Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: GScholz on May 28, 2004, 09:13:05 PM
-
Can you take a look at this site and comment of the validity of the data presented?
http://jagdhund.homestead.com/files/Dora.htm
Some interesting information there, and the author claims to have source documents from Focke Wulf. Also good info on the different power settings.
-
Thats BBury's site.. He posts on several forums. I believe Naudet has had contact with him before when he was researching Dora stuff.
I dont know the guy or his sources but he's visible enough in various circles and if the site was a hoax you would have heard about it.
His email is on the site, send him one with your questions...
-
Here's an old post from LEMB regarding FW 190 A&D mach numbers..
http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessage?topicID=46.topic
-
Thanks. I was more looking for fuel consumption data on the Jumo 213A considering how the Dora has become the shortest ranged LW fighter in AH2. If the data on that site is correct then the AH2 Dora burns too much fuel.
Edit: Also, while the F4U4 does get the benefit of water injection to its fuel consumption, the Dora does not.
-
In AH2 the Fuel multplier is at x 2. At mil power the d9 has 27 min internal fuel. With wep it burns even more.
RL (fuel mod at 1) it would mean 54 min @ 44.9 MP
There's a thread on the AH2 forums discussing the issue.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=117803
-
We dont know if the AH d9 has mw50 or C3 injection...
According to his site @ Climb and combat power max endurance is 1.33 hours on internal fuel. But its unclear as to what ata and rpm that is...
-
2) Sonder - Notleistung - Special Emergency
I believe this power setting is similar in principle to the Fw190A using "Erhöhte Notleistung" with C3 injection. That is, bleeding of the airline of the blower to induce a petrol surge and use it as a charge cooler. The setting was the same as in the A-8. There was a button, or lever, on the control panel to open the valve. To summarize, it was a petrol injection in the eye of the blower. It had the effect of allowing increased boost by its charge-cooling effect. It could only be used at full speed and 3,250 rpm. It was usable for 10 minutes, This power curve is listed with C3 fuel. I do not yet have a power curve to verify engine output in this configuration but it would be greater than 2100PS based on the speed and climb curves.
After the use of this Special Emergency power, no form of Emergency power could be used for at least five minutes
or
4) Sonder - Notleistung mit Ladedruckerhoehung mit MW50 u. 1.8 ata. Special Emergency Power (with MW50) 2100PS at 3,250rpm, MW-50 at 150 l/h and B4 at 800 l/h.
Maximum power with MW50 was 2,100 hp at 3,250 rpm and was not to be used above 16,500ft. (around 5000 meters). In any case, the RAE tested the Jumo 213 A-1 with MW50, and at 21,000ft the engine
produced 1680 hp instead of the 1600 hp. At that altitude the output is the same whether you are using Takeoff & Emergency or Special Emergency power. This power setting was to be used for 10 minutes then 5 minutes at normal power before used again. The The Jumo 213A engine power chart also shows a dashed line at 2,240PS.
-
We have the MW50, 377mph at SL Dora.
530 liters/h = 140 gallons/h at "Combat & Climb" according to the site.
AH2 the Dora consumes 156 gallons/h on MIL and 236 gallons/h on WEP.
According to the site on WEP with "Ladedruckssteigerungs-Ruestatz" the Jumo 213A consumed 575 liters/h (151.8 gallons/h) at 3250 rpm. The addition of MW50 would even reduce that number.
Edit: Even the 800 l/h figure you posted is only 211 g/h.
-
BMW allowed 12.5% reserve. Did Jumo also use this reserve percentage?
From the Tank bio book,
TO&E - 575l/hr @ 3250rpm
climb - 480l/hr @ 3000rpm
max cruise - 350l/hr @ 2700rpm
above at SL
Batz,
350(l/hr, max cruise) x 1.33(hr) = 465.5l
465.5 x 1.125(reserve) = 523.7l
The Dora held 524l in its 2 tanks.
Something not right with your C&C numbers for at 480l/hr this only gives 0.96hr plus the reserve.
-
In any case the Dora is burning 590.5 L/h at MIL in AH2 (1xFBM), and 893.3 L/h at WEP. Also the Dora had an optional 110 liter / 29.1gal aft fuselage tank. Would be nice to have that considering the outrageous 2xFBM in AH2.
-
Interesting MiloMorai. Perhaps the Ah2 Dora endurance is modelled without taking the 12.5% reserve into consideration.
-
That AUX tank hold mw50....
-
Originally posted by Batz
That AUX tank hold mw50....
Correct only if our D9 is not an early one (1900 hp) without MW50. BTW, max AH2 D9 speed is 375 mph. AFAIK C3 was not used for D9s, only B4 + MW50.
-
C3 was used on doras.... Read the linkewd site of my reply a few posts up.
-
What about the aux tanks of our AH 190A-8?
Shouldn't it be just FWD/AFT tanks with the aux tanks filled with C3 injection?
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
What about the aux tanks of our AH 190A-8?
Shouldn't it be just FWD/AFT tanks with the aux tanks filled with C3 injection?
All the tanks were filled with C3. Some A8s had the AUX tank removed to save weight, some others have it replaced by 18.7 gal GM-1 bottle.
-
the "AUX" tank on the a8 provided the C3 injection (Erhöhte Notleistung).
