Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Crumpp on July 27, 2004, 07:11:49 PM
-
Anybody have anything on the amount of Horsepower the BMW801D2 produced at 1.62ata at 2700U/min?
I have a BMW801 manual from May 1942, all the Flugzeug-handbuchs for the 190A series, and Several NACA test's on the BMW801D2 motor.
All list the Horsepower as 1870hp at 1.42ata at 2700U/min.
What was it at 1.62ata?
Crumpp
-
performance curve graph for BMW 801D s/n 9-801:5401, dated 10-7-42, says 1820PS (maximum), @ 1.42ata @ 2700rpm @ 750-760m
exhaust thrust @ 2700rpm - 120kg @ 5650m
-
Thanks Milo!
Anybody have anything on the amount of Horsepower the BMW801D2 produced at 1.62ata at 2700U/min?
Got that info. PS is NOT Hp.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
All list the Horsepower as 1870hp at 1.42ata at 2700U/min.
The graph shows ~1780HP so why did you state 1870hp?
typo error on your part or is the graph in error?
-
I've got several NACA graphs. All show the standard 1800hp at 1.42ata NOT 1740hp.
Pyro will see the manual were I am getting the data.
Until then, based on your past history, please get out my thread unless you can help me out with the 1.62ata question. Your attempting to derail it.
Thanks!
Crumpp
-
PS is short for Pferdestärke, literary horsepower or horse strength in English. It is defined by the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) in Braunschweig as:
1 PS = 735.49875 W
According to the most common definition of horsepower, one horsepower is defined as exactly:
1 hp = 745.69987158227022 W
The horsepower was first used by James Watt during a business venture where his steam engines substituted horses. It was defined that a horse can lift 33,000 pounds with a speed of 1 foot per minute: 33,000 ft·lb·min-1. (This is equivalent to approximately 15,000 kg at 30 cm.)
-
That is nice to know, thanks. They are not the same unit of measure though between Hp and PS.
Do you have the Hp OR PS for the Bmw 801D2 at 1.62ata? I can convert.
Crumpp
-
I'm afraid I don't. Sorry.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I've got several NACA graphs. All show the standard 1800hp at 1.42ata NOT 1740hp.
Until then, based on your past history, please get out my thread unless you can help me out with the 1.62ata question. Your attempting to derail it.
Thanks!
Crumpp
Crumpp, get rid of the attitude.:p
If you don't like being questioned on the HP/PS at 1.42, to bad. All I want is clarification on your claimed 1870hp number, you being the expert and all :rolleyes: on the Fw190. Now, where did I state 1740hp?
This is what I have and is also from your link from the other thread.
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/bmw801d-1024.jpg
Do we believe your claimed 1870hp or what the BMW graph shows?
-
Believe what you want Milo. Not a big deal.
Do you know the Hp at 1.62ata?
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Believe what you want Milo. Not a big deal.
Do you know the Hp at 1.62ata?
Crumpp
Are you not the sweet one, Grumpy. Such an attitude Grumpy for a simple question of clarification.:rolleyes: Ok, I will believe that you are shovelling the stuff at us, again.
-
Stuff is copyrighted Milo. I can't post it anyway. Geez man, is it really that big a deal? Worst case it could be is the info is wrong?
Please either contribute something useful, start a new thread so you can bad mouth someone, or get out of this one.
Does anyone know the Hp at 1.62ata?
Thanks.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Worst case it could be is the info is wrong?
Hallelujah!!!
Now why could you not have said that at the beginning?:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Nope, Crumpp has to cop an attitude over a simple question.:rolleyes:
If the 1.42 number is wrong, what is to say the 1.62 number will not also be wrong? The 1.42 clarification question is useful in believing any 1.62 number.
What was the hp increase from 1.32 to 1.42? Say ~100hp, for a number. If the 1.62 is 2000hp, then an increase of 0.20(1.42>1.62) ata gives only +130hp using your number, while the BMW graph gives an increase of 220hp. Which do you find more believable? Do you see why the 1.42 number has to be clarified?
Anyways, I leave you to your attitude.
-
Good god,
Get out the thread milo. Your simply trying to derail what you percieve as a threat to your favourite A/C.
Pyro can judge the info for himself and either use it or not. Does not require your approval or mine.
Again, does anyone have any info on the Horsepower rating of the BMW 801D2 at 1.62ata?
Crumpp
-
Not only do you have an attitude problem, you are also dilusional, crumpp. Why would a hp gain be a threat?
It is your crappy attitude that is putting this thread down the wrong road. Asked a simple question of clarification and crumpp goes off the deep end.
Drop the crap attitude crumpp and maybe we can arrive at a 1.62 hp number, if a believable real number cannot be found.
If one knows the hp gain is from 1.10 to 1.20 to 1.32 to 1.42, then one can make a pretty good estimate to what the hp would be at 1.62. With some of the math brains here doing some calcs, it would be near enough to any real number. Would Pyro accept the number? Maybe or maybe not, but would say yes if the 'arguement' was sound. One needs a good base number to work from, though.
The discussion could have been very informative, a 1.62 hp number that could have estimated and agreed on, but no, you cop an attitude and let that get in the way.:rolleyes: so :(
-
MiloMoron please, just go away.
-
Not exactly sure about the importance of HP or PS alone without propellor efficiency, exhaust thrust, weight and drag factors.
-
Presumably all these elements individually feed into the FM.
-
I don't think any of those elements feed into the FM. I believe Pyro uses the speed/climb chart data directly. How much Hp the plane had is inconsquensial.
-
Hmm, OK. That surprises me, I'd have thought the FM started from something closer to first principles...
-
Too advanced FM aproach phookat ;)
-
Looks like the incorrect boost number is not going to be corrected.
The correct number is 1.58/1.65. (low/high gear)
-
Right it doesn't matter as far the FM is concerned. I would just like to know.
Crumpp
-
MiloMoron please, just go away.
My God we agree on something!
Crumpp
-
We agree on many things ... we just like being opponents too much to talk about them.
-
Let me clarify the boost settings on the 190A as I get them from the manual along with the Weights. All wieghts include full load of ammo, fuel, lox, winterization kit, and a 100kg pilot onboard.
All are Normaljager with full wing armament.
FW-190A3 - 3978kg
3 min @ 1.42ata
30 min @ 1.32ata
FW-190A5 - 4106kg
same as the A-3 when not equipped with C3
With C3 - 10-15 min @1.65ata
FW-190A8 - 4272kg (includes 115 aux tank)
4152kg Without aux tank
10 min @ 1.65ata
unlimited @ 1.42ata
With C3
"as long as the emergency lasts" @ 1.65ata
Milo is correct on the 1.65ata. Reading all these different Manifold pressures with most of them ending in "2" I wrote down the wrong thing in my notebook.
It is interesting that Fabers 190A3 was tested using 1.32ata at 2400U/min (report says 1.35ata in some places but I think it is a typo) with the exception of the speed runs which were conducted at 1.42ata at 2700U/min for 3 minutes.
The Spifire MkIX used (+15) boost at 3000 rpm.
Does anybody know the Hp rating of the BMW 801 @ 1.65ata.
-
The only references I could find:
Btw. Fw190A-8 engine is the same as in 190A-4. BMW 801D-2.
It has "increased power setting" Erhöhte Notleistung which brings 1.65ata boost pressure and 2100PS power. But physically engines should be similar.
I think currently La-5FN and Fw 190A-8 relative performances are well made.
Fw 190A-8 takeoff weight 4300kg. (pilot included as 100kg)
Fw 190A-8 maximum power 2100PS / 2070hp / 1544Kw
Power weight ratio 0.49 PS/kg
La-5FN takeoff weight 3265kg. (not sure if pilot included)
La-5FN maximum power 1875PS / 1850hp / 1379Kw
Power (PS)/weight(kg) ratio: 0.57 PS/kg
So you see that with normal takeoff load La-5FN should be superior in acceleration compared to Fw190A-8.
With both planes at low fuel they would be about equal power/weight wise. And so accelerate almost in similar fashion.
http://forum.wbfree.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-22948.html
Hi Badger,
>AFAIK theoretically it can be easily calculated from basic engine parametrs
It can be determined graphically from the engine chart you posted.
The speed chart shows that the full pressure heights at increased boost are 700 m for low gear and 5500 m for high gear at top speed. One can simply extend the "drop off" legs of the high-speed power graph to this altitude to get the power output.
I get the following values for high speed flight (numbers in brackets for original boost):
0700 m: 2000 HP (1745 HP)
5500 m: 1610 HP (1435 HP)
For climb:
0300 m: 1970 HP (1810 HP)
4900 m: 1670 HP (1475 HP)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
http://forum.wbfree.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-12005.html
-
That 4300kg weight is the maximum take off weight for the "H" chart. It is referred too in several locations. All the Flugzeug-Handbuchs have them for each version and they are labeled in big bold letters "max take off weight" listing several weights and "H" categories.
There are also data cards with completely different weights listed for each variant including weight for ammo by weapons system, winterization kits, armour, radios, oil, fuel, and a pilot weighing 70-100kg. The weights for each version are broken down from basic airframe to the A/C sitting on the runway
In the maintenance manual there is a large "H" chart with every version and Rusataz listed.
Kind of confusing until my friend who helped me with the translations pointed out in the control adjustment chapter of the maintenance manual the OTHER "H" chart. It's a column in the control surfaces data card and gives the adjustments for the fixed trim tabs corresponding to each "H" category.
In other words a fully loaded FW-190A8 with a 100kg pilot could add 28 kg of Champagne and Lobsters in the back without having to change the fixed trim tabs.
Crumpp
-
Hehe, now don't go and derail your own thread. It's the 1.65 ata that's important.
