Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: MANDOBLE on January 23, 2001, 11:07:00 AM
-
AFAIK, A4 to A7 series were able to use MW 50 injection system (engine adapted to use this device). But only A8 and posterior models used it. The extra (aux) fuel tank in the 190A8 was there just for this purpose.
What we seem to have here is a 190A8 without MW 50 but with its extra tank, used as a normal fuel tank.
IMO we should have MW 50 or extra fuel as options selectable from hangar. This tank was enough for more than 30 mins of MW 50 usage in periods of no more than 10 minutes.
Also, AFAIK, some Rustsatz kits consist on pairs of Mk103 hi speed hvy cannons instead of those lo speed, lo ROF Mk108 that we already have. (We should have this gun as an option also for 109G10).
To finish, a question:
Any of you have accurate data about 210mm rockets mounted in the Wfr.Gr.21 launchers? If the rocket used was the 210mm Nebelwerfer 42 (not sure about that), range should be almost 8 km with about 22 lbs of amatol 60 warhead. This should produce a really big BOOOM.
Actually, in AH, those rockets seems to have a range of less than 600 yards before they explode, totally inadecuate for any buff hunting attempt.
[This message has been edited by MANDOBLE (edited 01-23-2001).]
-
Those WGr21 rockets has timing fuse which makes them explode in the buff formation like big flak shell.
I don't know about its range, but I am sure it flies longer than 600 yards before blowing up?
-
Currently in AH, the range of the rockets is about 600 yards. By that I mean if you fire the rocket when the target is at 600 yards (with you on its 6), you will hit it.
-
And at twice that distance your taking hits from the Buff gunners....hmmmm (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif) not exactly the standoff weapons system it was meant to be
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992:
Currently in AH, the range of the rockets is about 600 yards. By that I mean if you fire the rocket when the target is at 600 yards (with you on its 6), you will hit it.
Sorry, but you are wrong, if I fire the rockets at 600 yards from the target, I'll miss for sure. Those rockets are slow and the target is moving, You'll need to be about 400 or 300 yards from the buff before having any chance to hit. IMO, this is an aboslutely ridiculous range.
All my data indicates (still not sure) those rockets were the 210mm Nebelwerfer 42 with a 7.5Km range. I have no precise data about the fuse mechanism, but AFAIK at the time those weapons were used, proximity fuses were in advanced stage, using only a timed fuse would make it apropiate only for a very small range of distances. I have no evidence about using proximity fuses in those devices, but, in fact, I have no evidence of the use of timed ones.
This weapon was used in Bf110, 109, 190, etc during the war, so, I suppose this was an effective rocket. Here, in AH, those rockets have just no value at all.
-
>I have no precise data about the fuse mechanism, but AFAIK at the time those weapons
> were used, proximity fuses were in advanced stage, using only a timed fuse would make it
> apropiate only for a very small range of distances. I have no evidence about using proximity fuses in those devices, but, in fact,
> I have no evidence of the use of timed ones.
The ONLY radar proximity fuses used in WWII were U.S. or Allied.
The only fuzing other than timing that the Germans could have used were:
1. photosensor, but clouds and other shadows would also set these off.
2: magnetic, but these did not work well on ships, which use a lot more iron than a B-17.
So, do the allies get the 90mm radar proximity shell?
A perk A.A. site? :-)
------------------
M.C.202
Dino in Reno
-
Originally posted by M.C.202:
>2: magnetic, but these did not work well on ships, which use a lot more iron than a B-17.
Magnetic mines were very powerful and reliable. happened that the British found some of them intact and discovered how they worked. Since then onwards, they proceeded to degauss all the hulls in their navy, so giving the magnetic mine a definitive coup of grace.
The problem with the magnetic fuse in the torpedoes was almost identical to the ones they had in the US navy. Were easily solved when they really tried to resolve it.
Not saying that the AA rockets with magnetic (AFAIK they were Time fused) fuse (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) simply giving some facts.