If you follow the D9 discussions at UBI, you see where folks claim the "early" D9 seems faster then the "late" d9 with mw50. The "early version" in FB has C3 injection and by looking at the charts on the site linked above it would appear that "early" D9 should be faster.
-
Then it's very confusing, as our AH/AH2 Fw190A-8 clearly has normal B4 fuel used for driving the engine filled up in the aux tanks.
Yes the aux tank does run out quickly, but according to what you're saying, it sounds like our Fw190A-8 should not have the aux tank at all..?
Why wasn't this suggested to Pyro then?
-
Our Aux tank for A8 and F8 is not used for injection, it is simply a 25.3 gals fuel tank (fwd is 51 gals).
Once the BMW 801D2 was cleared for C3 fuel, why to use it only for injection from the AUX tank?
-
So what you're saying is;
1) there's a Fw190A-8 with fwd/aft/aux fuel
2) there's a Fw190A-8 with fwd/aft fuel and C3 injection in aux
3) there's a Fw190A-8 cleared for C-3
...
Is that it?
Then does that mean our AH 190A-8 is in the first category?
So, if our A-8 isn't using the C-3 injection, then it means it's probably using only the normal dry WEP boost by method of higher manifold pressure..?
Then I'd presume that also means our A-8 should not be able to fly 10mins of WEP, and limited to 3~5 min durations like other planes that do not use liquid injections.
Either way, something seems to be wrong or inconsistent about our A-8. If our's is the C-3 injected version, then it should have only fwd/aft tanks. If it's not, it shouldn't run that long with WEP.
Looks like some verification is needed, since AH2 is around the corner, and if we want to suggest something to be changed, we have to do it fast.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Then does that mean our AH 190A-8 is in the first category?
Yes as well as our 190F8.
On the other hand, our 190A8 is 10 mph faster than 190A5 at sea level.
-
Funked has or had the A8 manual translated into engllish.
He posted there were 3 methods of wep
1. the throttle was just moved to a higher setting
2. C3 injection
3. GM1
GM1 was rare...
C3 was the standard.
I haven't tested our A8 so I dunno know where it falls, however being heavier then the a5 it is also faster at those alts where you would expect if it had C3 injection, same with the F8.
From bury's sire heres how he described C3 injection for the D9:
2) Sonder - Notleistung - Special Emergency
I believe this power setting is similar in principle to the Fw190A using "Erhöhte Notleistung" with C3 injection. That is, bleeding of the airline of the blower to induce a petrol surge and use it as a charge cooler. The setting was the same as in the A-8. There was a button, or lever, on the control panel to open the valve. To summarize, it was a petrol injection in the eye of the blower. It had the effect of allowing increased boost by its charge-cooling effect. It could only be used at full speed and 3,250 rpm. It was usable for 10 minutes, This power curve is listed with C3 fuel. I do not yet have a power curve to verify engine output in this configuration but it would be greater than 2100PS based on the speed and climb curves.
After the use of this Special Emergency power, no form of Emergency power could be used for at least five minutes
If the "AUX" tank on the D9 now holds mw50 it wouldnt be listed as a selectable tank (as is in AH2) like it is on the A8 and F8.
-
Kweassa,
Butch has posted on here that the 190s got C3 fuel as a priority. I would hope the AH A8 has C3, same with the D9 and F8
-
Godo IIRC the AUX tank had the bleed line to the blower.
-
We have the B4+MW50 Dora. The C3 Dora did not use MW50 AFAIK.
-
You are right I believe butch said late in the war C3 for the BMWs was a priority..
The jumo used B4 + mw 50 like most of the db's.......
-
The first dora delievered to the RLM went to III/JG54. They lost 5 A/C on the ferry flight They were not well recieved. In Deitmarr Hermann's book on the FW-190D development is mention of the memo sent to the RLM requesting direct liason authority with the company due to the imperative need to reach 1900 hp and improve low altitude performance.
In September of 1944 Junker's TAM (technical field service)visited III/JG 54 and installed an emergency kit which raised boost pressure and increased output from 1750 to 1900 up to 5000 meters. At the same time authorization to use take off power (1750) was extended to 30 minutes and Combat Power (1620) was extended to unlimited.
Junkers maintained meticulous records of their monthly TAM visit's to the JG's which survived the war. By October '44 III/JG54 had 68 Dora's onhand, 53 hand been converted to the over-boost system and 1 had been delivered with MW-50.
The Dora did use B4 fuel. The MW-50 boosted 190D's where not available in any real quantity until well into '45. In December '44 Only 60 MW-50 equipped Doras were operational in the Jagdwaffe.
The fuel tankage For the dora consist's of 525 Liters of B4 fuel in two seperate tanks located center line fwd and aft of the cockpit. The pilot's seat bisect's the tanks were they meet. In addition if the 85 liter boost tank is not installed a 115 liter Aux tank can be installed in the space just aft of the rear fuel tank.
I see nothing that points to a "C3" Dora with the Jumo 213A engine.
Crumpp
-
Read the site linked above,
The first production Dora's soon received a field modification of a non-standard, low pressure, MW-50 installation "Oldenburg system" and a system referred to as "Ladedruckssteigerungs-Rüstatz" which increased power output of the Jumo 213A from 1750 to 1900PS without an additional boosting agent such as MW-50 or GM-1 up until the first of 1945 when production high pressure MW-50 kits, compressor modifications and C3 fuel were prevelant in D-9's.
