190 A5 and A8

[Krusty]

Denniss, while I'm not inclined to take wiki info at first glance, I think it's probably taking A-5/U3s into count, so in that respect it's a plausible number. I guess I was reading about factory-designated F-models rather than designations given after the fact, but I guess we're on the same page.

Wmaker: /R4 is attributed to a GM-1 kit by some sources, and attributed to a package relating to the MG151/20s in other sources. Outside of a few test charts and calculated speed curves, GM-1 wasn't really used in 190As. They didn't have much of it, and even though it was available earlier in the war it was limited to special models which explicitly state they use GM-1.

I don't doubt the author you stated put that into his book. I doubt that it signifies what you think it signifies. Even assuming it refers to a GM-1 setup, that doesn't change anything, either. The aux tank in the 190A-8 was included from the factory to use MW50 or GM-1. That doesn't mean they used MW50. Instead they used that tank for other liquids. Primarily C3 injection. It also doesn't mean that these airframes were ever used. Or perhaps they were the production numbers for the various test frames upon which the GM-1 testing was based.

[MiloMorai]

Now you say that it is a matter of great controvercy but were so confident in saying that it was never used earlier? Peter Rodeike's has found at least 11 Fw190A-8/R4s from AGO's production records and R4s were used by 10./JG 11. At least one is found from the 10./JG 11 loss reports. So Krusty, what is your source to the fact that GM-1 was never used by 190As? Considering how thoroughly Mr.Rodeike has researched the Luftwaffe and its aircraft, I take his word over yours any day of the week.

Scan from Rodeike's book:
(Image removed from quote.)

10. staffel:

    Staffelkapitäne:

        Olt Heinz Sahnwaldt, 7.43 - 1.8.43
        Olt Günther Witt, 1.8.43 - 11.43
        Hptm Siegfried Simsch, 11.43 - 1.1.44
        Olt Heinz Grosser, 1.1.44 - 2.5.44
        Hptm Erich Viebahn, 5.44 - 15.8.44

    Ordered formed 7.7.43 at Husum. On 1.8.43 10./JG11 and 1./JG11 exchanged designations. 17.8.44 united with 11./JG11 and renamed 4./JG11.

    10./JG11 and 11./JG11 was known as Kommando Skagerrak between 7.12.43 and 6.44.

No A-8s with 10./JG11, http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/b10jg11.html

[Wmaker]

Wmaker: /R4 is attributed to a GM-1 kit by some sources, and attributed to a package relating to the MG151/20s in other sources. Outside of a few test charts and calculated speed curves, GM-1 wasn't really used in 190As. They didn't have much of it, and even though it was available earlier in the war it was limited to special models which explicitly state they use GM-1.

I don't doubt the author you stated put that into his book. I doubt that it signifies what you think it signifies. Even assuming it refers to a GM-1 setup, that doesn't change anything, either.

Now you are saying "they never had much of it..." and before you said they never had it.

The bottom line is this. Charge said those curves were most probably showing performance while using GM-1 injection. You said that that isn't possible because GM-1 was supposedly only used above 10000m and that 190A's never used it. Considering that the whole chart is based on performance calculations, it doesn't even matter weather it was used or not (and Rodeike's research suggests that it was) as the use was certainly thought of. Because GM-1 never got the fully variable feed rate operational, the use had to be restricted by certain altitude and that is exactly what can be seen in the curve. Charge was talking about that single chart, not about GM-1 use general.

No A-8s with 10./JG11, http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/b10jg11.html

Just like I said earlier, Rodeike disagrees:

[Denniss]

The /R1 designation was used for the underwing dual-MG 151/20 gunpods (A-6 and later, previous models used this for lead machines with FuG 16ZE or ZY radio), /R4 is always GM-1 (A-6 and later.)

[Charge]

History of Me410 suggest that GM-1 was used in some occasions when it was available. I don't know why the machines were not readily available to units, maybe it indeed still was a rarity and it was reserved only for special use but it received  a lot interest due to high altitude boost it provided. (It seems that while the single seater 410 version was indeed manufactured its numbers were small. It is quite logical to assume that it was used for recon missions but its equipment suggest that it was used as zerstörer i.e. heavy fighter.)

So it seems that GM-1 was available and used but it was not available in same numbers as MW-50 or C3 injection. I recall that GM-1 increased weight more than other systems so maybe its was not a preferred choice in single seaters but in larger planes it offered more advantage than what was its relative weight penalty. After all 109s had the AS engines and 190 got the D model which was somewhat better suited for high altitude work.

