Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, -[HRAF]BubiHUN said:

Hope devs will make the 20mm for the K-4 liek this. 

 

That would be a mod that never existed so no, I hope that doesn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ref ETC 501:

 

The only reason why the ETC was used permanently on most A-8s was that there was a directive that required fighters to be capable of performing Jabo-missions on short notice.

The ETCs had to be slightly modified between the use of the 300l tank and actual bombs.

 

Had there *just* been a requirement to carry the droptank, the Erla-rack would have been the way to go - like seen on a couple of JG 26 aircraft.

Check the Schwarm below - the leading Aircraft has an Erla-rack; nos two and three have the ETC. Number four does a good job hiding it's belly…

 

Spoiler

Focke-Wulf-Fw-190A7-6.JG26-Brown-4-Walde

 

This Picture of Pips Priller's  late war Anton (A-7 or A-8?) also Shows to use of the Erla-rack:

Spoiler

Focke-Wulf-Fw190-A-8-Josef-Pips-Priller-

 

Edited by Bremspropeller
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Ref ETC 501:

 

The only reason why the ETC was used permanently on most A-8s was that there was a directive that required fighters to be capable of performing Jabo-missions on short notice.

The ETCs had to be slightly modified between the use of the 300l tank and actual bombs.

 

 

My guess is that they took whatever available to fit the belly tank. ETC 501 was quite common in Sturmstaffeln and they usually didn´t fly any Jabo missions but dealt with the 4-mots.

 

Sturm JG4 white 16 (Oberfähnrich Franz Schaar, of 5.(Sturm)/JG 4 , has been a long time posted as « Missing in Action » in the South Netherlands after the mission « Bodenplatte » on 1. January 1945.)

 

schaar.jpg

 

and

 

Sturm JG 300, 5.(Sturm) (Klaus Bretschneider with "Rauhbautz VII" 1944)

 

Spoiler

Unbenannt2.png

 

Edited by sevenless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, sereme1 said:

A8 don't have C3 injection. Some (early?) F8 (and F3) had it, C3 injection worked only below 1 km.

F8 we have don't have C3, it has Erhöhte Notleistung instead.

 

Erhöhte Notleistung was in fact C3 injection (C3-Einsprtizung). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_801

 

"The D-2 models were tested with a system for injecting a 50–50 water-methanol mixture known as MW50 into the supercharger output to cool the charge, and thereby reduce backpressure. Some performance was gained, but at the cost of engine service life. This was replaced by a system that injected fuel instead of MW50, known as C3-injection, and this was used until 1944. The serious fuel shortage in 1944 forced installation of MW50 instead of C3-injection. With MW50 boosting turned on, takeoff power increased to 2,000 PS (1,470 kW), the C3-injection was initially only permitted for low altitude use and increased take-off power to 1870 PS. Later C3-injection systems were permitted for low-to-medium altitude use and raised take-off power to more than 1900 PS." 

 

7 hours ago, sereme1 said:

Are you sure A8 without Erhöhte Notleistung engaged with the same cowlings settings and the same ATA and other circumstances (weather, altitude, speed etc.) has higher temperatures than A5?

 

Yes i am very certain. Just look at the temp gauge while flying at Kampflesitung in the A5 and do the same with the A8 and compare. You will clearly see the difference and you have to open the cowls in combat more even at Kampflesitung. Also i wonder why the engine gets hotter at slower speeds. Wasnt this the reason for the fan so you get enough cooling even at slower speeds? Or what about the cooling effect of C3-Einspritzung? It makes the engine even hotter so you have to open the cowls completely after a short ammount of time. Speed seems to have no big effect on engine cooling. Of course all my testing is on autumn weather conditions without any wind.

 

Comapred to the La5FN it makes me wonder why its engine gets cooler then its predecessor while the A8s engine gets hotter even with C3 injection compared to its predecessor. The La5FN has a similar system where extra fuel was injected like with the erhöhte Notlesitung system. At least that is how i understand it. Correct me if im wrong. But the only difference in the cooling system between La5/F and La5FN is a changed exhaust tubing and better cowl flaps. But this does not explain why you can completely close the outlet cowls in the La5FN at pretty much every time except mybe on really hot maps idk.

 

Is it possible that a Dev somehow mistankenly switched the cooling code form the Yak7B and the LA5FN? Because the La5FN has no heat issues at all even at a higher performance and the Yak7B has very bad cooling with its massive water radiator. For the bigger cooler alone i would assume the Yak7B has a better cooling then the Yak1B. But its the other way around. Which costs a lot of performance in the Yak7B. Opening that big radiator completely all the time also does not really help. It will overehat at max power anyway. Speed seems also not cooling the engine a lot like in most other planes but im not really sure about that. Needs more testing.

Edited by Ishtaru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The A8 does run hotter than the A5. That is normal and programmed properly. The A8 used extra C3 fuel to run at a higher boost, but that still did not keep temperature as low as in the A5. You can see it in the following chart:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/BMW_VB_126.pdf

 

look at the second to last chart, figures on the right. Cylinder head temps are roughly 8 degrees Celsius higher at 1.65 vs. 1.42 boost in 2nd gear.

 

And if you look at the last chart,  cylinder head temps are roughly 12-15 degrees Celsius higher at 1.65 vs. 1.32 boost in 2nd gear.

 

Reading between the lines on comments I have read, BMW engineers were pushing pass their previous safety limits with 1.65 boost, as you can see on page 1:

 

Quote
 
  3.) Cylinder head temperatures:
    The cylinder head temperature was increased by 13°C on the hottest cylinder compared to normal combat power and was 211°C in 6 km altitude, where outside air temperature was equal to summer conditions, so that for tropical conditions 221°C result. The flight speed was Va = 265-270 km/h and the cooling flaps were opened to "position 3".
 
  4.) Oil temperatures:
    The oil inlet temperature was increased from 73°C to 88°C (permissible for 15 min 80°C) by the increased climb power when reaching 8 km altitude. Since the outside air temperature was equal to highest summer temperature, this value is permissible for a short time. But the oil temperature has to be regarded as a criterion and only a larger test basis can make a final decision possible.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/BMW-VB-126.html

 

trying to keep the temperature within acceptable limits was the reason a 10 minute time limit was specified.

 

 

Edited by Sgt_Joch
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

The A8 does run hotter than the A5. That is normal and programmed properly. The A8 used extra C3 fuel to run at a higher boost, but that still did not keep temperature as low as in the A5. You can see it in the following chart:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/BMW_VB_126.pdf

 

look at the second to last chart, figures on the right. Cylinder head temps are roughly 8 degrees Celsius higher at 1.65 vs. 1.42 boost in 2nd gear.

 

 

Thank you very much for that pdf. I will read it later but i thought that C3 injection also cools the engine. No i dont confuse MW50 here. But the problem is not only at erhöhte Notleistung setting. Even at normal condtions like Dauer or Kampfleistung you get higher temps with the same cowl settings. And another question which comes to my mind when C3 has no cooling effect. Why is the normal Notlesitung setting still 3 minutes then while erhöhte Notleistung is at 10 minutes. This only makes sense when the C3 injection has some cooling effect like the MW50 does in the G14. I mean in my opinion these 1-3 min ratings are unrealisitic and when C3 injection has no cooling effect, then it should be ovious to everyone. Becasue there are people who think it is realistic to "nerf" engines because the manual says 1 min max boost. Look at what that has done to the P40. I am not for no limits but for more reasonable time limits.