This power curve is listed with C3 fuel. I do not yet have a power curve to verify engine output in this configuration but it would be greater than 2100PS based on the speed and climb curves.
But its clear from the quick speed tests that the AH D9 is running on B4 + Mw 50.
Heres a good thread on the D9 power settings:
http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessage?topicID=17.topic
-
Heres a few more interesting threads
http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessage?topicID=19.topic
http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessage?topicID=161.topic
Thread on mw50 on the A-series
http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessage?topicID=66.topic
-
Those thread change nothing to what I posted.
I think you are confusing test data from FW-190V15, V18-21, V25-27, V29-V33. All of these used the DB-603 series engines (FW-190C) and C3 fuel. This comes from the 1943 list. The V numbers stay the same but several of these are re-engined in the 1944 list. Most of the series is redesignated FW-190D upon the abandonment of the C model. Tank tested several different models of inline engines.
I have found no evidence of any Jumo 213 equipped 190 using C3 fuel and No production Fw-190D-9's used it that I can see either. In fact you can clearly see in a picture of the second FW-190D-9 to roll off the porduction lines (WNr 210 002) the big triangular sticker above the fuel inlet clearly labeled "B4" in bold black letters. In fact the tank inlet is labeled "115L" so it is for the auxillery tank. The Dora's "boost" was not C3 injection although it worked on the same principal of injection into the intake to cool the cylinders (which all the boost systems used by the LW except GM-1 used). I'll bet it was "B4" injection...LOL
Crumpp
-
BTW,
The fact that the same folks have discussed the FW-190A MW-50 on several different BB's doesn't impress me.
Facts are the LW produced a bewildering number of varients for the "two" single engine dayfighters they used. These varients are in fact in most cases completely different planes with the exception of outward appearence. Combined with destroyed records of installation of the various boost systems it is easy to see why there are so many discrepancies.
Again, My much more trusted sources than you, say the MW-50 boost system was used on several 190A4's, FW-190A5/U8, and some 190A8's.
Facts are someone who has published 3 Schiffer Military History Books on the 190 exclusively, Osprey publishing, and Squadron Signal have more crediability IMO than some prolific BB poster.
Crumpp
-
I would say that the Jumo 213A was designed for use with either B4 and MW50 or C3 w/o MW50 exactly like the DB605D in DB configuration. I'm also quite sure that it was not fitted with a similar system as the DB605D which enabled the DC configuration (C3+MW50).
It seems to be confirmed by all documents i have, and moreover it sounds quite the right solution for a Luftwaffe lacking high grade fuel.
So it would appear the D9 could use C3 + C3 injection, but because of the lack of C3 most used B4 + Mw50. Bury has a chart that has a C3 power curve plus an image of a d9 with a C3 fuel decal.
Whether you agree or not makes no difference considering your track record...
YMMV
-
Do you even know who the folks over there are "doing the discussing".
Butch told you mw50 was never serialized on the A-series 190s.
Do you think you have better source then him?
You see you problem is you dont know who it is thats correcting you. You buy a few books over the counter and claim your an expert.
Ask those other guys about their sources...
-
Look,
Produce the RLM documentation and the picture. NONE of the RLM documentation I have seen to include the Jumo 213 E or F test's for the later D series has C3. In fact they are very clearly labeled B4. There are no facts before me to change this.
Right now all I have is the "quote" history you are refering too. Your claims NOT backed up by any printed material. Just websites or rather should I say "fansites".
I'm Sorry, but just because You, GScholtz, HoHun, and few others post on other BB's does not change a thing.
Crumpp
-
Thank goodness for Crumpp...
Without him the fallacy that these sorry german fighters could even get off the ground on their on power would have continued endlessly....
:rolleyes:
-
:rofl
Yep, That's why I fly these sorry LW fighters exclusively in AH and belong to a LW squad.
I'm sorry to have slighted the "master race"!
:eek:
Crumpp
-
Crumpp the MrBlack of the "Aircraft and Vehicles" forum strikes again.
-
You guys are priceless!
No one has disputed the Jumo 213 was able to develop 1900 hp without MW 50. That is a fact. The Jumo TAW developed an interim (pronounced EN - TIR - UHM) boost that did NOT involve C3 fuel but used B4 which WAS used for a fact in the 213 at the time TAM installed it in II/JG54's Dora's.
The DB 603 series engines used in the D-14, D-15 and Ta-152 series used both B4 and C3 but I have seen no evidence the 213 used C3.
If C3 was used in the 213 just provide the RLM data and not some third party "extrapolation" (pronounced X - TRAP - O - LAY - SHUN).
Crumpp
Crumpp - Pronounced CRUMPP
:aok
-
Do even know what B4 and C3 are?
Switching between fuel types requires some simple maintenance adjustments (timing etc).
The Jumo ran on B4 + Mw50 because of availablility not because it could not use C3.
Same with the DBs. Most used B4 + Mw50. Most C3 was sent to the A series 190 units.
Bury's email is on his site, ask him to send you what he has on the dora.
But I forget you spent 9.99 on the SSS books so you are an "expert"...
CHUMPP - pronounced chumpp
-
Yeah ok Batz,
I will just run out and put some JP-4 in an engine rated for JP-8, it is after just Jet Fuel and will only require a few adjustments....