What I'd like to point out is that the speed curves presented in AH wiki for A5 seem incorrect and they do not represent the correct boost configuration. E.g. the speed curves for A5 in MIL and WEP look more like those of GM-1 equipped bird.

http://www.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/Fw_190A-5

-C+

[Krusty]

Now you are saying "they never had much of it..." and before you said they never had it.

The bottom line is this. Charge said those curves were most probably showing performance while using GM-1 injection. You said that that isn't possible because GM-1 was supposedly only used above 10000m and that 190A's never used it. Considering that the whole chart is based on performance calculations, it doesn't even matter weather it was used or not (and Rodeike's research suggests that it was) as the use was certainly thought of. Because GM-1 never got the fully variable feed rate operational, the use had to be restricted by certain altitude and that is exactly what can be seen in the curve. Charge was talking about that single chart, not about GM-1 use general.

You attempt to twist things so much to your own favor.. This same thing happens in every "discussion" with you.

As a whole, across the Luftwaffe, they did not have much of it. For Fw190s, specifically, they did not use it. I said the chart could not be correct because it was not in use for those planes, regardless of the alt, UNLESS the chart was simply comparing calculated curves, and not representing actual airframes using GM-1. I'll very clearly admit it's possible GM-1 can be used lower than 10000 meters, but it simply wasn't done on Fw190A-8s. That is the issue at hand.

[Krusty]

What I'd like to point out is that the speed curves presented in AH wiki for A5 seem incorrect and they do not represent the correct boost configuration. E.g. the speed curves for A5 in MIL and WEP look more like those of GM-1 equipped bird.

Er... uh... What now? They do not!



In point of fact they seem to closely mirror the curves for the US tests of the 190G-3 that was reballasted after capture.

[titanic3]

I wonder if we'll ever get a 190A2 or A1 model. I'd think a lot of people would be surprised as to how well those would turn and burn. One thing for sure, if they get added, 30 ENY perk farming machine, here I come.

[Tank-Ace]

I'll very clearly admit it's possible GM-1 can be used lower than 10000 meters, but it simply wasn't done on Fw190A-8s. That is the issue at hand.

So? We're fairly certian that the P-51D didn't carry both 2 1000lb bombs and 6 HVAR 5" rockets at the same time, yet we're not prevent us from doing that in the game.

190's, 109's, or basically anything German in the game NEVER landed on a carrier, but we can still do it in AH.

Lancasters never pickled off the entire load of bombs all on a single specifically-targeted hanger, but we can still do it.



Whether or not a specific feature or piece of equipment was used in a specific situation is rather irrelevent, so long as it was in fact used. A8 never used GM-1 boost below 10k? Oh well, it could, and if we have GM-1 modled above 10k, we'll have it below 10k as well.

[Wmaker]

You attempt to twist things so much to your own favor.. This same thing happens in every "discussion" with you.

As a whole, across the Luftwaffe, they did not have much of it. For Fw190s, specifically, they did not use it. I said the chart could not be correct because it was not in use for those planes, regardless of the alt, UNLESS the chart was simply comparing calculated curves, and not representing actual airframes using GM-1. I'll very clearly admit it's possible GM-1 can be used lower than 10000 meters, but it simply wasn't done on Fw190A-8s. That is the issue at hand.

Heh, by quoting you word to word I'm trying to "twist things to my favor"  Riiiiiiight.

Just like I said, you just didn't know what you were talking about and Charge did. Simple enough.

You can cry about it as much as you like, the facts won't go anywhere nor change.

[Wmaker]

-

[STEELE]

I could reach 339-340 at 20 feet alt, with wep. 327 is at 1.3 ata. Still 12mph slower than your data tho.
Whats the source for the 352?

As you can see, the real A5 was quite a bit faster than ours at sea level as well as best alt!    
Pyro, if you see this, will you please add it to the to-do list?  

Eternally grateful,    STEELE

[Debrody]

Thanks Shemp.

[Charge]

I realized now what is the strange FTH behavior difference between the various two speed superchargers. If the machine is running on same RPM on MIL and WEP and only more boost is applied the FTH will move down as only that way more oxygen can be charged in the engine as the impeller is already turning on its max RPM. But if you are running on LESS RPM on MIL than in WEP the increased impeller speed will provide more boost and only on WEP rotate at its limit so your FT will stay the same or even move to a slightly higher altitude. This depends, among other things, on how big the RPM difference is between MIL and WEP.

Do you people agree or do you have other explanations?

-C+

[Denniss]

On the BMW 801 engine the lower boost and RPM for Mil may actually result in the supercharger spinning at lower rpm as well, otherwise the FTH in Mil should be higher than with WEP. The Jumo 213 from the Fw 190 D-9 acts different as FTH actually rises in Mil.
On DB engined a/c you could clearly see them achieving their Mil maxspeed at higher alts than with WEP.