Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: wells on January 06, 2000, 01:14:00 PM
-
Should the Fw-190A8 have MW50 boost?
-
Hi. I am someone other than PYRO. But yes, the Fw190A-8 should indeed have MW50. The AUX fuel tank, should actually be the 115l MW50 tank.
------------------
When the light was right it was actually possible to see the 30mm(1.18ins) shells in flight. - Heinrich Beauvais(Test Pilots, W.Späte).
-
Could or should? Could yes, should is a philosphical question. From what I've seen, it appears that the aux fuel tank was the norm.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
"The side with the fanciest uniforms loses."
-
Thanks,
Was just wonderin' what you thought about that.
-
MW 50 should be just another load out option. Let the players decide wether it's more usefull to have MW 50 or the extra fuel.
That's what we have with the gun load outs at the moment, there is unlimited supply of WGr.21s, MK 108s and so on. The configuration Fw 190s fly in the AH arena is determined solely by AH arena's environment and not WWII environment as far as guns/bombs are concerned.
//fats
-
How about choices of either:
1.MW50
2.GM-1
3.Extra fuel
For the Fw190A-8 and Bf109G-10.
Btw, any Fw190 from A-4 could have had MW50...
-
Yes, please !! Make a choice of GM 1/MW 50 for G-10 (as well as 190, if it had it). Also, was there 109F-4 version with GM-1 available ?
Imagine that (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
I think this is a good idea, and I'm not even a Luftwaffe pilot typically.
Of course I am still waiting for the P-63 KingCobra.... hint hint. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,
"Real men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires ;) "
-
hello
May be it can help
All the info bellow is coming from original document not from books)
the A8 was fitted with the BMw801D2 production kit F 600 (this is a power egg)
and by mid July those were gradually replaced by BMW801 TU (kit f 9-8801-U). This is a power egg as well
Both of those engines were using a petrol injection in in the blower. That was achieved by bleeding the airline in the compressor between the between the fuel mixture chamber and the boost pressure regulator.
That was only usable at max rpm 2700 in low and high compressor gear.
To activate it you have to depress a button in the front panel in the cockpit.
with the F600 (bmw801d2)the pressure in the cylinder increased from 1.42 to 1.58 (low gear of the supercharger) or 1.65 (high gear)
it was usable for 10 minute in a row and up to critical altitude.
That it was the same for the TU,the usage being longer because of a bigger oil tank and a bigger fan.
That is known as "increased emergency performances"
So up to here no MW50 nor GM1.
Was the GM1 used ? more than probably, the Fw A8 manual mentioned it, i have seen the flight test and there is some combat report.
This was a simple kit to install
I can not tell to what extend but it is very probable that it was used in a FW190.
For the MW50
This is a totally different story...
i have found evidences that it was tested by BMW (on the BMW801 D,J,Q,T,S,E,F) and was even tested on planes.
The trouble is i was not able to find any confirmation or hint of operational use.
There is a FW document (cover your arse type) from 4-jan-45 asking for information and reporting problems to BMW on how to install a less complex high pressure MW50. It says that they can not use the existing MW50 dispositive for that purpose. It leads to believe that the MW50 was used with the BMW801 D, TU, TH and TS.
That's all for me if any one as other info please let me know....
[This message has been edited by weretiger (edited 01-07-2000).]
[This message has been edited by weretiger (edited 01-07-2000).]
-
Good info weretiger! I agree that petrol injection should at least be there, in which case the engine puts out 1870-1970 hp. Speed at sea level rose to 360 mph with this system. Pyro?
-
hum...
the charts (copy orignal charts)
i have gave A8 (A8/R2)
350 (350) @ SL
and 360 (358) @ 2000 Ft
358 (356) @ 5000 ft
all that with 2 mg 131 (475 rnds per guns)and 2 Mg 151(250 runs)+ 2Mg 151 (140 rnds) the back seat tank and without ETC 501, for the A8.
the same for the A8/r2 but with 2 Mk 108 and 55 rnd instead of the 2 mg 151 and 140 rnds)
the etc 501 reduces the speed by 7.5 mph under 20 k
and by 9.5 above.
the etc 504 was more efficient and it was about 5 mph under 20k and 7.5 above
I hope it helps
-
hristo
as far as i can tell the
Me 109
e7z
E8
F2 z
F4 r1 (i beleive that the uk had a speciemen of that plane to study the gm1)
used GM1
After it is more complicated as the engines changed quite a lot.
for a his altitued interceptor/ reco
Gm1 would have been used.
