Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Wotan on December 14, 2004, 07:50:37 AM
-
Gillle posted this on LEMB (http://http://p069.ezboard.com/bluftwaffeexperten71774)
In this thread:
Very interesting German article on BMW801D boost systems (http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessage?topicID=362.topic)
Here are scans of a recent article in a German aviation magazine describing the testing and installation of MW-50 and C3 injection boost systems in the FW190A, all very kindly supplied to me by Wastel:
http://img11.exs.cx/img11/7306/klassikerdieleistungssteigerun.jpg
http://img11.exs.cx/img11/7471/klassikerdieleistungssteigerun1.jpg
http://img11.exs.cx/img11/4048/klassikerdieleistungssteigerun2.jpg
http://img11.exs.cx/img11/3692/klassikerdieleistungssteigerun3.jpg
http://img11.exs.cx/img11/8185/klassikerdieleistungssteigerun4.jpg
http://img11.exs.cx/img11/365/klassikerdieleistungssteigerun5.jpg
-
It needs some translation ;)
Fw190 2700 rpm / 1.42 ata BMW801D2 without C3 injection
1800 PS sea level
1490 PS 19028 feet
341 mph sea level
400 mph 20770 feet
Fw190 2700 rpm / 1.58/1.65 ata BMW801D2 with C3 injection (10-15 minutes)
2050 PS sea level
1695 PS 19028 feet
359 mph sea level
405 mph 18044 feet
-
Good article. He has a short list of references.
Crumpp
-
The most interesting part is this:
(http://personal.inet.fi/koti/soon.moro/rechlin.jpg)
The speeds reached at Rechlin were some 30-40 km/h lower than claimed by Fw (http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190_A5_speed.gif). If compared to RAE and US Navy data , the Rechlin measurements are in the same ballpark.
gripen
-
Höhe?
-C+
-
The speeds reached at Rechlin were some 30-40 km/h lower than claimed by Fw. If compared to RAE and US Navy data , the Rechlin measurements are in the same ballpark.
You need to check again, Gripen.
These are spot on with FW.
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/190-2-1024.jpg
565kph....... 1.62ata
You also need to notice on the chart the different pressures they experimented with....
Höhe?
Altitude. 100 meters.
Crump
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
You need to check again, Gripen.
These are spot on with FW.
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/190-2-1024.jpg
565kph....... 1.62ata
Hm... there was no A-8 in the test. Fw 190A-5 SS+GL was a fastest of the tested planes and it did 575 km/h at 100m with 1,63 ata 2700 rpm at test conditions. The speed increase over 1,42 ata 2700 rpm was 40 km/h ie SS+GL did about 535 km/h with 1,42 ata, about same as US Navy Fw 190. Other tested planes were slower; 520-530 km/h ie about as fast as MP499 at RAE.
Basicly the FW data on A-5 (http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190_A5_speed.gif) is not realistic and even the Fw data on A-8 (http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/190-2-1024.jpg) seem to be quite bit on optimistic side. Very typical for manufacturers claims.
gripen
-
It is the Lufterrad. Again these aircraft where flown by Focke-Wulf as part of the FW-190A upgrades in the program.
So.
Yes it is an FW-190A5 but it is the "prototype" FW-190A8.
Got the report and the original graphs. Already gave it to Pyro.
There is good agreement between the Rechlin and Focke Wulf data.
What you want to compare is the worst in variation with the best in variation. Different flight test's on different days will have variations even on the same plane. The engine settings are different on each of these flights so you can expect some variation especially since they are searching for the correct engine set up for maximum performance.
There is not good agreement between the US Navy test and the Rechlin data. The US Navy test is way off.
Some of the data in the US Navy report does agree but not the level speed measurements. All the data that does agree only matches German numbers because the US Navy copied it out of the Flugzueg-Handbuch.
Crumpp
-
Hm... the data is clear, the tested planes reached around 520-535 km/h near sea level with 1,42 ata 2700rpm, about 10-25 km/h less than Fw claim for A-8 and 30-45 km/h less than Fw claim for A-5. We don't know if these planes were fitted with different cooling fans (probably not because the tests were done in spring and summer 1943) but that can't explain the difference if compared to the FW data on A-5 and A-8.
gripen
-
I do know the set up. And yes the Lufterrad dropped the performance 15 km ON AVERAGE.
Crumpp
-
Why would they test it without the cooling fan?
-
They have the 14 bladed Lufterrads. I have the report and Pyro has the performance graphs from it. The Lufterrads varied performance on AVERAGE of 15kph reduction in top speed.
These FW-190A5's are the prototype FW-190A8's. They FW-190A5 was never cleared for 1.58/1.65 as it was not in service when the boost pressure was raised in Jul '44.
Are we going to go through another "Filled and Polished" episode?
Crumpp
-
I wasn't aware we have had one earlier. I just don't get why the fan was not used for the tests when it is an essential part of the engine? You are saying that the fans were not used for the tests and that they deteriorated performance on operational aircraft?
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Are we going to go through another "Filled and Polished" episode?
Well, the Fw data for A-5 is claimed to be be "Gespachtelt u.Poliert" and we don't even know if it's tested data or just manufacturers claims to sell planes for RLM. And for one reason or another you are using that data for comparisons. Above data shows clearly that an average Fw 190 did about same as US Navy tested and RAE tested Fw190s, it also shows that manufacturers claims are far in optimistic side regardless "Lufterrad" type.
gripen
-
Well, the Fw data for A-5 is claimed to be be "Gespachtelt u.Poliert" and we don't even know if it's tested data or just manufacturers claims to sell planes for RLM.
1. I don't think that by the FW-190A5 Focke-Wulf had to worry about selling planes to the RLM.
2. The FW-190A5 graph is not the one in question and I don't believe will be the data Pyro will use anyway.
3. The "Filled and Polished" fiasco was with your insistance that this graph:
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/190-2-1024.jpg
Was not a mistranslation of the aircraft finish.
So let's not switch documents around just so you can convince yourself you were not in error. You were wrong just as you are about the FW-190A5's speed now.