You could email Hafner at the Luftfarhrt-Archiv and ask if they've got any reference to the 1.65 ata boost in any of their BMW801D documents, and offer to buy it if they find it. Unless of course you've already bought them all.
-
Good idea. Thanks for finding that thread.
Crumpp
-
It pays to visit the LEMB
Sea level:
1660 HP @ 2700 rpm/1.42 ata
1890 HP @ 2700 rpm/1.58 ata <- maximum used
300 m:
1670 HP @ 2700 rpm/1.42 ata
1900 HP @ 2700 rpm/1.58 ata <- full throttle height :-)
2800 m:
1580 HP @ 2700 rpm/1.42 ata
1840 HP @ 2700 rpm/1.65 ata <- note higher boost
http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessage?topicID=291.topic
by the same person, Henning
"It can be determined graphically from the engine chart you posted.
The speed chart shows that the full pressure heights at increased boost are 700 m for low gear and 5500 m for high gear at top speed. One can simply extend the "drop off" legs of the high-speed power graph to this altitude to get the power output."
Now Col Klink's lapdog, that quote is from your own post. You should keep your mouth shut. What did I suggest?
Nice to see Crunpp that you finally found a reference to the 1.32 restriction.
-
Technical description No. 284 (for the A-8)
Weight distribution (in kg)
Fuselage - 345.2
Undercarraige - 258.3
Control surfaces - 120.8
Flight controls - 32.3
Wing assembly - 475.0
Powerplant - 1661.3
Standard equipment - 248.1
Permament accessories - 27.4
Additional accessories - 319.3
Paint - 2.0
Empty weight - 3489.7 > 3490
Pilot, parachute, flying gear - 100
Normal fuel - 410
Aux. fuel tank(115l) - 90
Lubricants - 50
Ammo(MG131 - 2x75) - 77
Ammo(MG151 - 2x250) - 110
Ammo(MG151 - 2x140) - 64
Useful load - 901.0
Flying weight - 4391.0 > 4400 (901.0 + 3490)
-
The entire post:
Hi Kutscha,
>What was the power output at 1.62ata?
I've got a German power chart indicating the following high speed powers for the BMW801D:
Sea level:
1660 HP @ 2700 rpm/1.42 ata
1890 HP @ 2700 rpm/1.58 ata <- maximum used
300 m:
1670 HP @ 2700 rpm/1.42 ata
1900 HP @ 2700 rpm/1.58 ata <- full throttle height :-)
2800 m:
1580 HP @ 2700 rpm/1.42 ata
1840 HP @ 2700 rpm/1.65 ata <- note higher boost
This was a BMW801D-2 as used in the Fw 190A-5 prototype.
However, I recently discovered that German engines can differ considerably even under the same designation (the DB601A-1 did!), and it seems to be the same for the BMW801D-2.
Comparison between high speed data from two different BMW801D-2 engine charts for normal boost:
Sea level:
a) 1660 HP @ 2700 rpm/1.42 ata
b) 1740 HP @ 2700 rpm/1.42 ata
Low gear full throttle height:
a) 1710 HP @ 2700 rpm/1.42 ata <- 1.4 km
b) 1770 HP @ 2700 rpm/1.42 ata <- 1.4 km
High gear full throttle height:
a) 1420 HP @ 2700 rpm/1.42 ata <- 6.5 km
b) 1490 HP @ 2700 rpm/1.42 ata <- 6.7 km
The graph from American tests gives yet other data:
1660 HP @ sea level <- as a)
1760 HP @ 6000 ft <- as b)
1600 HP @ 22000 ft <- more than a) or b)
Conclusion? I'm confused :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Now Col Klink's lapdog, that quote is from your own post. You should keep your mouth shut. What did I suggest?
You've got nothing useful to contribute Milo.
At least nothing that is worth your crappy attitude.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
You've got nothing useful to contribute Milo.
At least nothing that is worth your crappy attitude.
Crumpp
Another slanderous assault.:( :( :(
to paraphrase you crumpp What has this to do with finding the power output at 1.65ata?
Oh, and I did contibute, for I corrected you after letting you run with it, that the boost is 1.65, NOT 1.62 Now did you do the same with the 1870 - 1780 @1.42? We all make errors crumpp, so why cop the attitude? I also gave a weight breakdown for the A-8 (from a LW doc) and some HP numbers.
It is you, crumpp, that is doing any of the de-railing of your thread.:rolleyes:
-
Number one Milo,
You don't point out mistakes - you belittle. Got no time for that.
I have TOLD you at least 4 times - The stuff is copyrighted and Copyrighted in the US against electronic distribution!! I for one don't want to see HTC embroiled in a lawsuit AND would like to see the Luft-archive stay in business. So if you want to see the stuff I am looking at buy the material.
http://www.luftfahrt-archiv-hafner.de/
If buy it on disk it comes as password protected secure pdf documents. I am waiting on word from Luft-archive if they will give me permission to share it with Pyro. If not I will have to mail him the manuals. How many times do I have to say it?
This is why you have nothing useful to contribute. Not only do I have to tell you 4 times why I can't post it. Your first four post's where attacks on the 1.42ata hp rating I posted. What does HoHun's post say "Horsepower rating vary wildly". It is confusing. Not only are the units of measure different but you have to know the altitude and whether the figure was adjust for velocity at speed. When you have that answer, after posting on the LEMB, instead of full disclosure on the issue you choose to post ONLY the parts which support your argument. You also don't say that those are CALCULATED figures by another player from a WB forum. Gscholz already posted them.
Now I politely say "Thank you for your time. Please move on." You lend an adversarial air to any thread you contribute too.
Now does anyone know of official sources for the 1.65ata? I have emailed the Luft-archive and the "White 1 Foundation".
Crumpp
-
I've got a German power chart indicating the following high speed powers for the BMW801D:
Rammed power ?
-
LOL crump, I asked for clarification on the 1.42 power output. "Your first four post's where attacks on the 1.42ata hp rating I posted." Attacks?? :D :D :D for sure you be dillusional. It was you who copped the attitude and went on a rant for such a simple question. Are you that insecure that anyone who questions you is adversarial?:( Notice that none of the other posts say 1870hp @ 1.42.
Then you say, "I've got several NACA graphs. All show the standard 1800hp at 1.42ata NOT 1740hp." Does this not raise any question in your mind? Where you got the 1740 from is anyones guess and 1800 is closer to 1780 than the 1870.
Did I ask you to post any scanned data?:( NOPE!! Must have been your snotty superiority complex making you dillusional, still.
The link to the LEMB was there for any who wanted to see the WHOLE thread. Now what is this 'arguement' you claimed I have. More dillusion on your part.:( "I've got a German power chart indicating the following high speed powers for the BMW801D:" via Col Klink's lapdog, quoting Henning. Now where does Henning say they are calculated for what I copied/pasted?
What an insecure pompous jerk you are crumpp, so :( :( :(.
You keep parrotting that injection cools the heads. The injection kept the f/a mixture temperaure down when over boosting (gas compression = gas temperature increase). This stopped pre-ignition of the mixture in the combustion chamber. Pre-ignition would raise the temperature of the engine. The heads are not cooled, only kept at a safe operating temperature for awhile and hence the time restriction on injection use.
Have a nice day now.
-
I've got a German power chart indicating the following high speed powers for the BMW801D:
Yes Voodo. Pretty sure it's horsepower at air speed velocity not rammed. Most of the aeroengines in WWII had superchargers which did ram the intake.
This is refering to the actual Horsepower in the Air at a specific altitude and airspeed. It actually lower than Horsepower on a benchtest.
You keep parrotting that injection cools the heads. The injection kept the f/a mixture temperaure down when over boosting (gas compression = gas temperature increase). This stopped pre-ignition of the mixture in the combustion chamber. Pre-ignition would raise the temperature of the engine. The heads are not cooled, only kept at a safe operating temperature for awhile and hence the time restriction on injection use.
In one sentence - It kept the heads cool.
Another way to put it - It cooled the heads.
Another way - It kept the heads from overheating.
Only in the A5 series was there a time limit placed on 190's with C3. In the A7 it was changed to unlimited.
Crumpp
-
Pretty sure it's horsepower at air speed velocity not rammed
Didnt understand. I thought "rammed" mean that its static power + gain from higher air pressure at high speed.
-
The following allied document dated March 24 1945 indicates 1870Hp for 1.65 ata at sea level (360 mph). Note that 1.65 ata is referred for both, high and low blower, that may be a mistake in the document. The document also indicates that the pressure of the C3 spray nozzle can vary from 18 to 25 lb/sq/in while air pressure remain fixed at 1.65 ata.
BMW 801D 1.65 ata (http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190a-boost-doc1.jpg)
-
Hey GODO,
Things that you go MMMMMMMMMMMM. I am trying to get a copy of HoHuns Luftwaffe document. I am wondering if this is a D or a D2.
That would explain the Horsepower difference's between the NACA graph / Luftwaffe Document HoHun has which say 1700 - 1800 range at 1.42ata and the test you posted?
Other possibility is wear and tear on the motor. Just speculating. Got any ideas?
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by GODO
The following allied document dated March 24 1945 indicates 1870Hp for 1.65 ata at sea level (360 mph). Note that 1.65 ata is referred for both, high and low blower, that may be a mistake in the document. The document also indicates that the pressure of the C3 spray nozzle can vary from 18 to 25 lb/sq/in while air pressure remain fixed at 1.65 ata.
BMW 801D 1.65 ata (http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190a-boost-doc1.jpg)
Yeah, I know that one, but think there are inaccuracies in it.
Going from 1.42 to 1.65 ata should yield a lot more power than only 1870... power increase is usually linear with boost increase, so...