Unless you used and engine type bd605 AS
where Using Gm1 did not make sense as the rated altitude of the as was around 30 k (wich lead to the asm with Mw50 injection).
I hope it helps.
I will look in my book for more detail on the g vesion
-
weretiger,
Are those speeds using petrol injection? Also, what was the typical weight of an A8 with 2 mg131's and 4 151's?
-
WTG Weretiger. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
P.S. Check this out: http://members.xoom.com/mikewaltz/F-TR-1102-ND.htm (http://members.xoom.com/mikewaltz/F-TR-1102-ND.htm)
-
Ok, now I am really (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/confused.gif)
You guys are saying that the MW50 wasn't used on the 190A Series ??
I thought that the difference between the 190A3 and the 190A4 was the addition of MW50.
Now I realize that GM1 was tested on the BMW 801D-2, was found to unsatisfactory, and was normally not fitted.
But I thought the MW50 was used extensively from the A4 onward thru the A Series.
Some more numbers for you guys, from Focke-Wulf FW190 (my favorite 190 book), by Robert Grinsell & Rikyu Watanabe, ISBN 0 7106 0032 1
Data for the BMW 801D-2 (Engine only)
Takeoff & Emergency Power: 1700 hp at 2,700 rpm
Climbing Power: 1500 hp at 2400 rpm
Maximum Power: 1440 hp at 18,200ft (5700 m)
Compression Ratio: 7.22:1
High Supercharge Ratio: 8.31:1
Low Supercharge Ratio: 5.31:1
Dry Weight: 2321 lbs
There are alot more tabular data on speed (without,and with MW50/GM1) and climb for the A8/D9/and Ta152 if anyone is interested.
HOLY ####!!!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/eek.gif)
The Ta152 could do
465 mph at 29,860 ft (9100m) with MW50
or
472 mph at 41,010 ft (12500m) with GM1
and had a service ceiling of 48,550 ft
Wow !! That sure would solve those stratospheric B-17's (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,
"Real men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires ;) "
-
Verm,
I thought no MW 50s were actually used on A-4. No idea where I heard that, someone posted a reference to it before CK.91 on ICIBBS, and no idea what their reference was.
//fats
-
Hmmm ok (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) , just going by what the books I own say. But we all know they have been wrong in the past.
Here's where I got it from.
That book I listed in the above post says:
After production of over 500 Fw190-A3's, the Fw-190A-4 variant began to make its appearance in late 1942. The Fw190-A4 differed from the -A3 only in the addition of a methanol-water power boost system (MW50)to the BMW 801-D2 to achieve added power under the rated altitude of 5000m (16,000ft), and a replacement of the radio with a newer and more powerful unit.
So what was different then? Just the radio?
------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,
"Real men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires ;) "
-
I've read the following:
No MW 50 on any Fw 190A.
MW 50 on Fw 190A-4 onwards.
MW 50 on Fw 190A-8 only.
But none of these are from primary sources - I read this in books.
Weretiger is working with the German documents, so I tend to believe what he says.
As far as the engine variants of the Fw 190A,
I believe Fw 190A-1 and A-2 had the BMW 801C which ran on B4 87 octane fuel.
For the A-3 the BMW 801D was used, which required C3 96-100 octane fuel. There was a higher compression ratio and a new supercharger system which neccesitated the higher fuel grade.
For the A-4 and subsequent models the BMW 801D-2 was used, which added provisions for MW 50 injection. I believe these provisions were also used for the petrol injection.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 01-10-2000).]
-
Although the A4 'could' have used it initially (and may have been retrofitted), there was an apparent delay until late '43, early '44 for MW50 useage on both the 190 and 109. I'm just guessing here, but the 109 was alot slower than the Fw down low and probably got priority on the system. If the 190 had MW50, speeds at ground level would approach 380 mph, meaning mostly ground attack variants of the 190 would get top priority there as well. Nothing could catch the 190 at low level until the Typhoon came along! Also, the climb rate on a 9500 lbs 190 with MW50 would be close to 4500 fpm!
-
Wells, I have seen the petrol injection system mentioned several times in conjunction with the F and G models.
-
What I've read basically says:
Fw190A-4 - BMW 801D-2 engine modified to allow MW 50 usage.