Crumpp
-
*LOL!* Yeah jet engines have a lot in common with piston engines. What a moron.
Tell me Crumpp do you use 87 octane in your car, or perhaps premium? I run my BMW on 98 octane, but I can run it fine on 87 if I want (we just don't get that low fuel grade here). The DB engined 109s were supposed to use C3 too, but most had to make due with B4 instead because of availability shortages. I don't think they even had to adjust the engines like Batz said, they just couldn't apply as much boost with the B4. B4 and C3 are both synthetic gasoline, just with different octane ratings.
-
And btw. interim is pronounced "IN-TE-RIM".
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Yeah ok Batz,
I will just run out and put some JP-4 in an engine rated for JP-8, it is after just Jet Fuel and will only require a few adjustments....
Crumpp
You cant be that dense.....
GS,
You maybe correct in that the Jumo may need no "tuning" at all to switch from B4 to C3.
Butch said this about the DB605D
In fact there are no DB605DB and DB605DC per se, since they refer to the same engine the DB605D which could be configured at will by just turning a screw to accept either B4 or C3 fuel. So one could transform a DB 605DB into a DB 605DC and reverse very easily. I'm not sure the Jumo 213 could be configured as easily.
Butch
Whether there is any adjustment needed at all, it certainly wasnt major.
-
The only necessary adjustment I can think of would be on the blower, to limit the allowed boost to avoid detonation.
-
190D9 units were using MW50 before 1 Oct 1944. The "Einmotorige Jager" table signed 1 Oct 1944 is already listing Jumo213A WEP for D9s as MW50 boost, and no other kind of boost is described there but MW50.
-
Does it say whetehr it was the low pressure mw50 kits? ("Oldenburg system")?
-
Originally posted by Batz
Does it say whetehr it was the low pressure mw50 kits? ("Oldenburg system")?
Only "Notleistung mit MW50".
-
With MW50 "in volldruckhöhe" is marked as 5,7Km with a top speed of 702 Km/h.
With MW50 "om boden" 0km max speed is 612 Km/h.
-
Not in operational JG's they were not using MW 50. III/JG54 was the conversion test unit. Until they cleared the plane no other units recieved Dora's.
You might be refering to the test data from WNr 174-054 FW-190 V54, the second FW -190D prototype which was converted from GM-1 to MW-50 to test the system. It conducted a few test flights and crashed on 5/8/44. It was repaired and flew again but due to the nature of the repairs only flew low altitude test's.
It was replaced by WNr 210 048.
Yeah, there were some test A/C around but none in the Jagdwaffe until a single unit with MW-50 was delivered to III/JG 54 in October 44. Good news is that in November 44 the Dora was cleared for service and other Gruppen began to convert.
III/JG2, II/JG26, and II/JG301 recieved their first Dora's in November 44. III/JG54 also reached it's authorized strength of 80 FW-190D9's in November. Junkers TAM reported that all three Gruppen wre proceding with the 1900 hp conversion but the work was very difficult at the front due to no hangers and frequent rains.
By the End of December 44 Three more Gruppen had converted and 183 Dora's were operational with the "Sonderaktion 1900PS" TAM conversion and a further 60 were delivered with MW-50.
So, NO there were no Operational Dora's with MW-50 before October 44. And then there was just one.
Crumpp
-
D-9s in III./JG54 as of end of month
Sept - 18
Oct - 56
Nov - 68
Dec - 49
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biiijg54.html
III./JG 2 only had 35 Doras, end of month, Dec 44
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biiijg2.html
II./JG26 had as of end of month
Nov - 55
Dec - 39
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg26.html
II./JG310 only had 18 end of month, Dec 44
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg301.html
-
The list does not contain WNrs, neither any mention to D9 being a prototype. In any case, the number of operational D9s by Oct 44 was anecdotal.
About the 1900Hp boost, AFAIK was compatible with MW50, not just substituted by MW50.
By that time, 190A8s were already developing 1900Hp in WEP with C3 injection, but were clearly surpassed in substained climbrate at sealevel by D9 with a similar weight (9,7 m/s for A8 without WEP and 11,3 m/s for D9 without WEP). It seems to me that takeoff power switched from 1730Hp to 1900Hp. But even with 1900Hp and, lets suppose, better prop efficiency, it would not win clearly over a 1900Hp 190A8 (1.65 ata 2700 rpm) in climbrate at sealevel. The fact is that D9s outclimbed and outaccelerated A8s at will at any alt.
-
Please stay on topic. Does our Dora use too much fuel? That's what I want to know.
Thanks.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Please stay on topic. Does our Dora use too much fuel? That's what I want to know.
Thanks.
I posted some data on page 1, so go test and see if the AH Dora gets the same results.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
BMW allowed 12.5% reserve. Did Jumo also use this reserve percentage?
From the Tank bio book,
TO&E - 575l/hr @ 3250rpm
climb - 480l/hr @ 3000rpm
max cruise - 350l/hr @ 2700rpm
above at SL
Originally posted by GScholz
In any case the Dora is burning 590.5 L/h at MIL in AH2 (1xFBM), and 893.3 L/h at WEP
Any additional information, like original sources?
-
You have D9 data in first page. About 190A8 (also mentioned in this thread) it was consuming 146 gals/h at 1.42 ata 2700 rpm (1730Hp) and 185 gals/h at 1.65 ata 2700 rpm (1900 Hp with C3 injection).