If we raise boost by 16.2%, then our power increase should be very much the same, ie. 1800PS x 1.16 = 2088 PS. Very close to the published 2100 PS.
However if we only raise the boost to 1.58ata, similialry that would be 2002 PS.
I tend to believe 1.65ata was high-sc gear only, and hence comes a confusion in the doc, probably they give 1870HP/SL/1.65ata, however it probably refers to 1.65ata in high gear, at rated altitude, and not SL.
Which is why I am curious to see some original source on that. ;)
-
I tend to agree with that Isegrim. I am trying to get a copy of Hohun's Luftwaffe document to prove it.
It seems the Spit MkIX and the 190 had very similar boost and Horsepower increases. The FW-190 was always thousands of pounds heavier than the Spit.
That info comes from the RAF documents on the Tactical Trials conducted on Fabers A3. I'm gonna get some better reference material on the Spitfire. It is just as confusing as any LW fighter.
The weight in the 190 shot up but not nearly as dramatically as one might think. Infact the Power to Weight ratio in the FW198A8 at 1.58ata was only hundreths of kilo off of the 190A3's Power to weight ratio. In fact it seems the Spitfire IX with +25lbs boost was fitted with an extra internal auxiliry tank very similar to the 190A8's 115 liter aux tank. Both tanks were optional, at least the Luftwaffe aux tank was and I assume the Spit tank was too.
The FW190A8 fully loaded was 294kg's heavier than the 190A3. With it's power to weight that would have meant an increase in dive accelleration, Dive Speed, and zoom climb. The level accelleration would have been comparable to the A3's. Turn radius would have suffered some but then turning was never a 190 strength. All with a much better armament package.
Overall the 190A8 would have been an improvement over the 190A3 in the 190's fighting qualities.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
IIn fact it seems the Spitfire IX with +25lbs boost was fitted with an extra internal auxiliry tank very similar to the 190A8's 115 liter aux tank. Both tanks were optional, at least the Luftwaffe aux tank was and I assume the Spit tank was too.
Crumpp
I´m convinced that the aux tank for the fw190 was absolutly necessary when the extra boost was installed, and not optional. The fuel consumption was very high with the extra boost, so imo the 115l aux tank was more likely a coolant tank rather than a fuel tank. Of course it could be used as a fuel tank too (at least i think so), but without it the range would have been dramatically reduced when using the extra boost.
niklas
-
Thats what I had think to niklas.
C3 injection worked by cooling the heads through injecting fuel into the supercharger. LOTS of fuel.
C3 injection consumed about 70l of fuel per 5 min of the 190's onboard fuel.
The Flugzeug-Handbuch (A-5 bis A-6 and A-7 bis A-9) says to run it "as long as the emergency last's". Even with the 115l tank and DT 1.65 ata it could run as long as there is fuel. Without the 115l tank range would be extremely reduced when running C3 injection.
I had thought that C3 injection was drawn from the aux tank but it is bled right from the fuel line.
From Janes:
"The pilot had a small push-pull control which operated two c o c k s. The first c o c k 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 c o c k opened a pipe line from the fuel pump to a spray nozzle fitted in the port air intake.
-
The tank was optional in the FW-190A8. The manual is clear on that.
The 190A5 was the first to use C3 boost. At least it was the first to include instructions for C3 use in the manual.
The FW-190A5 could use 1.58/1.65ata ONLY when it was equipped with C3. It was limited to 10-15 minutes of use. This is probably due to the high fuel consumption of C3. Without C3 installed the 190A5 was limited to 1.42ata for 3 minutes and unlimted on 1.32ata. It could NOT use 1.58/1.65ata at all. The FW-190A5 was not equipped to use the 115 liter aux tank.
The FW-190A8 was able to use 1.58ata/1.65ata for 10 minutes WITHOUT the installation of C3 boost. It was unlimited on 1.42ata.
WITH C3 installed the 190A8 could use it "as long as the emergency last's". The 115 aux tank would have give the 190A8 an extra 6-8 minutes of 1.58/1.65ata but it drew fuel from the main fuel pump and was not dependant on any special tank. installation of the tank added 120kg to the weight of the 190A8. 90kg of fuel and 30kg of tank/fittings.
Crumpp
-
Crummp,
would it be possible to see a weight breakdown on the A-8, how much guns, extra tanks, racks etc. added?
Even better if you could send the relevant performance/weight part to executor@index.hu , I could use that for my site (109K performance comparison with it`s rivals, including the 190A/D)
-
I tried to send you all three. The FW-190A3, FW-190A5 and the FW-190A8 so you could see the weight breakdowns.
They are for your personal knowledge. You can share facts but not the docs please.
Soon as you empty your mailbox I will send you the A8 weights.
Take care.
Crumpp
-
BTW,
The FW-190A5 using C3 boost had a different fuel consumption rate than the C3 boost on the A8.
The C3 boost on the FW-190A5 used two different spray nozzles at the injector. One consumed 20 liters an hour and the other consumed 23 liters and hour. This is why using C3 boost the FW-190A5 is limited to 10-15 minutes @ 1.65ata.
FW-190A8 C3 boost dumped a lot more fuel in the supercharger and therefore kept the engine cooler. Hence it's time @ 1.65ata was "as long as the emergency lasted".
Crumpp
-
Hello,
I'm new to the forum and a bit confused about the subject. In the flight manual of the Fw 190 A is written that the "increased emergency power" should only be used in heights up to 1 km. It also states that the engine runs at 1,65 ata and consumes 70 litre of C3 in 5 minutes at "increased emergency power".
The figures posted in this thread show a setting of 1,58 ata for the low gear and 1,65 ata for the high gear - but as far as I understand it shouldn't be used in high gear and the engine should be at 1,65 ata when used (and not 1,58 ata).
Can someone tell more about this ? Was the usage only restricted in early versions (in the A5) and a changed system without these restrictions installed to later versions (as the A8) ? Are the restrictions posted in the manual only for the A5 ? The manual is the "Bedienungsvorschrift-Fl Fw 190 A-1 bis A-8 L.Dv.T. 2190 A-1 bis A-8/Fl".
As Crumpp already pointed there was a difference in the fuel injection beween the A5 and the A8, are there other differences in the system as well ?
- sfuchs -
-
The figures posted in this thread show a setting of 1,58 ata for the low gear and 1,65 ata for the high gear - but as far as I understand it shouldn't be used in high gear and the engine should be at 1,65 ata when used (and not 1,58 ata).
The two stage supercharger is not set by the pilot. It is an automatic function that kicks in when the ambient pressure drops and increased pressure is required to feed the motor.
I'm new to the forum and a bit confused about the subject. In the flight manual of the Fw 190 A is written that the "increased emergency power" should only be used in heights up to 1 km. It also states that the engine runs at 1,65 ata and consumes 70 litre of C3 in 5 minutes at "increased emergency power".
It should not be used BELOW 1 km.
Can someone tell more about this ? Was the usage only restricted in early versions (in the A5) and a changed system without these restrictions installed to later versions (as the A8) ? Are the restrictions posted in the manual only for the A5 ? The manual is the "Bedienungsvorschrift-Fl Fw 190 A-1 bis A-8 L.Dv.T. 2190 A-1 bis A-8/Fl".
Yes the FW-190A went thru several engines. The BMW801C is found in the FW-190A thru FW-190A2. The BMW-801D is found in the FW-190A3 thru FW-190A8. The BMW 801D2 recieved several upgrades during it's lifespan including an increase in compression ratio.
The engine operating restrictions were changed throught the lifecycle of the design just as allied engines did as well. All the 801 series radial motors were fuel injected.
Original Engine restrictions are:
1.32ata @ 2400 U/min for 30 minutes (climb and combat power)
1.42ata @ 2700U/min for 3 minutes (emergency power)
The FW-190A5 was "derated" to operate 1.58ata/1.65ata @ 2700U/min for 10-15 minutes IF it was equipped with C3 "emergency power". The C3 system injected fuel directly into the supercharger NOT to burn it in the engine but to use it to keep the heads cool. Same principal as MW-50 and Water injections systems found on LW and Allied Aircraft. It did not actually "boost" the manifold pressure. It just allowed the engine to run at higher power settings for longer periods of time.
Otherwise the FW-190 power restrictions were the same as the Previous FW-190's.
The FW-190A8 was "derated" to operate 1.58ata/1.65ata for 10 minutes WITHOUT any other system installed. Just the basic BMW 801D2.
With the C3 "emergency power" it could operate 1.58/1.65ata "as long as the emergency lasts" or until your fuel ran out. This is why a 115 liter internal auxilary tank is offered as kit in the FW-190A8. A similar 115 liter tank was installed when the FW-190A8 was equipped with GM-1 NOX.
The 115 liter tank was not a popular installment.
As Crumpp already pointed there was a difference in the fuel injection beween the A5 and the A8, are there other differences in the system as well ?
No as far as I can tell that is the only difference.
You have to purchase the individual FW-190 Flugzeug-Handbuch.
Crumpp
-
The BMW 801 engine had 3 cr increases, 6.5 in the early model, to 7.2 in the D model, to 8.3 in the later T models.
MW/ADI/fuel injection was used to STOP pre-ignition which would have destroyed the engine. Pre-ignition would hole pistons and increase temperatures. The primary reason for injection was to stop pre-ignition of the fuel/air mixture. All other reasons were resultant secondary.
The BMW 801 engine used a 2 speed sc not a 2 stage sc.
"High Gear (S) which drove the impellor directly from the crankshaft pinion at a ratio of 7.46:1, while Low Gear (M) was driven via 2 free gears, one if which was clutched, to the impellor at a ratio of 5.07:1. The change-over altitude was set automatically (anoroid switch) at 2500m and there was no way in which the pilot could over-ride the automatic change-over."
from the British report of a 190.