-
The MW50 thing has been discused here before. HTC is going on the conclusion that it was not used in FW190A8s....Funked has a book about it or something....
The mk 103 was a field trial only.
-
Mandoble,
The general concensus on these boards seems to be that no MW50 was used on Fw 190A -series.
The WGr. 21s had timing fuse. Dunno if there's a command for setting the fuse delay in AH.
// fats
-
Allied conspiracy, allied conspiracy! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Yep, MW 50 did not see much use in A series...
MW 50 system was marked in Wulf's left side, just behind cocpit by small yellow triangle. So far I have found one picture of A-8 with this triangle. It was apparently used but it was extremely rare.
30 mm Mk 103's were used only in few test planes. Actually I would take 2 x Mk 108 rather than 2 x Mk 103 because 108's are much more lighter and have greater rate of fire.
------------------
jochen Gefechtsverband Kuhlmey I/SG 5
Sieg oder bolsevismus!
-
Well, 190A4 and posteriors sub-types had their engines adapted for the use of MW-50, but only 190A8 and posteriors sub-types had the aux tank, pipes and control devices for than kind of fuel.
MW-50 is only a kind of "fuel", 50% water and 50% methanol, the methyl alcohol is cheap and easy to obtain, and the water even cheaper (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif). AFAIK our actual aux fuel tank in A8 is just the real extra tank added to be used with MW-50 mix.
IMO, we have an A8 with all the installations needed to use MW-50, but we dont have the "cheap" MW-50 as a fuel option in hangar. We have the extra weight of the instalations, but we dont have the benefits of that weight.
In the case of our 109G10, it seems it uses MW-50 fuel each time WEP is activated, but we have no kind of extra fuel tank in this plane. I suppose our G10 is equipped with DB 605DB or DB 605DC engines. The MW-50 effect was limited by the supercharger, so, above 10k the effect will not be noticeable. But again, in our case, WEP produces a tremendous boost at hi alt, so, I suppose GM-1 is also present. Again, we have no kind of extra nitrous oxide tank in the plane.
A8 had all the devices related to the methanol-water injection and the only reason I see to limit is usage during the war could be a negative effect in the "life" of the engine along the time. AFAIK, D9 had just the same instalations present in A8 for MW50 boost, and it seems D9 uses this mix with regularity. My conclusion is that I see no reason for not having this mixture available for our A8. We dont deal with the operational status of our engines along some weeks after extensive use of that kind of boost as we dont deal with the effect of the melt of gun barrels after prolonged substained fire.
-
I've got the pilot's handbook for the A-8 thanks to the generosity of Gatt. There are three other boosting systems mentioned but no discussion whatsoever of MW 50.
Also note that the AH Fw 190A-8 performance conforms with the data in this document is about 15 mph faster on the deck than the AH A-5. If you do the math, that means the A-8 is making about 2000 hp.
WGr 21 had a timed fuze. Get Heinz Knoke's "I Flew for the Fuhrer" for a description of combat with these weapons. Knoke was one of the first pilots to use these in combat as well as one of the first to drop bombs on a bomber formation.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 01-24-2001).]
-
Originally posted by funked:
I've got the pilot's handbook for the A-8 thanks to the generosity of Gatt. There are three other boosting systems mentioned but no discussion whatsoever of MW 50.
Do you have the edition date of that book? Probably, in early stages of A8 service the use of MW 50 was restricted just to tests and validations.
Also note that the AH Fw 190A-8 performance conforms with the data in this document is about 15 mph faster on the deck than the AH A-5. If you do the math, that means the A-8 is making about 2000 hp.
If we have MW50 already, the A8 should maintain advantage over A5 up to about 10k or even more, not only on the deck. AFAIK, actually A8 advantage over A5 is gone at 4k.
15 mph faster on the deck corresponds, more or less, to 150 hp more, not to 270. Those extra 150 hp could be achieved with a more conventional system, like the pure petrol injection.
-
The date of issue is September 1944.
