Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: RRAM on December 30, 2003, 06:07:53 PM
-
Some time ago there was debate about wether the F8/U1 was a long range jabo able to take wing drop tanks, or a trainer. The standard 190 trainer was the S, however, there may have been a mixing on denominations and maybe there were both.
in any case here you go in the same pack, gentlemen...a Fw190S-8 trainer, and a couple of Fw190F8/U1s with drop tanks on their wing racks (racks also able to lift 250kg bombs).
(http://www.jabo.france-simulation.com/Bouquin/15.jpg)
-
N/M
-
just in case, and seeing your answer, RA, I'm not putting this to enforce any point of introducing anything into Aces High.
I set this up both because I recall someone saying there was no picture of a Fw190F8 carrying anything on their wing other that 50kg bombs or rockets, and to solve the "training Fw190" debate.
So feel free to comment...N/M sounds a bit sad :). If you have something to add, please do it. (And if you really had nothing to say, why did you post that in the first place?)
-
I know some versions of the 190 could carry fuel tanks or large bombs on the wing, I'm just not convinced the 190F8/U1 was one of them.
ra
-
the photo identifies one of the planes with tanks as a 190F8/U1
if i read the french correctly.
do i?
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
the photo identifies one of the planes with tanks as a 190F8/U1
if i read the french correctly.
do i?
you do. In fact the photo identifies both of the planes with wing tanks as 190F8/U1 :)
-
Hmmm. I thought it was solidly established that the Fw190F-8 had a very large number of loadouts, however, looking at my source I can find nothing that looks like a fuel loadout under the wings.
This line I am unsure of, maybe a Fw190 expert can tell me what it means:
R16: BT 700 system with ECT 501 for 2xBT 400 wings (Fw190F-8 and F-9)
Other than that possiblity it seems to me that those photos may be Fw190Gs mislabeled as Fw190F-8s. They certainly appear to match the fuel systems pictured on the Fw190Gs in my book.
-
The one pictured on the left is definitely an 8 series FW190A/F. The one on the right may not be.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The one pictured on the left is definitely an 8 series FW190A/F. The one on the right may not be.
My Fw190 book does describe Fw190A-5s with wing tanks.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
My Fw190 book does describe Fw190A-5s with wing tanks.
The pitot tube is on the outer wing so it is definitely an 8 series. It most likely not a G8 because it apparently has cowl guns. G8 had the late style MG131 upper cowl piece but the guns were removed and faired over.
-
Grunherz,
What equipment does this line describe?
R16: BT 700 system with ECT 501 for 2xBT 400 wings (Fw190F-8 and F-9)
-
Torpedoes.
-
These do look like G models to me. Some history.
G1, long range fighter bomber based on the A4 airframe. Build by Arado and Fiesler. The G1 had provisions for a centerling and wing fuel tanks (wing tanks adapted from ju-87 tanks). Only 49 were built.
G2, identica to the G1 except it was based on the longer A5 airframe (extended engine root area).
G3, went into production in 43. Standard equipment included a PKS 11 directional control system (navigation). Focke Wulf designed bomb racks and external fuel tanks and provision for robot camera.
G4, G5, G6, G7 were projects only.
G8 was based on the A8 and had most of the modifications found on the G3. Additionall differences were that it had MW50 (on A8) replaced with a 25 gallon fuel tank as standard. Relocation of the ETC 501 racks forward. Production stoped in 44 and further G8s were produced in the field by modification of F8 models.
There were probably some incomplete G conversions of the F8 in the field.
-
I didn't think the A8 had MW50. Our A8 has the aux. fueltank.
-
There was debate on the subject with the A4 being questionable. I believe debate was if the A4 had it (according to some inaccurate references) then the A5 must of had it. A8 did have it or it was used in combat. Then theres the GM1 issue. The AH fw-190A8 doesnt have it and has a fuel tank in its place. Everybody knows the 190s in AH are under modeled.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=100036&highlight=fw190+mw50
-
Originally posted by senna
Everybody knows the 190s in AH are under modeled.
In what way? The speed figures matches up nicely with the figures GODO posted in that thread you linked to, and our 190A5 has the performance of a 190A4 with MW50!
I'd say that the A5 might actually be overmodelled.
-
I dont remember the A5 doing 416 at leve flight. I remember the A8 taking forever to get to 400 level at about 18k. There was some other debate as wel l in another thread about the fw190 sea level speeds being off as well. An indicator of slightly lacking performance at lower alts. I dont think anything was ever adjusted on the flight model of the 190s.