109s were 'derated' from 1.42 to 1.3x, so how can the Fw be derated from 1.58/1.65 to 1.58/1.65? Restricted yes.
-
Hello Crumpp,
thank you for the quick answer. I'm very interested in the Fw 190, especially the A-Series. I've done some research in the manuals now.
Originally posted by Crumpp
It should not be used BELOW 1 km.
The Bedienungsvorschrift says clearly "Die erhöhte Notleistung darf nur in Höhen unter 1000 m in äußerster Notlage im Schnellflug entnommen werden." ... that means up to 1 km and not above that height. As far as I know the system was mainly installed in machines which were deployed as Jabos (fighter-bombers).
The flight manual of the Fw 190 A5/A6 (D. (Luft) T. 2190 A5 / A6) reads the same ... "Bei einer Anzahl von Jabo mit BMW 801 D ist eine C3-Kraftstoffzusatzeinspritzanlage vorgesehen, die den Zweck hat, für eine kurze Zeit eine erhöhte Notleistung unter einer Höhe von 1000 m zu erzielen." ... that means a specific C3 fuel injection, that gives for a short period of time an increased ermegency power at heights under 1000 m.
The "increased emergency power" runs the engine at 1,65 ata and is only available at low gear in heights under 1000 m. The figures for 1,58 ata at low gear and 1,65 ata have nothing to do with this system. They are figures for the Fw 190 A7 / A8 / A9 without the useage of "increased emergency power". The flight manual of these subtypes (D. (Luft)T. 2190 A7 bis A9) says that pilots there controlled a small valve with which they could increase the pressure ratio of the engine to 1,58 ata in low gear and 1,65 ata in high gear. They could further increase the pressure ratio to 1,65 ata under 1 km when using "increased emergency power".
- sfuchs -
-
Bedienungsvorschrift
Yeah the Bedienungsvorschrift is really confusing as it covers all the 190A series. It is difficult to seperate what applys to what A model. It also does not detail the C3 system. In the Flugzueg-Handbuch it clearly states 1.58/1.65ata for the Fw-190A5. I would be glad to send you the page. Give me you email address and you have send in writing you will not post the information on the internet, publish it, or in anyway violate the Luft-archives copyright.
The Flugzeug-handbuch's cover each one in detail but concentrate more on maintenance and not flying.
Here is some more performance info on the FW-190. Included is an allied wartime translation of the C3 system.
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.htm
Crumpp
-
Hi Crumpp,
thanks for the quick reply and the interesting link. I've got already several manuals from the "Luftfahrt Archiv Hafner" ... the "Bedienungsvorschrift Fw 190 A1 to A8", the "Flugzeughandbuch of the Fw 190 A1", the "Flugzeughandbuch Fw 190 A2 bis A4", the Flugzeughandbuch Fw 190 A5 / A6" and the "Flugzeughandbuch Fw 190 A7 bis A9". The Flugzeughandbücher tell the same as the Bedienungsanleitung as far as I can see ... the Flugzeughandbuch of the Fw 190 A5 (at least my copy, maybe there are different prints) tells only of the 1,65 m under 1000 m ("erhöhte Notleistung") ... the 1,58 ata / 1,65 ata are only mentioned in the Flugzeughandbuch of the Fw 190 A7 to A9 and they are for a completely different and not time-limited system.
- sfuchs -
-
You are correct. I scanned the manuals. Got over 1000 pages of Luftwaffe material on the 190 now. I assumed it was above and did not catch the jabo only either. It specifically says in the Ohne C3 chapter "For Jager". That explains why you do not see any 1.65 ata charts on the 190A5 and why the 190A8 chart only shows 1.65ata.
And as I said earlier, The FW-190A5 can only run 1.65ata IF it was equipped with C3.
You speak fluent German?
Crumpp
-
The Motor restrictions as I read them:
FW-190A3
3 min @ 1.42ata
30 min @ 1.32ata
FW-190A5
same as the A-3 when not equipped with C3
With C3 - 10-15 min @1.65ata
FW-190A8
10 min @ 1.65ata
unlimited @ 1.42ata
With C3
"as long as the emergency lasts" @ 1.65ata
-
Originally posted by sfuchs
In the flight manual of the Fw 190 A is written that the "increased emergency power" should only be used in heights up to 1 km. It also states that the engine runs at 1,65 ata and consumes 70 litre of C3 in 5 minutes at "increased emergency power".
The figures posted in this thread show a setting of 1,58 ata for the low gear and 1,65 ata for the high gear - but as far as I understand it shouldn't be used in high gear and the engine should be at 1,65 ata when used (and not 1,58 ata).
Can someone tell more about this ?
- sfuchs -
The increased emergency boost was later cleared from BMW for the high alitutude gear, too (BMW Note from 20.01.44). You have to know the exact dates of the manuals. When they were pre-44 they´ll probably speak about the 1000m limit, even when they mention the A8 project
niklas
-
@Crumpp
1000 pages about the 190 sounds amazing, I've also collected some material over the last years and find that this forum is a good place to get further information - there is always something more to learn. Yes, I speak fluent german because I'm from germany ... it's quite a bit harder to express myself in english though.
@niklas
The Fw 190 A5/A6 Manual is dated august 1943, the A7 / A9 manual dated march 1944. Interesting fact that the increased emergency boost was later cleared for high gear, too.
- sfuchs -
-
March was very early in the FW-190A8 deployment life cycle.
The message was sent out in Jan'44. Being in the Military myself, I have to say that most military manuals have corrections and supplemental data printed. I am not surprised.
You do know that Pyro is redoing the FW-190 Flight Model in AH?
I have sent him several pages out of the manuals.
Check out the BMW-801D Horsepower chart on the FW website I listed earlier. Hohun claims to have a chart that shows 2100PS at full throttle height for 1.58ata @ 2700U/min. You wouldn't happen to have a copy? Makes sense because it is a linear progression.
Crumpp
-
Sorry, I checked some books but no one has a chart with figures of the BMW 801 D at 1,58 / 1,65 ata. Perhaps there are more informations in the engine manual ?
- sfuchs -
-
I got the BMW 801 MA- BMW801ML, BMW 801C, and BMW 801D Handbuch und Teiluberholungsanleitung Mai 1942 190 Seiten.
It has no power information at all in it. Has a really cool diagram of the the motor though!
Since it is 1942 and the BMW801D2 was not rated for 1.58ata/1.65ata it is on no use.
Thanks for looking though!
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The tank was optional in the FW-190A8. The manual is clear on that.
Crumpp
Agree. But without aux fuel tank i´m sure that the extra boost wasn´t available, too!!
niklas
-
Originally posted by niklas
Agree. But without aux fuel tank i´m sure that the extra boost wasn´t available, too!!
niklas
Why? The C3 system drew fuel from the engine fuel line, not from any specific tank.
-
Actually it was available without the 115 liter Aux tank. C3 "erhöhte Notleistung" had nothing to do with the fuel system set up and drew fuel from any fuel tank.
All the Aux tank did was give about 7 1/2 minutes more. It was not a very popular addition for fighters. Now when equipped with GM-1 LNOX system you had to have it on board. Not much use in AH for GM-1 though. I think the aux tank should be an option in the hanger.
I also think the R7/R8 armour with GM-1 should be an option too. Great for scenario high alt buff hunting.
Luftwaffe Wgr. 21 rocket tube need to be jettisionable too. They were in reality.
Crumpp
-
I once again checked the Flugzeughandbücher. There is an additional part in the manual of the Fw 190 A7/A8 that ist dated august 1944. That part makes things a bit clearer.
There are two completely different systems for the increased emergency boost. The first one as used in several 190 A5 (mostly jabos) worked with C3 injection and was only available up to 1 km.
The second system as used in the 190 A8 worked different. The manual reads "Anlage für erhöhte Notleistung (ohne C3 Einspritzung)" ... that means "system for increased emergency power (without C3 injection)". It could be run for 10 minutes and uses 1,58 ata for the low gear and 1,65 ata for the high gear, both at 2700 rpm.
That there were two completely different system makes sense for me, I've read somewhere in the manuals that the C3-injection wasn't useful in heights above 1 km, it was only waste of fuel without gaining significantly more power (I must look up the exact passage in the manual), therefore I was confused that this system later should have been cleared for high gear. I think the clearance from BMW from january 1944, that niklas mentioned, was for the second system, which was obviously more effective - up to full pressure height in high gear.
In the manual of the 190 A7/A8 is no remark that the 115 litre tank was necessary for the installation of "increased emergency power (without C3 injection)", but it mentions that the emergency power burns more fuel (of course) ... so it might have been logical to install the additional 115 litre tank.
@Crumpp
Can you tell me more about the engine manual of the BMW 801 ? I thought about buying it. When there are no power charts in it, is there possibly something else of interest ? Except the diagram of the engine ?
- sfuchs -
-
It's not worth it to get the BMW 801 manual unless you just want to know details about the working and operation of the Engine. C3 erhöhte Notleistung was cleared for higher altitudes meaning it was installed on Jager as well. It did burn an ungodly rate of fuel. 70 liters in 5 minutes.
The increased emergency boost was later cleared from BMW for the high alitutude gear, too (BMW Note from 20.01.44). You have to know the exact dates of the manuals. When they were pre-44 they´ll probably speak about the 1000m limit, even when they mention the A8 project
The 115 liter aux tank would make sense if you were using C3. However leaving just the tank in the hanger makes the 190's choices much more realistic.
Crumpp
-
C3-injection wasn't useful in heights above 1 km, it was only waste of fuel without gaining significantly more power (I must look up the exact passage in the manual),
From what I read C3 did not increase the Manifold pressure. It simply worked to keep the heads from overheating.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
From what I read C3 did not increase the Manifold pressure. It simply worked to keep the heads from overheating.