Power is roughly proportional to the cube of speed in that regime. 1700*(355/340)^3= 1935
-
Originally posted by funked:
The date of issue is September 1944.
Power is roughly proportional to the cube of speed in that regime. 1700*(355/340)^3= 1935
BMW 801D is rated at 2100 Hp with MW50, still mising 165hp.
-
funked up
u are right that the math says on deck 2000 hp is being produced from speed calculations
but not from climb (large discrepancy)
-
Mandoble, let it go.
They can have their 200-unit-limited F4U1-C series, but we can't have Mw50 for the 190A8, nor MG removal ability (though there is great evidence of the removal of the cowl MGs in anti buff and Jabo roles for the 190s), nor the multi-bomb racks for the 190s, nor the realistic metric gauges, nor the realistic ammo counters...etc etc etc.
Its simply worth nothing to waste breath asking for things like this. As long as its' not american and has no hispanos, then it can't be in AH.
(yes, is a rant. so what?)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 01-24-2001).]
-
RAM, I'm not going to let it go.
Zigrat, agree 100% with you about climb rate discrepancy.
funked, if we have MW50 now, we have the A8 underated by 165hp on the deck. Even more, we are filling up the aux fuel tank with 118 liters of the more dense and heavier normal fuel instead of the lighter methanol/water mix. And, of course, if aux tank is filled with normal fuel, no MW50 effect should be present when WEP is enganged.
Pyro, if you are reading any of these comments, it would be very apreciated your clarifications about the actual boost system present in our 190A8.
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE:
Pyro, if you are reading any of these comments, it would be very apreciated your clarifications about the actual boost system present in our 190A8.
Petrol injection on air intake. It explains the power output at sea level, and the dramatical loss of it over 3-5K.
-
I agree Zig, it doesn't make sense. I wish we could track down those German engineers and find out what the deal was.
Mandoble, I have never seen a primary source for the 2100 hp figure. There was a guy "buzzbait" who posted last week that he had some German documents concerning MW 50 and the BMW 801 but I haven't heard back from him yet. I've been researching this topic for a couple years and I'd sure like to find a good answer.
PS "funked, if we have MW50 now" I never said that.
PPS The charts (with English titles added): http://www.raf303.org/funked/a-8manual/ (http://www.raf303.org/funked/a-8manual/)
The "raised supercharger pressure" curves are for performance using a manifold pressure control override device that was the current spec of boosting device according to the handbook.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 01-24-2001).]
-
Originally posted by funked:
PPS The charts (with English titles added): http://www.raf303.org/funked/a-8manual/ (http://www.raf303.org/funked/a-8manual/)
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 01-24-2001).]
Funked, your charts have some disturbing details:
Page 16 (Flight performance)
Flying weight: 4300kg.
Fuel load: 525L (FWD) + 115L (AFT)
2x131: 950 rounds
4x151/20: 780 rounds.
TOTAL weapons weight: 324.67kg
Page 17 (Flight performance, GM-1)
Flying weight: 4300kg.
Fuel load: 525L (FWD) + GM1 system
2x131: 950 rounds
4x151/20: 780 rounds.
TOTAL weapons weight: 324.67kg
Page 18 (Flight performance, Fw 190A-8/R2)
Flying weight: 4300kg.
Fuel load: 525L (FWD) + 115L (AFT)
2x131: 950 rounds
2x151/20: 500 rounds.
2xMk108: 110 rounds.
TOTAL weapons weight: 362.79kg
42kg per 151/20 gun
115g per 151/20 round
17kg per 131 mg
34.6g per 131 mg round
60kg per Mk108 gun
312g per Mk108 round
Different weapons weights, different fuel loads, but all the tested aircrafts have the same "flying weight". I dont feel very confident about these "english translated" charts ...
-
Disturbing is probably too strong a term, but yes it is a secondary reference and as such is subject to typos or other errors. I have tried to track down the original documents from which those charts were taken but have had no luck. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)