Edited by Ishtaru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C3 injection is not erhöhte Notleistung. We've had this discussion several times ago and it takes you probably less time to search for it than it takes me to type it yet again. Or check the darn manuals.

Edited by JtD
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

The cylinder head temperature was increased by 13°C on the hottest cylinder compared to normal combat power and was 211°C in 6 km altitude, where outside air temperature was equal to summer conditions, so that for tropical conditions 221°C result. The flight speed was Va = 265-270 km/h and the cooling flaps were opened to "position 3".

 

This is interesting. So at cowl position 3 you should be able to fly at summer with just 265-270 kph at max power. Either this means speed has absolutely no effect on cooling or that the ingame engine runs way to hot at higher speeds.

 

35 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

trying to keep the temperature within acceptable limits was the reason a 10 minute time limit was specified.

 

So we should have no  long "cooldown" timers for reuse of erhöhte Notlestung. Just cool the engine under 80°c and you ready to go for another 10 minutes. I like! Same should be applied to shorter timers. It makes absolute no sense to have these long "cooldown" timers for Notleistung.

 

5 minutes ago, JtD said:

C3 injection is not erhöhte Notleistung. We've had this discussion several times ago and it takes you probably less time to search for it than it takes me to type it yet again.

 

It is not? I guess i have to look then. Thanks for pointing out. This would mean wikipedia is wrong about it. Qoute from wikipedia: "This was replaced by a system that injected fuel instead of MW50, known as C3-injection, and this was used until 1944."

Edited by Ishtaru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikipedia is wrong about a lot of things, however, it is correct in that the C3 injection was called C3 injection. But that's not the erhöhte Notleistung system, which had no C3 injection. For erhöhte Notleistung they simply cranked up the fuel pump to the maximum and that was it, while with C3 injection they cranked up the pump to the maximum and installed another fuel delivery in the (left) air intake and injected extra fuel there.

 

Also, extra fuel does not increase manifold pressure. Different supercharger settings do. And in both cases they messed with the supercharger control chamber of the Kommandogerät, in slightly different ways.

 

Please look up the rest, and don't take my probably annoying tone personally, I'm just tired.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JtD said:

Please look up the rest, and don't take my probably annoying tone personally, I'm just tired.

 

No no everything is fine. Thanks for bothering to explain. I found the thread you mentioned and will read it from start to end later. So the 3 minute time limit really makes no sense then. Short question. Does the real C3 injection has a cooling effect? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure it does. I will read it later. Thanks guys for helping me to understand!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this was posted in another A8 thread, a bit long but self-explanatory:

 

Quote

increasing Knock Limited Performance in the BMW801D2

Part 1

Throughout the war, the BMW801D2 was continually developed to keep pace with the performance

of the allied fighters faced by the FW-190 equipped Geschwaders. The engine became a

reliable workhorse and made the FW-190 one of the best performing low altitude fighters of

the war. It began its design lifecycle with a top shaft output of 1670PS at Start u Notleistung

at 1st Gear supercharger full throttle height and gained 150 PS by wars end at the same settings.

Additional boost systems raised this power output to over 2100PS. The BMW801D2 was developed

to the limits of its potential and even beyond a point when other motors such as the BMW802

showed greater promise for a similar effort. The Achilles heel however continued to be high

altitude performance. This article in two parts will discuss the 4 major systems used to increase

knock-limited performance in the BMW801D2 above the engines normal Start u Notleistung rating.

 

<POH maintenance schedule for BMW801C motors>

<POH maintenance schedule for late war BMW801D2>

 

In June of 1942 BMW completed a theoretical investigation in the potential development of the motor.

Without any major change to the motor it was possible to increase shaft power output at full

throttle height by 40PS at Start u Notleistung and 110PS at Steig u Kampfleistung. With some major

changes it was possible to get a shaft output of 2000PS without additional knock limiting performance

enhancements. It was determined that the motor had the potential for developing between 2000PS-2200PS

by injection of knock limiting agents such as water or alcohol water mixtures. Work began immediately

on putting the theory into practice. Prototype motors were constructed and work began on improving the

power output of the motor at all levels. By July 1942 BMW had constructed several prototype motors to

begin laboratory bench testing. BMW801D2V15 achieved 1950PS shaft output without ram or knock limiting

performance enhancements during this phase. In the quest for attaining the full potential of the BMW801D2

three knock limiting agent injection systems and one method of oxygen enrichment of the charge were shown

to be practical or worthy of further investigation.

 

<Insert Picture 1 BMW801D2V15 ram power production>

 

C3-Einspritzung, The Bomber and Attack Pilots Insurance

The first system to see operational adoption was the injection of C3 fuel as a knock limiting agent

directly into the left side of the supercharger intake. Motors were modified with stronger pistons

adopted from the BMW801E/S development. These new pistons became the production standard on all BMW801D

series motors in June 1943.

 

<new Pistons>

 

On the 10th of April 1943 the first flight testing of the new system began with a 25-minute flight in the low

altitude portion of the 1st gear supercharger and resulted in 8 minutes of the systems use. By the 22nd of

April 1943 test flights were using the system as long as 15 minutes and at manifold pressures as high as 1.8ata

between 3.5km and 7km altitude. Initial flight-testing was completed on the 17th of May 1943. The flight test

results concluded however that the system produced 2050PS in the 1st Gear Supercharger and that a manifold pressure

of 1.65ata could be used reliably. As the pressure fell off with altitude however, the standard fuel pump was not

able to provide sufficient quantities of fuel to allow the system to develop additional power in the 2nd Gear

Supercharger. The engine cooling was also not sufficient enough for the system to be used in climbing flight.

The fuel pump could not deliver enough fuel to the left hand supercharger intake to keep cylinder temperatures

within operational limits at climbing speeds. It was felt that a further 50PS of thrust power could be gained

by changing the propeller reduction gearing to a more suitable ratio in order to fully exploit the new power

gains of the motor. The initial testing was completed and the findings compiled by the 19th of July 1943.

It is interesting to note that JG54 begins reporting experience with the new system in 23 July 1943.

This point’s to JG54 conducting operational testing of the system shortly after the completion of the initial

testing and during the endurance trials.

That same month endurance testing began on the new system. Five test aircraft were selected. Three fighter variants

and two fighter-bomber variants were selected with a mix of cooling gill types for the testing. One aircraft,

an FW-190A4 SB+IK was selected to use Methanol Water as a knock limiting injection agent for a total of 4hrs 43

minutes flight time. The aircraft switched back to C3-Einspritzung for the remainder of the testing. A spark plug

change was recommended to the Bosch DW 240 ET 7/1a on all aircraft using C3-Einspritzung.

By August 1943 the RLM was comfortable enough with the reliability and performance increase of the new system to issue

instructions for it’s use in the September 1943 FW-190A4 Flugzeug-Handbuch Teil 07 for Ground attack variants of

the FW-190 series at altitudes of 1 Km and below. The Flugzeug-Handbuch also notes that the system can be retrofitted

onto earlier variants. This required swapping the entire Triebwerk or power egg, as the system required the internal

changes adopted in June 1943 for all serial production BMW801D2’s. The system was limited to one 10-15 minutes use and

the pilot was instructed to watch his oil temperature not allowing it to go over 85 degrees Celsius. During the

testing the oil temperature remained between 70-77 degrees Celsius with the system in use. Fuel consumption was an

average of 70 liters per 5 minutes time flown with C3-Einspritzung.