It was a combination ... of course you don't get a higher manifold pressure by simply injecting C3 ... but when the increased emergency power with c3-injection was activated, the mechanism behind the system lets the "throttle flaps" (sorry I don't know the correct term for the german "Drosselklappe") open so wide at heights under 1 km, that a maximal manifold pressure of 1,65 ata was achieved - instead of 1,42. The injection of C3 was necessary, because the normal injection pump didn't get enough fuel in the cylinders to operate the engine at 1,65 ata ... therefore additional fuel was injected on a seperate way.
- sfuchs -
-
I've found the passage about the c3 injection I mentioned before ... it is part of the Bedienungsanleitung. The passage says that the useage of increased emergency power is only allowed when in low gear. Near ground-level the system is most effective, in 1000m still 1,5 ata can be achieved, in heights above 1000 m the gain of power is only low and therefore the useage is only allowed up to 1 km. When the manifold pressure drops under 1,5 ata the increased emergency power has to be deactivated, because it burns to much fuel for the small gain of power.
Fuel consumption when on increased emergency power at 1,65 ata / 2700 rpm is about 70 litres in 5 minutes (840 litres / 1 h).
This covers the system that was used in several 190 A5 ... it is a different system as in the 190 A8 ("increased emergency power without c3-injection"). It is obvious that the system is useless in heights above 1 km, while the system of the 190 A8 is effective up to full pressure heigth in high gear.
- sfuchs -
-
It was a combination ... of course you don't get a higher manifold pressure by simply injecting C3 ... but when the increased emergency power with c3-injection was activated, the mechanism behind the system lets the "throttle flaps" (sorry I don't know the correct term for the german "Drosselklappe") open so wide at heights under 1 km, that a maximal manifold pressure of 1,65 ata was achieved - instead of 1,42. The injection of C3 was necessary, because the normal injection pump didn't get enough fuel in the cylinders to operate the engine at 1,65 ata ... therefore additional fuel was injected on a seperate way.
Yes that is correct for the 190A5's system.
-
I did a quick work up on the 801D using the USN/USAAF test data as the starting point.
The data I have gives 1755 hp @ 3250 ft (I'm calling it 3280 ft, or 1 km) & 1.42 ata.
That works out to a blower pressure ratio of 1.60:1, naturally giving 1.60 ata @ SL. So that gives a SL static max of 1.60 ata, 1955 hp +- 1%. Call it about 1980 hp, about 2010 ps (1980 * 1.014).
With ram 1.65 ata should be easily attainable at SL, giving about 2070 ps (1.65/1.60 * 2010), but that is before taking ram heating into account.
We will make this easy and do it at 200 mph TAS:
200/100 ^ 2 = 4 C temp increase
SL temp is 288.36 C, rammed temp is 292.36
sqrt (288.36 / 292.36) * 2070 = 2055 ps
But, another but :), C3 injection should lower charge temp anywhere from 10 to 25 C.
At 10 C decrease:
sqrt (302.36 / 292.36) * 2055 = 2090 ps
At 25 C decrease:
sqrt (317.36 / 292.36) * 2055 = 2140 ps
So, rammed performance of 1.65 ata, 2100 ps with C3 injection is just doable at SL, when rammed. Unrammed should be about 2010 ps 1.60 ata, or about 1985 ps at the 1.58 ata given in other figures.
Greg Shaw
-
Thanks Man!
Your the heat.
Crumpp
-
Sfuchs,
See what you can find out about the Winterization Kit. From what I read it is an adaptation for sub-artic conditions to keep the oil from freezing.
It's a larger capacity oil pan with a greater quantity of oil. It also has room to put a couple of liters of C3 directly into the oil pan and includes an additional pump for that.
It gets kind of technical for my level of German, sometimes.
Thanks!
Crumpp
-
I did a quick work up on the 801D using the USN/USAAF test data as the starting point.
Try it with this data if it's not the same you used, gw shaw.
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/bmw801d-1024.jpg
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by sfuchs
This covers the system that was used in several 190 A5 ... it is a different system as in the 190 A8 ("increased emergency power without c3-injection"). It is obvious that the system is useless in heights above 1 km, while the system of the 190 A8 is effective up to full pressure heigth in high gear.
- sfuchs -
I have the special page of the A1-A8 manual, but i´m missing the manual page with the extra boost without c3 injection. Can you send me it?
niklas
-
Hello Niklas,
sorry, there is a copyright on the manual, but you can send me your email adress to further discuss the subject, so I can give you the informations you need.
- sfuchs -
-
The material in Crumpp's links is all copyrighted, from at least 1974, by Valkyrie Publications.
-
Milo,
Like a little dog yapping at your heels.
Angerman...
1. It's not my site.
2. It's not copywrited against electronic distribution nor is any profit being made off the material.
3. The manuals ARE copyrighted against electronic distribution.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Milo,
Like a little dog yapping at your heels.
Angerman...
1. It's not my site.
2. It's not copywrited against electronic distribution nor is any profit being made off the material.
3. The manuals ARE copyrighted against electronic distribution.
Such an attitude Crumpp.:( Your are so hung up on copyright, I decided to inform people that the data in your link is copyrighted.
For someone with English as their primary language, you sure have a tough time. I did not say it was YOUR site, Crumpp's links
Did I mention the (your) manuals?
If the material in your manuals is copyrighted against electronic distribution, why are you sending material to people?
Rule 4
"Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated."
I do not see any respect, just flaming abuse, in your post.
-
Yes, it`s a good thing the new rules will enforce the permanent banning of notorious troublemakers from this board, like from other forums. ;)
-
Crumpp, if you were not so pig headed, you would have noticed that Technical Desription No 284 is dated Nov 1944 while your D.(Luft) T. 2190 A-7 bis A-9 is dated Stand, Marz June 1944, Ausgabe, Juni 1944. The TD 284 is in the D.(Luft) T. 2190 A-8, dated Effective July 1944, Issued Sept 1944.
Just like the 109, there was ammendments. Your A-8 book is outdated.
Here is another tidbit:
Tech description 284, dated 28.11.44
"Based on the requirement to increase a/c range without degrading its aerodynamic efficiency, provision has been made for the mounting of a protected fuel tank within the rear fuselage. After Aug-Sept 1944 all A-8 a/c will be delivered with the fuel tank. If required, instead of the 115l fuel tank, an un-protected MW tank of either 115l or 140l capacity, or a GM1 tank of 85l capacity, can be installed. At the present time, however, it is planned that the standard A-8 will be produced only with the auxliary fuel tank."
-
"Based on the requirement to increase a/c range without degrading its aerodynamic efficiency, provision has been made for the mounting of a protected fuel tank within the rear fuselage. After Aug-Sept 1944 all A-8 a/c will be delivered with the fuel tank. If required, instead of the 115l fuel tank, an un-protected MW tank of either 115l or 140l capacity, or a GM1 tank of 85l capacity, can be installed. At the present time, however, it is planned that the standard A-8 will be produced only with the auxliary fuel tank."
AS I said earlier Milo,
The A/C came delivered with the tank. It was commonly removed in the JG's. The Jabo-einsatz's and Aufklarar's kept it. The fighters didn't need the range. The SKG's, SG's, Jabostaffle, and recon units did though. Especially in light of the how much fuel C3 burned.
Crumpp
-
It is very easy to tell from a photograph Milo if an FW-190A8 has the internal aux tank or not. Provided it shows the left side of the fuselage.
Without the tank both internal fuel tanks are filled from the right side of the fuselage. The internal tank fill port is on the left side just behind the pilot. If fitted with an internal tank, there will be warning triangle for either C3 or LNOX.
I have found only a few FW-190A8/R7-8's with the internal tank and a couple of SKG's, SG's and Jabos. Most FW-190A8's I have seen pictures of do not have the 115 liter tank installed.
Crumpp
-
Fighters did not need the range?
from Fw190 Range and Endurance Calculations
A-8 clean(no ETC) / A-8 (FB, SC500)
0.3km
2300rpm, 360kg/hr > 615km / 575km, 40km diff
2.0km
2300rpm, 370kg/hr > 635km / 590km, 45km diff
3.0km
2300rpm, 350kg/hr > 665km / 610km, 55km diff
5.0km
2300rpm, 360kg/hr > 695km / 630km, 65km diff
both had the aux 115l tank
Not much difference in range between a Jabo and a Jaegar. And, the jaegar needed that extra fuel just as much as the jabos did in a sky filled with e/a.
Was it not mentioned that C3 injection used 70l/5min (840l/hr)? One can't get a performance boost without sacrificing range. Even for 15 min of C3 boost useage, this would burn 40% of the fuel in the main tanks. Was it 30kg you said the aux tank weighed? So the jaegars sacrificed range for a minimal weight saving? :confused: They would not be flying at a speed to save fuel. That does not leave much fuel for flying to and from the air battle, never minding the search for the e/as and the home airfield in the typical Europian cloudy sky.
When were those A-8s produced? If prior to Aug/Sept, they would not have the yellow, white border decal shown, since there was no tank fitted. You can tell this because there is no access hatch above the large access hatch. You need to look harder for I have found numerous jaegar A-8s with the decal shown and many of those had the ETC fitted. The red 22 of JG301, a fighter JG, had the aux tank fitted, for example.
You will find very few, if any, A-8s with GM1(nitrous oxide). The GM1 tank was different from the Aux tank.
Removing the aux tank was no simple job. After popping the bottom hatch, the oxygen spheres and the radio had to be removed and then reinstalled. One could not be sloppy when re-installing the oxygen spheres, since the Germans used pure oxygen.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Try it with this data if it's not the same you used, gw shaw.