Fw190A-8 - MW 50 kit installed. Ie: 118 litre tank behind pilot.
Sooo, I guess what that means that the A-4's engine could use MW50, but the storage tank and plumbing etc. wasn't there. The A-8 had the tank and plumbing etc. installed, but that doesn't necessarily mean MW 50 was actually used.
-
Well I for one think it would be a hoot to see 190 pilots have to choose between the three in the Ordinance section.
------------------
If your in range, so is the enemy.
-
hello
The power boosting on the fw 190 is a nasty topic
first the weight of a fw 190 A8
an empty weigth of 3198
with 520 liters= 400 kgs
with the back-seat tank 115= 85 kgs
2*mg 131, 475 rnd= 164 kgs
2*mg 151, 250 rnd= 214 kgs
2*mg 151, 140 rnd= 159 kgs
a john doe and chute=100 kgs.
(note the the john doe uk is only 200 lbs)
will give you 4320 kgs aircraft,a common mesurement is 4365. that is comming form rounding, petrol weight and munition mix.
nb this is 500 kgs more that a A4 A5.
4683 with disposable tank.
I am almost certain of that those weight. They are confirmed by several geman testing and the doc the Verm sent me (thanks)
The speed test has been done for this type of aircraft.
A8 R6 with WR 21
add 273 kgs
that is 4593 (4638) or 4434 (4489) without the extrenal guns.
a8 r2 (with mk108 and 55 rnd)
rougly +115 kgs
A8 R3 (mk103 in gundolas and 35 rnd)
rougly + 300 kgs
A8 R7 (sturm armor)+ 111 kg =4430 (4470)
+ extra tank + 318 kg=4748 (4794)
extra armour + 200 kg = 4630 (4670)
+ extra tank + 318 kg = 4948 (4994)
A8 R8 (r7 + r2 )+ 115 kg= 4545 (4585)
+ extra tank + 318 kg= 4979 (5024)
if you add the armour= we are around 5.2 tons.
As far as the power bosting was concerned.
it is very difficult to say.
I am not quite sure when that extra emergency power was added (fuel injection)
I beleive Gm1 was used. It was petty simple to install and add around 200 kg (fuel+tank+pumps)and it is mentioned quite often in reapitualtive documents.
For the Mw50 well it is more obscure. test has been done, that is sure.
I can not tell if it was used in operation or not.
I am quite sure it was not delivered with it
at least up to the A8 with TU (i may have well been part of the power eggs).
The dodgy thing is that there is some reference to it being use but was it in test was it in operation, was it with the bmw801 TU, TH,TS....
-
Nothing could catch the 190 down low....Except the P51 -P51a ..Then again it depends on your deffination of Catch. The 51's had a comparable speed down low.
see ya on line
-
D.(Luft)T.2190 A-8 Fw 190 A-8 Aircraft Handbook
Technical description N0. 284
Fw190 A-8 Fighter (Focke-Wulf Avaition Corporation 11-28-44)
Fuselage auxilliary tank: ......After Aug-Sept 1944 all A-8 aircraft will be delivered with the auxiliary tank fitted. If required, instead of the 115 Ltr (25.3 gal) fuel, an unprotected Methanol-water (MW 50) tank of either 115 Ltr or 140 Ltr (30.8 gal)capacity, or a GM 1 tank of 85 Ltr (18.7 gal) capacity, can be installed. At the present time, however, it is planned that the standard A-8 will be produced only with the auxillary fuel tank.
Increased emergency power: Commencing in July 1944, all Fw 190 A-8 aircraft will be fitted with the 'emergency power unit'. By overiding the supercharger boost regulator, this system increases the boost pressure, on take off and emergency power, at the low supercharger setting, from 1,42 ata to 1,58 ata; and at the high supercharger setting from1,42 to 1,65 ata. The resulting increase in maximum horizontal speed is about 22km/h (13.6 mph) at the low setting, and about 25 km/h (15.5) at the high setting. Due to the danger of the engine overheating, this system must not be used for more than 10 minutes at a time.
GM1 installation:The fitting of the GM1 unit in place of the additional fuselage fuel tank is basically feasible: but, in the FW 190 A-8 series is not normally done. It can be used at altitudes above 8 km (26,250ft)and gives a speed increase of about 58 km/h (36.0 mph) at climb and combat power.