-
Then do we have a consensus on that the AH Dora burns too much fuel? Does anyone have any original sources like the Motoren-Karte on the Jumo?
-
Here you can find a chart (hard to read) with Jumo fuel consumption data.
Jumo213A fuel consumption chart (http://pub157.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessage?topicID=161.topic)
I can read clearly only 150l/h for MW50.
-
The stats listed for the FW-190D9 (fighter/fighter bomber) with 525L of B4/87 Octane fuel are 980 Km.
Although the Manifold pressure/rpm is not listed it should still match up with HT's economical cruise settings if you can convert the map scale.
Crumpp
-
Thanks GODO, I believe it is 800 l/h (B4). I'm having trouble reading the Kraftstoffverbrouch table at the bottom, but from what I see at SL the Jumo burns 270 grams per PS per hour at 3200 rpm and 2140 PS. With a gasoline weight of 732.22 Kg per cubic meter (1000 liters) I come to the conclusion of 788.69 liters per hour at SL. the Dora in AH2 burns 893.3 liters per hour at SL.
Calculating the fuel consumption as altitude increase is a pain since both PS and gram/PS/hour varies.
Perhaps it is time for my first email to Pyro? ;)
-
Great Chart on the 213A.
On a side note:
Someone let HoHun know the chart on page 104 of Dietmar Hermann's book is a CLIMBRATE test comparing the 190A8/190D9/Ta-152. The chart listed on the above link is an ENGINE performance test of the 213A under different manifold pressure settings.
Crumpp
-
Godo it seems I was incorrect that C3 was taken from the AUX tank to feed C3 injection.
From LEMB
From Janes:
"The pilot had a small push-pull control which operated two *****. The first **** opened an air bleed in the boost pressure regulator chamber, causing the regulator to open the butterfly throttle to provide +8.8 lb. boost instead of +5.5 lb. boost at sea level. The second **** opened a pipe line from the fuel pump to a spray nozzle fitted in the port air intake.
C3 would be injected or "bled off" from the fuel line, regardless of what fuel tank the 190 was already drawing fuel from.
I had thought that it used the same "plumbing" as mw50.
-
oops filter C O C K S and C O C K and C O C K
-
Go someplace else to try and pick up dates Batz.....
Crumpp
-
BTW Batz,
That Jumo Engine chart is pretty specific. It says B4 fuel. Your description of the boost system is correct except it did not use C3.
Crumpp
-
Yes Crumpp, some Doras used C3 both as fuel and as a boost agent before MW50 was installed.
-
Crumpp, if you look at the chart you will find that:
1 - 2240 Ps are listed as 1st gear MW50 boost.
2 - 1900 Ps are listed as takeoff power (no more 1750 Ps).
3 - 1700 Ps are listed as climb power.
4 - 1100 Ps are listed as economical cruise.
The cockpit of common D9s had a throttle with only four zones:
Aus: off
Anlassen: normal (1100 Ps?)
Steigen: climb (1700 Ps?)
Start: takeoff (1900 Ps?)
And a black switch at the lower left side of the frontal control panel, near the fuel selector lever, to activate WEP (2240 Ps?)
-
So if you calculate fuel flow off of that engine chart, what's it come out to in GPH?
-
Pyro, aside of fuel consumption, take into consideration that both 1900 (takeoff) and 2240 (WM50 boost) curves indicate 3250 rpm.
The blue numbers at the left indicate grams per PS per hour, and the bottom curves indicate fuel consumption based on rpms (Kraftstoffverbrauch). There is a single line for 3250 rpm, so we can asume 1900 Ps and 2240 Ps had the same fuel consumtion (2240 Ps should add MW50 consumption).
Lets use normal gasoline density as a reference for real B4 fuel density: 0.68 grams/cm3 at 20ºC
At 0k the line of 3250 rpm (1900Ps) indicates 270 grams/Ps/hour: 513000 grams/h -> 348.8 l/h (also aplicable to 3250 rpm + MW50: 2240 Ps) -> 92.73 Us Gals/h
At 0k the line for 3000 rpm (1700Ps) indicates 250 grams/Ps/hour:
425000 grams/h -> 289.0 l/h -> 76.35 US Gals/h
The worst case listed for 3250 rpm is 320 grams/Ps/h, so 320 * 1900 * 0.68 = 413.4 l/h = 108.9 Us Gals/h
AH D9 on WEP has 236 Gals/h, and seems way exagerated.
-
Originally posted by GODO
[BAt 0k the line for 3000 rpm (1700Ps) indicates 250 grams/Ps/hour:
425000 grams/h -> 289.0 l/h -> 76.35 US Gals/h
[/B]
Your conversion is not correct. 1 US gallon should weigh 6lbs or very close to that. You are saying that 76.35 gallons weighs 936.96 lbs (425 kg) or 12.27 lbs per gallon.
425,000 g = 937 lbs. Each gallon weighs 6 lbs, therefore 937lbs = 156 gallons. 425,000 grams per hour = 156 gallons per hour.
-
Hi Godo,
>There is a single line for 3250 rpm, so we can asume 1900 Ps and 2240 Ps had the same fuel consumtion (2240 Ps should add MW50 consumption).
