to "fudge" the date to make it so it can take part in more scenarios etc, fine.
Like I said actually "in service" doesn't really matter, does it, so why you even bothering?
Pick a date ANY date and say its OK for that aircraft type.

[Bruno]

Originally posted by Kev367th
No you read this -
"[...]In September 1944 an equipment kit was installed which raised boost pressure and increased the Jumo 213 A's emergency output from 1,750 to 1,900 h.p. The installation was carried out on-site by Junker's Tecnical Field Service (TAM). This increased emergency power could be used at altitudes to 5000 meters. At the same time, use of takeoff power (1,750 h.p.) was extended to 30 min., while authorization was given to use combat power (1,620 h.p.) without restriction. "

1900hp was possible on ata1.7  - this is the increased performance mod referred to in your

By the end of December 1944 there were 183 Fw 190's in operation with the increased performance modification, and 60 more had been delivered with the MW 50 system and were at the point of entering service.

It is NOT the MW-50 and ata1.8 modification.

Let me simplify -
183 Fw-190D9 with the 1st mod by end Dec 1944, 60 with the MW-50 ata1.8 modifcation ABOUT TO ENTER SERVICE by the end of Dec 1944.



You can 'fudge' all you want with dates, but they were still trialling/testing 1.8ata in October 1944.
It was starting to be fitted to production aircraft November 1944
Deliveries to units began end December 1944.

Yup you are right, I had to dig out Dietmar Hermann's book to make sure the quotes weren't mixed up...

Climb & Combat 1620 PS ~ 1,4 ata
Take-off/Emergency 1750 PS ~ 1,5 ata
Increased Emergency 1900 PS ~ 1,7 ata
MW50 injection 2100PS ~ 1,78 ata

But we only talking about a few of months here (Jan '45 rather then Sept '44) and only for WEP at that (10 min on 5 off in AH). If you read MWs site at 1.7 ata / 1900 PS you gain 10 - 11 mph below full throttle height take-off power (above 1750 PS)and gain 20 - 22 mph with MW-50 (1.78 ata 2100 PS) above 1750 PS.

Based on the flight results, and allowing for variations, it can be stated that a gain in speed of 10 to 11 mph (16 to 18 km/h) is obtained below full throttle height using take-off power increased to 1900 PS. 20 ½ to 21 ¾ mph (33 to 35 km/h) can be obtained using MW 50 installation, with the 160 Ltr. - nozzle.

and

The enclosed speed graph shows level flight performance with Increased Take-off power (1900 HP - basis) and Special- Emergency power. As evident, a gain in speed of 13 to 15 km/h is obtained by the gap sealing. Level speeds at Sea Level:

According to Naudet:

And to give a quick glance on the MW50 test, Wk.-Nr. 210 002 reached speeds of 570-580 km/h with Erhoehte Notleitung and 590-595km/h at SL using MW50, without ETC504 attached and a puttied and polished surface.
In a later test were a gap between engine and wing was covered, 002 managed 608km/h at SL using MW50.
But all tests were done using underperforming engines, mentioned in both FW and Junkers documents and so they approve Hennings oppion that the engine of 002 was somewhat "bad". He was right, because the first serial production chargers did not reach intended full boost altitude and airflow, according to Junkers reports of benchtests with there JUMO213 engines from the first serial production batch.
And funny to note, comparative test with Wk.-Nr. 210 001 with standard factory surface finish reached the same speeds as 002. FW was a bit curious why the higher quality surface finish of 002 did not show in better performance and were keen to investigate that issue further.

The conclusion of FW was that with engines performing to the published figures and good factory finish a serial production D9 will reach the calculated performance figures.

According Whels last test on AH deck speeds the AH D-9 does

190D-9 346 mph (557 km/h) MIL
190D-9 375 mph (604 km/h) WEP compared to 378 mph (608 km/h) MW-50

If this is still true the AH2s D-9 may match up well with a Jan '45 D-9 running at max 1.78 / 1.80 ata 2100 PS and should be adjusted to reflect that. However, someone should run full tests to be sure.

here's what Butch said:

The Oldenburg Gerät was indeed an MW-50 system which was not mounted on every airframe, it was based on an MW-50 tank not the dual MW-50/fuel tank which was used on the later serialized system (beginning february 1945).

The Oldenburg Gerät (LP MW-50 system) were installed during production in the early part of November '44 and III./JG54 received 60 by the end of December.

FYI

PS is the metric equivalent of HP (2100 PS = 2071 HP / 1900 PS = 1874 HP) on MW's site HP / PS are inter mixed.

[Karnak]

It is a matter of what is acceptable fudging.  Somewhere between the extremes of "It is a WWII aircraft so we can use it in any WWII scenario" and "Werk# SP5003 entered service on 2-13-1945 and that is the one modeled" there is the optimum point.  Some sacrifices to perfect accuracy have to be made when there is a limited planeset unless the performance in question is too dramatically good (see: Spitfire Mk V at +16lbs boost or Typhoon at +11 or +13 lbs boost) for earlier usage and the Fw190D-9 in AH does not reach those levels of performance relative to the Allied aircraft.  Therefor it is a reasonable proximization of reality to use it from 10-44 all the way to the end.  It is not like using a +13lbs boost Typhoon that is 30+mph faster than it should be for a 1942 +7lbs boost Typhoon when the Axis have nothing that can sustain even the 1942 Typhoon's speed down low.

[Bruno]

For the 'list' accurate dates should be given (as best as possible). It is then left up to the CM / designer to decide to what degree of fudging is acceptable for his event etc...

If we start off the list by 'fudging' the limits to such 'fudging' will get stretched even more when CMs start looking at substitutions.

Let's just get an 'accurate list' and be done with it...