-
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/190a5speed.gif)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/190a8speed.gif)
In AH the A5 is actually faster than the A8 doing approx. 410-415
mph at 22k while the A8 is doing 405 mph at 18K. That matches up to a MW50 boosted A4 and a standard A8 according to this table that GODO posted in the thread you linked:
(http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/190.jpe)
It would seem that our A5 has MW50 boost.
-
Actually that chart shows the A8 with a 2100 HP 801D2 engine. Same rating as the 801D2 in the A4. The 190 is not a fast bird by any means. That last 5 mph takes forever to get to in thr A8.
-
As it should.
-
Well at this point, without doing too much searching thus far, just take a look at the two charts for the A5 and the A8. Well assume that the A5 is either got the A4s numbers or its an A5 with MW50. Now look at the A8s 0 sea level top speed under full mil power or WEP. it shows 350mph where as for the A5 it shows 326-327 mph. How is that the case when the A8 is basically heavier and thus slower than an A4 or A5 model with MW50 under full WEP.
-
Heres an interesting document: Notice section 39). and also note the date which is March 24th, 1945.
http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/tmp/fw190a-boost-doc1.jpg
To me it shows a war time (credable) document stating the sea level speed of the FW-190 fighter as 360mph under full mil power 1.65 ata over boost. It does not state what model 190 however you can assume that its either an early A4 model thru later A8 model.
-
Both planes have the same rated altitude for the blower, but the A5 with MW50 has slightly better high altitude performance than the A8 with Erhöhte Notleistung. However the A8's Erhöhte Notleistung seems to be more effective at low alts. As you can see, without boost both planes are very equal in speed with the 1000+ lbs lighter A5 having a speed advantage as altitude increase, but the A8 is faster at 18k (rated altitude) because that where its boost system is the most effective, however the A5's MW50 boost is most effective at 22k giving the A5 the best overall top speed.
About acceleration: Take two planes with the same top speed, but no. 1 has a powerful engine and a high drag airframe (190, P47 etc.) and no. 2 has a less powerful engine but a more aerodynamic airframe (P-51, Yak-9 etc.).
Plane no. 1 would have the best acceleration at low to medium speeds while plane no.2 would have the best acceleration at high speed.
-
Originally posted by senna
Heres an interesting document: Notice section 39). and also note the date which is March 24th, 1945.
http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/tmp/fw190a-boost-doc1.jpg
To me it shows a war time (credable) document stating the sea level speed of the FW-190 fighter as 360mph under full mil power 1.65 ata over boost. It does not state what model 190 however you can assume that its either an early A4 model thru later A8 model with mw50.
Yes but we don't have a 1945 version 190A8 with 1.65 ata boost, we have a 1944 190A8 limited to 1.42 ata (I believe).
-
Erhöhte Notleistun is C3 direct port injection. I see the standard power rating is the same for both aircraft. Still one would think the 1000 lbs lighter aircraft is faster at sea level without the over boost. After all, lift is drag and theres less to lift.
Yes but we don't have a 1945 version 190A8 with 1.65 ata boost, we have a 1944 190A8 limited to 1.42 ata (I believe).
Conspiracy of course. We should have the best A8 modeled.
:D
-
Ok, wait a minute. Either the A8 is running C3 or it is not. If its running mw50 then the max speed sea level numbers dont add up. If its running C3 then the A8 sea level speed is low.
-
Ram I remember this discussion about F-8/U1 being a trainer, thx for posting that. You have a good memory. :)
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Ram I remember this discussion about F-8/U1 being a trainer, thx for posting that. You have a good memory. :)
not a problem :).
The Fw190F8/U1 was the F-series equivalent to the Fw190G8 (thus having the ability to load 250kg bombs or DT on the wings), not a trainer. The training series of the Fw190 were the S. As I said, maybe they were labelled as F8/U1, and thus the confussion, but I doubt it, as the Fw190S were based on Fw190As, not Fs :)
Gcholz:
the A5 sea level speed has been beaten to death in this same board some time ago.
And believe me one thing, would the AH's A5 had MW50, it would run MUCH FASTER at sea level than normal.
The MW50 injection was used on lower altitudes than the critical alt of the supercharger (in the BMW801D-2 around 18000 feet) to allow for higher manifold pressure.
Over that alt, it's impossible to run the engine at higher MP than the normal maximum (there's not enough air to do it), and so the MW50 does nothing other than cooling the mixture a bit, adding no power at all.
under that altitude the pilot could pull higher manifold pressure than the usual normal maximum, using the MW50 injection to prevent engine knocking. That's why the Fw190D9 (for instance) could pull 1.8 ata with MW50 ,while only being able to use 1.65ATA with C3 injection, and 1.42 without any injection at all.