The accompanying chart in the book shows (with the new 'july/44' raised supercharger pressures)at 408 mph max at 18,500 feet. And tapering back to 351 mph at 31,000 feet(maximum listed). The ETC 501 bomb/fuel tank rack drops the speed from 7.5 mph to 10. mph depending on alt. This is with a painted and polished plane. This is straight from the hores mouth. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) The engineering department at Focke-Wulf avaition Bremen.
-
Awesome SIFTER! July '44, the magic number!
Now, when did a8's start rolling off the line? Let me guess...June '44 and we have the first one modelled in AH! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by combat23:
Nothing could catch the 190 down low....Except the P51 -P51a ..Then again it depends on your deffination of Catch. The 51's had a comparable speed down low.
Reality check !!! How about Spit LF IX, Typhoon, Spit XIVe for starters ?
------------------
(http://www.raf303.org/banner.gif)
Bartlomiej Rajewski
S/L fd-ski Sq. 303 (Polish) "Kosciuszko" RAF
www.raf303.org (http://www.raf303.org)
-
The book says April of '44. June probably the time its presence was felt. Hey Vermillion that Grinsell/Watanabe book is one of my favorites too! There is a new book out on the Ta 152 from Shiffer. Focke-Wulf Ta 152. By Dietmar Harmann. It has mucho details. No Color illustrations from Watanabe though (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif). Put in Focke-Wulfe Fw190
(with the e on Wulf)at BN.com. They have best price. Great book!
-
sorry
i stupidly created a new thead.
called "may be a stupid idea,but"
sorry again
-
combat23's comment:
Nothing could catch the 190 down low....Except the P51 -P51a ..Then again it depends on your deffination of Catch. The 51's had a comparable speed down low.
If referring to the A series, then this is incorrect. The La-7 was also capable of catching the Fw 190A low. And in a dive. Think the La-5FN could catch up with a 190A low too, but not in a dive.
------------------
leonid, aka grisha
129 IAP VVS RKKA
[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 01-20-2000).]
-
Fd-Ski - Spitfire LF Mk. IX could not match 350+ mph of Fw 190A-4 on the deck. Maybe one of those special 150 octane planes, but not a standard one.
-
Sifter - WOW!
Best information I have read yet on this issue!
-
Fine funked - how about VIII ?
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit8.html (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit8.html)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Is that 190A4 you are mentioning equipped with jado rocket in its bellybutton ?
If i remember correctly it wsa you who concluded that NO BOOST was standard or in widespread use on A4's ? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Face it, 190 wasn't as sleek as you might like it to be (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
(http://www.raf303.org/banner.gif)
Bartlomiej Rajewski
S/L fd-ski Sq. 303 (Polish) "Kosciuszko" RAF
www.raf303.org (http://www.raf303.org)
-
Actually the Navy tested a FW-190A5-U8 VRS a F4U-1(no water injection) and F6F-3 and found that the FW-190 and F6F-3 were equal at sea level at a top speed of 334 at sea level and the F4U-1 was 29MPH faster 363mph at sea level. At 25,000ft top speeds attained were F6F-3 at 391mph, F4U-1 at 403Mph and the Fw-190A-5 at 410Mph.
Test were also performed between the P-51A and the Fw-190A(no further designation given)
in 1942. Speed results are the Fw-190 was 2mph faster from sea level to 5000ft. The P51A was between 5 and 15Mph faster up to 15,000ft. This test was performed by the RAF.
My source is "FW-190 Workhorse of the Luftwaffe" by the Smithsonian Institute Press. Take from this what you will but I don't think "nothing can outrun the FW-190 at low altitude" is an accurate statement.
I also don't think the AH F4U-1D can hit 363MPH at sea level either. Wine, Wine, Wine, Wine, Wine!
Thanx
F4UDOA
-
Yep, guess I forgot to add the later war planes like the spit14 tempest ect. And I was talking about the p51a. Stuff I have read about it say that it was faster then a P51 B or D at low level. It wasn't much good above 15k.
see ya on line
-
Hiya Sifter,
I've read the same thing. I currently am not using the higher emergency power. I've been debating with myself over it for awhile though and have recently started leaning towards it.
Reading the whole of the report lead me to believe that the increased emergency power came on the 801 TU and not the 801 D. I know the TU didn't make it out in very substantial numbers.