I wasn't aware we have had one earlier. I just don't get why the fan was not used for the tests when it is an essential part of the engine? You are saying that the fans were not used for the tests and that they deteriorated performance on operational aircraft?
There is a 12 bladed Lufterrad and a 14 bladed Lufterrad. The 14 bladed fan is found on FW-190A8's that used BMW801T series motors and any BMW801D2's equipped with "Special Emergency Power for fighters". The 14 bladed Lufterrad increases cooling of the engine at higher boost pressures but lowers the overall top speed at lower boost pressures (1.42ata) by an average of 15kph. This is the main reason the FW-190A8 goes so much slower at 1.42ata than previous FW-190A's.
What this article does say is that MW-50 use was much more common in FW-190A's than we think. This is backed up by the documentation I have and pilots anecdotes.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
3. The "Filled and Polished" fiasco was with your insistance that this graph:
Well, the document (http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/190-2-1024.jpg) still says "Filled + Polished". It's not my fault if a source you continously use says so and you continously refused to post original document. Still, the Fw data for A-8 seem to be very optimistic even if we assume the 14 blade fan.
Originally posted by Crumpp
So let's not switch documents around just so you can convince yourself you were not in error. You were wrong just as you are about the FW-190A5's speed now.
The situation here is very simple; all really flight tested data seen here support each other very well (Rechlin, RAE and US Navy), the speed of the Fw 190 near sealevel was around 520-540 km/h with 1,42 ata 2700 rpm in all these tests and nothing supports claims by Fw or you, regardless the type of the cooling fan.
gripen
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
What this article does say is that MW-50 use was much more common in FW-190A's than we think. This is backed up by the documentation I have and pilots anecdotes.
Crumpp
Whoa there Crumpp. You have told us that the 115l MW tank was removed and now you are saying it was not.
Which story do we believe?
-
What happened with the 1.42 ata when 801D2 was cleared for 1.58/1.65 ata? Currently we are jumping from 1.32 ata to 1.58 ata without any intermediate step.
-
Whoa there Crumpp. You have told us that the 115l MW tank was removed and now you are saying it was not.
It was removable Milo. It was the Geschwader Technical officers call on the A/C set up for the mission and it only took a few minutes to take it out.
Additionally, and this should be common sense, not all aircraft were equipped with MW 50, C3, or "Special emergency power for fighters". Depended on the aircraft and how it was set up.
Well, the document still says "Filled + Polished". It's not my fault if a source you continously use says so and you continously refused to post original document. Still, the Fw data for A-8 seem to be very optimistic even if we assume the 14 blade fan.
You have a very short and selective memory, Gripen. I posted the document in the last thread you showed up in and SEVERAL people confirmed the mistranslation for you. Yet you still want to cover the same ground.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by gripen
The situation here is very simple; all really flight tested data seen here support each other very well (Rechlin, RAE and US Navy), the speed of the Fw 190 near sealevel was around 520-540 km/h with 1,42 ata 2700 rpm in all these tests and nothing supports claims by Fw or you, regardless the type of the cooling fan.
gripen
The RAE`s tested one was the slowest of ANY FW 190 ever tested, which is hardly a surprise for reasons noted a zillion times already (lack of proper fuel and knowladge maintaince).
Again, , the USN test report CLEARLY states the level speed runs were NOT run for any longer time than just 2 MINUTES, which as written in the USN`s report gripen is quoting out of context, was most likely to develop the maximal speed.
If gripen use that report, grabs one part out of context AGAIN, despite being remarked on that detail, then it`s just a clear case of outright lies and deception.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
It was removable Milo. It was the Geschwader Technical officers call on the A/C set up for the mission and it only took a few minutes to take it out.
The impression you gave was that the tank was removed in another thread. You said the fighter pilots did not like the extra weight of the tank.
What is a few minutes. It was just not the connections for the 115l tank that had to be done.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
The RAE`s tested one was the slowest of ANY FW 190 ever tested,
Why don't you look above, in the RAE test Fw 190 did about 520 km/h at sea level with 1,42 ata 2700 rpm while in the Rechlin test couple planes did about same at 100 m.
Originally posted by Crumpp
I posted the document in the last thread you showed up in and SEVERAL people confirmed the mistranslation for you.
Well, there is no mistranslation in the case of the A-5 (Gespachtelt u.Poliert) and in the case of the A-8 I just quoted the source you tend to use and you refused to post original document. And some how you managed to post it to wrong thread when you finally posted it.
gripen
-
Originally posted by gripen
Why don't you look above, in the RAE test Fw 190 did about 520 km/h at sea level with 1,42 ata 2700 rpm while in the Rechlin test couple planes did about same at 100 m.
Yeah and in the navy test it did 545+ km/h at SL, even when it didn`t accelerate for more than 2 mins "during which the maximum speed was not developed"?
The RAE`s results are subpar compared to any other tests.
You are pushing an agenda, it`s clear to anyone.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Yeah and in the navy test it did 545+ km/h at SL, even when it didn`t accelerate for more than 2 mins "during which the maximum speed was not developed"?
Again read the report: 537 km/h at 200 ft.
gripen
-
The impression you gave was that the tank was removed in another thread. You said the fighter pilots did not like the extra weight of the tank.
Milo,
Nothing has changed from the last 20 times we covered this subject:
The 115 liter tank was still an Optional piece of equipment, could be removed easily and was not necessary to use C3 "emergency power". It was held in place by quick release bands, plugs into the wiring harness, connected to the fuel system by a quick disconnect T-block valve, with the fuel pump and wiring contained in the lid of the tank. The filler plate was removed with 2 screws and the filler hose/vent line popped right out and remained attached to the filler plate. A blank plate would be inserted. The whole tank slide out the circular hatch in the bottom of the fuselage. It's presence is noted by the yellow triangular C3 sticker next to the fill port above the cargo hatch. This sticker's nomenclature when applied is the "Auxillery Tank Present" warning label. This alerted the ground crews the tank was in use and prevented them from filling it with the wrong liquid. It also alerted them to extra preventive procautions when filling the O2 tanks. Gas fumes and O2 don't mix.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/defaultframe.html
Not claiming your wrong in this case but you said the same baloney about the 115 liter "cruising tank" (as the pilots call it) in the FW-190A8. I am saying I would like to talk to the Museum and the guys who flew the FW-190A are crystal clear in the fact that they had and used MW.
