Author Topic: please adjust the 190A8  (Read 9446 times)

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Re: please adjust the 190A8
« Reply #120 on: April 16, 2012, 06:40:57 AM »
So our A8 is the basic fighter from March 44 with the puny 1700hp on boost. Remember the /R2 with MK108 is about 10mph slower from SL to Max Alt for the whole spectrum. Or how dog slow would the /R8 with 2-MK103 be where each gun was more than twice the weight of the MK108.

I have no idea where you get your info from but as previously mentioned all the use of MK103 in FW190s was experimental only. There was no way for a MK103 to fit into the wing itself. There was a an experimental installation in which the cannons were housed in gondolas under the wing. If successful they would have been used for ground attack.

What BMW801D-2 delivers on different power setting seems to vary from source to source. The data set AHs A-8 is based on has a power curve which shows 1800ps at sea level with 1.42ata setting. In AH A-8 has higher 1.58/1.65ata setting.
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline Denniss

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 607
Re: please adjust the 190A8
« Reply #121 on: April 16, 2012, 12:12:51 PM »
~1800PS is pure engine power without accounting for the loss in power to drive the fan.
The BMW power graph from July(?) 1942 clearly states N(Luftschraube) + N(Lüfter) (this detail is missing in at least two versions which have been translated into english).
Depending on source and date of original docs the fan is accounted for 70-100PS.
The 1800PS is also a static value, without loss from rammed air (overpressure) at low alt.

Offline bustr

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12436
Re: please adjust the 190A8
« Reply #122 on: April 16, 2012, 12:34:22 PM »
Shows you that the OP should have left it to a Wish for the FW190 A9 with the BMW 801s and not allowed this can of worms to be opened that you can find on at least 3 other WW2 blogs almost verbatum where they don't really get this resolved before everyone pulls out their pistolas by around page 6 and piu, piu, piu's each others mommas until page 94. And yes by July 44 uprated 801 D2 were being installed in A8 along with feild kits that just about equaled the 801 S until the power egg came out and the A8 became the A9.

The OP should have gone for a technical wish instead of an emotional one.

OP: "Hitech I wish for a FW190 A9 with BMW 801S 2000hp boost."
Hitech: "Get in line...."
OP: "Thank you sir...."
OP: "How many cases of scotch did you say sir??"

He didn't even begin the argument with the recollections from his retired FW pilot that he is freinds with. It would have been nice if the gentelman or the OP remembered time lines.

But then we don't get to be all snotty with each other and piu, piu, piu each others scholarship while stomping on each others virtual nads. Now do we?? Reminds me of first grade in Luton England where the teachers smacked me with a stick for wrong answers becasue I was an american.

English School Teacher: "Who won the Colonial insurrection of 1783?"
American School Boy: "We did!"
English School Teacher: Swings meter long pointer stick connecting with young head. "No! The crown chose to arbitrate it's losses against an inferior proposition and waste of resources."
American School Boy: "You lost the war."
English School Teacher: WHACK!!!!!!

Yup 50 years later and I'm so surprised I've found my old elementery school from Luton online........
bustr - POTW 1st Wing


This is like the old joke that voters are harsher to their beer brewer if he has an outage, than their politicians after raising their taxes. Death and taxes are certain but, fun and sex is only now.

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Re: please adjust the 190A8
« Reply #123 on: April 16, 2012, 02:34:53 PM »
~1800PS is pure engine power without accounting for the loss in power to drive the fan.
The BMW power graph from July(?) 1942 clearly states N(Luftschraube) + N(Lüfter) (this detail is missing in at least two versions which have been translated into english).

I was talking about the engine output itself as that's what is usually given in the literature.


The 1800PS is also a static value, without loss from rammed air (overpressure) at low alt.

Yes, it's for static HP. It gives roughly 1770ps for top speed's worth of rammed air. I can understand the rise of 1st supercharger gear's critical altitude due to rammed air but don't really understand how it lowers the hp below it. :headscratch:
« Last Edit: April 16, 2012, 04:39:56 PM by Wmaker »
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline bustr

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12436
Re: please adjust the 190A8
« Reply #124 on: April 16, 2012, 04:12:18 PM »
Then that would mean we have the 12.44 A8 Normaljager 2700 1.58 ata and the OP can only really wish for an A9 if he wants any higher performance with a radial engine in his 190.

I get images of Fantasia with the Ballerina Hippo.
bustr - POTW 1st Wing


This is like the old joke that voters are harsher to their beer brewer if he has an outage, than their politicians after raising their taxes. Death and taxes are certain but, fun and sex is only now.

Offline Denniss

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 607
Re: please adjust the 190A8
« Reply #125 on: April 16, 2012, 05:47:59 PM »
The fan was an integral part of the engine so you have to subtract the power required to operate it. This was even done in Fw 190 aircraft manuals.

