Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Scherf on April 27, 2012, 08:55:46 PM
-
Anyone know where the GM-1 bottles were located on the Fw 190? Have a utaway showing location?
TIA
-
The aux fuel tank was also the GM-1 tank but was never used.
-
Uh, never?
Nevah evah evah?
:eek:
-
Uh, never?
Nevah evah evah?
:eek:
Not on any operational Fw190s.
-
The aux tank was MW50, not GM-1. Alternatively, it also just held basic avgas and directly injected more of it into the cylinders (rather than MW50) for a cooling effect, but guzzled gas during this setup.
But you have to specify WHICH Fw 190 you want info about.
Other than that, though, see what Milo said. Any info would be test info, with the exception of the Ta152 maybe, or rare prototypes, etc.
-
How do you explain this then?
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-level-speed-13nov43.jpg
Notice the higher curves.
Then compare that chart to this.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-12jan45.jpg
How do you extend the curve higher without using a larger impeller in supercharger OR injecting more air into engine in other means, e.g. using GM-1?
-C+
-
Those are some impressive red Xs, pilgrim, but thanks for the post.
-
How do you extend the curve higher without using a larger impeller in supercharger OR injecting more air into engine in other means, e.g. using GM-1?
The second chart shows Sondernotleistung with increased boost. The term Sondernotleistung implies usage of MW-50 although the effect of erhöhte Notleistung (with additional fuel injection) should have had the same effect.
The Aux tank was primarily used for fuel although in late-war it was used for MW-50. I don't know if the vanilla tank was to be used for GM-1 or if it had to be changed.
-
AFAIK MW50 and C3 extend the curve to the right in those charts indicating merely greater ATA and the curve also extends downwards due to limitation of supercharger impeller efficiency. MW50 and C3 injection provide additional charge cooling, and C3 at the same time the additional fuel with no need of additional injection which needs to be separately arranged for MW50. MW50 or C3 do not provide more air into engine like GM-1 does by chemical reaction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_%28engines%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM-1
-C+
-
Should have read: The aux fuel tank position was also the GM-1 tank position but was never used
-
The greyed area shows the gain of the increased boost (curve on the right side of the area) over the standard boost (left side). Both C3-injection and MW-50 are only effective boosting agents as long as the supercharger is capable of feeding enough air into the engine.
The effect of GM-1 in the Ta 152H is see on the top right of the chart (the zig-zag)
-
Yeah the 152 ran GM-1 system. Pilots called it haha gas.
I think in my 152 book there is a diagram of the location of the bottles. I will let you know sometime tomorrow when I get back into town.
-
Charge, I'm sure they tested it, but it was never put into production per se. Not like on the 109 line or anything.
The second link is showing the GM-1 on the Ta152. This was put into production, but there's debate as to how much was available at that time in the war. Again, it's just a test graph. Real performance at alts that high was extremely problematic, as the 3rd gear on the supercharger was usually the worst on those engines. Kurt Tank is the only one known to fly high enough to reliably test that gear, and it was in a test flight (prototype). Pilots on the 152 made some comments (if i recall) that the third SC gear was mostly useless, but it didn't matter because nobody flew that high anyway.
GM-1 was fielded on a number of planes, from Ju-188S to 109s of various types (E-7s, G-5s I believe, many others), but on the 190s? Didn't really take hold. The airframe and the power output weren't as well suited as other airframes at that alt.
-
Thanks gents - not the answer I was expecting, but live and learn.
My reply to Charge comes across as pretty smartass-esque on rereading it, wasn't intended that way, was genuinely glad for any input, sorry for any offence.
All comes about from a tale told by a Mossie recce pilot of a "rocket-boosted" (sic) 190 which attacked him at altitude. Mossie pilot lived to tell the tale, his account of a trail of black smoke behind the 190 had me suspecting it must have been a nitro bird, I guess not after all.