Actually, the specific gasoline consumption at 3250 rpm with MW50 is given as separate curve - it's the one starting at 222 g/HPh at 0 km. (It's lower than the 3250 rpm curve without MW50 because water/alcohol consumption is not figured in, and because MW50 injection makes the engine run more efficiently.)
MW50 consumption is given in the upper part of the diagram as 150 L/h, along with what I guess means 690 L/h B4 fuel (40 GPH + 182 GPH). From the specific fuel consumption, it should be less than those 690 L, but though it's almost illegible that's the number I seem to make out.
>Lets use normal gasoline density as a reference for real B4 fuel density: 0.68 grams/cm3 at 20ºC
Hm, from what I've seen, the Luftwaffe never used such a low value in their aircraft weight charts. I could be wrong, though.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I've been looking at the wep consumption and I can't explain why that is so high in the game. Looks like that needs to be revised.
-
Hohun, we can use petrol density as reference: 850 grams/l.
0k 1900Ps 3250rpm 270grams/Ps/h: 513000 grams/h, 603 l/h, 159 Us Gals/h
0k 2240Ps 3250rpm 222grams/Ps/h: 497280 grams/h, 585 l/h, 154.56 Us Gals/h
Pyro, my mistake in the conversion, should be correct now.
Still far away from the current AH2 236 Gals/h on WEP.
For 3000 rpm 44.9" MP current AH2 is marking 156 Gals/h.
The chart shows 245 grams/Ps/h for 3000 rpm, that is 0k, 1700Ps, 245grams/Ps/h: 416500 grams/h, 490l/h, 129.46 Us Gals/h.
So, military power consumption may be off also by 26 Gals/h. Unless military consumption is ok but rpms are too low (1900 PS 3250 rpm instead of 1700 Ps 3000 rpm).
-
WEP, SL, 222 g/PS/h, 2240PS
222*2240/1000 = 497.8 Kg/h = 679.1 L/h = 179.3 Gal/h
This consumption rate is fairly constant up to 250 meters, then it is gradually reduced to...
WEP, 750m, 224 g/PS/h, 2120PS
224*2120/1000 = 474.8 Kg/h = 648.8 L/h = 171.3 Gal/h
... this is gradually increased to...
WEP, 2500m, 233 g/PS/h, 2060PS
233*2060/1000 = 479.9 Kg/h = 655.5 L/h = 173.1 Gal/h
... it then increases a bit to...
WEP, 3750m, 255 g/PS/h, 1980PS
255*1980/1000 = 504.9 Kg/h = 689.5 L/h = 182.1 Gal/h
... then when MW50 gradually becomes ineffective the consumption increases to ...
WEP, 5200m, 305 g/PS/h, 1690PS
305*1690/1000 = 515.4 Kg/h = 703.9 L/h = 185.9 Gal/h
... from there on it drops linearly with alt to 8000m and beyond ...
WEP, 8000m, 324 g/PS/h, 1180PS
324*1180/1000 = 382.3 Kg/h = 522.1 L/h = 137.9 Gal/h
MIL power (3000 rpm) at SL should be ...
MIL, SL, 248 g/PS/h, 1700PS
248*1700/1000 = 421.6 Kg/h = 575.7 L/h = 152 Gal/h
... apart from the supercharger gear shift this power setting is more stable in fuel consumption over altitude up till rated altitude ...
MIL, 5200m, 280 g/PS/h, 1540PS
280*1540/1000 = 431.2 Kg/h = 588.8 L/h = 155.5 Gal/h
Now, I hope this is correct or else I've just wasted an hour of my life! ;)
-
GODO I used 732.22 grams per liter as reference weight of fuel. Is your number (850) more accurate?
-
0.85 g/ml is the base density for gasoil.
0.68 g/ml for gasolines.
Probably gasoil density is closer to B4 and light modern gasolines.
-
I got my number by googeling for gasoline weight. My number was listed as "vehicle gasoline". If your number is more correct, then my Gal/h numbers are a bit high. Well ... that's one hour I'm not going to get back.
-
B4 and C3 density here (http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/tech_rpt_145_45/rpt_145_45_sec2.htm#Composition and Specifications)
gripen
-
B4 "0.710-0.760" That's pure luck! My number was 0.732. :D
-
Thaks a lot Grippen
-
Now I have a doubt, max throttle is giving us 3000 rpm, is that we have 1700Ps without WEP? WEP is giving us 3250 rpm, is that for 2240Ps or 1900Ps? shouldn't it be max throttle 1900Ps 3250rpm and WEP 2240PS 3250rpm also?
-
No, WEP is 2240PS, MIL is 1700PS (Steig und Kampfleistung).
-
Any idea of how much time 1900PS/3250rpm can be substained? AFAIK MW50 can be injected at sea level only once you are already doing 3250rpm and never before, that is, with the throttle lever in the takeoff/emergency power position.
-
I would really appreciate if someone could just produce an RLM document with the Jumo 213 series using C3.
This community can come up with some excellent documentation so I know the proof is out there.
Nothing I have seen shows the Jumo 213 using C3.
Thanks
Crumpp
-
If anyone's interested you can buy copies of original handbooks and documents on German aircraft and engines here:
http://www.luftfahrt-archiv-hafner.de
Junkers engines:
http://www.luftfahrt-archiv-hafner.de/Teilliste8-JUMO-Tab.htm
-
Thanks,
I found that link a few days ago and have a 190A8 pilots manual coming my way. Thinking about getting the BMW 801 and Jumo 213 manuals too.