To further clarify what has come out regarding the 115 liter tank are the JG Technical Officer put out whether it was to be used or not and was mounted and dismounted as needed. It took less than 5 minutes to install and remove it according too:
1. The men who worked on the FW-190
2. The men who flew the FW-190.
Looking at the instructions in the manual the most time consuming part of the job was undoing the half turn flush screws in the auxilery tank removal hatch.
It was not a very popular item (weight) but was used on occasion. Yes it was marked when installed and the sticker removed when the tank was taken out.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/defaultframe.html
A MW system is NOT an extra fuel tank. You could not mount both at the same time. Just to be crystal clear since you seem to lack both memory and common sense, Milo. A MW50 system was not likely to be removed by the TO. An extra fuel tank is a different story.
Crumpp
-
What ever Crumpp. You change your stories to what ever suits your agenda at the time.
Pull out your Bentley drawings and tell me how the tank got past the oxygen cylinders. There was not even enough clearance under the a/c for the height of the tank.
You can see how much trouble there was by looking at the photo on pg 72 of the book on the Smithsonian F-8 restoration.
You do have trouble with words. 'Optional', like when ordering a car, is something done by the factory. The factory installed the tank as standard from 3rd quarter of 1944 onwards.
An example of your word problems.
quote "This is without any "boost" whatsoever. Purely an increased throttle setting allowing more manifold pressure."
Boost is an increase in manifold pressure.
Some quotes by you.
"The fuel tanks were pilot selectable."
So what is it TO or pilot?
This one I enjoy.
"Don't get me wrong. I am not pretending to be an expert on the History of the 190. I have quite a few books and own the pilots handbooks for the A series." :rolleyes:
Where did I mention MW? You do have your problems.
Nice links to the AH Forums.:aok
-
From a BMW speed graph of 13.1.45, comes the following SL speeds, all at combat power:
Fw 190 A-8 with 801-F66, rpm: 2400, fan 039, prop 9-12153: ca. 507kph.
Fw 190 A-8 with 801-TH, rpm: 2500, fan 039, prop 9-12176: ca. 523 kph.
Fw 190 A-5 with 801-TH, rpm: 2500, fan 039, prop 9-12176: ca. 524 kph.
Not sure why the A-5 has a TH motor fitted.
-
Crumpp says:
To further clarifywhat has come out regarding the 115 liter tank
Milo says:
What ever Crumpp. You change your stories to what ever suits your agenda at the time.
Milo. I was being nice and passing off information I got from Luftwaffe pilots who flew the FW-190. That is all.
Question - Was the "cruising tank" an optional item that was removed from the aircraft even after they were factory installed.
Answer - Yes......followed by more information on it's use.
Later interviews it comes out the TO dictated the set up by mission.
You do have trouble with words. 'Optional', like when ordering a car, is something done by the factory. The factory installed the tank as standard from 3rd quarter of 1944 onwards.
Optional as in "choice to use it or not".
Boost is an increase in manifold pressure.
Boost can also refer to a "boost system" like MW-50 or USAAF water injection.
"Don't get me wrong. I am not pretending to be an expert on the History of the 190. I have quite a few books and own the pilots handbooks for the A series."
That is correct. Sounds really bad only when you take it out of context and attempt to attach a meaning that is not there.
You can see how much trouble there was by looking at the photo on pg 72 of the book on the Smithsonian F-8 restoration.
Why don't you call the Smithsonian (as I asked) or post a question on the White 1 Board about it. Since you don't want to believe what I told you on this BBS.
Pull out your Bentley drawings and tell me how the tank got past the oxygen cylinders. There was not even enough clearance under the a/c for the height of the tank.
Nice set of drawing Bentley does, the man is an artist, no doubt. Why should I refer to them when I have access to the actual aircraft?
Crumpp
-
From a BMW speed graph of 13.1.45, comes the following SL speeds, all at combat power:
OMG. Look at the prop RPM. I have that report, Milo.
Those sea level speeds are spot on. For 1.32ata.
Not sure why the A-5 has a TH motor fitted.
Because it is the flight testing of the BMW801TH motor....
Crumpp
-
190A8 had a switch to turn On C3 injection, but throttle kept the same as with previous versions without C3 injection. So, it is my understanding that take off/emergency throttle position was still doing the original 1.42 ata with C3 switch turned Off.
If so, what was the time limit for 1.42 ata in engines cleared for 10-15 mins 1.58/1.65 ata?
-
Nice set of drawing Bentley does, the man is an artist, no doubt. Why should I do that when I have access to the real thing?
So how do you get the tank past the oxy cylinders 190 expert? The distance between the middle oxy cylinders was 425mm. The distance between the rear oxy cylinders was 390mm. The tank is 500mm in dia. (to the nearest 5mm)
-
quote: In early 1944 the USAAF started showing up over the Luftwaffe airfields. Being bounced on take off became an increasily common occurance for the Jagdwaffe. Most fighter pilots wanted their A/C as light as possible. Removing the outer MG151's and the 115liter Aux tank helped in that goal.
More confusion by Crumpp.
quote: It is actually very logical once you understand that C3 emergency power was available ONLY for use in jabo-einsatz's from the FW-190A5 until late 1944. It could ONLY be used at altitudes BELOW 1 KM. Having an extra 7.5 minutes of WEP would have been very useful especially when you consider the fact the Jabo's did most of their flying at low altitudes.
quote: I wonder if they used the "rated" motors in the Fighter units and when they reached replacement time, removed them, rebuilt them, and installed them in ground attack versions.
quote: AFAIK a "rated" power egg is one that is essentially fresh from the factory and on it's first operational hours after break in. Depending on the time period of the war, this could be as short as 30 hours of operation. Obviously rated power eggs developed more power and better performance.