To overcome the voracious appetite for fuel, Focke Wulf investigated the installation of a 115 liter

zustatzkraftstoffbehältor im rumpf mounted inside the fuselage behind the cockpit. It was found that the tank caused

the CG to move dangerously rearward and made the aircraft unstable. In order to restore the CG, weights were added

to the propeller roots on aircraft using the zustatzkraftstoffbehältor im rumpf. Making the aircraft safe to fly

with this tank would become a stumbling block for Focke Wulf, Gmbh. Mounting the tank on fighter variants became an

issue with RLM in December 1943 and delayed the introduction of the FW-190A8. The ETC 501 rack was moved forward

to restore the CG in serial production FW-190A8, a fill port, and an access hatch was also provided in the fuselage.

The tank installation would not find serial production introduction until the August -September 1944 timeframe

on any BMW801D2 powered variant. This installation can be noted by the presence of C3 warning triangle at the fill

port which must be marked and the presence of the propeller weights. In Geschwaders equipped with the FW190A8 the

tank could be ordered as a separate piece of equipment before its introduction in serial production in October 1944.

The balance issue was eliminated in the FW190A9 by the installation of thicker armor on the oil cooler.

The tanks operational use was limited to aircraft modified by the factory with a special kit in the earlier bomber

and ground attack variants.

 

<propeller weights VDM ersatzteilliste>

<tank installation digram>

 

The next development for C3-Einspritzung occurs after the completion of the endurance testing.

The limits are raised to “as long as the emergency lasts” in the December 1943 FW-190A5 Flugzeug-Handbuch,

Teil 07. During 1943 however, an alarming number of BMW801D2 motors experienced connecting rod failures.

It was not until mid-1944 that the cause was discovered to be a change in the oil formulation that caused

the oil to break down at lower temperatures than expected under stress and heat. These events must have had

an influence on the limitations of C3-Einspritzung. In March 1944 Focke Wulf reissues instructions for the

use of C3-Einspritzung limiting the system to three uses of 10 minutes each with a mandatory 10 minutes cool

down period at Stieg u Kampfleistung or 1.32ata at 2400U/min.

These instructions are reprinted in the February 1944 Flugzeug-Handbuch, Teil 07. By July of 1944 further

instructions are issued stating the system can be used for 10-minutes only.

C3-Einspritzung raised the performance of the FW-190 ground attack variants at altitudes below 1 KM adding an

average speed increase of 35-40kph. This put the Ground Attack variants in the 565kph to 595kph range without

mounted ordinance and depending on the type of wing rack installed on the aircraft. This also put the FW-190

ground attack variants with ordinance racks on equal or slightly superior footing in level speed with most

allied fighters in a clean configuration. On the Eastern Front it was not until the VVS began to acquire in

early 1945 variants of the La7 capable of achieving 612kph using augmented power of the Ash-82FN that they

possessed a fighter capable of intercepting FW-190 ground attack variants below 1km.

 

<Gordan and Khazonov, Soviet Combat

Aircraft of the Second World War. Volume One – Single Engine Fighers>

<C-3 POH picture>

<C3 diagram>

<FW190 performance with C3>

 

Without a doubt C3 Einspritzung contributed greatly to the Schlachtflieger and Bombenflieger survival in combat.

 

Ladedruckerhöhung, Keine C3-Einspritzung!

 

Due to the fact C3-Einspritzung power production fell off after 1 KM in altitude it was quickly realized that an

alternative would have to be developed for use by the Jadgeschwaders. C3-Einspritzung delivered spectacular

performance but the low altitude restrictions made it unsuitable for normal fighter operations.

Erprobungskommando 25 was selected to begin testing of a new system.

 

http://www.ww2.dk/air/jagd/ekdo25.htm

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bekdo25.html

 

An FW-190A5 “Weisse 35” was modified with a new stronger fuel pump and the fittings for this system.

Flight-testing began on 30 August 1943 and was completed on 01 September 1943. It determined that Ladedruckerhöhung

maintained oil and cylinder head temperatures within acceptable limits. Level speeds were increased on average by

36kph at 3KM in altitude and 42 kph at 5 KM altitude with an average increase of 22kph up to the 1st Gear Supercharger FTH.

Erprobungskommando 25 submitted the testing results to BMW and on 01 December 1943 the motor manufacturer returned

clearance for the system to be used for a maximum of ten minutes for further testing. It is evident that BMW was

greatly concerned about the cylinder temperatures in climbing flight. Especially in the heat of summer or the tropics,

the system would push the motor to its extremes. When the motor mounts in the FW-190A5 variant were lengthened to

restore the aircrafts CG limits it introduced a temperature imbalance between the cylinder banks of the BMW801D2.

The front bank of cylinders was now operating at a much cooler temperature than the rear cylinders. This would rob

power production of the motor and cause undue wear on the engine. In October 1943 BMW investigated the summer and

winter performance of the motor. The details of this investigation will be discussed in later articles. What is

evident is that this imbalance delayed the continuation of testing for Ladedruckerhöhung until December 1943.

The problems of cooling the motor in climbing flight combined with production of a pool of operational spare engines

further delayed Ladedruckerhöhung’s appearance in serial production until early summer 1944.

In March 1944, Focke Wulf Bremen issued a report to the RLM on the performance increases of the BMW801D2. In that

report it clearly states that Rechlin has not yet released Ladedruckerhöhung for operational use and was still

conducting testing of the system. When the operational instructions for the systems use show up in the

Flugzeug-Handbuch some major changes had been made to the cooling system by Focke Wulf and BMW.

To increase pressure around the cylinders and providing needed cooling, the baffling was tightened around the motor.

Larger internal intakes were also added to provide the increase in air volume to the supercharger as well.

In July 1944 BMW issues instructions clarifying the two boost systems in place for the BMW801D2.

These instruction notes that Ladedruckerhöhung is now standard on all production Triebwerks used by fighter variants

beginning that same month. The system is cleared for 10 minutes of use in fighter variants at all altitudes and

conditions of flight.

Ladedruckerhöhung first appears in official manuals in the September 1944, (effective July 1944), FW-190A7

bis FW-190A9 Flugzeug Handbuch Teil 07 the system is described as an airline with a series of nozzles and a

push pull valve. Power was gained by bleeding air from the supercharger pressure line.

A flexible tube drew off a portion of the boost pressure when opened and was connected to the supercharger airline

between the fuel mixture chamber and the ladedruckreglar. The two nozzles in series in the line were of different

diameters and designed to bleed off the pressure to a very low level when the actuation valve was opened.

This fooled the Ladedruckreglar of the Kommandgerät into compensating for the lower pressure by opening the butterfly

valves of the throttle wider and increasing the manifold pressure to 1.58ata in the 1st Gear Supercharger FTH

and 1.65ata in the 2nd Gear Supercharger FTH. The stronger fuel pump would then provide the required amount of fuel

increasing both power and fuel consumption. During the summer months it was noted that the system would push the

thermal limits of the motor to their maximum permissible levels. All aircraft mounting the new system will be marked

with a yellow ring 50mm in diameter with a 10mm diameter hole in the center. The ring would mount on the lower left

portion of the MG cover near the cockpit.