Crumpp
-
Nice, when you get it find out what speed limitation they had on flaps will you?
-
Just go to the site in GS's original post and email the webmaster. The data he has on his site comes from charts he has. He used to link the charts but took them down.
Naudet has a copy I believe he posted on this forum but he no longer visits this forum or plays AH.
I believe both Funked and Gatt have english translations of the A8 manual.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I would really appreciate if someone could just produce an RLM document with the Jumo 213 series using C3.
This little doc
http://de.geocities.com/stefan_l_01/fzg/Jumo213_Nov44.tif
is a multi-image tif file with 2 pages. You need kodak imaging program or convert it to a pdf in case you have acrobat. Or use any other programm that can view multi-image files
Anyway, next to some nice informations about the Jumo, especially the AG version, you find right at the beginning of the 2nd pagethe information
Kraftstoff:
Bleibenzin B4
notfalls C3
which clears the Jumo for C3 but only if no B4 is available (because it´s a engine chart i don´t believe it´s due to shortcoming of C3 fuel. It must have had other reasons. High aromatic fuel burns hotter, maybe this was the reason)
niklas
-
Hi Niklas,
>Anyway, next to some nice informations about the Jumo, especially the AG version
This document is really astonishing since it answers a lot of questions that were still open with regard to the Fw 190D-9 :-)
For example the overheating discussion we had on this board last year: The Triebwerkskarte states clearly that with MW50, 2100 PS are available for 10 min with a cool-down period of 5 min between two emergency power uses. The MW50 tank gives up to 40 min of operation with MW50 injection. If it's run dry, that will kill the engine by overheating :-)
Note that 2240 PS aren't mentioned - it seems supercharger low gear wasn't available at Sondernotleistung.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Good catch! It must be the 398mph on the deck Sonder Notleistung mit A Lader als Bodenmotor WEP that has the 2240PS rating. That means that my calculations for the SL-250 meters fuel consumption is wrong since it was calculated for 2240PS rather than 1900.
I wish we had that power egg of an engine, unfortunately it is unclear how many Doras had this configuration.
-
That link just brings me to the Yahoo page. Do you have to be a yahoo member to use it?
Gscholtz,
As soon as the manual arrives I will post the info on the flap speeds. Interesting you mention that. In "Combat Legends" Focke-Wulf Fw 190" by Peter Cayhill under the German flight testimonials it is mentioned that you can drop 10 degrees of flap, increase the throttle to overcome the drag, and tighten the 190's turn radius considerably. Unfortunately it does not specify the speed.
Crumpp
-
Right click on the link Crumpp and select "save target as".
Yeah I was thinking the same thing with the flaps.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Good catch! It must be the 398mph on the deck Sonder Notleistung mit A Lader als Bodenmotor WEP that has the 2240PS rating.
No. That was an project calculation in April 45, probably with 2600PS
I agree with Hohun, the 1st gear probably wasn´t allowed OR could not be used IN FLIGHT. Note that MW-50 was only allowed in flight.
The critical altitude was pretty low, so maybe it couldn´t be used in flight, though RAM effect would shift the critical alitude upwards for the 1st gear to over 1km, at least in fast flight. I don´t know. Maybe the documentation department just took the wrong number.
niklas
-
ARRRRRRGH!
I've got kodak easyshare software and Adobe Acrobat. It downloads as a tif file and kodak is only opening the first page. Can't seem to be able to convert to Pdf.
Somebody please square me away on converting this thing. Thanks
Crumpp
-
Crumpp,
Get Irfranview (http://www.irfanview.com/) or some else free viewer.
gripen
-
Thanks!
Got it
Crumpp
-
Well there you have it. "If necessary" you could use C3 in the Jumo 213A. I am very skeptical about huge performance gains with it. If it was the "best" performing fuel to run in the motor then it would have been the recommended fuel IMO. In fact "C3" was the more common late war fuel that Germany produced. "B4" was not the priority fuel for production. It would have been easier I imagine to get "C3".
Crumpp
-
Well, may be Germany was really running out of fuel and reserved as much C3 as possible for 190A8s and A9s. Probably D9s using C3 did not experience a noticeable performance gain while A series did. Probably C3 was used by D9s only at those places where no B4 or no MW50 was available.
-
The C3 stencil was applied on almost every G-10/K-4 because the DB 605DM was supposed to run on C3 to achieve the 1.75ata, exactly like the DB 605ASM.
BUT following shortage of C3, later revision of the motorenkarte, associated MW-50 documents and TA documents show B4 as a possible substitute fuel. The only restriction was not to cut MW-50 supply while running at a high boost because of detonation. And the aircraft were not repainted in any way.
Since C3 could sustain up to 2.2ata supply of MW-50 could be shutdown w/o any detrimental effects provided the pilot did not let the engine temp rise. Some testbed engine ran at 1.7ata with just C3 for instance.
Note that it was planned to up the DB605D max boost to 2.3ata with both C3 and MW-50.
As for the fuel supply, i own copies showing detailled stockpile status for february-april 1945 but i can't publish it here nor comment much on it. But yes the C3 was definitely scarce.