A "de-rated" power egg has been rebuilt after it's first hourly life cycle.
First he says the jabos needed the extra power but then has 'derated' motors put in them and we all have been told that 'derated' motors run at less boost.:confused:
-
First he says the jabos needed the extra power but then has 'derated' motors put in them and we all have been told that 'derated' motors run at less boost.
All that is true Milo. You don't seem to understand what derating is used for in regard to aircraft engines.
Please do a search on Google for "derated engines". You will learn a lot.
Derating is a tool used to manage engines and extend life or operation of that motor. The most common reason engines are derated is to use up inferior grade aviation fuel.
Talk to a mechanic. Usually motors get better with rebuilds. Occasionally they do not. The stress put on Military fighter engines meant some motors developed micro-cracks and other flaws which kept them from realizing the benefits of a rebuild.
A motor that did not quite make specs after a rebuild could still be a good motor with lots of service life left in it. Derating it allow a Military to continue it's use without having to scrap the motor or damage it while operating it.
Fighters need performance to tangle with enemy fighters. That is their primary mission.
Jabo's primary mission is to destroy enemy ground targets. Putting ordinance on a target is the order of the day, not raw performance. Jabo's were supposed to have fighters escorting them to keep enemy fighters at bay. Did not always work out that way but it was Luftwaffe doctrine to provide a fighter escort.
So it only makes sense that depot level maintenance would send derated motors to the Ground Attack Units.
AFAIK a "rated" power egg is one that is essentially fresh from the factory and on it's first operational hours after break in. Depending on the time period of the war, this could be as short as 30 hours of operation. Obviously rated power eggs developed more power and better performance.
I now know any motor can be derated. I encourage you to learn.
Crumpp
-
If so, what was the time limit for 1.42 ata in engines cleared for 10-15 mins 1.58/1.65 ata?
1.42ata is the 30 minute rating on the FW-190A8.
Crumpp
-
You get funnier and funnier all the time Crumpp.
Tell us how does a derated engine get the extra power you claimed the jabos needed?
When did the Fw change to using B4 fuel? Or, have you changed your definition of 'inferior'?
"All 190's did use C3. That was the fuel type they burned."
Would just love to be in an a/c that had a questionable engine, when I am flying at a height that was too low for 'taking to the silk'. As schwarze man says, "Can you imagine being allocated a de-rated 190?!!!!!!!!"
"Evidence is anecdotal."
This about the removal of the aux tank in a fighter. Sorry but according to Barbi anecdotal evidence is not acceptable. ;) ;)
Here is another of Crumpp's jems.
"For the beginning of May 1944, 881 FW-190's were in service in the Luftwaffe. 265 were Jagd-einsatz's and 387 were Jabo-einsatz's (serviceable). The rest where allocated to 5 StukaGeschwaders that were converting from the JU 87 to the FW-190F/G and IV/JG3 which was forming as a Sturm unit."
He then states,
"There are many more FW-190A8's around than ETC 501 racks. Why? Unless a pilot was flying a mission that required a 300 liter drop tank or a bomb the rack was removed as it was optional."
Yet there was more 190s that required the ETC501. (69-70% of production)
Still waiting for you to tell us how you get the aux tank through a narrower opening than the tank.
-
Tell us how does a derated engine get the extra power you claimed the jabos needed?
It does not, Milo. Your Point is?? Your splitting hairs again.
You do realize that extra power is a great thing to have for any Military aircraft? Please provide a link to the conversation.
When did the Fw change to using B4 fuel? Or, have you changed your definition of 'inferior'?
Never have I claimed the FW-190A used B4 fuel. Why are you lying?
Please go and learn about fuel. How it is made and the different things that affect the quality. There is a lot more to it than just octane.
"Evidence is anecdotal."
Milo. I don't understand what your hard on is all about. Do you have access to the aircraft? How many people do you know who have removed the 115-liter tank from an FW-190?
I do have access to a real FW-190 and people who have removed the 115-liter tank. Additionally I have asked Luftwaffe veterans who flew the FW-190 and clarified it's removal in combat. Lastly for every picture of an FW-190A8 with the "cruising tank", you will find many more without it.
"There are many more FW-190A8's around than ETC 501 racks. Why? Unless a pilot was flying a mission that required a 300 liter drop tank or a bomb the rack was removed as it was optional."
Please provide a link to this statement because I am pretty sure you have taken it completely out of context. I guarantee the meaning of this is FW-190A8's not using the ETC 501 rack as opposed to FW-190A8's using it. It only took 15 minutes to remove and replace.
Still waiting for you to tell us how you get the aux tank through a narrower opening than the tank.
Why don't you visit the Museum? You can pick up the tank and put in the "auxiliary tank removal hatch" yourself a few times to see.
Crumpp
-
You really are lost Crumpp/Ketjg26.
Your the one claiming the jabos needed extra power.
You went on and on about the P-38 and 91 being an inferior fuel. So for the Fw, which used C3 fuel, it would have to use the inferior B4 fuel. German synthetic C3 fuel increased in potency as the war went on.
"Evidence is anecdotal."
Having a little fun, since Barbi outright dismisses such evidence. ;) At least I put names to my anecdotal evidence. Your the one with the stiff.
Ask how the tank got by the oxy spheres?
-
Your the one claiming the jabos needed extra power.
Just link to the thread.
I guarantee you misunderstood it.
So for the Fw, which used C3 fuel, it would have to use the inferior B4 fuel.
No the FW-190A could not use B4, AFAIK. It used C3 period.
German synthetic C3 fuel increased in potency as the war went on.
Exactly. What do you think they did with all the stocks of "inferior" C3.
Ask how the tank got by the oxy spheres?
The fuselage is wider at the bottom than it is at the top? Anyway. Not only does the FW-190 manual instruct you to remove the tank through the "auxiliary tank removal cover", it really does come out of the plane that way.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The fuselage is wider at the bottom than it is at the top? Anyway. Not only does the FW-190 manual instruct you to remove the tank through the "auxiliary tank removal cover", it really does come out of the plane that way.