 

<EN POH picture>

<EN diagram>

<EN Performance>

<EN power production>

Ladedruckerhöhung improved the performance of the only serial production Anton to receive the modifications, the FW-190A8

considerably. The boost in power was much needed to overcome the 7 % weight creep in the BMW801D2 powered Antons.

Granted this is below average weight creep for a 1st line fighter design in WWII.

<AHT US fighter weight creep>

The power to weight ratio of the FW190A8 was better than FW-190A0 which so impressed the pilots of JG26 in 1941.

The increase in power left the FW190A8 competitive at low altitudes and further improved the dog fighting capability of the design.

These two systems comprise the most common power boosting systems found in the operational Geschwaders using the FW190 series.

The second part of the article will cover Alkohol-Einspritzung, GM-1 Zustatz, and field modifications.

Stayed tuned as there will more to follow shortly!

 

28 minutes ago, Ishtaru said:

 

Short question. Does the real C3 injection has a cooling effect? 

 

yes, both systems do. The extra fuel does have a cooling effect. BUT and this is a big BUT, the BMW running at 2700 rpm and 1.65 boost will generate a lot more heat than running at 2400 rpm and 1.32 boost. The extra C3 fuel compensates a bit but cannot negate all that extra heat.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, InProgress said:

As I see it 300kg is default. It's engine armor that was 6mm and is now 10mm. You can get additional armor glass and sides for pilot as mod + you already have more guns and can get even more as mod. So it's already heavier even without more fuel. 

Like somone said, acceleration when you dive is also lower, would be nice to get some testing but first impression is that it's indeed slower in diving. It may be faster in normal flight but it's not A5.

I don't know why you keep insisting that it's so great and everything. It was already said multiple times, even with some facts and data about losing hp when supercharger switches. It has great guns, lots of bombs and nice armor. Seems like perfect plane to attack bombers and ground targets. I don't see why making it a super fighter if I clearly wasn't one. Yeah if you are Hartmann then you will do great in it too. But there are better planes that fit for doghtigt than A8.

It will probably be main plane for me in bodenplatte but I will make sure to attack B25, ground stuff and occasionally fighters if I will have surprise effect and alt advantage and then run away, it doesn't feel like something I would stay for longer fights. Especially vs late spitfires that will get behind you before you turn 90 degrees :russian_ru:

 

And I can't be the only one, multiple times I read about RAF pilot's engagements withand fw190. I don't know version but from their experience, they were often attacked from above and it was just one pass. 190 did not seem to like engaging in typical combat. But that's just from one squadron opinion in years 42-45.

 

I do enjoy a good chess match. :biggrin:

You are in a good spirit that the D-9 will be different from the A-8 however both planes have the same beloved 115l rear fuel tank. I test each plane did some good missions where I can test very good dive speed whatever against the AI to be sure what I can do and what not then the last test is Dogfight 1 vs 18 if the 18 AI-planes close around me at the highest difficult are not able to take me down I mastered this plane. Best way for me to simulate online experience how it feels to be outnumbered. Every dogfight is a lesson, refining in itself, seek perfection in everything..........

 

Online there is no room for long dogfights. You can expect everytime new enemies whatever plane you fly at the moment. Depends everytime how you handle it and how it is carried out! Defines the pilot.

 

What makes a plane good? If a plane allow you to escape, protect you, firepower, a lot of fuel......................

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Livai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

My guess is that they took whatever available to fit the belly tank. ETC 501 was quite common in Sturmstaffeln and they usually didn´t fly any Jabo missions but dealt with the 4-mots.

 

 

So far, I have only seen a couple of JG 26 airplanes with the Erla-rig (starting with A-6s), Kurt Bühlingen's A-8 (Kommodore JG 2) and a single A-6 (weiße 7) of Sturmstaffel 1.

The other Geschwader clearly didn't use whatever was at hand - they used the ETC. Unless they didn't use any rack at all, which I have only seen a handful of pictures of.

JG 26 probably had some kind of bonus higher up, so they were allowed to fit non-standard equipment.

 

Sturmstaffeln didn' usually carry bombs, but the Luftwaffenführung liked to have the flexibility at hand. IV(Sturm)/JG 3 did deploy to the Invasion Front, though, and carried out Jabo attacks. It took the LW leadership just one week to figure out that something didn't quite fit there…

 

With the war's Progression in 1944, the Sturmstaffeln partially reverted back to normal aircraft - take Ernst Schröder for example, who was allowed to fly a common plain-vanilla A-8, instead of a Sturmbock. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

So far, I have only seen a couple of JG 26 airplanes with the Erla-rig (starting with A-6s), Kurt Bühlingen's A-8 (Kommodore JG 2) and a single A-6 (weiße 7) of Sturmstaffel 1.

The other Geschwader clearly didn't use whatever was at hand - they used the ETC. Unless they didn't use any rack at all, which I have only seen a handful of pictures of.

JG 26 probably had some kind of bonus higher up, so they were allowed to fit non-standard equipment.

 

Sturmstaffeln didn' usually carry bombs, but the Luftwaffenführung liked to have the flexibility at hand. IV(Sturm)/JG 3 did deploy to the Invasion Front, though, and carried out Jabo attacks. It took the LW leadership just one week to figure out that something didn't quite fit there…

 

With the war's Progression in 1944, the Sturmstaffeln partially reverted back to normal aircraft - take Ernst Schröder for example, who was allowed to fly a common plain-vanilla A-8, instead of a Sturmbock. 

 

Yes that might very well be the case. I recently read something online (non related to the ETC stuff) about the Sturmbock /R2 and /R8 Rüstsätze and I take it from that article that on the operational level a lot of variety was present, because those men fought for their lives and usually knew what was the best gear for them. Some interesting stuff here:

 

http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/2010/09/difference-between-fw190a-8r2-and-8r8.html

 

Conclusion from site above:

 

"The reason for all these apparent adhoc variations in the Sturm config is straight forward and largely determined by the pressure of events at unit level. Invariably caught by the P-51s before being able to reach the bombers, by September 1944 through November, December and culminating on 14 January 1945 - when huge numbers of them were shot down -the Sturm 190 pilots were having to fight for their lives."

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great find! Falkeeins is always worth a visit!

 

I had wondered About the differences between the R2 and R8 variants before, but I never came to a "bottom line".

 

I'll probably have to look for Lorant's two volumes on JG 300 - those are still missing in my library. But I'm out of budget for the months to come, concerning heavy book Investments 😅

 

=======

 

Completely unrelated:

How can I selectively drop each SC250 in the 3x SC250 configuration?

I've just seen Der Sheriff do it on YouTube (so it must!!11 be true). I'm not really Feeling too fuzzy about asymmetric pullouts, but what can you do as a poor ole Schlachtflieger fella?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

That would be a mod that never existed so no, I hope that doesn't happen.

well it was wired for both cannons, so why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, -[HRAF]BubiHUN said:

well it was wired for both cannons, so why not?

 

It was planned but probably never realized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

How can I selectively drop each SC250 in the 3x SC250 configuration?

Bombs drop one at a time. I think only in middle with 50kg ones you can choose First, middle or last. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

 

Completely unrelated:

How can I selectively drop each SC250 in the 3x SC250 configuration?