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/bmw801d-1024.jpg
Crumpp
Sorry to take so long to reply, I redid my spreadsheet to automatically calculate rammed power and injected power. Now I don't have to get out the calculator and rework the base numbers from the spreadsheet.
Looks like the chart shows 1.42 ata @ 750m or 2460 ft. Call it 2500 ft to make it match my existing line on the chart.
That gives a pressure ratio of 1.56:1 vice 1.60:1 from the USN tests.
1825 ps @ 2500 ft & 1.42 ata +- 1%
1980 ps @ SL & 1.56 ata +- 1%
Max static power would be:
2020 ps @ SL & 1.56 ata w/MW50 -10C
2075 ps @ SL & 1.56 ata w/MW50 -25C
200 mph TAS rammed power would be: (1.65 ata in parentheses)
2000 (2115) ps @ SL & 1.56 ata w/MW50 -10C
2060 (2180) ps @ SL & 1.56 ata w/MW50 -25C
300 mph TAS rammed power would be: (1.65 ata in parentheses)
1985 (2100) ps @ SL & 1.56 ata w/MW50 -10C
2040 (2160) ps @ SL & 1.56 ata w/MW50 -25C
Greg Shaw
-
Thanks Greg!
I appreciate the hard work.
Milo,
Simply check the photos of FW-190A8's. Only Fighters I have seen with the 115 liter tank are the R7/R8 and Jabos.
No one is claiming that they were not out there being used Milo. Just not commonly in JG's. For every picture I have seen of an FW-190A8 with a 115 liter tank, their are twenty without it.
It was not very hard to remove it or replace it.
It was option. As it should be in AH.
Crumpp
-
Removing the aux tank was no simple job. After popping the bottom hatch, the oxygen spheres and the radio had to be removed and then reinstalled. One could not be sloppy when re-installing the oxygen spheres, since the Germans used pure oxygen.
Milo,
Looks to me like it came right out the top. Slide the canopy back then reach behind the pilot, popped two QR bands, disconnected the fuel line at a brass fitting ****, then popped out the filler/vent plate. Pull it right out. It was only a 30 gallon tank. About the same size as a LP gas tank for your grill.
The Allies used pure O2 also Milo. The Luftwaffe used liquid O2 tanks and the Allies used compressed O2. Both are equally dangerous. For handling purposes the compressed is very dangerous. Just a drop of petroleum based substance in contact with pressurized O2 and it will combust and explode.
Crumpp
-
Crumpp, get the Fw190A drawings by A L Bentley. He use original Fw documentation. On these you can see that the tank is too wide to come out the top. These drawings are 1/24 scale.
I would post them but the scanner is down and they are copyrighted. You can order them from a place in the UK. http://www.nexusonline.com/pages/nexusdirect.cgi
go Nexus Direct > Modelling - Aircraft > Scale Drawings > World War II
-
Milo,
Let suppose it is extremely difficult. You have remove the radios, O2 tanks, and it take hours to do.
Do fighter squadrons change out complete aircraft engines? Don't they complete sheet metal repairs? In fact they can perform every level of maintenance required on the type.
There is not even a shred of doubt about the 115-liter tank being an option. It is clearly listed as such in the FW-190 manuals, including diagrams on the fuel line routing for every configuration. It is clearly listed in the Weight chart as an optional kit.
You keep confusing "delivery" with "use". Let me give you an example:
The M4 Rifle comes with the SOPMOD kit. That does not mean that every accessory is used in every situation. It's a tool to further enhance operations.
http://www.specialoperations.com/Weapons/M4.html
The 115 liter Aux tank, ETC 501 rack, clamshell doors, GM-1 tank, and various rustsatz kits where nothing more than tools to be used by the pilots to accomplish their mission. Whether they were mounted or not was up to them and their commanders.
Now if you want to see one installed. Squadron Signals FW-190 walk around has a great picture of the tank installed on the NASM FW-190F8. Not only can you see the bands but also you can clearly see the yellow triangular "C3" warning sticker next to the filler.
Crumpp
-
Nice Modeling drawings.
Not really sure what they have to do with this issue.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Nice Modeling drawings.
Not really sure what they have to do with this issue.
Crumpp
Ugh? They show that the tank can't be removed from the top, as you suggested(short memory?). They are not modelling drawings. You don't want to add to your Fw190 library?
You still don't not comprehend that German a/c had 2 kinds of Rs. Get a German speaker to explain the difference to you. The aux tank became a standard fitment:
"Based on the requirement to increase a/c range without degrading its aerodynamic efficiency, provision has been made for the mounting of a protected fuel tank within the rear fuselage. After Aug-Sept 1944 all A-8 a/c will be delivered with the fuel tank. If required, instead of the 115l fuel tank, an un-protected MW tank of either 115l or 140l capacity, or a GM1 tank of 85l capacity, can be installed. At the present time, however, it is planned that the standard A-8 will be produced only with the auxliary fuel tank."
The Fw TD 284 of Nov 44 lists the aux tank, not as an option, but as a standard fit. Do you see any 190s with the /R5? This is the R for the aux tank.
As I tried to explain to you before, your manuals are outdated, with ammendments. Please get the revisions. Also, since you seemed to have missed it before, the A-8 manual D.(Luft) T. 2190A-8 is Effective July 1944, Issued Sept 1944 which is a couple of months after the date on your manual.
Then there is the question, why remove the tank since it ONLY added 30kg(empty) to the a/c weight? You can't have your cake and eat to. The A-8 @2300rpm, 1.20ata, @ 5km had a flight time of 1.32hr. How much fuel at 1.58/1.65ata would be consumed? Quite illogical to have this extra fuel capacity removed for any commander in his right mind. That extra power was required to keep his pilots alive to fight another day.
I./JG26 received 37 new A-8s in Aug, 12 new in Sept, 20 new in Oct, and 21 new in Nov and that is just for one unit. Yet you would have us believe, dispite what Fw says, they did not have the aux tank installed. Now, any dates on these multitude of pics with no decal? They could very well be pre Aug/Sept a/c.
Deletion of the inner wheel doors was standardized because the ETC was fitted. Removal of the ETCwas a quick and easy job.
The engines on the 109 took 3 men, 8 hours to change, normally. Have you not noticed the number of u/s a/c sitting around German airfields? No time to fix them, even if the required parts showed up. How much extra time do you think these 'black men' had? They still had to do normal maintainance and get u/s a/c flyable. Yet you would try to make us believe that these 'black men' had 2-3 hrs of free time to remove an aux tank from a/c. Those diagrams were for maintainance/repair use. The JGs could not even meet their establishment number. You are making up stories about the aux tank. Some proof is required.
I have the book on the restoration of the F-8, which includes the history of the a/c.:) This a/c began life as W.Nr 640 069, most likely an A-7, that had served in the MTO or Balkans.
-
Sorry Milo,
Just as I explained. Infact my first post on the subject after I go the manuals was that the FW-190A8 came delivered standard with the 115 liter Aux tank, ETC 501 rack, and Clamshell doors. You cannot mount the ETC 501 and the clamshell doors at the same time.
The 115 liter was an option that most of the Jagdwaffe did not use. The tank adds 120Kg to the weight. Dry it is 40kg.
Crumpp
-
The tank was absolutly not optional and could not be removed after being installed. As a matter of fact i own the factory drawings covering the additions of this tank to an aircraft while on the construction line.
Note that the tank was not mounted on aircraft coming back from the reparation centers some of which being early airframe converted to a newer standard.
As underlined by Milo, newer aircraft fresh from the factory had the tank mounted as standard, factory part list documents prove this w/o doubt.
Taht the early A-8 or the early antons converted to A-8 status did not have the tank i agree with, but once the order for fitting the tank had been issued the tanks were fitted to all newly produced a/c.
-
Why couldn't the tank be removed? They did get it in there somehow, and unless it was welded in place or some structure was welded around it/in the way after it was placed in the fuselage ... I don't see how removing it would be a problem.
-
Problem was that the cockpit was built after the tank had been put in place. Removing it would have required cutting the fuselage behind the pilot seat. As well as modifying the electrical system and the associated piping.
Only way to do it would have to send it back to a reparation center.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Sorry Milo,
Just as I explained. Infact my first post on the subject after I go the manuals was that the FW-190A8 came delivered standard with the 115 liter Aux tank, ETC 501 rack, and Clamshell doors. You cannot mount the ETC 501 and the clamshell doors at the same time.
The 115 liter was an option that most of the Jagdwaffe did not use. The tank adds 120Kg to the weight. Dry it is 40kg.
Crumpp
That is why I said 'deletion of the inner wheel doors standardized' when fitted with the ETC.
from pg1 by Crumpp
installation of the tank added 120kg to the weight of the 190A8. 90kg of fuel and 30kg of tank/fittings.
Is it 30 or 40kg dry?
@ Scholz
The fuselage of the 190 was made of 4 sub assemeblies > engine, cockpit, rear fuselage, tail unit. It was very easy to mount the aux tank during the construction of the sub assembly. The tank was held by 2 horizontal straps and 1 transverse vertical strap. The horizontal straps were attached to 2 vertical brackets (4 places) that were attached to the solid rear bulkhead of the cockpit module(speculation). Maybe Butch can confirm, yes/no.
As I speculated in the other post, about aux tank removal, there was a battery in the way. Butch, was the tray for mounting the battery larger than the base of the battery?
Butch, how was a damaged aux tank replaced, if it was, that is?
Thanks for your input Butch.:)
-
Butch,
The Pilots Manual lists the tank as optional. It also includes the fuel line schematics on how to route them. I would be glad to send them pages to you. The Manual I have is March 1944 with all amendments thru June '1944. In fact the 115-liter fuel tank spliced into the main fuel lines with a T-valve for easier removal.