Crumpp
No kidding :rolleyes:
Not disputing it came out bottom. Just explain how they got it past the oxy spheres which restricted its removal. Is that so hard to do? :eek:
-
see pg9. http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/Tom%20Reels/Linked/A5464/A5464-0638-0654%20Item%206A.pdf
"On the 25 Sept last year, attention was drawn in AI2(g) Report No 2111, to the high knock rating, under 'Rich Mixture' conditions, of German C-3 green av fuel then in use.
It was pointed out that while the standard German B-4 blue fuel, with an octane number of 89-90, had a 'Rich Mixture' rating of 81, the German C-3 green fuel - with 92-93 octane number - had a Rich Mixture' performance of 110.
During the past year there have been comparitively few C-3 fuel samples to examine, but the Committe on Energy, Oils and Fuels stressed in their report of the meeting held 30 June this year, that this C-3 green fuel gave a potential BMEF margin under 'Rich Mixture' conditions, which was not fully utilized by the existing German engines.
Since June 1943, however, test have revealed that the SG composition of the C-3 green fuel has been altered. The SG is lower at around .771 and, while the octane number is up slightly at 95>96, the 'Rich Mixture rating, as determined by 3C test (equivelent to the supercharged DFR engine) has increased considerably to around 125.
table left out
The reasons for this increase in 'Rich Mixture' rating are difficult to account for, since even with the original C-3 green fuel, the German aero engines were not capable of taking full advantage of the fuels potential. Nor are there indications of such improvement in the design of current German aero engines as to suggest that can take any greater advantage of either the original or the modified fuel.
The potentialities of this fuel should, however, to be borne in mind, as, in an improved design of engine, it would permit an appreciable increase in boost and BMEP"
report dated Sept 16 1943
The Germans must have had lots of stock of the 'inferior' C-3 fuel to last at least 2 years. Now which C-3 fuel did the German bombers that needed it use. Since they only drop bombs must be the 'inferior' grade of C-3.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
No the FW-190A could not use B4, AFAIK. It used C3 period.
The BMW 801C of the early 190A versions (A-1, A-2) used B-4 fuel. ;)
-
Interesting! Do you have a reference?
It is not listed on the Flight Card in the FW-190A1 bis FW-190A2 Flugzeug-handbuch.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1103225593_190a1bisa2boost.jpg)
I don't seem to have documentation showing B4. If you have some I would really appreciate a copy of it!
Crumpp
-
My reference is Jane`s WW2 Aircraft books engine section, but I have seen in other places as well that the 801C run at 87octane, this being the major differenence compared to the 801D (and s/c gear, compression). I remember some GLC chart on that though...
Technically speaking, the increased CR on the 801D is also a hint for changing for a better fuel, German engine development carried this pattern (ie. DB 601N, DB 605 D).
But keep in mind that an engine that runs on 87, can also run on 100 octane, but not vica versa. In particular, late DBs like the AM are also listed to use C-3, but the text, after reading it carefully actually does not rules out the use of B-4 as in other cases.
-
And you are correct Izzy. Just looked it up in the BMW 801 manual. The BMW 801C did use B4.
The BMW 801D2 used C3 only.
Thanks!
Crumpp
-
Not disputing it came out bottom. Just explain how they got it past the oxy spheres which restricted its removal. Is that so hard to do?
How many times do I have to explain it, Milo. They don't get in the way.
The Germans must have had lots of stock of the 'inferior' C-3 fuel to last at least 2 years. Now which C-3 fuel did the German bombers that needed it use. Since they only drop bombs must be the 'inferior' grade of C-3.
What are the chances they experimented before arriving at the 1943 formula, Milo. What are the chances this experimentation left them with usable but inferior fuel.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
How many times do I have to explain it, Milo. They don't get in the way.
What are the chances they experimented before arriving at the 1943 formula, Milo. What are the chances this experimentation left them with usable but inferior fuel.
Crumpp
Why don't they get in the way when the distance between the spheres is less than the dia. of the tank? Next you will be telling me a square peg with the same dia. as a hole will fit in that round hole with ease.
(http://www.albentley-drawings.com/images/FW190A8R2F.jpg)
They produced experimental fuel to be used in combat a/c in the quantities that would have left excess stock of the 'inferior' fuel. What ever you say Crumpp.:rolleyes:
-
Why don't they get in the way when the distance between the spheres is less than the dia. of the tank? Next you will be telling me a square peg with the same dia. as a hole will fit in that round hole with ease.
Nice drawing. In real aircraft it comes out nicely.
They produced experimental fuel to be used in combat a/c in the quantities that would have left excess stock of the 'inferior' fuel. What ever you say Crumpp.
Again Milo. Please get an education on fuel production. Petroleum companies produce inferior fuel everyday within the same grade. Why do you think Amoco has the guarentee stuck on the side of their pumps? Check it out the next time your mom fills up the tank.
Crumpp
-
You have yet to explain the extraction procedure once all the connections have been all undone. Getting info from you is like pulling teeth from a chicken. But then if you don't know, would explain all.
When you get an English language comprehension education Crumpp.
You did say EXPERIMENTAL.:eek: Experimental(test) fuel would not be produced in the quantities that would leave huge quantities of excess fuel. What was left over from any testing could have additives added to bring it up to spec. The Americans and Brits custom blended their fuel on base. Were the Germans incapable of doing something so simple?
That guarentee is for the minimum quality of the fuel.
-
You did say EXPERIMENTAL. Experimental(test) fuel would not be produced in the quantities that would leave huge quantities of excess fuel. What was left over from any testing could have additives added to bring it up to spec. The Americans and Brits custom blended their fuel on base. Were the Germans incapable of doing something so simple?
No Milo I said they were doing some experimenting at this time and I imagine that this helped to attribute to a larger than normal stocks of inferior grade fuel.
I said nothing of them using experimental fuel.