I've just seen Der Sheriff do it on YouTube (so it must!!11 be true). I'm not really Feeling too fuzzy about asymmetric pullouts, but what can you do as a poor ole Schlachtflieger fella?

You can switch first, middle, last but it seems to drop only first or last...middle settings still drops underbelly last.

 

You can also select manually: all with 70 ms delay: or all at the same time with the drop bombs delay toggle under weapons bindings.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the bomb delay that you are looking for. If you select 'drop manually' the plane will drop one bomb every time you hit the button. You can even select when the middle bomb goes in this mode, if you find that to be useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

The cylinder head temperature was increased by 13°C on the hottest cylinder compared to normal combat power and was 211°C in 6 km altitude, where outside air temperature was equal to summer conditions, so that for tropical conditions 221°C result. The flight speed was Va = 265-270 km/h and the cooling flaps were opened to "position 3".

 

I made some climb tests in the QMB at summer condtions yesterday. Airstart at 300m alt and bleeding speed to near the 270 kph mark in a hard turn and then started to climb at between 265-270 kph at both power settings (1.32ata and 1.58/65ata. Cooling flap position was at 3 which is 50% in the A8 but at 75% in the A5 according to the markings in the cockpit. So i was not sure which setting to use because the A8 has a different coolingflap position indicater so i tested both settings in the A8.

 

Results were that i could not climb with cooling flap position at both positions (50% and 75%)  while keeping 265-270 kph to 6 km altitude. Overheat message appeared at 2740m alt with 75% cooling flap and 1.32ata. The engine was completely destroyed at 4480m alt and it was difficult to maintain climb speed because of ever increasing rpm and manifold pressure fluctuations shortly after the overheat message appeared in every test run. The second test with 50% (position 3) cooling flaps and 1.32ata was shorter which was to be expected. 

 

The next test was at 1.58/65ata with 75% cooling flaps (position 4 on the indicator). Overheat message appeared at around 3500m alt and engine died at 4350m alt. Another test was in the A5 at 1.32ata with 75% cooling flaps (position 3 on the indicator). I climbed to 8k altitude without any problems. Temps were very low at around 60°c.

 

So the A8 is indeed much hotter on the same maniflod pressures like 1.2ata and 1.32ata and the same cooling flap postions compared to the A5. What do you guys think? Everything how it should be or can it be, just be, a mistake by the devs?

 

By the way, does 0,0m altitude means starting fom the ground or begin the climb as low as possible? I would like to do some climb time tests to compare with rl data like the ones posted here. What is the exact procedure? Takeoff and immidietly climbing after landing gear is up at 270 kph? At which point should i start the stopwatch? Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know of no reason for the A-8 to run hotter than the A-5. If anything, cooling capacity of the later engine could be slightly better, owing to various, minor, undocumented improvements which typically take place in a period of a year or more. Additionally, from a historical perspective, overheating in a climb in moderate conditions with cowls open was no issue for the BMW801 installation on the Fw190A. So it sounds as if the A-8 was modelled wrong.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will never ever have something similar to the real life FW.

 

RUSSIAN COMBAT EXPERIENCES WITH THE FW-190

In all probability the Germans have used their FW-190s on the Russian front to a much lesser extent than elsewhere, and the standards of air combat on that front very likely differ from those over Western Europe and in the Mediterranean.

The following translation of an article which appeared in the "Red Fleet" compares some of the tactics used by the German and Russian fighter planes (FW-190 and La-5). It should be pointed out that these observations apply particularly to the Russian front and are not necessarily in line with experiences in other European theaters. This translation is published without evaluation or comment, purely for its informational value in presenting Russian opinion concerning the FW-190, as printed in the "Red Fleet."

*          *          *

The FW-190 first appeared on the Soviet-German front at the end of 1942. This is the first high-speed German fighter with an air-cooled engine. In comparison with the Me-109 and its modernized versions, the Me-109F and the Me-109G, the FW-190 is of a higher quality.

The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight. The FW-190 has a large supply of ammunition, with 15 seconds of cannon fire, and 50 seconds of constant machine-gun fire. For this reason the gunners are not economical with their ammunition, and often open up the so-called "frightening fire". The pilots have good visibility laterally, forward, upward and rearward. A fairly good horizontal maneuver permits the FW-190 to turn at low speed without falling into a tail spin. An armored ring on the front part of the engine provides the pilot with reliable protection; for this reason, the FW-190's quite often make frontal attacks. In this way they differ from the Me-109s.

One shortcoming of the FW-190 is its weight. The lightest model of this plane weighs 3,500 kgs. (7,700 lbs), while the average weight is from 3,800 (8,360 lbs) to 3,900 kgs. (8,580 lbs). Since the FW-190 is so heavy and does not have a high-altitude engine, pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers. Another weak point in the FW-190 is the poor visibility downward, both forward and rearward. The FW-190 is seriously handicapped in still another way; there is no armor around the gas tanks, which are situated under the pilot's seat and behind it. From below, the pilot is not protected in any way; from behind, the only protection is the ordinary seat-back with 15-mm of armor. Even bullets from our large caliber machine guns penetrate this armor, to say nothing of cannon.

The main problem confronting our fliers is that of forcing the Germans to fight from positions advantageous to us.

The FW-190's eagerly make frontal attacks. Their methods of conducting fire in such cases is quite stereotyped. To begin with the Germans open fire with long-range ammunition from the horizontal cannons at a distance of 1,000 meters (3,200 feet). At 500 or 400 meters (1,000 or 1,300 feet) the FW-190 opens fire from all guns. Since the planes approach each other at an extremely great speed during frontal attacks one should never, under any circumstances, turn from the given course. Fire should be opened at a distance of 700 or 800 meters, (2,300 or 2,600 feet). Practice has shown that in frontal attacks both planes are so damaged that, in the majority of cases, they are compelled to drop out of the battle. Therefore, frontal attacks with FW-190's may be made only when the battle happens to be over our territory. Frontal engagements over enemy territory, or even more so in the enemy rear, should be avoided.

If a frontal attack of an FW-190 should fail the pilot usually attempts to change the attacks into a turning engagement. Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed. Our Lavochkin-5 may freely take up the challenge, if the pilot uses the elevator tabs correctly. By using your foot to hold the plane from falling into a tail spin you can turn the La-5 at an exceedingly low speed, thus keeping the FW from getting on your tail.

When fighting the La-5, the FW risks a vertical maneuver only at high speed. For example, let us assume that the first frontal attack of an FW failed. The plane then goes on ahead and prepares for a second frontal attack. If it fails a second time, the pilot turns sharply to the side and goes into a steep dive. On coming out of the dive, he picks up speed in horizontal flight and engages the opposing plane in a vertical maneuver.

Vertical-maneuver fighting with the FW-190 is usually of short duration since our planes have a better rate of climb than the German planes, and because the Germans are unable to withstand tense battles of any length.

The winner in present air battles must have an advantage in altitude. This is especially true with regard to the FW-190. "Once a comrade of mine and I engaged two FW-190's at a height of 3,500 meters (10,850 ft). After three energetic attacks we succeeded in chasing the two FW-190's down to 1,500 meters (4,650 ft). All the while we kept our advantage in height. As usual the German tried, out of an inverted turn, to get away and below, but I got one in my sight and shot it down. After that we immediately went up to 3,700 meters (11,470 ft) and met another group of FW-190's as they were attacking one of our Pe-2 bombers. We made use of our advantage in height and by vertical attacks succeeded in chasing the Germans away and also shot one down."