As underlined by Milo, newer aircraft fresh from the factory had the tank mounted as standard, factory part list documents prove this w/o doubt.
Being in the Military myself. Just because an accessory was issued with a piece of equipment doesn't mean that it is used or that it is not intended to removed and replaced as the operator sees fit. In fact I pointed out in another thread that the 190A8 is issued with the 115 aux tank. Saves the Geschwader's the hassle of procuring them through the normal supply system, like many of the Rustsatz kits.
The tank was absolutely not optional and could not be removed after being installed. As a matter of fact I own the factory drawings covering the additions of this tank to an aircraft while on the construction line.
How do you explain different size tanks available for GM-1? It could be removed. Unless your trying to say that only the factory could install these tanks which when you think about the level of maintenance conducted at the Geschwader does not make much sense.
What did they do when the tank sustained battle damage? Scrap the plane or just shut off the T valve and leave the tank in there?
If required, instead of the 115l fuel tank, an un-protected MW tank of either 115l or 140l capacity, or a GM1 tank of 85l capacity, can be installed. At the present time, however, it is planned that the standard A-8 will be produced only with the auxiliary fuel tank."
As too Milo's assertion that they did not label the Fuel filler.
1. You could put multiple types of Fuel and liquids in the same filler port. It's hard to imagine a responsible crew chief not telling his guys to take a second and label the port.
2. Aircraft had dedicated ground crews but commonly ended up at an auxiliary Airfield or another Airfield after a mission. Where they would receive a little to no reservicing, take on fuel, and return home.
Butch if we were talking about the Ta-152, I would wholeheartly agree the tank was not removable.
You wouldn't have any information on the props mounted on the late war FW-190A8/A9? I would really like to get a hold of a prop efficiency charts for the lifecycle of the 190A's.
Crumpp
-
First the GM-1 tanks while being referred in the A-7/A-8/A-9 manual of which i own two different versions, was never fitted.
The inside tank was reffered as optional in the meaning of not "standard" equipment. i.e. : not all produced a/c were so equipped.
Please check construction plans of the Anton or if you do not have access to them the plan Bentley produced. There is absolutly no way to remove the tank once fitted exactly as in the 109, which used the same 115l tank.
As for the prop efficiency chart goes, i'll check but i doubt i have them.
-
Crumpp, your manual is outdated.
(http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/uploads20/1092791361jpze.jpg)
Notice the dates. Now, again, notice that the dates for the A-8 manual D.(Luft) T. 2190A-8 is Effective July 1944, Issued Sept 1944 which is after the date on your manual.
Different GM1 tank sizes? The GM1 tank was of 85l capacity, as noted in Fw docs.
Glad to see that you say the aux tank is not removable in the Ta152. That section of fuselage is the same as on the Fw190As and Ds.
-
Please check construction plans of the Anton or if you do not have access to them the plan Bentley produced. There is absolutly no way to remove the tank once fitted exactly as in the 109, which used the same 115l tank.
Well,
According to:
Teil 7
Triebwerkbedein und versorgungsanlage
Heft 1 nur fur FW 190 A7 und A8
(stand Aug 1944)
Ausgabe Januar 1945
It is not only an OPTIONAL accessory that comes delivered from the factory installed.
Dug out the manual and checked.
It is removeable by undoing countersunk screws and removing a plate between spans 9 and 10.
The tank itself is self sealing and self-contained. The fuel pump for it is located under the top plate. The filler plate removes as one piece and has the fill hose and vent line attached. The vent line must be unplugged from the bottom and the fuel line runs to a T-block valve which is turned off and the line disconnected. The two horizontal bands are undone and the whole tank comes out the panel.
Is it 30 or 40kg dry?
Depends on the tank that is fitted.
Glad to see that you say the aux tank is not removable in the Ta152. That section of fuselage is the same as on the Fw190As and Ds.
It's not optional is what I should have said, because the Ta 152 came standardized with MW-50. You will also see the Aux tank installed on Doras after Jan 45 when MW-50 equipped ones started rolling off the lines. Of course it is removeable. All components of an Aircraft are removeable. How else would you repair them?
The inside tank was reffered as optional in the meaning of not "standard" equipment. i.e. : not all produced a/c were so equipped.
The translation of the words used in the manual under the description of the "Zusatzkraftstoffbehalter im rumpf" is "if necessary" to use this equipment.
That is from the technical description of the equipment. It is found underneath the Drop Tank description, which uses the same language, and the aux tank is the very last thing covered.
All you have to do is look for the "C3" warning triangle on the right side of the fuselage.
It is easy to see why both the RLM decided to include the 115 liter Aux tank as a standard delivery item and why it was not popular with the Jagd-einsatz pilots. All you have to do is cross-reference the Operational realities with the "on demand power" development of the BMW801D.
FW-190A5 is the first version to be fitted with C3 erhöhte Notleistung. It was ONLY fitted to jabo-einsatz's and for use UNDER 1 KM. Jagd-einsatz's could not use it and were restricted to 1.42 ata.
FW-190A8 comes along. Jagd-einsatz's are cleared for 1.65ata @ 2700U/min for 10 minutes without any other boost system.
Jabo-einsatz's are still using C3 erhöhte Notleistung under 1Km.
Generally speaking, the FW-190's on the eastern front were mainly jabo-einsatzs and on the Western Front the majority of FW-190's were jagd-einsatz's. Each front had some of both of course. Considering the ratio of jabo - jager we can see that a large number of end users are ordering the 115 liter aux tank and installing it.
When C3 erhöhte Notleistung was approved for higher altitudes shortly after the FW-190A8 came into production the RLM probably felt that there would be a sharp rise in demand for the 115 liter Aux tank since all FW-190 types can now use C3 erhöhte Notleistung. Save the units the trouble of having to order it through the supply system and just include it in the base model. Good move for all of the FW-190 jabo-einsatz and some of the jagd-einsatz's.
Even with climbing to altitude, the jagd-einsatz's burn less fuel distance for distance than a Jabo-einsatz. Weight and flying at lower altitudes are the cause. An internal tank which carries some fuel, doesn't touch their main fuel tanks, and allows them 7 minutes more of "on demand power" over the previous FW-190 C3 erhöhte Notleistung is a quantum leap in performance at the tip of the spear.
For the Jabo-einsatz's the story is different. Their "on demand" power system burned fuel but nothing like the fuel hungry 70 liters in 5 minutes rate of C3 erhöhte Notleistung. When the fuel consumption is considered for just getting to and from the combat box C3 erhöhte Notleistung did not represent a quantum leap in "on demand power" performance for the jagd-einsatz's in practical combat. Depending on fuel it ranged from better to worse. It was extra weight for small gains over the 1.65ata for 10 minutes without it. When you consider that after December '44 the jagdwaffe were being bounced on take off with increasing frequency by Allied fighters, an extra 264.5lbs just does not make sense.
For the R7/R8 rustsatz's the 115-liter tank makes perfect sense as well. They needed the extra fuel to go the same distance as the fighters protecting them and the extra weight certainly was not going to make a difference in their performance.
Different tanks Milo, as in 85 liter GM-1 tank and 115 liter aux tank.
Different GM1 tank sizes? The GM1 tank was of 85l capacity, as noted in Fw docs.
Butch,
the chapter for GM-1 actually reads:
Refer to D.(Luft) T 2190 A-8 und A-9, Teil 7 Beiheft 1.
It refers to a Luftwaffe Technical bulliten and that is all. So unless that bulletin says "GM-1 cannot be installed on FW-190A8's" then the manual is inconclusive. Evidence points to FW-190's using it, as is seen in this flight graph. Operationally for the Altitudes the Luftwaffe was forced to operate, an 85 liter GM-1 tank makes much more sense than a 115 liter aux tank.
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/190-2-1024.jpg
Thanks for checking on the props. You wouldn't have any information on FW-190A8's being fitted with the broad chord wooden props? I have come across several references but the only ones I can point to for a fact are a few R7/R8's.
Crumpp
-
The big aft aux tank on FW190 could be removed. There was a huge oval access panel directly under it for that porpose.
-
IGNORE the above post. One type and missing sentence change the whole thread!!
Here is the corrected post:
Please check construction plans of the Anton or if you do not have access to them the plan Bentley produced. There is absolutly no way to remove the tank once fitted exactly as in the 109, which used the same 115l tank.
Well,
According to:
Teil 7
Triebwerkbedein und versorgungsanlage
Heft 1 nur fur FW 190 A7 und A8
(stand Aug 1944)
Ausgabe Januar 1945
It is not only an OPTIONAL accessory that comes delivered from the factory installed.
It is removeable by undoing countersunk screws and removing a plate between spans 9 and 10.
The tank itself is self sealing and self-contained. The fuel pump for it is located under the top plate. The filler plate removes as one piece and has the fill hose and vent line attached. The vent line must be unplugged from the bottom and the fuel line runs to a T-block valve which is turned off and the line disconnected. The two horizontal bands are undone and the whole tank comes out the panel.
Is it 30 or 40kg dry?
Depends on the tank that is fitted.
Glad to see that you say the aux tank is not removable in the Ta152. That section of fuselage is the same as on the Fw190As and Ds.
It's not optional is what I should have said, because the Ta 152 came standardized with MW-50. You will also see the Aux tank installed on Doras after Jan 45 when MW-50 equipped ones started rolling off the lines. Of course it is removeable. All components of an Aircraft are removeable. How else would you repair them?
The inside tank was reffered as optional in the meaning of not "standard" equipment. i.e. : not all produced a/c were so equipped.
The translation of the words used in the manual under the description of the "Zusatzkraftstoffbehalter im rumpf" is "if necessary" to use this equipment.
That is from the technical description of the equipment. It is found underneath the Drop Tank description, which uses the same language, and the aux tank is the very last thing covered.