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Re: please adjust the 190A8
« Reply #126 on: April 16, 2012, 06:30:33 PM »
The fan was an integral part of the engine so you have to subtract the power required to operate it.

Of course. My point is that that's the value which mentioned at large in literature in general. Sometimes converted to actual hp, sometimes not.
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline LCADolby

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7482
Re: please adjust the 190A8
« Reply #127 on: April 17, 2012, 04:58:32 AM »
But then we don't get to be all snotty with each other and piu, piu, piu each others scholarship while stomping on each others virtual nads. Now do we?? Reminds me of first grade in Luton England where the teachers smacked me with a stick for wrong answers becasue I was an american.

English School Teacher: "Who won the Colonial insurrection of 1783?"
American School Boy: "We did!"
English School Teacher: Swings meter long pointer stick connecting with young head. "No! The crown chose to arbitrate it's losses against an inferior proposition and waste of resources."
American School Boy: "You lost the war."
English School Teacher: WHACK!!!!!!

Yup 50 years later and I'm so surprised I've found my old elementery school from Luton online........

Jolly Good Show! I owe that Tutor a pint of best. :old:








 :D
JG5 "Eismeer"
YouTube+Twitch - 20Dolby10

MW148 LW301
"BE a man and shoot me in the back" - pez

Offline Babalonian

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5817
      • Pigs on the Wing
Re: please adjust the 190A8
« Reply #128 on: April 18, 2012, 05:33:10 PM »
I don't see how the weight of the powerplant on that particular weight table is relevant when it is clear that AH's A-8 has 801D-2 with its highest boost setting that as far as I know stayed that way until the end of the war for 801D-2. Again, the few that had T-series engines, as per the earlier quote I posted, were rare.

(Agreed - actually my comment was made in support of your comment just now that amongst all 801D-2 engines, the T-series was indeed rare because, I *think* your presented report there, made in early/mid September of 1944 (if I'm correct), by FW/LW none-less, strongly reinforces that statement.  Again, to clarify - the weight I feel is relevant to highlighting what was the particular engine avilable to the series at the time of that report... which also lends itself to noting there is no 190 in AH modeled with an engine after the 801D-2 (and what seems to now be developing into the reasoning for requesting an A-9 from HTCs for AH).

Again, I don't see anything particularly complex about the A-8 variant alone. What powerplant and max. power setting is a no brainer is already modeled with the right combo.

Yup, again just agreeing.  She's a dog, and only one example of many A-8 varients produced, but an accurate one (and in regards to the 1-200 pounds, still to well within tollerable limits by AH sandards).  I like our A-8, especialy when in the right situation at the right time, but I just wish she was likeable-er in the MAs (AH's primary arena).

A-9 had the same standard armament (2x13mm, 4x20mm) as A-7 and A-8:
(Image removed from quote.)


What wing cannon options? It already has 20mm on the inner mounts as it should and it never had the outer wing 20mms. If you are talking about the possible wing mounted MK103s, those were experimental only.

The A-9 did have the same standard armament as the A8, so it could have the 20 and 30mm outer wing cannons, however it did not recieve the A-8s armor imrpovements/reinforcements.  It had a larger radiator than the A-8, however it inherited the additional cowling armor to the front.

In my "fantasia" I'm specificaly requesting they not be added, otherwise I suspect it will promptly designate the A-8 as a hangar queen in the game as a result.  But what are your thoughts on that?  Maybe, instead, it will bring to shine the up-armored qualities of the current A-8?


The F-8's loadouts...  what's your source on it never having any outer wing mounted cannon WMaker?  I agree, I don't believe it saw the Mk103 past the drawing board, but a number of options did (they just might never of been installed at the factory).  I think what governs though why most/many F-8s didn't see wing cannons is that they could carry heavier ordnance/bomb options than what we have modeled in the game (and they did).

To add, WMaker, you of all people are an intersting person to study preaching about modleing proper/published factory standards of performance in one hand and then also argueing with absolutley no doubt that it IS the "modeled with the right combo".  Remember, the combination in question, in regards to the speculative role our A-8 plays, is the one that saw action during the last 6-months of the war (heavy combat) and the last of the radial-powered variants.  I'm trying to get there in digging around and some documention supports it with the amount of engines delivered during that time form BMW to the LW, but in the last few months of the war, a BMW801S seems to of been more common and available than BMW801D-2, yet let us ignore the more likely combination actually used during that time for the proper and documented factory standards.

<sniped out rant about the Finnish brewster>, I <3 it!, but is it more closely modeled after what was de-crated on a Finnish dock or what was left remaining after the conclusion of the war?  (you may now tar and feather me for using your Brew as a crutch in the A8 arguement)
« Last Edit: April 18, 2012, 06:13:21 PM by Babalonian »
-Babalon
"Let's light 'em up and see how they smoke."
POTW IIw Oink! - http://www.PigsOnTheWing.org

Wow, you guys need help.