When following a diving FW you should never dive below the other enemy planes. When two planes dive the one following the leader should come out of the dive in such a way as to be at an advantage over the leading plane in height and speed. In this way the tail of the leading plane will be protected; at the same time, the second plane will also be able to open up direct fire against the enemy.

In fighting the FW-190 our La-5 should force the Germans to fight by using the vertical maneuver. This may be achieved by constantly making vertical attacks. The first climb of the FW is usually good, the second worse, and the third altogether poor. This may be explained by the fact that the FW's great weight does not permit it to gather speed quickly in the vertical maneuver. After two or three persistent attacks by our fighters the FWs completely lose their advantage in height and in speed, and inevitably find themselves below. And because of this, they are sure to drop out of the battle into a straight dive (sometimes up to 90 degrees) with the idea of gaining height on the side, and then of coming in again from the side of the sun with an advantage in speed and height. At times it happens that the FW, after diving, does not gain altitude, but attempts to drop out of the battle altogether in low flight. However, the FW-190 is never able to come out of a dive below 300 or 250 meters (930 ft or 795 ft). Coming out of a dive, made from 1,500 meters (4,650 ft) and at an angle of 40 to 45 degrees, the FW-190 falls an extra 200 meters (620 ft).

A shortcoming of the FW-190 is its poor climbing ability. When climbing in order to get an altitude advantage over the enemy, there is a moment when the FW-190 "hangs" in the air. It is then convenient to fire. Therefore, when following a FW-190 in a dive, you should bring your plane out of the dive slightly before the FW comes out of it, in order to catch up with him on the vertical plane. In other words, when the FW comes out of the dive you should bring your plane out in such a way as to have an advantage over the enemy in height. If this can be achieved, the FW-190 becomes a fine target when it "hangs". Direct fire should be opened up at a short distance, 50 to 100 meters (150 to 300 ft). It should also be remembered that the weakest spots of the FW-190 are below and behind--the gasoline tanks and the pilot's legs, which are not protected.

Throughout the whole engagement with a FW-190, it is necessary to maintain the highest speed possible. The Lavochkin-5 will then have, when necessary, a good vertical maneuver, and consequently, the possibility of getting away from an enemy attack or on the contrary, of attacking. It should further be kept in mind that the La-5 and the FW-190 in outward appearance resemble each other very much; therefore, careful observation is of great importance. We may emphasize once more: never let an enemy plane gain an altitude advantage over you and you will win the fight.

Edited by GHA_Valfreyja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, GHA_Valfreyja said:

We will never ever have something similar to the real life FW.

 

RUSSIAN COMBAT EXPERIENCES WITH THE FW-190

………

 

There are also many other evaluation and description that show FW190 is not a good turn-fighter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JtD said:

I know of no reason for the A-8 to run hotter than the A-5. If anything, cooling capacity of the later engine could be slightly better, owing to various, minor, undocumented improvements which typically take place in a period of a year or more. Additionally, from a historical perspective, overheating in a climb in moderate conditions with cowls open was no issue for the BMW801 installation on the Fw190A. So it sounds as if the A-8 was modelled wrong.

 

What do you mean with moderate conditions? Does the QMB summer condtions count as moderate? Because i made my tests in summer. The reason is that i wanted to compare climb times with the test document that Sgt_Joch posted which said: "The oil inlet temperature was increased from 73°C to 88°C (permissible for 15 min 80°C) by the increased climb power when reaching 8 km altitude. Since the outside air temperature was equal to highest summer temperature, this value is permissible for a short time".

 

I did a few other tests while starting from the ground this time. I started the stop watch directly after liftoff. Target altitude was 6km just to test the cooling flaps fully opened. Temps were still overheating even with fully opened cooling flaps. While the test document mentioned something about the cooling flap setting: "6 km altitude, where outside air temperature was equal to summer conditions, so that for tropical conditions 221°C result. The flight speed was Va = 265-270 km/h and the cooling flaps were opened to "position 3". Position 3 in the A8 is at 50% cooling flaps. Not possible for me to climb to 6000m alt without the engine overheating and getting destroyed with that cooling flap postion. Even fully opened the engine still overheats.

 

Results in summer conditions are:

Test 1: Groundstart FW 190 A8 with 50% fuel (319L) without any mods. Engine at 1.32ata with cooling flaps fully open. Climbing after takeoff at 265-270kph. Overheat started at 5250m alt. Time to 6000m alt was 9:31 mins.

Notes: Barely made it to 6000m alt without destroying the engine. RPM and MP fluctuations due to overheating.

 

Test 2: Groundstart FW 190 A8 with 50% fuel (319L) without any mods. Engine at 1.42ata with cooling flaps fully open. Climbing after takeoff at 265-270kph. Overheat started at 4700m alt. Time to 4950m alt was 6:11 mins.

Notes: Didnt made it to 6000m alt. Engine was damaged at around 4600m alt and was destroyed at 4950m alt due to a mysterious destruction device in the engine which starts a destruction timer after 3 mins at 1.42ata. Actually 1.42ata lasted for 6:11 mins. Yay :)

 

Test 3: Groundstart FW 190 A8 with 50% fuel (319L) without any mods. Engine at 1.58/65ata with cooling flaps fully open. Climbing after takeoff at 265-270kph. Overheat started at 4400m alt. Time to 6000m alt was 7:30 mins.

Notes: Engine was destroyed shortly after reaching 6000m alt. Heavy RPM and MP fluctuations due to overheating right before the engine stopped.

Edited by Ishtaru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ishtaru

 

why did you made the test with 50% fuel? Is that an historical procedure?

is time from the groundstart to the max altitude or from the start of climb to the max altitude?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Arsenal53 said:

why did you made the test with 50% fuel? Is that an historical procedure?

is time from the groundstart to the max altitude or from the start of climb to the max altitude?

 

Because that is the fuel load i like to enter aircombat with. Enough time fight and return to base afterwards. Just a personel thing and nothing official. Want to know the climb perfomrance at these fuel loads. 

 

As soon as i lift off the ground i start the stopwatch and try to keep 265-270 kph till i arrive at my target alt. I stop the stopwatch every 1000 meters so i dont have to do extra tests for other altitudes. I start from anapa airfield and climb with the sea below me while using the gui to read the exact altitude to the water. Anapa is about 40 meters or so above sea level but i want to test different planes also so i need to make sure that all conditions are the same. Even the messurement instrument.

 

Here is another test in summer conditions:

 

Test 1: Groundstart FW 190 A8 with 50% fuel (319L) without any mods. Engine at 1.32ata with cooling flaps fully open. Climbing after takeoff at 265-270kph. Overheat started at 5219m alt. Time to 5700m alt was 8:39 mins.

 

1:21 min to 1000m alt
2:37 min to 2000m alt
4:08 min to 3000m alt 
5:44 min to 4000m alt
7:26 min to 5000m alt
8:39 min to 5700m alt

 

Notes: Slight fluctuations in RPM and MP after overheat warning appeard.
 