-
Interesting story. Significant smoke could merely be a byproduct of C3 injection or even a problem with the engine -you remember the pictures of early FW190 with sides black with soot due to engine running too hot. Could be either case, in certain conditions such trail would be well visible especially if such plane is chasing you or running away from you. I'm making an assumption that from various boost methods C3 produces most smoke although technically all boost methods require the engine to run very rich but I presume there could be additional exhaust produced by C3 since it uses the fuel to lower temperature of charged air.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIY3xXxckis&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL35332CAEA8F7E9D6
0:26 running on take off power the smoke is well visible in clear air. Add some war time boost there and you can really see the trail.
Similar is visible even today in jets: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO5cVANrLE0&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLAD1CECD8A3353F86
You see some of the smoke also from side but from front or back the smoke is highly visible. This is also considered a tactical disadvantage for a reason.
-C+
-
Black smoke was just an indication that he was running full out, not of any particular boost he was using. The German fuels were coal-based. Even early in the war bomber gunners would shoot at a a 109 or 110 and see smoke and claim a victory, when in fact the German had simply finished his attack run and firewalled the throttle to dive away to safety, the result being a belch of black smoke from the exhausts.
-
GM-1 bottle was almost directly behind the pilot in the 152, it contained 22.45 gallons of the nitrous oxide.
-
Black smoke was just an indication that he was running full out, not of any particular boost he was using. The German fuels were coal-based. Even early in the war bomber gunners would shoot at a a 109 or 110 and see smoke and claim a victory, when in fact the German had simply finished his attack run and firewalled the throttle to dive away to safety, the result being a belch of black smoke from the exhausts.
Lol, you make it sound like the German planes needed a stoker.
True, the German Fischer–Tropsch process produced synthetic fuel from coal, but being ultra-clean and low sulfur it was actually of a higher quality than gasoline refined from oil. Any smoke produced by German aero-engines had nothing to do with fuel quality, but probably more to do with running a very rich mixture to increase cooling of the cylinder heads at high boost levels. Even more so if GM-1 was being used.
In these oil starved days the Fischer–Tropsch process is again being used to produce fuels, this time in the U.S. The Air Force is trying a 50/50 blend of JP8 and synthetic fuel to lessen the reliance on imported oil.
-
I have heard of 109 pilots using a tactic that caused the engine to smoke heavily. They would fall off like they had been hit and the attacking pilot would then break off the attack.
-
Old school cheaters! :old:
-
Lol, you make it sound like the German planes needed a stoker.
I did no such thing. If you want to start a debate about what was richer, or higher quality, feel free. That's beside the point that the engines belched black smoke trails when pushed. This is readily evident in most war-time photos, as the staining on Heinkel wings took over the camo in most cases. It was very heavy on planes that weren't kept constantly clean.
Whatever other merits you want to argue, you can't deny it was dirty exhaust..
-
I think you'll find that on all aircraft with inverted cylinders.
(http://www.cybermodeler.com/aircraft/b-17/images/na_b-17_08.jpg)
-
No, once again you don't understand. The B-17 stains are not exhaust, they are oil. The exhaust was out of the bottom turbocharger.
The German fuel made a noticable cloud of smoke. Enough so, that enemies that saw it thought they had scored killing hits on it.
Front-line, top-tier fighters were regularly cleaned by ground crews as a matter of moral, maintenance, and of pride, however others (i.e. not bf109s) often faired worse. There are cases where cleaning even the front-line fighters was hard to do, such as in the desert. There you see what the planes looked like with regular use.
(http://www.fighteracesonline.com/marse3.jpg)
This 110 has large swaths of its upper and lower wings covered as well as most of the cowling, but the exhaust is so thick it extends back and obscures most of the vertical stabilzers as well.
(http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Bf-110/Bf-110-ZG26.8-(3U+NS)/images/1-Bf-110E-8.ZG26-(3U+NS)-over-western-desert-01.jpg)
On bombers it was particularly noticable.
(http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW6/He111-35f.jpg)
(http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW6/He111-32f.jpg)
Anybody who knows what they're talking about knows that German fuels belched smoke. Lots of it. This is told in tales from both sides, anecdotally, and recorded in the majority of wartime photos.