All you have to do is look for the "C3" warning triangle on the right side of the fuselage.
It is easy to see why both the RLM decided to include the 115 liter Aux tank as a standard delivery item and why it was not popular with the Jagd-einsatz pilots. All you have to do is cross-reference the Operational realities with the "on demand power" development of the BMW801D.
FW-190A5 is the first version to be fitted with C3 erhöhte Notleistung. It was ONLY fitted to jabo-einsatz's and for use UNDER 1 KM. Jagd-einsatz's could not use it and were restricted to 1.42 ata.
FW-190A8 comes along. Jagd-einsatz's are cleared for 1.65ata @ 2700U/min for 10 minutes without any other boost system.
Jabo-einsatz's are still using C3 erhöhte Notleistung under 1Km.
Generally speaking, the FW-190's on the eastern front were mainly jabo-einsatzs and on the Western Front the majority of FW-190's were jagd-einsatz's. Each front had some of both of course. Considering the ratio of jabo - jager we can see that a large number of end users are ordering the 115 liter aux tank and installing it.
When C3 erhöhte Notleistung was approved for higher altitudes shortly after the FW-190A8 came into production the RLM probably felt that there would be a sharp rise in demand for the 115 liter Aux tank since all FW-190 types can now use C3 erhöhte Notleistung. Save the units the trouble of having to order it through the supply system and just include it in the base model. Good move for all of the FW-190 jabo-einsatz and some of the jagd-einsatz's.
For the Jabo-einsatzs:
Even with climbing to altitude, the jagd-einsatz's burn less fuel distance for distance than a Jabo-einsatz. Weight and flying at lower altitudes are the cause. An internal tank which carries some fuel, doesn't touch their main fuel tanks, and allows them 7 minutes more of "on demand power" over the previous FW-190 C3 erhöhte Notleistung is a quantum leap in performance at the tip of the spear for the jabos.
For the Jagd-einsatz's the story is different. Their "on demand" power system burned fuel but nothing like the fuel hungry 70 liters in 5 minutes rate of C3 erhöhte Notleistung. When the fuel consumption is considered for just getting to and from the combat box C3 erhöhte Notleistung did not represent a quantum leap in "on demand power" performance for the jagd-einsatz's in practical combat. Depending on fuel it ranged from better to worse. It was extra weight for small gains over the 1.65ata for 10 minutes without it. When you consider that after December '44 the jagdwaffe were being bounced on take off with increasing frequency by Allied fighters, an extra 264.5lbs just does not make sense.
For the R7/R8 rustsatz's the 115-liter tank makes perfect sense as well. They needed the extra fuel to go the same distance as the fighters protecting them and the extra weight certainly was not going to make a difference in their performance.
Different tanks Milo, as in 85 liter GM-1 tank and 115 liter aux tank.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Different GM1 tank sizes? The GM1 tank was of 85l capacity, as noted in Fw docs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Butch,
the chapter for GM-1 actually reads:
Refer to D.(Luft) T 2190 A-8 und A-9, Teil 7 Beiheft 1.
It refers to a Luftwaffe Technical bulliten and that is all. So unless that bulletin says "GM-1 cannot be installed on FW-190A8's" then the manual is inconclusive. Evidence points to FW-190's using it, as is seen in this flight graph. Operationally for the Altitudes the Luftwaffe was forced to operate, an 85 liter GM-1 tank makes much more sense than a 115 liter aux tank.
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/190-2-1024.jpg
Thanks for checking on the props. You wouldn't have any information on FW-190A8's being fitted with the broad chord wooden props? I have come across several references but the only ones I can point to for a fact are a few R7/R8's.
-
Crumpp said:
How do you explain different size tanks available for GM-1?
Different tanks Milo, as in 85 liter GM-1 tank and 115 liter aux tank.
There was ONLY one size of GM1 tank that could be fitted to the 190A.
As to the 30kg or 40kg weight question, you stated previously it was 30kg and then changed it to 40kg. A full weight you say is 120kg, so then if it is 40kg, then 115l is not the tank capacity. Or are you now going to say 130kg full?
Did I not speculate that the tank could be removed by removing the oval plate on the bottom of the fuselage? Crumpp ignores and says it could be removed (possibly) from the top. Those Bentley drawings come in handy.:)
-
There was ONLY one size of GM1 tank that could be fitted to the 190A
Milo,
What game are you trying to play here??
I know there is only ONE size of GM-1 tank. There are two different tanks that can be fitted.
1 x GM-1
or
1 x 115 Liter Aux tank.
As to the 30kg or 40kg weight question, you stated previously it was 30kg and then changed it to 40kg. A full weight you say is 120kg, so then if it is 40kg, then 115l is not the tank capacity. Or are you now going to say 130kg full?
I have seen it listed as both, Milo. The 115 liter tank came as a self-sealing tank. However towards the end of the war it was not produced as a self sealing tank, just a simple tank. Germany had an accute shortage of latex hence rubber was in short supply. Just check out the Bf-109G-14 test you posted. If its the one I am thinking off. It had a plywood insturment panel and a none self sealing aux tank.
The self-sealing version weighed 40 kg empty as per the manual.
Crumpp
-
No game. If you knew there was only one size of GM1, then why did you say this:
How do you explain different size tanks available for GM-1?
There was another 2 sizes of 'fuel' tanks, either 115l and 140l. The 115l being the usual fit. Why could you not have said 40kg 'with' and 30kg 'without' from the beginning.
That G-14 was one of the first off the production line being shot down 22 July. Production started in July 1944. Btw, the P-51 had a plywood cockpit floor.
I guess you missed Issy's post about the use of wood.
For the Jabo-einsatzs:
Even with climbing to altitude, the jagd-einsatz's burn less fuel distance for distance than a Jabo-einsatz. Weight and flying at lower altitudes are the cause. An internal tank which carries some fuel, doesn't touch their main fuel tanks, and allows them 7 minutes more of "on demand power" over the previous FW-190 C3 erhöhte Notleistung is a quantum leap in performance at the tip of the spear for the jabos.
For the Jagd-einsatz's the story is different. Their "on demand" power system burned fuel but nothing like the fuel hungry 70 liters in 5 minutes rate of C3 erhöhte Notleistung. When the fuel consumption is considered for just getting to and from the combat box C3 erhöhte Notleistung did not represent a quantum leap in "on demand power" performance for the jagd-einsatz's in practical combat. Depending on fuel it ranged from better to worse. It was extra weight for small gains over the 1.65ata for 10 minutes without it. When you consider that after December '44 the jagdwaffe were being bounced on take off with increasing frequency by Allied fighters, an extra 264.5lbs just does not make sense.
For the R7/R8 rustsatz's the 115-liter tank makes perfect sense as well. They needed the extra fuel to go the same distance as the fighters protecting them and the extra weight certainly was not going to make a difference in their performance.
Crumpp you flip-flop more than that Muskie I caught last weekend.
A jabo A-8 carrying a SC500 bomb had a range of from 45km to 65 km less than the fighter A-8 depending on altitude flown at. Both had the 115l aux installed.
A standard fighter is burdened by the aux tank but the much heavier /R8 is not. :confused: Please make up your mind.
-
Milo,
Sources are conflicting on the use of the 115 liter and the 85 liter. Some say the same tank could be used for both LNOX and AvGas. The manual does not mention anything other than AvGas going into the 115 liter. I personally find it suspect that a tank set up for AvGas could be used for LNOX without some changes to the pump, fittings, etc...
This one says it could be used in both tanks:
http://www.ipmsusa.org/Reviews/Books/Aircraft/Specialty_Bf-109_Recognition_Manual/Specialty_bf-109_Recognition_Manual.htm
And how long could the Jabo use C3 erhöhte Notleistung over the target area and still get home without the aux tank?? Adding that extra 115 liters gave him a full 7 minutes of "on demand power" he did not have before the tank was fitted.
A jabo A-8 carrying a SC500 bomb had a range of from 45km to 65 km less than the fighter A-8 depending on altitude flown at. Both had the 115l aux installed.
Key phrase:
on altitude flown at.
I guess if common sense was common everyone would have it. So I will explain it for you.
A standard fighter is burdened by the aux tank but the much heavier /R8 is not. Please make up your mind.
Here is the weight of the armour of the FW-190 Sturmjager:
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/190-armor-1-800.jpg
It performance is already porked. It burns much more fuel than the lighter fighters who are escorting it just by the nature of it's weight increase. Adding the 115 liter Aux tank won't harm it performance and will increase it's range without the extra drag of a drop tank. Now I have only seen 1 or 2 FW-190A R7/R8's with the 115 liter tank.
Too sum it all up:
The 115 liter tank was an optional accessory.
It made sense for FW-190A using C3 erhöhte Notleistung to carry the 115 liter tank.
The Jabo-einsatz was dependant upon the use of C3 erhöhte Notleistung otherwise it was not cleared for 1.65ata. The 115 liter tank represented a quantum leap in time available for "on demand power"
The jagd-einsatz in the FW-190A was cleared for 1.65 ata without C3 erhöhte Notleistung. C3 erhöhte Notleistung did not represent a quantum leap and depending on the target worked out to more or less time at "on demand power" at a tremendous cost in fuel consumption.
With a significant portion of the FW-190's being used as jabo-einsatz's it makes perfect sense to include the 115 liter tank with the A/C saving the units the trouble of ordering it through the supply system.
Therefore to most realistically model the FW-190A8 in AH. The 115 liter tank should be included in the hanger and IMO linked to C3 erhöhte Notleistung.
It must be pointed out though that the C3 erhöhte Notleistung system was in no way actually dependant on the 115 liter tank and drew fuel from all the tanks.
Crumpp