Unfortunately, they aren't very specific about it. But like I said, I'm leaning towards going with the increased emergency power primarily becauses it bridges together some different performance figures that I have.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
"The side with the fanciest uniforms loses."
-
Fdski, that data for MkVIII, the +25 boost was used with 150 octane fuel. Normally, +18 was combat setting. I was referring to a Fw with either MW50 or fuel injection, where speed would be upwards of 370-380 mph at sea level. Nothing could touch that *until* the Typhoon came along (which was before all those other planes you are talking about).
-
Fd-Ski, Fw 190A-4 that did 350mph+ at s/l was the one tested by His Majesty's Own RAE. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
No MW 50 or anything, just Takeoff/Emergency power.
-
Wasn't that the one with bad spark plugs ? Then we just clock it up to 400mph eh ? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
(http://www.raf303.org/banner.gif)
Bartlomiej Rajewski
S/L fd-ski Sq. 303 (Polish) "Kosciuszko" RAF
www.raf303.org (http://www.raf303.org)
-
Pyro,
Even without the super-duper emergency power, the A8 still seems to climb 'heavy'. An 8500 lbs A5 could climb at 3900 fpm with WEP. The A8 in AH climbs at 3400 fpm with WEP, putting it at near 9750 lbs, but with only 2 151/20's and no drop tank?
The A8 (according to Jane's) weighed 9100 lbs with full internal fuel and 2 151/20's. That's 600 lbs more than an A5 of similar armament, of which 180 lbs is extra fuel.
With a 300L drop tank, it weighed close to 9750 lbs.
Can you share your data on this one?
-
Wells:
The MK108's were part of the R2 Rüstatz set.
I have a takeoff weight for R2 aircraft (with detailed breakdown) of 4350 kg. Take away the MK108 + ammo (241 kg) and we are down to 4109 kg or 9040 lb. Pretty close to the figure you have.
However I believe most of the MK108-armed aircraft were using the R8 set which was a combination of R2 and R7. R7 was additional armor for the pilot, fuel tank, and for the MK108 ammo containers. I don't know the weight but it sure looks heavy!
Anyways, it seems possible that the AH empty unarmed weight is based on an R8 or R7 aircraft. In that manner we could still get the proper weight deductions for using lighter armament, but we still carry the weight of the R7 armor.
I'll go look for a weight on the armor.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 01-20-2000).]
-
Funked,
weretiger posted a bunch of stuff earlier in the thread. I guess the r7 (sturm armour) is 111 kg with another 200kg optional armour that could be added to the r8 package for a total of 311 kg of armour. That would make sense, but I just wanna know for sure, ya know? If we have all these weapons options, why don't we have the option of not taking the r8 armour? It looks like it was an option. Heck, I'd dump the sturm armour as well...ground pounding is for the B-52's er...I mean B-26's! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
hello
to put things in perspective
all the info i have posted are comming from original sources.
us archive (smithonians captured german documents), PRO air40 (mainly)
and a fw document technical description no 248. (the one that stiffer quotes.)
for the speed.
from the A3,A4 and A5 with 2 mg and 4 20mil guns
and a weight of from 8460 (3.8 T) without the pilot (200lb for the uk or 220 lb/100 kg german and US)
combat speed
399 mph @ 21 k (2400 rpm)
333 mph @ SL (2400 rpm)
can be sustained for 30 minutes.
The top speed was
418 @ 22k (2700 rpm)
350 @ Sl (2700 rpm)
with the engine at takeof or emmergency.
this is without any additive (ie no petrol injection, no mw50), can be sustained for 3 minutes.
and 428 mph @ 26 K with GM1 (if used)
you can add 2 mph if you remove the outer guns (mgff in that case.)
I really believe this is correct because, I have been able to cross reference it with the REA, the US and geman documments.
for the A6 performance decreased a bit (1 to 2 mph)as weigth increased 8575 lbs. (without the pilot).
This is the weigth that puzzeld me the most as i do have several contracdicting value...
see post bellow for the A7/A8.
-
The A-6 changed the outer cannon to MG151/20(42kg), replacing the older MGFF(28kg). Plus they redesigned/strengthened the wing to be able to use the MK108 cannon.
-
Weretiger - Your speeds are very close indeed to the USAAF figures I have obtained.
Wells - Don't know how I missed Weretiger's info. Yeah I agree, 311 kg of armor would account perfectly for the weight discrepancy.