-
Again... Inverted cylinders. Nothing to do with the fuel. All engines with inverted cylinders collect lubrication oil in the cylinders. When the engine is started this oil is ejected into the exhaust manifold where it evaporates and spews out the exhaust stacks... onto the aircraft.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=mzgYkfq9OVw#t=104s
This 109G-4 is not running on German wartime synthetic fuel and the soot is still clearly visible on this well cared for show-bird.
Here's a B-17 starting up with half its cylinders full of oil:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAk9Ap0tyLI
Again, nothing to do with the fuel.
Restored 109G-6:
(http://johneaves.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/bf109g6incorrectmarkings.jpg)
Again, no German wartime fuel.
Inverted cylinders.
-
Upright cylinder engines smoked on start up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzVBlMXJDms&feature=related
-
Smoke yes. Spewing hot oil vapor, no. Injecting oil into the exhaust manifold is what show planes do to create smoke. It is thick and white, but leaves a sooty oily residue on anything it touches. Like the wingroot of this biplane: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvGZQFra78c
190A-5 startup: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Y2BZnSYTRrI#t=101s
Bristol Hercules: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=J0q9l8xejrE#t=14s
-
Black smoke = Uncombusted fuel vapor. White/blue smoke = Vaporized oil.
-
This one is extreme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWj3oLjHEJY
It's been "pickled" so all its cylinders are oily.
-
Again... Inverted cylinders. Nothing to do with the fuel. All engines with inverted cylinders collect lubrication oil in the cylinders. When the engine is started this oil is ejected into the exhaust manifold where it evaporates and spews out the exhaust stacks... onto the aircraft.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=mzgYkfq9OVw#t=104s
This 109G-4 is not running on German wartime synthetic fuel and the soot is still clearly visible on this well cared for show-bird.
Here's a B-17 starting up with half its cylinders full of oil:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAk9Ap0tyLI
Again, nothing to do with the fuel.
Restored 109G-6:
(http://johneaves.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/bf109g6incorrectmarkings.jpg)
Again, no German wartime fuel.
Inverted cylinders.
I see smoke that's typical of a radial engine until it warms up and its seals expand just enough to make everything running tight inside just right... where is this half-the-cylinders worth (a couple gallons worth I'd think) of accumulated oil being spewed out?
-
Oil vapor... The accumulated oil in the lower cylinders are ejected into the exhaust manifold where it vaporizes.
I was hoping I wouldn't have to go into detail, but here it goes...
If a radial or inverted-V engine hasn't been rotated for a day or more you'd need to hand crank the engine a few revs to pump the oil out or you'd risk liquid lock. You can never be too careful with inverted cylinders. I'm sure you've seen ground crew hand pulling revs on the props of B-17s and other radial engined planes plenty of times in videos, or even in the movies.
The oil comes out of the big Pratts and Wrights so slowly that you'll pull through a couple of blades fairly easily and then it suddenly comes to a stop, and then you're heaving, or rather leaning on the blade as it moves ever so slowly as the oil pours out, then frees up for another few blades until it comes to the oiled pot again which pulls through with less resistance than before and produces another run of oil, and the third time around the resistance is pretty even. Then you can try a start, but its going to be a while running on 8 or 16 before the fuel washes the plugs on the bottom cylinders clean enough to fire. Nine blades by hand in the normal direction of rotation on a DC3 to make sure it was OK to start. Even after pulling through 9 blades there's gallons of the stuff still swilling around. If you encounter a liquid lock remove lower plugs and move the prop until all the oil is out.
Also, with many radial engines, if it's not run for more than a few days it's cowlings off and take out the drain plugs in the inlet pipes of the lower cylinders. Oil can collect there and it won't come out by hand pulling it through as the "elbow" in those inlet pipes is below the level of the exhaust valves. So any oil stays there until start up, whereupon it gets sucked into the cylinder where it can cause a lock. If you are lucky, the engine breaks there and then and you get you wallet out. If you are unlucky you bend a con rod and the engine fails some time later, and somewhat dramatically, as the rod breaks in the air one day.