Would be nice to go higher but the RPM and Engine fluctuations after overhaeting are getting worse the longer you keep climbing which degrades performance. I will repeat the tests to get a better feeling and to see if i can do better. Staying between 265 and 270 kph all the time is a challenge while also holding my handy in the left hand to stop the stopwatch every 1000 meters. :)

Edited by Ishtaru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the plane overheats very fast. There should be a change in the temps as noted in the original documents but damagin the enging that easy, is that accurate? I don't think these planes would fly for the LW in this condition.

 

I didn't get to steep climbs but in a normal flight it doesen't tend to overheat that much unless you use the 1,58/1,65 ata. Notes aside, overheating problems should be only important in my opinion whit this system enabled, so in a climb there shouldn't be any problem in combat rating of 1,32.

Edited by LF_ManuV
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even at erhöhte Notleistung, the A8 should not get damaged with cooling flaps at postion 3 (50% or 75%?) according to the tests posted here from Sgt_Joch in summer condtions while climbing at 270 kph from 0.0km to 8km alt. The same engine but another airframe (A5 with erhöhte Notlesitung). At least this is how i interpret the test document. So if i misunderstood something, pls correct me.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/BMW-VB-126.html

 

Results:

 

2.) The time to climb reduction in a climb from 0,0 km to 8,0 with n = 2700 rpm, pL = 1.65 ata compared to n = 2400 rpm, pL = 1.32 ata was 3'39". With a total climbing time of 12'17" at n = 2400 rpm this equals 30%. The cylinder head temperatures were alright, the oil inlet temperature was after reaching 8,0 km 88°C with n = 2700 rpm compared to 73° with n = 2400 rpm.
Faults on aircraft or engine did not occur during testing."
 

II.) Time to climb reduction (annex 2):

 

3.) Cylinder head temperatures:
The cylinder head temperature was increased by 13°C on the hottest cylinder compared to normal combat power and was 211°C in 6 km altitude, where outside air temperature was equal to summer conditions, so that for tropical conditions 221°C result. The flight speed was Va = 265-270 km/h and the cooling flaps were opened to "position 3".

 

4.) Oil temperatures:
The oil inlet temperature was increased from 73°C to 88°C (permissible for 15 min 80°C) by the increased climb power when reaching 8 km altitude. Since the outside air temperature was equal to highest summer temperature, this value is permissible for a short time. But the oil temperature has to be regarded as a criterion and only a larger test basis can make a final decision possible. (I would like to know about the larger test results and final dicision)
 

In one of my tests i had the engine overheated at 6km alt while oil was at 80°C. So you cant allways rely on the temp gauge. This is a bit tricky. So if we not notice the RPM and MP starting to jump forth and back early enough, we might damage the engine or worse. At least there are signs before the engine gets damaged, not like the instant destruction without any warning when using Notleistung to long. But climbing to 8k in the A8 is impossible in summer conditions ingame for me at erhöhte Notlesitung. You cant even reach 6km alt without destroying the engine with fully open cooling flaps. I really hope this will be noticed by the devs and maybe gets fixed at some point.

 

Edit: I made more tests with both aircrafts in summer conditions (QMB). The one with the A8 was my best result for the A8 so far. Both planes at the same condtions and settings. 

 

Test 1: Groundstart FW 190 A8 with 50% fuel (319L) without any mods. Engine at 1.32ata with cooling flaps fully open. Climbing after takeoff at 265-270kph. Overheat started at 5280m alt. Time to 6000m alt was 9:02 mins.

 

1:16 min to 1000m alt 1:16 min
2:33 min to 2000m alt = 1:16 min
4:05 min to 3000m alt = 1:31 min
5:37 min to 4000m alt = 1:32 min
7:18 min to 5000m alt = 1:41 min
8:31 min to 5700m alt = 1:12 min
9:02 min to 6000m alt = 0:31 min

 

Notes: RPM and Manifoldpressure fluctuations due to overheating.
 

Test 2: Groundstart FW 190 A5 with 60% fuel (314L) with outer wing guns mod. Engine at 1.32ata with cooling flaps 75% open (postition 3). Climbing after takeoff at 265-270kph. Time to 6000m alt was 8:11 mins.

 

1:11 min to 1000m alt 
2:23 min to 2000m alt 
3:43 min to 3000m alt
5:08 min to 4000m alt
6:36 min to 5000m alt
7:46 min to 5700m alt
8:11 min to 6000m alt

 

Notes: No problems with temps. Not my best test. I guess i can improve this.
 

I really would like to have the option to disable engine timers by the way. :)

Edited by Ishtaru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, s9723 said:

 

There are also many other evaluation and description that show FW190 is not a good turn-fighter.

 

Every good research book of FW190 said that FW pilots liked maneuvers at horizontal axis and the engine was very hard to destroy, one report said that one pilot reached home with 13 of 14 cylinders destroyed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ishtaru said:

Even at erhöhte Notleistung, the A8 should not get damaged with cooling flaps at postion 3 (50% or 75%?) according to the tests posted here from Sgt_Joch in summer condtions while climbing at 270 kph from 0.0km to 8km alt. The same engine but another airframe (A5 with erhöhte Notlesitung). At least this is how i interpret the test document. So if i misunderstood something, pls correct me.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/BMW-VB-126.html

 

 

 

Hi, the test is correct, but you have to apply it with a certain reserve since it was a test of a prototype, actually a A5 modified to run with the new hardware. It is not a test of a production A8. To know what the actual climbing procedure should be, one should check the A8 flight manual.

 

Based on the extract below, it does appear that a climb in hot weather like in your test would push the engine to its limit:

 

Quote

An FW-190A5 “Weisse 35” was modified with a new stronger fuel pump and the fittings for this system.

Flight-testing began on 30 August 1943 and was completed on 01 September 1943. It determined that Ladedruckerhöhung

maintained oil and cylinder head temperatures within acceptable limits. Level speeds were increased on average by

36kph at 3KM in altitude and 42 kph at 5 KM altitude with an average increase of 22kph up to the 1st Gear Supercharger FTH.

Erprobungskommando 25 submitted the testing results to BMW and on 01 December 1943 the motor manufacturer returned

clearance for the system to be used for a maximum of ten minutes for further testing. It is evident that BMW was

greatly concerned about the cylinder temperatures in climbing flight. Especially in the heat of summer or the tropics,

the system would push the motor to its extremes. When the motor mounts in the FW-190A5 variant were lengthened to

restore the aircrafts CG limits it introduced a temperature imbalance between the cylinder banks of the BMW801D2.

The front bank of cylinders was now operating at a much cooler temperature than the rear cylinders. This would rob

power production of the motor and cause undue wear on the engine. In October 1943 BMW investigated the summer and

winter performance of the motor. The details of this investigation will be discussed in later articles. What is

evident is that this imbalance delayed the continuation of testing for Ladedruckerhöhung until December 1943.

The problems of cooling the motor in climbing flight combined with production of a pool of operational spare engines

further delayed Ladedruckerhöhung’s appearance in serial production until early summer 1944.

In March 1944, Focke Wulf Bremen issued a report to the RLM on the performance increases of the BMW801D2. In that

report it clearly states that Rechlin has not yet released Ladedruckerhöhung for operational use and was still

conducting testing of the system. When the operational instructions for the systems use show up in the

Flugzeug-Handbuch some major changes had been made to the cooling system by Focke Wulf and BMW.