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Re: please adjust the 190A8
« Reply #129 on: April 18, 2012, 06:43:06 PM »
however it did not recieve the A-8s armor imrpovements/reinforcements.

If you are talking about the Rammjager/Sturmbock extra armor it is true that at least the standard A-9 didn't have them but like I've said before, our A-8 doesn't have any "additional armor" either. Not based on the weight table or per anyone's argumentation. (I'm not sure if they were any A-9 with additional armor or not. It hard to say considering the records of the Third Reich at that point of the war.)


It had a larger radiator than the A-8, however it inherited the additional cowling armor to the front.

Yep, A-9 did have beefed up armor of the oil cooler which I assumed that you meant. So in that regard it had slightly more armor than a standard A-8 and had a slightly higher take off weight as well.


In my "fantasia" I'm specificaly requesting they not be added, otherwise I suspect it will promptly designate the A-8 as a hangar queen in the game as a result.  But what are your thoughts on that?  Maybe, instead, it will bring to shine the up-armored qualities of the current A-8?

As I've said many times on this thread, there's nothing that I can see which backs up the claim that there's any additional armor (rammjager/sturmbock) in AH's A-8. Nothing supports that fact. Yes, I'm sure that A-9 would do to A-9 what P-47M did to P-47D-40 in the late war arena. I don't see anything wrong with that as there are already previous examples of it and it is a "all vs. all fantasy arena" after all.


The F-8's loadouts...  what's your source on it never having any outer wing mounted cannon WMaker?

Well, practically every source that says something about the F-8 and I've never seen a single photo of one with four cannons. The wing hard points needed something solid to attach to.


To add, WMaker, you of all people are an intersting person to study preaching about modleing proper/published factory standards of performance in one hand and then also argueing with absolutley no doubt that it IS the "modeled with the right combo".  Remember, the combination in question, in regards to the speculative role our A-8 plays, is the one that saw action during the last 6-months of the war (heavy combat) and the last of the radial-powered variants.  I'm trying to get there in digging around and some documention supports it with the amount of engines delivered during that time form BMW to the LW, but in the last few months of the war, a BMW801S seems to of been more common and available than BMW801D-2, yet let us ignore the more likely combination actually used during that time for the proper and documented factory standards.

I don't quite get what you are on about here but the AH's A-8 currently hits Focke Wulf's own set of data. Considering how many were built powered with 801D-2 and how sketchy the info is about the 801TS installations and the like (I've seen no data for the A-8 with anything but 801D-2) so yes, I think A-8 with 801D-2 with its highest power setting available is the right "combo" to model.


<sniped out rant about the Finnish brewster>, I <3 it!, but is it more closely modeled after what was de-crated on a Finnish dock or what was left remaining after the conclusion of the war?

I managed to read what you said about the Brewster but couldn't quite make out what you were saying anyway. :headscratch: But I'll say that I know two different data sets for Brewster's speed for example. One is Brewster's own specification document and one is Finnish flight test and they show almost identical performance with each other and with the game. We are talking about variation of 2-3mph here and there. So if you wish to clarify what you meant I'll be happy to answer further.
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline bustr

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12436
Re: please adjust the 190A8
« Reply #130 on: April 18, 2012, 07:38:59 PM »
Which 801 D2 boost system and supercharger ration is our A8 using?
 
Supercharger: 5.31:1 and 8.31:1

Petrol Injection into Air Intake - 1730hp to 1870hp depending on "which" boost and petrol injection system used.

Or

MW50 and Increased Boost - 2000hp+ for 10 minutes. (Did this take an change to the supercharger ratio or piston shape?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a.) What constitutes the difference between D1 and D2?

b.) I thought we are supposed to see something like: (BMW 801 D 600). What is the 3 digit number after th D designation?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The A9 was fitted with the 801 S. and different supercharger ratio's (6:1 to 8.3:1) than the D2.

Was that rated 2000hp before boost or after?

What was the "Power Egg" designation for that 801 package?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since we are seeing D, D2, F, S, TH, TS, TU bandied about.

1.) How many different "Power Eggs" were involved with the 190A8 series. (Isn't the A8's the MG Power Egg?)

2.) How many different 801's constituted the bare engine in those "Power Eggs"?

3.) How many different Boost systems and supercharger rations are we talking about?

4.) What was the highest HP rated system used by more than 100 A8 day fighters in the last months of the war?

5.) Which one is our A8?

bustr - POTW 1st Wing


This is like the old joke that voters are harsher to their beer brewer if he has an outage, than their politicians after raising their taxes. Death and taxes are certain but, fun and sex is only now.

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Re: please adjust the 190A8
« Reply #131 on: April 19, 2012, 12:31:32 AM »
The edit time limit had ran out...

