Author Topic: Question for Hohun, Verm, Niklas, Naudet, Butch2k - MW 50 on Fw 190A? (Read 536 times)

Wilbus · « **Reply #15 on:** June 12, 2002, 01:02:38 PM »

Quote

With the A4 they introduced MW-50 injection with the BMW801.
This was keeped till the latest A-Series planes.
But additional boost methods were introduced like GM-1.

Quote

Guys, unless you have primary source data, I wouldn't trust it much. MW50 on A4's, and to a certain extent A8's, is most likely the same kind of myth as MG151/15s on 109K4's.

Now, non of us has a primary source that is says it had MW50, nor does anyone have a source that says "MW50 didn't exists on that and that plane but arived FIRST on THAT plane".

As Naudet said, the MW50 was introduced on the A4 (same as the sources i have say), it was somewhat troublesome and wasn't made to work really well untill the A8 arived. The GM1 was even more troublesome and arived at about the same time.

Obviously, the MW50 wasn't used on very many 190's before the A8 thus it shouldn't be modelled for the A5 in AH.

As for the GM1, I see no reason why it should be on an A8. The GM1 didn't kick in untill ABOVE the maximum boost altitude of the engine (this being somewhere around 33-35k for the BWM801D engine if I remember correct). Which means the GM1 is only usefull above that altitude, where, the A8 sucked anyway and didn't fly, nor were there any bombers up that high.

As it is now, I see no proof why it shouldn't have existed in versions prior to the A8, nor do I see any proof that it should. until someone finds a primary source we're stuck where we are. Nor do I think it's a myth like the one Verm is talking about.

Hristo · « **Reply #16 on:** June 12, 2002, 01:15:15 PM »

Didn't Graff have GM1 in his 190A-(4, 5 or 6, not sure) ?

Wilbus · « **Reply #17 on:** June 12, 2002, 01:27:55 PM »

Didn't say they didn't have GM1, just that I don't see the reason

He may have had it although afaik they had problems with GM1 in the 190 A's before the A8.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #18 on:** June 12, 2002, 03:35:19 PM »

Looking at a power graph in the manual mentioned previously, the BMW801's power drops off radically at ~5500m. Would this not be its critical altitude?

Kevin14 · « **Reply #19 on:** June 12, 2002, 06:24:13 PM »

Did the 190D-9 have any of these different boosts?

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #20 on:** June 12, 2002, 06:59:48 PM »

anyone consider they had loads of shot up 190s of all varients. alot of them were probly mishmashes of several different models . and if i were a pilot whith the option of having the mw 50 pulled out of the wrecked a8 and put in my favorite a5 ( all seem to agree it would bolt on). to be used carefully. the order would be given and a a5 with mw50 would be born . probly what happend .

ps 109 k some early models did have 151/15s sorry but its true . the k4 production didnt but the k1 shure as hell did.

senna · « **Reply #21 on:** June 12, 2002, 07:40:07 PM »

Well in the end, we know the A8 had mw50. That we have proof of for sure. While Im at it, we also know the A8 had Gm-1 because thats what the books say. Doesnt say much about Gm-1 but it says it was release within the 190s with the A8.

Furious · « **Reply #22 on:** June 12, 2002, 09:33:23 PM »

From: http://www.nasm.si.edu/nasm/aero/aircraft/focke_190f.htm\

Quote

A BMW 801D-2 engine, capable of producing 2,100 hp for brief periods by using a methanol-water injection system called MW-50, powered the next production variant, the Fw 190A-4.

I have requested their sources.

With regards to GM1 see the following:

compliments of Vermin.

F.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #23 on:** June 12, 2002, 10:16:14 PM »

lord dolf vader,

the K-1 to K-3 were paper projects only, NO PRODUCTION. Next, if the MG151/15 would not fit in the K-4, what makes you think it would it fit in your imaginary K-1? Take a moment and compare the size of the MG151/15 and the MG131 please.

senna · « **Reply #24 on:** June 12, 2002, 10:55:11 PM »

hum, this shows that runing the gm-1 system created alot of heat problems thus the need to run at a lower RPM (but you get more power). Its interesting that jochen pointed out that the 109s did better with gm-1 since they are "glycol" cooled whereas the 190s are air cooled. At higher altitudes, if you needed speed, you could just dive unless diving wasnt part of the plan. Then you would need to run gm-1 and since gm-1 creates alot of heat, perhaps the 109s were less prone to this than the 190s.

butch2k · « **Reply #25 on:** June 12, 2002, 10:58:38 PM »

Nope it produced the same problem, and as the DB605AS and other engine with higher performance at altitude were introduced the GM-1 system was converted for use with MW50.

senna · « **Reply #26 on:** June 12, 2002, 11:31:47 PM »

Well, I only want gm-1 to escape prowling hi alt p-51s so I still want it in 109 or a 190. Honestly, I doubt HT will ever give us a gm-1 since thats like having an escape button or a get out of jail card. Thats way too trick .)

Naudet · « **Reply #27 on:** June 13, 2002, 01:26:08 AM »

The best method to check were and when which boost system was used, we should take a close look on FW190A photos.

I don't have many "picture" books on the FW190, but anyone who has, should look at the rear leftside fuel intake (it is short behind the canopy). Most times there should be a yellow or red fuel triangle.
Just read what is written in it and you know what type of boost the plane used.

Most times i must admit it's a bit troublesome to get high qualitiy pictures to verify such things.

Wilbus · « **Reply #28 on:** June 13, 2002, 04:47:44 AM »

Not to say big enough pictures Naudet

Off to the book store again to find picture books of it.

MiloMorai WHAT MANUAL?! Everybody seem to have it but me!

If that is the case, that may be the maximum boost altitude, not sure. If it is, GM1 makes sence.