-
I wonder about the armor being an option? On the assembly line maybe but I doubt it at the field level. The A8 was supposed to be a bomber killer>(is this correct?) If so the pilot's would want all the armor they could get. Nothing like a head on pass at several hundred B17's to make you believe in armor. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
For fighting fighters what we need ,IMHO, is another version of the 190. like A5 or maybe the dora? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
see ya on line
-
I think only the "Sturm" units used the R7 and R8 versions?
In a regular fighter unit this would be the last thing you want; 311kg of armour that slows you down and makes your plane much more vulnerable to Allied fighters.
Btw: The armour was used to allow the Luftwaffe fighters to resume attacks from the rear of bomber formations, as it took considerable skill to line up for a HO attack and gunnery was difficult with the high closure rate, leading to poorer results than attacking from the rear could provide.
-
note for the A6
I have seen higher weight this why i am not sure of the weigth ...... the on i gave is a A5 like plane (wich the production plan says it was like but again... with 2 mg 151 + 140 rnd in the outer position instead of the 2 mg ff.
for the A8 and A7
this is what i beleive
A7 and A8 used both the F600 engine block.
however, i have two production sheet one from the 29/3/44 and one from the 10/10/44
The one from the 29/3/44 from the A3 to the A8. this is the same nose armor.
on the 10/10/44 that weight has increased.
i beleive that A7 and early A8 were around 8700 lg about 4 T (speed of the a reduce by about 3 mph).
Somewher between end of march and that armour increased plus the back tank to give a A8 around 4.3 T.
and the max speed around 21 k is around 400 mph
As for the engine it is strange the Td num 284 state that in july the that f600 (BMW801 D2) was to fitted with the power increase (C3 injection in the blower)
this reports make a difference between that dispositve and the TU with is also equiped of that device.
Du the bleeding of the airline of the blower wich is part of the injection dispositive
the max speed was about 408 @ 19 K.
for a BMW801.
As for the Mw 50, I can not say at one. using it was possible. i can not make my mind wether it used it or not...
GM1. it is higly probale.
-
Hey Pyro,
I checked Heinz Nowarra's book (1965) on the 190.This is another source taken right from Focke-Wulf's files.(I believe this to be the best overall book on the 190.) I think it would be a good idea to add the extra power for the increased supercharger setting but not the GM1. The prototype test for the larger wing (218 sq feet) with GM1 had no existing data. Even the three prototype A-8's with the 801 TS didn't complete there tests until August/'44 for high altitude improvement of the A-8. Giving creedence to the fact that GM1 was just not used in the 190 A-8 with the 801D. This date gets into the time frame for the 190D anyway. Making the 190 A-8 GM1 setup a waste of time for AH.
If it wasn't a modification used commonly on the aircraft,I feel it shouldn't be used. I fly the 190 all the time but, I still want it to be historically real!
WEREtigger the name is Sifter (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
dam, I am sorry sifter.......
lets put that on the fact that i am french and i can not speack english properly.
The trouble about Gm1 is that i have the speed and fligth test for a A6 and a A8 (pro AIR40 151 and 152).
besides, it is referenced in several german documents (the manual for the A8 and a recapitualtive document about the weigth of the fw according to the produced version and Their equipement. The GM1 dispositive is stated there (for the A6 A7 and A8). There is some combact reports (not very reliable but...). A A8 with a BMW801 TU captured (deleivered to in the UK by a deserter ferry pilot) in late august had the GM1 dispositive installed (but no GM1 fuel) as well as the as petrol injection(air40 152).
All in all that is what make me beleive it was used operationaly. we really need a (german) unit report to be absolutly positive
but....
Before i read your first post i was doubting that the MW50 was used (i have seen the test but, it is never really mentioned as opposed to the GM1) and i thought that the petrol injection was mistaken for it (special emmergency power, it is described in the TR284 that you mentionned in your first post). After all it has the same effects.
So here i was quite happy, but you pointed something to me.
In the report TR284 they describe how the rear seat tank can be replaced by the MW50 tank the 118 and 140 liters. Why would it be mentionned it if was not to be used or could still be used?.
As well that petrol injection was installed on the bmw801 D2 from jully onwards and I have an other german document (january 45), from focke wulf stating that the they needed a new pump for the MW50 to work on the FW 190
(engine TU, TH and TS). They need that new pump because the old MW50 dispositive is not good enough any more and could not be used.