And that was only possible UNDER the critical altitude of the supercharger in the plane fitted with MW50. A5's Critical altitude is around 18500 feet, as I said, so there's no question about AH's A5 having MW50. It does not. If it had it, the A5 would be significantly faster than expected at LOW altitudes, down from the deck and up to 18000 feet or so.
Not at 21500 feet.
In fact I have posted in the past, in this same forum, several charts of Focke-Wulf official data showing that the Fw190A5 topped 345mph@SL, although being a tad slower at high alt, running at something like 405mph@21500 feet.
And I'd trade those extra 10mph on the deck for those 10mph at 21500 any day, for AH gaming purposes.
Aces High's Fw190A5 is modelled after the american tests done on a captured aircraft in 1943 (or 44, can't recall now), which showed EXACTLY the performance you see on the A5's speed chart. The american Fw190A5 had no MW50 when captured or tested, of course.
So no, it ain't overmodelled. And it ain't porked either.
It's just modelled after american data, not german data (something which I find debatable but in any case the data is 100% correct).
So be 100% sure: Aces High's Fw190A5 carries no MW50 on board, and it isn't under/overmodelled at all.
now, back to topic, something to add about the Fw190F8/U1? :)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Hmmm. I thought it was solidly established that the Fw190F-8 had a very large number of loadouts, however, looking at my source I can find nothing that looks like a fuel loadout under the wings.
Back when the original posts over the Fw190F8/U1 were posted, there were weapon charts posted showing that configuration :)
Other than that possiblity it seems to me that those photos may be Fw190Gs mislabeled as Fw190F-8s. They certainly appear to match the fuel systems pictured on the Fw190Gs in my book.
It's quite normal to confuse Fw190G8 with F8/U1, after all the F8/U1 was almost identical, exception made of the cowl guns which were removed on all the "G" series. When the G series were brought to an end, the F8/U1 took the long range deep penetration jabo role from them, having the same loadout variety as the G-8.
Granted, there weren't many of them because the long range jabo role wasn't by far a priority by 1944 (which was the main reason the G series were stopped) and removing the wing fuel piping and changing the bomb racks helped both removing weight and streamlining the plane for better performance. So the F8/U1 configuration wasn't continued, and there weren't too many of them.
But they did exist...proving it (at least showing some graphical data that backs the argument, which I admit isn't definitive proof), and solving the questions about the training version of the Fw190 ,which I do think it's solved now, is the point of this thread :)
-
Originally posted by senna
Production stoped in 44 and further G8s were produced in the field by modification of F8 models.
Modification commonly known as Fw190F8/U1 ;)
-
To all that stuff you wrote on the A5, if its true.
:aok:
From my own recolections, the standard A4 did not have MW50 on front line units. It had plumbing and provisions for it so may have had test numbers produced in Germany. Far as I know only a few were ever equiped with MW50 and they were used in a raid. The A5 did not have MW50 as I originally stated.
Over that alt, it's impossible to run the engine at higher MP than the normal maximum (there's not enough air to do it), and so the MW50 does nothing other than cooling the mixture a bit, adding no power at all.
Actually its about 4% additional power due to charge cooling alone. Dont remember where I read that but I believe I read that somewhere on the internet.
;)
-
Originally posted by senna
Actually its about 4% additional power due to charge cooling alone. Dont remember where I read that but I believe I read that somewhere on the internet.
4% seems a lot to me. Certainly charge cooling should have some effect, but 4% seems too much. And should increase slowly as altitude increases.
the link to where you read it should be helpful...try to find it, please :)
-
Hi,
My source indicates that the entire F series Fw190 was able to carry upto 900 liters of external fuel in 3 x 300 liter drop tanks.
Badboy
-
Hi Rram,
>Certainly charge cooling should have some effect, but 4% seems too much.
Why?
>And should decline slowly as altitude increases.
Why?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Rram,
>Certainly charge cooling should have some effect, but 4% seems too much.
Why?
4% in a 1800hp engine gives around 80-90hp.- sounds a lot. Why do I say this?...erm...because it sounds a lot, I have no real data on the issue so... bassically I read the % and thought "huhm, too much for a simple cooling effect" :)
of course seems I'm totally wrong, so if you know something more about this topic, please go ahead and talk about it. I'm willing to learn :)
>And should decline slowly as altitude increases.
Why?
that was wrongly written, my fault. I intended to say "should INCREASE", not "decline" :). I've edited it, now should be correct.
The reason is that there's cooler air as altitude increases. The charge should be hotter if the air coming into the engine is (for instance) at 20ºC than if it is at -30ºC. Cooler charge-> slightly higher output. As altitude increases, air temperature goes down, thus the effect increases slowly with the altitude.