Read the article. It says "usually" it could be brought up to specs.
Whether these experiments contributed to increasing inferior grade fuel is a matter of specualtion. Facts are just making fuel will leave even the same octane rating divided into superior and inferior fuels. Please read up on the process more.
That guarentee is for the minimum quality of the fuel.
Exactly!! Point made.
Crumpp
-
Here is a link to a BMW801A engine article in pdf format. It's not in german though.
http://www.enginehistory.org/German/BMW/BMW801.pdf
Regards,
Malta
-
Can't get the link to work.
Crumpp
-
Milo, look sharply at the drawing you posted.
You can see the bottom hatch through which the tank was installed/removed.
This hatch was enlarged for the A8, so the aux tank would pass through.
Btw on the drawing you can also see that the distance between the forward oxygen bottles is wider than the diameter of the tank.
You might not know it, but ALL fuel tanks of the FW190 could be easily removed as they are held in place by a number of straps and large enough access hatches are all over the plane.
Instead of constantly guessing was is or is not possible do some research.
-
Naudet,
look again, more closely this time, at the drawing at the position of the forward of the 3 oxygen spheres. The distance is 455mm (to the closest 5mm). The spacing of the forward spheres is narrower than the dia of the tank. Also look at the side elevation for the position of the oxygen spheres.
And, yes I know that the tank came out through the bottom hatch, as I have said.
The forward fuel tank had 2 straps while the rear fuel had 4 straps to hold then in position. Access was by 2 rectangular removable panels which spanned a distance from the MG151/20 ammo hatches to frame 8. The hatches were held in place by 41 Dzus connecters.
-
The distance is 455mm (to the closest 5mm). The spacing of the forward spheres is narrower than the dia of the tank. Also look at the side elevation for the position of the oxygen spheres.
And you are getting this off of a drawing?
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
And you are getting this off of a drawing?
Crumpp
Not very bright when it comes to draughting, are you Crumpp. Figures. :aok
-
Not very bright when it comes to draughting, are you Crumpp. Figures
No I just think it pretty funny. You have drawings. I have the real thing and loads of documentation, including the operating instructions. The tank was removable and it frequently was removed.
Crumpp
-
What is amusing is that you cannot explain how the tank got past the oxygen cylinders. Puts into question whether you have a 190 parked in your backyard?:rolleyes: Should be no problem for you to go amd remove the tank and then explain how you got the tank past the oxygen sheres in 5 minutes.
Or if your access to a 190 is more restricted, one of those 1000's of pages of manuals should have instruction, besides 'remove through lower hatch.
Or you can go and ask one of those numerous veteran mechanics you claim to have talked to.
I see in your inability to answer, a dung dropper.
-
I think it is explained in the other thread, Milo.
Crumpp
-
Milo, go get the FW190A7-A9 aircraft handbook, than read Part 7, pages 29 & 31 they should end your confusion.
The entire remove & installation procedure for the auxilary fuselage tank is described there. And no removal of the oxygen bottles is mentioned.
But then again you might come here and tell us the FW190A manual is just a german piece of propaganda, that ignores the fact that in your honest oppinion the auxilary fuselage tank would never get past the oxygen bottles.
P.S.: And please Milo, don't again refer to whatever drawing you provide here to convince me what was or was not possible. If i have to choose between the original aircraft handbook or a post-war drawing, i will always trust the original.
-
Originally posted by Naudet
Milo, go get the FW190A7-A9 aircraft handbook, than read Part 7, pages 29 & 31 they should end your confusion.
The entire remove & installation procedure for the auxilary fuselage tank is described there. And no removal of the oxygen bottles is mentioned.
But then again you might come here and tell us the FW190A manual is just a german piece of propaganda, that ignores the fact that in your honest oppinion the auxilary fuselage tank would never get past the oxygen bottles.
P.S.: And please Milo, don't again refer to whatever drawing you provide here to convince me what was or was not possible. If i have to choose between the original aircraft handbook or a post-war drawing, i will always trust the original.
Crumpp, what date was that post in the other thread? What is the date of the post in this thread? Why did it take 48hrs for you to finally post in this thread after I asked for a more detailed description? It was nice of you to finally post that more detailed description even though it was in another thread. Anyways, ta.
Now Naudet, who put the bee in your drawers? Are you upset because you can't 'read' a standard drawing(blueprint)?
Those drawings are acknowledged as the best Fw190 drawings done by a world respected draughtman. They were drawn using ORIGINAL Fw documenration.
Now let me quote Crumpp for you:
"I said it does not mention having to remove them in the Flugzeug-handbuch and the guys who removed the tank at White 1 do not remember having to remove them either.
The cylinders are mounted with quick release buckles, two per bank. Pop those and the bracket clips into the section span. Lift it up and move it and set the O2 clylinders out of the way (the line is flexible and still attached). Remove the Aux tank. That is if you have the rubber coated self sealing sleeve. The bare metal just slides right out."
So Naudet, it would seem that the manual was not updated when the rubber coated tank was used.
You might what to visit White 7 in the Smithsonian. The photos I have seen of this a/c show that the rubber coated tank will not fit past the tanks unless what Crumpp described is done.
Crumpp, that pic you linked to shows a bare tank. Is that out of White 1?
You are correct Naudet. I take the manuals to the outhouse to use as you know what, for sure.:rofl
-
Your a piece of work Milo.
GIVE IT UP!! You wrong and just going to make yourself look silly.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Your a piece of work Milo.
GIVE IT UP!! You wrong and just going to make yourself look silly.
Crumpp
Aren't you all sweetness Crumpp. LOL, I even said thanks for finally posting the description, even though it was in the wrong thread. And, you asked me if I had a 'hard on'.
Are you now changing your statement so that the spheres did not have to be moved if the rubber coated tank was fitted?
-
Milo,
Why don't want to continue this in the other thread?
Let's recap our visit to the 115-liter Aux fuel tank with you.
You said the tank was not optional.