I though they were referencing a high presure MW50 but it seems more likely that they were referencing MW50 injection in addition to the petrol injection dipositive. and that would explain why FW mentioned that could not used D9 MW50 dispositive wich is using the same bleeding of the airline to inject petrol in the blower in emmergency power (the use of the MW50 on D9 is called special emmergency power)air40 152.
All those refrence make me think that it is very possible that the MW50 was in fact used
especially before the "petrol dispositive).
Note that those paper have been made public in the PRO,Kew UK since only 1972.
That being said it would be nice to have a form of under_the_critical_altitude power boosting for the FW190 since we can prove that the system was installed on standard engines from jully. May be a speed of 400 mph @ 21 k for the A8 in any case....:-).
Ps pyro would it be possible to post orginal document somewhere on the AH site (if there is no hidden copyright from the archive that is....:-)).
-
well, funked (i hope i have the names rigth this time)
for the armor
the a8 r7 and r8 has a reinorced armour
normal armour
+
triangular side paned of the wind screen (and the bit below that)
engine-side of the instrument panel and the part in front of the instrument panel)
top, front and botom of the ammo for the mk 108
this what i call strum armor.
there was as well extra plate that you could had on the side of the cannopy and the side of the fusselage.
this is what i called extra armour (i thing the proper term is panzerplaten but...)
-
A quote from DocDoom on the WW2 Online board...
The Sturmbock ("battering ram") Fw190s
were A-8 varients (for the most part)
officially designated "R8" and had the outer
wing MG151/20 2cm cannons replaced with
Mk103 or Mk108 3cm cannons. They carried
extra armour along the leading edges of
the wing, around the ammo boxes (30mm
mine shells) and around the cockpit,
including armoured side glass for the
canopy, although the extra armour varied a
lot from plane to plane. Some did not have
as much as others, it was all field fitted
and depended on availability and pilot
preferance. Some higher ranked Sturmbock
pilots prefered the less weight as these
aircraft were VERY disadvantaged against
escort fighters with the extra 800 pounds or
so they carried.
Pilots swore an oath upon joining the
Sturmgruppe :
"We swear to fight in defence of the Reich
true to the principles and rules of
engagement of the Sturmgruppe. We know
that, as pilots of the Sturmgruppe, we are
called upon in a special way to protect and
defend to the utmost of our ability the
population of our homeland.
We undertake that, on every sortie
resulting in contact with four-engined
bombers, we shall press home the attack to
the shortest possible range, and - if
unsuccessful in shooting down the enemy
by gunfire - we shall destroy him by
ramming."
After this oath was taken the pilot received
a "whites of their eyes" insignia to sew on
his leather flight jacket, which was two
eyeballs rather like the "Moon" logo of the
Moon Racing Company of the 60's (for all
you hot rodders out there )
In practice, relatively few had to resot to
ramming the bombers, and of those that
did more than 50% are believed to have
successfully bailed out just prior to impact.
The most common form of attack for the
Rammjager, unlike the pure fighter varients
of their comrades ... was a slow overtaking
approach from the rear, relying on the extra
armour to protect them while affording
them the longest and easiest firing set up
and execution. This form of attack was
committed at Staffel strength in an
arrowhead formation and holding fire until
inside 300 yards. A single squadron of
bombers would be targeted, usually the
one where the "boxed" defensive fire was
at its weakest.
After fantastic initial success with these
tactics, the USAF response was to sweep
ahead of the bomber stream with P-51's
(and often P-47's) to break up the Sturm
formations and then shoot them down
(where possible without "leaving" the
bombers) as they had little manouvring
ability versus the American fighters. Even
just breaking up the massed arrowhead
attack formation was sufficient to disable
the attack on the bombers in most cases,
from being effective or even possible.
-
I got some info that Oberleutnant Oscar Romm wrote. He flew 190 from 1942 and til the end of the war (92 victories).
Prior to his 190-D9 experience (february 45)he flew with IV/JG3.
About the 190-D9 he writes that it had a new gyrostabilized gunsight EZ42. He could "hit the cockpit of russian DB-7 from a great distance" (a great improvement from earlier sigths in other words).
But the best thing he writes, is that the 190-D had MW 50, that not only boosted engine power but also reduced engine temperature. Obviosly he had not used MW-50 on his previous planes (190A2-190A8 i presume).
Bod