I did read a small comment about this effect in a book some 2-3 years ago. Can't recall the name, tho :(.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
In what way? The speed figures matches up nicely with the figures GODO posted in that thread you linked to, and our 190A5 has the performance of a 190A4 with MW50!
I'd say that the A5 might actually be overmodelled.
GScholz, IMO, any debate about the impact of boost systems in plane performance should be focused in acceleration and climb, not just speed figures. And the actual acceleration of AH 190A8 is .... well ... is?
-
4% in a 1800hp engine gives around 80-90hp.- sounds a lot. Why do I say this?...erm...because it sounds a lot, I have no real data on the issue so... bassically I read the % and thought "huhm, too much for a simple cooling effect"
of course seems I'm totally wrong, so if you know something more about this topic, please go ahead and talk about it. I'm willing to learn
RAMM, check out the link below.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=100036&highlight=fw190+mw50
hohun wrote
>Was MW50 totally useless avobe 15k?
No. It still provided a charge cooling effect that gave a 4% power increase. The much more powerful anti-detonant effect was lost, however, as the supercharger couldn't sustain the boost to exploit it.
Turns out I read that right here on this BBS. lol
-
The reason is that there's cooler air as altitude increases. The charge should be hotter if the air coming into the engine is (for instance) at 20ºC than if it is at -30ºC. Cooler charge-> slightly higher output. As altitude increases, air temperature goes down, thus the effect increases slowly with the altitude.
Normaly when a fuel or fluid is injected into a high speed air stream, what happens is the liquid will atomize into tiny droplets. This atomization causes a temperature drop in the local air stream (aborbs the heat).
I could be wrong but in other engine applications, similar techniques are used.
-
I've always felt that the 190's acceleration was off, but that's just a feeling not a fact.
MW50 is actually equally useful at any altitude. It's just that the supercharger can't exploit the anti-knocking benefits above its rated altitude, the cooling effect however should be equal at any altitude.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
MW50 is actually equally useful at any altitude. It's just that the supercharger can't exploit the anti-knocking benefits above its rated altitude, the cooling effect however should be equal at any altitude.
its cooling effects maybe were useful at all altitudes.
its antidetonating effects, nope. Over 18000 feet, it gave no advantages in that department at all.
so it's hardly "equally useful at any altitude". At high altitudes it was MUCH less effective.
So, if in Aces High the Fw190A5@21K has 10mph extra speed because a 4% power output increase, what about at 0 feet?... At sea level, MW50 gave the BMW801D a 20% output increase, from 1700 to 2100hp, so it should be a rocket...
Yet Aces High's Fw190A5 is 10mph SLOWER @ the deck than the german reports of a Fw190A5 running at 1.42 ata, but hits square on the speeds reported by the american tests.
In short: it makes no sense. Aces High's Fw190A5 has no MW50 at all. As I said,it's modelled after the american data on it, The captured Fw190A5 (with no MW50) attained that speed at that altitude during american tests. That's why it reaches 415mph@21500feet in Aces High.
-
No A-Series FW190 used MW50 operationally with the exception of maybe a few jabo a4s. The AH a5 doesn't have mw 50. The MW50 System integration into the BMW801 engine was troublesome.
Some a5s were tested with a system "erhöhte Notleistung" which is basically using normal C3 fuel as you would MW50. The system best altitude was 5500m. An A8 with a full rear tanks would reach 660 kmh, an A5 680.
This system was usable for 10 minutes like mw50. It was tested on a A5 in late August 43 and was serialized on the A8 by June 44 and on the A9 by January 45.
It was preferred to MW50 because it did not require any special installation to work. The F8 used basically the same system but was only used in the low SC gear, but not in the second stage. Thus it was limited to below 1000m.
The pic's Ram posted are more likely of the g series. Some "g8s" were field modded f8s. It’s conceivable that some may have retained their mg131s.
-
Originally posted by Batz
The pic's Ram posted are more likely of the g series. Some "g8s" were field modded f8s. It’s conceivable that some may have retained their mg131s.
I'm not sure that some G8s were field conversions from F8s...but the inverse was indeed true: when the G series were brought to an end, many G8s were converted to F8/U1s (as Senna's quoted describes).
BTW, MG131s were easily removed on the field, so any F8 converted into G8 should have it's cowl MGs removed. 190G series were long range deep penetration fighter-bombers. It didn't make any sense in trying to make a long range jabo, fitting it with as much fuel as possible, and then not erasing any superfluous weight that would cut its range. MGs were superfluous and so they were always deleted.