It most certainly is an optional piece of equipment, just like the 300-liter drop tank. Focke Wulf began delivering the Aircraft with the tank installed so therefore nobody could remove it was your reasoning.
You were wrong.
You said it was very difficult to remove and when Butch2k chimed in with it being impossible to remove, you changed your line to fall in with his. You claimed it was impossible to remove as well.
You were wrong times TWO.
First the tank is removable.
Second it is not a difficult task and only takes a few minutes for one man.
The tank is not a difficult maintenance task to remove and was routinely removed and replaced at the Geschwader according to the mission set up for the day by the TO. Same as any ordinance, drop tank, or mission specific equipment.
Dr. Timken says the O2 cylinders are "well out of the way" and the manual says nothing about having to move the O2.
Crump says:
I said it does not mention having to remove them in the Flugzeug-handbuch and the guys who removed the tank at White 1 do not remember having to remove them either.
The cylinders are mounted with quick release buckles, two per bank. Pop those and the bracket clips into the section span. Lift it up and move it and set the O2 cylinders out of the way (the line is flexible and still attached). Remove the Aux tank. That is if you have the rubber coated self-sealing sleeve. The bare metal just slides right out."
The second part is from my knowledge of the 02 Cylinders removal from the Maintenance manual. The manual says nothing about either type of 115-liter aux tank.
Again you do not read what people write.
As for Bentely's excellent drawings:
I respect Bentley and do not think for a second his work is inaccurate so I offer this as a possible explanation.
After rechecking the manual and checking AGAIN with White 1 there is very little doubt IMO that Bentley is the victim of a Museum curator or his original Focke Wulf Documentation.
Be careful when looking at Museum pictures of FW-190's. Especially Aircraft restored to static display. There are plenty of mistakes, especially in interior structure for static displays. You should check out the porch screws we found in one very well known static display wingtip. They were used and ground off so that the threads just barely poked out. That is not to mention all the interior stucture that just does not belong or is inaccurate.
I would not be surprised if Bentley did not render a completely accurate drawing of a Museum's mistake.
Come down to the White 1 Museum sometime. Some of my collection is on display including some "original Focke Wulf drawings" About a dozen of them, Milo. Big fold out sheets. All with interior structure changes to the design. Every time they made a change, they made a drawing. These particular ones are for different reinforcement plate designs on some of the joints in the control surfaces.
Crumpp
-
Milo, with "rubber coated tank" i assume you refer to the protected auxilary tank type.
If yes, all the procedures described in the handbook are for the protected aux tank, as the handbook states "That the technical specifications of the unprotected tank are not available yet".
-
Milo, with "rubber coated tank" i assume you refer to the protected auxilary tank type.If yes, all the procedures described in the handbook are for the protected aux tank, as the handbook states "That the technical specifications of the unprotected tank are not available yet".
Naudet is absolutely correct!
Milo you are just showing your ignorance of the design. The unprotected tank was the late war version. The protected tank was the tank in use when the manual was written.
Crumpp
-
Ok, lets re-cap.
From the fall of '44, the tank was a standard fit from the factory. You claimed it was an optional fit. Only later did you say optional at the unit level. Before it became a standard fit, it was optional, whether fitted at the factory or fitted at some line unit or depot. Are we happy now?
As to your description and the manual. Manuals are not always up to date, as you have said in the past. Your pic of White 1's, an early production a/c has an uncoated tank. (but see below). Manuals always don't tell you everything that has to be done.
Now there is the question of pre large hatch a/c fitted with the tank. The A-6 could have the tank fitted but had a small hatch. Removing the tank would be a difficult job, would it not?
All I can say is is your understanding of what 'difficult' and 'easy' is, is different than mine. For instance, I just had to replace the power steering hoses on my vehicle. The dealer said it was an easy job, and looked like an easy job, only taking a few minutes, but took me a couple of hours to do (I am not mechanically inept).
Now to White 7. Are you saying the craftmen who did the restoration at the Gerber Facility did not do a compentent job? My understanding is that they are very meticulous, going so far as to even adding a medical kit to the a/c. Spending almost 3 years and 13,458 dedicated man-hours to the restoration is not, imo, a Mickey Mouse restoration. They even ordered the same 6 self-aligning bearings for the elevators from the original manufacurer, studmuffin, that made them during WW2. Also applying stencilling to areas that would not be seen. Will White 1 go this far?
Bentley states on his 1/48 drawings of the A-8 (the one posted Naudet), " All dimensions shown have been obtained from official Focke-Wulf drawings, reports specifications and data sheets."
If I go to Bike Week in Feb, I will drop in.
For the record, and not in any particular order, the F4U, Tempest and Tank's a/c are what most interest me.
Naudet, maybe so, but the NASM F-8 photos show 6 spheres, 3 on one side and 3 on the other side. Can we believe what the Handbook says? I see you did an edit while I was typing.
The NASM a/c has W.Nr. 931 884 and White 1 has W.Nr. 931 862. Now Crumpp posted a link to a pic of the tank of White 1 uncoated, yet the NASM F-8 has the coating and they are very close to each other in W.Nr. So the tank of White 1 was a replacement tank?
LOL Crumpp, with the attitude again when things seemed to going better. Why is it the Luft luvers get in a big snit when questioned on their precious a/c?
-
Crumpp, how would you rate this article on this site?
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2004/11/stuff_eng_fw190_01.htm
I have not read through it yet, later as will be busy for awhile. Bloody deadline moved up.
-
look again, more closely this time, at the drawing at the position of the forward of the 3 oxygen spheres. The distance is 455mm (to the closest 5mm) .
This is where I think the enigma lies. Not in Bentley's drawings, the Manual, or the actual aircraft.
I think the mystery lies in your estimation error. It is a tight fit.
I have not read through it yet, later as will be busy for awhile. Bloody deadline moved up.
I just thumbed through it real quick. It seems to have some good info but I was also able to pick out some major errors. I think the author used some previously published books.
Crumpp
-
Milo, i edited cause i found a picture of the oygen bottles in the FW190 manual.
