Fw 190 - GM-1 bottles?

[Scherf]

Anyone know where the GM-1 bottles were located on the Fw 190? Have a utaway showing location?

TIA

[MiloMorai]

The aux fuel tank was also the GM-1 tank but was never used.

[Scherf]

Uh, never?

Nevah evah evah?

 

[MiloMorai]

Uh, never?

Nevah evah evah?

 

Not on any operational Fw190s.

[Krusty]

The aux tank was MW50, not GM-1. Alternatively, it also just held basic avgas and directly injected more of it into the cylinders (rather than MW50) for a cooling effect, but guzzled gas during this setup.

But you have to specify WHICH Fw 190 you want info about.


Other than that, though, see what Milo said. Any info would be test info, with the exception of the Ta152 maybe, or rare prototypes, etc.

[Charge]

How do you explain this then?

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-level-speed-13nov43.jpg

Notice the higher curves.
Then compare that chart to this.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-12jan45.jpg

How do you extend the curve higher without using a larger impeller in supercharger OR injecting more air into engine in other means, e.g. using GM-1?

-C+

[Scherf]

Those are some impressive red Xs, pilgrim, but thanks for the post.

[Denniss]

How do you extend the curve higher without using a larger impeller in supercharger OR injecting more air into engine in other means, e.g. using GM-1?

The second chart shows Sondernotleistung with increased boost. The term Sondernotleistung implies usage of MW-50 although the effect of erhöhte Notleistung (with additional fuel injection) should have had the same effect.
The Aux tank was primarily used for fuel although in late-war it was used for MW-50. I don't know if the vanilla tank was to be used for GM-1 or if it had to be changed.

[Charge]

AFAIK MW50 and C3 extend the curve to the right in those charts indicating merely greater ATA and the curve also extends downwards due to limitation of supercharger impeller efficiency. MW50 and C3 injection provide additional charge cooling, and C3 at the same time the additional fuel with no need of additional injection which needs to be separately arranged for MW50. MW50 or C3 do not provide more air into engine like GM-1 does by chemical reaction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_%28engines%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM-1

-C+

[MiloMorai]

Should have read: The aux fuel tank position was also the GM-1 tank position but was never used

[Denniss]

The greyed area shows the gain of the increased boost (curve on the right side of the area) over the standard boost (left side). Both C3-injection and MW-50 are only effective boosting agents as long as the supercharger is capable of feeding enough air into the engine.
The effect of GM-1 in the Ta 152H is see on the top right of the chart (the zig-zag)

[kilo2]

Yeah the 152 ran GM-1 system. Pilots called it haha gas.

I think in my 152 book there is a diagram of the location of the bottles. I will let you know sometime tomorrow when I get back into town.

[Krusty]

Charge, I'm sure they tested it, but it was never put into production per se. Not like on the 109 line or anything.

The second link is showing the GM-1 on the Ta152. This was put into production, but there's debate as to how much was available at that time in the war. Again, it's just a test graph. Real performance at alts that high was extremely problematic, as the 3rd gear on the supercharger was usually the worst on those engines. Kurt Tank is the only one known to fly high enough to reliably test that gear, and it was in a test flight (prototype). Pilots on the 152 made some comments (if i recall) that the third SC gear was mostly useless, but it didn't matter because nobody flew that high anyway.


GM-1 was fielded on a number of planes, from Ju-188S to 109s of various types (E-7s, G-5s I believe, many others), but on the 190s? Didn't really take hold. The airframe and the power output weren't as well suited as other airframes at that alt.

[Scherf]

Thanks gents - not the answer I was expecting, but live and learn.

My reply to Charge comes across as pretty smartass-esque on rereading it, wasn't intended that way, was genuinely glad for any input, sorry for any offence.

All comes about from a tale told by a Mossie recce pilot of a "rocket-boosted" (sic) 190 which attacked him at altitude. Mossie pilot lived to tell the tale, his account of a trail of black smoke behind the 190 had me suspecting it must have been a nitro bird, I guess not after all.

[Charge]

Interesting story. Significant smoke could merely be a byproduct of C3 injection or even a problem with the engine -you remember the pictures of early FW190 with sides black with soot due to engine running too hot. Could be either case, in certain conditions such trail would be well visible especially if such plane is chasing you or running away from you. I'm making an assumption that from various boost methods C3 produces most smoke although technically all boost methods require the engine to run very rich but I presume there could be additional exhaust produced by C3 since it uses the fuel to lower temperature of charged air.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIY3xXxckis&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL35332CAEA8F7E9D6

0:26 running on take off power the smoke is well visible in clear air. Add some war time boost there and you can really see the trail.

Similar is visible even today in jets: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO5cVANrLE0&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLAD1CECD8A3353F86

You see some of the smoke also from side but from front or back the smoke is highly visible. This is also considered a tactical disadvantage for a reason.

-C+