To increase pressure around the cylinders and providing needed cooling, the baffling was tightened around the motor.

Larger internal intakes were also added to provide the increase in air volume to the supercharger as well.

In July 1944 BMW issues instructions clarifying the two boost systems in place for the BMW801D2.

These instruction notes that Ladedruckerhöhung is now standard on all production Triebwerks used by fighter variants

beginning that same month. The system is cleared for 10 minutes of use in fighter variants at all altitudes and

conditions of flight.

Ladedruckerhöhung first appears in official manuals in the September 1944, (effective July 1944), FW-190A7

bis FW-190A9 Flugzeug Handbuch Teil 07 the system is described as an airline with a series of nozzles and a

push pull valve. Power was gained by bleeding air from the supercharger pressure line.

A flexible tube drew off a portion of the boost pressure when opened and was connected to the supercharger airline

between the fuel mixture chamber and the ladedruckreglar. The two nozzles in series in the line were of different

diameters and designed to bleed off the pressure to a very low level when the actuation valve was opened.

This fooled the Ladedruckreglar of the Kommandgerät into compensating for the lower pressure by opening the butterfly

valves of the throttle wider and increasing the manifold pressure to 1.58ata in the 1st Gear Supercharger FTH

and 1.65ata in the 2nd Gear Supercharger FTH. The stronger fuel pump would then provide the required amount of fuel

increasing both power and fuel consumption. During the summer months it was noted that the system would push the

thermal limits of the motor to their maximum permissible levels. All aircraft mounting the new system will be marked

with a yellow ring 50mm in diameter with a 10mm diameter hole in the center. The ring would mount on the lower left

portion of the MG cover near the cockpit.

 

Edited by Sgt_Joch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minute 2’50” : How significant is the weigh , obout increasing the  protection of a BF109 G2 the weight armament extra machine guns in the performance and response about the plane ? : answer: Has no any significant influence in the response performance and response of the plane , like if it is half fuel tank or is full is insignificant . The response of the plane is more or less the same .

 

March 1945 Fw190 F8 with sc 1000kg 

this need take of runaway of more than  1 km .

like FW190 F8 U1:

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/differences-between-fw-190-a8-and-the-fw-190-f8.21164/

 

Some times when I though this example

These days I usually go to the airport with the Audi-A4 Avant 4 , to take 4 persons of 90 kilograms with 4 suitcases of 25 kilograms 460-480 like 500 kilograms less when I go there and more I return with the passage at 200 Km/h speed and I do not realise any significant difference for the highway in acceleration in performance an also in the curves at top speed my car weight 1500 kilograms and has about 200 horses power , I do not realise any significant difference and also when I go  alone with full deposit of 70 liters gasoline 98 octanes and them I return with the other full Deposit of Propano GLP of 65 litres in the  place of the auxiliary wheel and with about a plus +500 kilograms of the passage of more  weight?! .

SO ! 

For a plane that weights 3200 kilograms and has more than 2000 horses power a bomb of 500 kilograms is that a change of significant lost of performance and affect the plane response at +-400;500;600 km/h?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by RAY-EU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LF_ManuV said:

Looks like the plane overheats very fast. There should be a change in the temps as noted in the original documents but damagin the enging that easy, is that accurate? I don't think these planes would fly for the LW in this condition.

 

I didn't get to steep climbs but in a normal flight it doesen't tend to overheat that much unless you use the 1,58/1,65 ata. Notes aside, overheating problems should be only important in my opinion whit this system enabled, so in a climb there shouldn't be any problem in combat rating of 1,32.

What's intersting is that the plane's top speed is effected greatly by the cooling flaps. The a8 is in fact much faster,  for example, at 100% power with 0% outlet cowls with boost off (1.42 ata) than with boost on and 100% outlet cowls.

 

On Moscow Autumn with 0 wind at 500m atmospheric altitude I got 562kmh with the former and 550kmh with the latter.

 

Of course it is impossible to run the former setting indefinately, but a possible reason it seems slow is because pilots are over cautious with the cooling. 

 

The technochat 'overheat' warning is over cautious on some planes, like the A20. With the A20 you can safely run much higher temperatures than the technochat would have you believe. The poor cooling indication in the FW190 series of planes doesn't help though, so you have to rely on the technochat somewhat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK, the FW190 A8 we have in the sim is powered by the 801/TU engine.  This engine incorporated modifications used in the development of the 2400 hp BMW 801F, which permitted the engine to run at 1.58 and 1.65ata. As more parts from 801F development were added to the 801, designation changed again and all aircraft with the latest engine were then designated FW190A-9.

 

Currently, the A8 has strange behavior in which it overheats after 3 minutes at 1.42ata (100% throttle, without boost)...while being also capable of running 1.58 and 1.65ata (100% with boost) for up to 10 minutes limitation with the higher cylinder head temperatures associated with these boost pressures.

 

This 1.42ata restriction seems to be based on the A8 POM for earlier 801D2 (F600) powerplants, so we have now both limitations of 801D2 powerplants along with benefits of 801TU powerplant.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

AFAIK, the FW190 A8 we have in the sim is powered by the 801/TU engine.  This engine incorporated modifications used in the development of the 2400 hp BMW 801F, which permitted the engine to run at 1.58 and 1.65ata. As more parts from 801F development were added to the 801, designation changed again and all aircraft with the latest engine were then designated FW190A-9.

 

Currently, the A8 has strange behavior in which it overheats after 3 minutes at 1.42ata (100% throttle, without boost)...while being also capable of running 1.58 and 1.65ata (100% with boost) for up to 10 minutes limitation with the higher cylinder head temperatures associated with these boost pressures.

 

This 1.42ata restriction seems to be based on the A8 POM for earlier 801D2 (F600) powerplants, so we have now both limitations of 801D2 powerplants along with benefits of 801TU powerplant.

 

 

I haven't tested the plane extensively but does it run at 1.65 ATA? It should reach 680@5.2k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, GHA_Valfreyja said:

 

Every good research book of FW190 said that FW pilots liked maneuvers at horizontal axis and the engine was very hard to destroy, one report said that one pilot reached home with 13 of 14 cylinders destroyed

 

I agree that FW190 should be a tough aircraft. Due to high wingload & stall speed of FW190, turn-fight would hardly be beneficial when pilots of both sides have equal skill. German evaluation of captured La-5FN suggests that A8 pilots should avoid prolonged turning dog-fight with La.

 

1 hour ago, GHA_Valfreyja said:

I haven't tested the plane extensively but does it run at 1.65 ATA? It should reach 680@5.2k

 

Only testbed A5 running at 1.65ata can reach 680kph. A8 with 4*MG151 & 2*MG131 just reachs 652kph. Adding ETC501 results in further ~15kph speed decreasing.

Edited by s9723

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A detail about ETC 501 : the two longitudinal support bars were removed when loaded with a bomb and were mounted only when carrying a 300 l. drop tank.

Two exemples below found on museums Fw 190s to illustrate. But wartime photographs confirm this difference.

2DC43932-0F6F-405A-9F00-0DD00BB97F26.jpeg.f9333a6efd0df0120c3d4d8d2ff6fecb.jpeg7D1F1138-EA28-4E52-B036-4843EC47F64D.jpeg.a165a37ba766d71118c61f947771f3a9.jpeg

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×