Correction:

I don't quite get what you are on about here but the AH's A-8 currently hits Focke Wulf's own set of data. Considering how many were built powered with 801D-2 and how sketchy the info is about the 801TS installations and the like (I've seen no performance data for the A-8 with anything but 801D-2) so yes, I think A-8 with 801D-2 with its highest power setting available is the right "combo" to model.

Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline bustr

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12436
Re: please adjust the 190A8
« Reply #132 on: April 19, 2012, 03:01:10 AM »
Ya wanna give my list of questions a shot? Thats kinda vauge to answer with your own corrected quote.

For every american, german, russian, spanish and south american ww2 forum I've been to the answers vary and are even argued by common members of several of those forums across forums. Many of them appere to own original documents, libraries of books and some work for restoration companies. For every expert it is only thier answer and everyone else is wrong. There apperes to be about as many personal modern truths about FW190's and BMW 801's as were rolled off the assembly lines in ww2.

The 2700rpm 1.56/1.65 looks like it would be for a petrol injection to air intake. But which supercharger gearing to achive 1800hp+-? Or are we using late war MW50 at 2000hp with the S gearing?  Then would come into play which version of the "Power Egg" for these production aircraft? But then, Starting from July 1944 all Fw 190 A-8 aircraft will be equipped with "increased emergency". By overridding the supercharger boost regulator, boost pressures are increased at take-off and emergency power in low supercharger setting from 1,42 ata to 1,58 ata and at the high supercharger setting from 1,42 to 1,65 ata.

Reads like petral injection to the air intake.

D2 - 5.31:1 to 8.31:1 
S - 6:1 to 8.3:1

But, you also read some places MW50 very late was allowed for the A8 boosting to 2000hp or so.

TS and TH did not stand for turbocharger but instead the Triebswerksanlage version of the Kraftei or "power egg". MG was the "power egg" designation for the A8.

I have been confused at times over engine designations as so many trying to speak about the FW's.

 Engines were typically delivered from BMW complete in their cowling, ready to be bolted to the front of the aircraft, since 1942 as Motoranlage (M) and 1944/1945 as Triebwerksanlage (T). The Motoranlage was the interchangeable Kraftei, or "power-egg", unitized powerplant installation format used in many German wartime aircraft, most often the twin and multi-engined designs, with some need for external add-ons, and the Triebwerksanlage was the Motoranlage plus some external mountings, such as exhaust pipes, as a completely interchangeable unit, as the Kraftei concept itself was.

The M and T versions confuse the naming considerably, as they referred to these complete kits and their "bare" engine counterparts almost interchangeably. The A, B and L models were known (logically) as the MA, MB and ML in this form, but the common D-2 was instead known as the MG. The E model was delivered as the TG or TH, seemingly suggesting a relation to the G and H engines, but in fact those were delivered as the TL and TP. It is rather common to see the turbocharged versions referred to only with the T, notably the (most notoriously of all) TJ, and the TQ models, further confusing the issue.

It's not too hard to figure the A5 2700rpm/2400rpm 1.42/1.32. So I think it's in Janes from 45-46 a BMW power curve graph showing about 1800hp on petrol intake boost and 2000hp+ on MW50 for the 801D. But then the 801S is rated 2000hp emergency and take off. Is the MW50 boost version what Babs is talking about?
bustr - POTW 1st Wing


This is like the old joke that voters are harsher to their beer brewer if he has an outage, than their politicians after raising their taxes. Death and taxes are certain but, fun and sex is only now.

Offline Denniss

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 607
Re: please adjust the 190A8
« Reply #133 on: April 19, 2012, 04:26:39 AM »
M/T: Triebwerksanlage is the complete power-egg - bolt onto the aircraft, connect the lines and ready for operation. Motorenanlagen did not carry all the stuff and AFAIR consisted of engine + fan + cowlings.

The 801S bare engine delivers 2000 PS at 1.65 ata boost but you have to subtract 70 PS for the fan so the engine delivers 1930PS to the prop. Some sources claim a further increase to 2200PS was possible and I assume this was a MW-boost. 1800PS on the 801D-2 is bare engine power, not what the engine was able do deliver at the prop (minimum 70 PS reduction for fan).
The Fw 190 A-8 also used the 801TU power-egg.

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Re: please adjust the 190A8
« Reply #134 on: April 19, 2012, 09:06:26 AM »
Ya wanna give my list of questions a shot? Thats kinda vauge to answer with your own corrected quote.

I wasn't answering to your post. I was correcting my own. If I answer to your post I will quote it.

I didn't answer because some were answered earlier on this thread and things like supercharger gear ratios are utterly irrelevant when it comes to in-game performance. Bloating the conversation to more and more topics and to handle more things just loses its focus. That's why I ignored your post.
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!