Oil consumption in flight was also higher with inverted cylinders, radials in particular, for the R3350 (B-29) acceptable oil consumption in flight was 3 gallons per hour. The B-17 has a 37 gallon oil tank per engine.
If you for some reason don't take my word for it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD910YCkLn0
-
predator,you really don't know what you're talking about. You may be factually correct, but you're trying to force an answer that just isn't correct.
Even on this grainy, camera-phone-quality video you can see a visible smoke stream trailing behind this 109G-6.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HUC7Y5XqB4&feature=related
Keep in mind that's a warbird and will not be flown at max power (probably not even close) to extend longevity.
You may very well be right about oil being belched on startup, but you continue to ignore the facts that others (who know more and have read more on it) have provided you. That doesn't account for the smoke stain accumulation shown in photos. Nor does it account for steady dark smoke trails throughout flight, not just startup.
You have LW pilots mention it, you have allied fighters and bomber gunners mention it, you have massive photographic proof, and also video proof. Why are you trying to make up some story to the contrary?
-
Black smoke was just an indication that he was running full out, not of any particular boost he was using. The German fuels were coal-based.
That is what I take issue with from your post. Your last video (of the same 109 I posted a picture of earlier) is not running on German "coal-based" wartime synthetic fuel. The fuel is not the reason German aeroengines produced smoke.
From my first post:
Any smoke produced by German aero-engines had nothing to do with fuel quality, but probably more to do with running a very rich mixture to increase cooling of the cylinder heads at high boost levels. Even more so if GM-1 was being used.
The heavy staining on German planes is mostly from the startup of the engines which had inverted cylinders. Again nothing to do with the fuel.
Why do you think it's the fuel?
-
"Why do you think it's the fuel?"
Because any fuel which does not burn properly, as in over rich setting, produces particles that can be seen by naked eye?
I'm not sure if German aviation fuel was any cleaner in this sense a compared to that used by the allied. While its performance could only reach octane rating of 130 lead was used in it as in allied fuels. The amount of lead had to be kept relatively low due to lack of means to prevent lead deposit formation on spark plugs.
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/tech_rpt_145_45/rpt_145_45_sec2.htm#Composition%20and%20Specifications
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1981/jul-aug/becker.htm
-C+
-
"Because any fuel which does not burn properly..." Any fuel, yes. Incomplete combustion (for whatever reason) produces smoke particles. 100% complete combustion produces only gas (CO2) and water vapor.
Tetraethyl lead (TEL) was added in too insignificant amounts to produce visible smoke. TEL is still used in aviation gas at about 2 grams per gallon (100LL). WWII 100 octane avgas had about 5 gram TEL per gallon.
German 100 octane fuel was designated either C2 (natural) or C3 (synthethic). In late 1942, the Germans increased the octane rating of C3 fuel to 130 by using TEL. Later C3 fuel had very good rich mixture response (anti-knock value) and was almost equal to allied 100/150 fuel, and that high rich PN of the C3 was obtained without resorting to very high TEL content.
-
Did inverted Vs have bigger oil reservoirs than normal Vs? If not, then it would suggest that while both radials and Inverted Vs share the problem of oil seeping to cylinders when stationary, the oil consumption in flight was not bigger compared to normal V engines. Anybody has figures for e.g. Spit IX and 109G oil fill?
-C+
-
A Spitfire IX carried 7.5gal or 34.125 ltr of oil.
Me109G-14 with DB605AM motor - 33kg (.91kg/ltr) or 30 ltr of oil.
-
Oil consumption in flight was more of a problem associated with air cooling. When a water cooled engine gets up to proper operating temperature it's pretty tight. Air cooled cylinders not so much. Cold and standing still though, noting will stop that oil from seeping past the piston rings.
-
Why does/should one NEVER hand-rotate/prop a radial engine backwards/counter-prop-rotation?... or rather, why does/should one ALWAYS hand-rotate them forward prior to starting?....
-
Trick question? Pumping the oil into the intake tract isn't exactly the smartest thing to do. The oil will get sucked right back in when you try to start her up.