They have an unusual form and so in the drawing it looked like there were to many. The drawing only contains 3 oygen bottles, as the handbooks notes.
2 are mounted on the right fuselage side, 1 on the left, directly beneath the port access hatch.
The handbook part about the general equipment also contains information about removal/installation of the oygen bottles.
There is also nothing noted about that they need to be removed when the aux tank should be installed/removed.
Btw the procedure to remove the bottles will not take long anyway.
So even if the tank doesn't fit past the bottles, it will still not be a difficult thing to add/remove it from the fuselage.
The aux fuselage tank is in the handbook treated as an optional piece of equipment that can be installed/removed according to a mission profile.
The only requirement for the aux tank installation is the repositioning of the ETC501 rack 10cm further forward for CG reasons.
If this is the case, the tank can be installed/removed "at will".
This indicates that it can't be a difficult or longtime task to do.
And as it is an optional piece, we should not be surprised by the fact that two planes, close in Wk.-Nr. are fitted with different types of this tank.
As the tank might either not be factory installed and later added in the field or it was changed due to battlefield damage.
The A-6 could have the tank fitted but had a small hatch.
I honestly doubt that any A6 or A7 series planes would have that tank installed, the layout of the "Geräteraum" between frame 8 and 9 is different to the A8 or A9 and doesnt allow the aux tank to fit.
You would have to rearange the oxygen system in the A6/A7 as they occupy the space were the aux tank is installed in the A8/A9.
Also as the A6/A7 fuselage only have the small bottom access hatch you would have to remove the entire back fuselage to install the aux tank.
Not to mention the missing filler point or the "wrong" position of the ETC501 rack on the A6/A7.
-
Good Post Naudet.
Milo,
The FW-190A8/9 series is the only FW-190A to have the tank. Of course the G and F series and after with the A8 fuselage as well.
Crumpp
-
Break time while the 'pute is doing its thing.
Naudet, there might be a language problem here. If the spheres have to be removed from there mounting position, as Crumpp suggested, in my mind this is a removal (not a removal from the a/c but a removal from their mounting). Granted it would not be a big deal but is still one more thing that has to be done. Crumpp, the NASM F-8 a very small line coming from the back of the rear right side cylinder and is metallic in colour. I would say too small in dia. to be a flexible line.
I have to ask, how current is the handbook? See the text on the NASM F-8. Maybe it was found that 6 spheres were not necessary.
I already suggested that the uncoated tank was a replacement.
I have the A-6 with the option of carrying the tank but could be like many /Rx and not used. I did mention that the A-6 had a small bottom hatch. Crumpp did mention a smaller tank. Anyways, don't dwell on it.
From the fall of '44, the tank was a standard fit from the factory. I think Crumpp and I have this word 'option' sorted out now. So how does this sound? 'The tank, though a standard fit from the factory from the fall of 1944, was an option if it was in the a/c or not, at the unit level.' Are we in agreement now?
One should also remember a removal is, usually (might regret this word), easier than a install.
Crumpp what do you call a tight fit? The difference in dimensions is, lets say, around 45-50mm (~2").
As a side note, the NASM F-8 has wooden hatches.
Now back to working on that PCB layout.
-
Crumpp what do you call a tight fit? The difference in dimensions is, lets say, around 45-50mm (~2").
Just a guess from looking at it...
Yes I think 2 inches or less is about right. You have to remember that the tank itself is forward of the hatch. It is completely "detached" from the aircraft then moved over the hatch and extracted. Installing it is just the reverse. Lift the tank up, slide it forward and install it.
It was not a major undertaking either way. With that said you are correct in that removal is generally easier than installation of anything.
If you have documentation on the FW-190A6 carrying a aux tank please post it. I have never heard or seen one with it and the POH does not say it is an option.
As a side note, the NASM F-8 has wooden hatches.
Panel construction is a good way to date FW-190's.
You see laminated wood on many late war FW-190's as a strateagic material saving measure. The majority of the frame of the FW-190 was constructed out of high grade duraluminum and elektron. High grade steel was used in fasteners for load bearing structures. Low quality, soft steel is used in non-load bearing fasteners. There are other very surprising alloys/metals that are used in the construction. Including some that have been lumped in the mythical "Germans were not capable" pile.
Your gonna have to buy the book to find out exactly what and where they were used. Or copy it at your local library.
There is not a language problem. Naudet says the bottles do not have to be moved. IF they did for ANY reason, it is not a difficult procedure to remove them.
Crumpp
-
Hello all.
A wee input.
I have this nice book about LW aircraft.
"Warplanes of the Luftwaffe"
Editor: David Donald
ISBN: 1 874023 56 5
If you don't have it, I reccomend it.
Well, it's not as deeply detailed as some may want to dive within some certain aircraft categories, but it's still pretty exact.
Just my wee cents....
-
Crumpp, like I said, it could have been like other Rustatz kits and not used/fitted. example: the /R3 with the MK103
The 109 had wooden tails. At least one 152 had one as well.
Late war copper shortages had the 190 using zinc-aluminum alloy skins rather than the copper-aluminum usually used.
On your book. Butck2k is working on a 109 book that will be its bible like the "Spitfire: The History" is for the Spit. He expects it to be at least 4 more years before it goes to a publisher.
-
Milo, Part 7 (that is about the engine and tank installations) is Releasedate January 1945 state August 1944 (Ausgabe Januar 1945, Stand Ausgust 1944).
Part 9a (this is the part including the describtion of the oygen system) ist releasdate August 1944, state April 1944 (Ausgabe August 1944, Stand April 1944).
And what exactly do you mean with sphere? Do you refer to the entire oygen bottle? Because i am not sure we speak of the same thing here.
As i said earlier the oygen bottles have a unique shape, they actually consist of three spheres.
If you look at Bentleys drawing, a group of 3 spheres is only 1 oygen bottle.
So if you see 6 spheres in the NASM F-8, there might very well only 2 bottles installed.
Would make absolute sense that a ground attack plane has less oygen bottles than a fighter variant that is supposed to stay longer at high alts.