Butch made this reply in a discussion about 109s and C3
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=108817
C3 was rare and the BMW'd 190s needed it or they could not run. The DBs and the Jumo could run B4 and Mw50. Niklas points out that there may have been other reasons why B4 and Mw50 was used primarily by the d9 but that has no bearing on the claims Crumpp made.
He stated categorically that the D9 couldn’t and did not ever use C3. On the site GS linked at the top of the thread the webmaster has listed speed and climb for a d9 using C3. In the threads I linked the webmaster claims to have a document showing C3 and at least 1 image of a d9 and a C3 fuel decal. I suggested that Crumpp email the webmaster and ask for more info. No one here claimed that the D9 used C3 as a standard.
The speeds listed on that site show that C3 produced more speed. In the thread I linked in this post you will see the performance gain when the db605d uses C3 + mw50 to B4 + mw50. Clearly there’s a "performance gain".
That thread also shows that C3 was rare and needed by the bmw 190s.
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/prim...145_45_sec2.htm
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/prim...d/mof-secth.pdf
So Crumpp was wrong even if he cant admit it.
-
LOL
Hey Batz, Gripen already posted a link that showed German fuel production. According to it C3 had the production priority. Fuel of any type was scarce toward the end of the war. Here it is....
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/tech_rpt_145_45/rpt_145_45_sec2.htm#Composition and Specification
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The relative volumes of production of the two grades cannot be accurately given, but in the last war years the major volume, perhaps two-thirds (2/3) of this total has the C-3 grade. Every effort was being made toward the end of the war to increase isoparaffin production so that C-3 volume could be increased for fighter plane use. The isoparaffin usage in that grade had already been cut to a minimum.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it makes sense that if you have no other fuel available then use what you have. Common sense dictates that you would recommend the best performing fuel and use the phrase "if necessary" for the one that works but doesn't work as well.
I know you can't stand to have your supreme knowledge of all things Luftwaffe questioned, Batz. Sorry but I won't take another discussion on a different BB by the same folks as proof. The RLM document is presented and the Jumo 213 could use "C3" if necessary. I highly doubt your claim of increased performance on it holds water though.
Keep up with the discussion, bro.
Crumpp
-
Everything you need was given to you find out for yourself...
You said C3 could not be used with the Jumo...
Remember your attempt at sarcasm?
I will just run out and put some JP-4 in an engine rated for JP-8, it is after just Jet Fuel and will only require a few adjustments....
You were wrong, pronounced just as its spelled...
You have been wrong 90% of the time the other 10% we will chalk up to luck. But at least in this "discussion" you had no such "luck".
As I suggested numerous times, why dont you just email Bury and ask him?
-
BTW try reading that fuel llink of yours...(fyi its the same one I posted here and in several threads even in the one a just linked).
-
Batz,
The links you posted went to the Luftwaffe Experten Message board and to a FW-190D-9 Fansite. I don't remember you posting this link directly.
Yes I have answered your sarcasm and "prettythanghole" behavoir by returning the favour. Frankly I could care less if you and Gscholtz ever posted another word to me. You come across as a know it all jerks who are not right nearly as much as you think you are...
So piss off...
:cool:
Crumpp
-
*LOL* Difference is at least I admit to being wrong.
Don't go away angry Crumpp (you know the rest of the saying).
-
That's load of pompous crap Gschlotz.
Did you admit to being wrong about pilot physiology? NO
Your right in the "C3" could be used in the Jumo 213. However the perception you attempted to create that it was a big performance improver was wrong. You attempted to sell it as common practice when in fact it is an emergency measure when no B4 is available. Had you been forthright and honest, presenting the facts backed up by documentation (other than the same folks posting on ANOTHER BB or a fanstite) there would have been no discussion.
And I know your gonna bring up the Norwiegen OSS missions. I was wrong and I admitted it publically on the board. I'm way ahead of you.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
That's load of pompous crap Gschlotz.
Did you admit to being wrong about pilot physiology? NO
Nor was I wrong in that discussion.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Your right in the "C3" could be used in the Jumo 213. However the perception you attempted to create that it was a big performance improver was wrong.
Quote me. You can't. You're lying.
Originally posted by Crumpp
You attempted to sell it as common practice when in fact it is an emergency measure when no B4 is available.
Quote me. You can't. You're lying.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Had you been forthright and honest, presenting the facts backed up by documentation (other than the same folks posting on ANOTHER BB or a fanstite) there would have been no discussion.
There is no discussion, it is just you.
-
Yeah,
After a couple of other folks slammed your comments you never even showed back up in the thread.
Post the links to "C3 test data" and lets check it out. Is it an RLM document?? Or is it some speculative calculations from a third party you have been passing off as the facts?
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Yeah,
After a couple of other folks slammed your comments you never even showed back up in the thread.
Quote them. You can't. You're lying. I had said my piece, and my views are supported by others in that thread.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Post the links to "C3 test data" and lets check it out. Is it an RLM document?? Or is it some speculative calculations from a third party you have been passing off as the facts?
Have I posted a link to "C3 test data"?
-
Yes you are......
No I'm not............
Yes you are..........
No it's You...........
NO it's you.............
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Move out and draw fire.
Crumpp
-
No point in continuing this.
-
ai ai ya ai ai Dora y no llores por que Doreando se alegran cielito mio los corazones pum pum :D :aok
-
ROTLF :rofl
El Glazoid spoke !