As far as I can tell, no operational Fw190G mounted cowl guns, but I'll be happy to aknowledge the opposite if you can prove your point :).
-
Hi Rram,
>4% in a 1800hp engine gives around 80-90hp.- sounds a lot. Why do I say this?...erm...because it sounds a lot, I have no real data on the issue so...
The Jumo 213A gave 1680 HP @ 5.2 km @ 3250 rpm.
At a cubic volume of 35 L and a boost pressure of 1.42 bar, that gave an airflow of less than 1.66 kg/s. MW50 was added at 0.04 kg/s.
(Edit: There is some mistake in my calculations after that point. I'll have to have a closer look.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by RRAM
its cooling effects maybe were useful at all altitudes.
its antidetonating effects, nope. Over 18000 feet, it gave no advantages in that department at all.
Why? Wouldn't MW50 be useful at say 20k if the engine had a rated altitude of 25k? If not then why?
-
Hi again,
>The Jumo 213A gave 1680 HP @ 5.2 km @ 3250 rpm.
>At a cubic volume of 35 L and a boost pressure of 1.42 bar, that gave an airflow of less than 1.66 kg/s. MW50 was added at 0.04 kg/s.
That should give a temperature drop of about 40 K, from which without knowing the intake air temperature (after supercharging) I can't directly calculate the power gain.
It should be enough to justify a 4% power increase easily, though.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hohun, thanks, makes sense to me if those numbers are true :)
Originally posted by GScholz
Why? Wouldn't MW50 be useful at say 20k if the engine had a rated altitude of 25k? If not then why?
of course it would be useful.
The problem you don't seem to grasp is that the BMW801D-2's supercharger critical altitude was at 18500 feet. Over that altitude it's performance fell steadily.
-
Exactly what do I not seem to grasp? You twit!
Originally posted by GScholz
MW50 is actually equally useful at any altitude. It's just that the supercharger can't exploit the anti-knocking benefits above its rated altitude, the cooling effect however should be equal at any altitude.
-
touche ;), I think I misread that part. That's the problem of not being english speaker, you know :).
However you asked "Why? Wouldn't MW50 be useful at say 20k if the engine had a rated altitude of 25k? If not then why?", and the Fw190's rated alt was 18.5k. Over that altitude the MW50 power gain would be way less than what it gave under it.
AH's Fw190A5 has no MW50. Low level performances with MW50 should be significantly higher than what they are.
I concede that the hi alt performance would have a slight increase with MW50, but there's no increase in low alt performance to back up your affirmation. In fact the A5 at low altitudes is, as I already said, up to 10mph slower than what the german charts of a standard Fw190A5 report.
-
Hi Rram,
>In fact the A5 at low altitudes is, as I already said, up to 10mph slower than what the german charts of a standard Fw190A5 report.
If you mean the same German charts as posted on this board, they're actually illustrating the effect of compressiblity error on air speed indications.
These charts do not match the German engine charts.
The US flight tests do match the German engine charts.
My conclusion is that the US test is accurate, and the German data (which has nothing to indicate it's from actual flight tests) stems from a simplified calculation.
The simplification consists of substituting the complex thrust-over-altitude function for a fixed power figure. This leads to an exaggeration of low-altitude performance.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Yep I'm talking about those charts. I know they are calculations rather than coming from actual tests (but I would say that FW engineers had at least some idea of their own's machine performance to not putting incorrect data on those curves, wouldn't they? :)).
However I'm surprised about "matching the german engine charts". To which charts are you referring to?. And how those charts prove german reports incorrect and US ones spot on?.
Links, links, I want links!! I'm a compulsive Fw190 chart downloader!!!! I need them all!!!! :) :D.
Now seriously, what I do think is that both the german and US charts could be right.
Given the fact that most Fw190A5s on the western front were used for high altitude combat is possible that they were "tuned" on the field to achieve a slightly better hi altitude performance at the cost of a somehow worse low level performance. The captured A5 could be one of those, thus explaining the discrepances between german charts and US reports
Of course this is pure speculation based on no fact at all, so feel free to say "nonsense"...because probably, it is :D
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi again,
>The Jumo 213A gave 1680 HP @ 5.2 km @ 3250 rpm.
>At a cubic volume of 35 L and a boost pressure of 1.42 bar, that gave an airflow of less than 1.66 kg/s. MW50 was added at 0.04 kg/s.
That should give a temperature drop of about 40 K, from which without knowing the intake air temperature (after supercharging) I can't directly calculate the power gain.
It should be enough to justify a 4% power increase easily, though.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
:aok
Thank you for the explaination.