US planes vs D-9 & K4

[LColony_Kong]

20 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

Obviously the Russians did not have enough supply of Allisons even to support their own small P-40's my point is only that in 1941 if it could reliably produce 1700+hp it would have been a game changer. Engine limits in game stop this from happening 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

Yes and I dont want a 1700bhp p40. The main issue of contention is time limits of aircraft with regulated MP. Not allowing higher than authorized settings. The p40 and planes like it would likely need their own solution. 

[Ehret]

24 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

Obviously the Russians did not have enough supply of Allisons even to support their own small P-40's my point is only that in 1941 if it could reliably produce 1700+hp it would have been a game changer. Engine limits in game stop this from happening

 

Then in this game we must have very poor modelling of the P-40 because IRL it was not. Yet, in the "sim" it is and only the sacred timer stops us from the catastrophe...

 

What is that? A religion of timer crutches on a top of poor modelling?!

Edited April 6, 2019 by Ehret

[Dakpilot]

IRL you could do this with an Allison. 

 

It is just that  real pilots of WW2 did not treat their aircraft like some sort of Mario Kart or similar 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[Ehret]

16 hours ago, 77.CountZero said:

timers will be in game, as they need to be in game, as in game we always take new airlane and dont care if we abuse the engine, so they will always use this fantasy timers.

 

Timers aren't in the game for all planes. You get a fresh Yak or La-5F every time you spawn. Were they immune to wear, abuse, defects or failures?

 

Why is it continuously overlooked?! Perhaps because it make timer justifications look silly.

Why there is such hysteria against the US pursuit planes, too? The P-39s were among best scoring western planes in the history of the WW2 in the VVS service. It's inconceivable that Pokryshkin (and his squadron) could score that high if he was flying such endurance cripple we have in the game.

[LColony_Kong]

16 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

IRL you could do this with an Allison. 

 

It is just that  real pilots of WW2 did not treat their aircraft like some sort of Mario Kart or similar 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

So your admitting you want unrealistic engines because people will fly like Mario. I can think of several other mechanical things we could screw up in game because people dont use them realistically 

Edited April 6, 2019 by Fumes

[Ehret]

36 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

IRL you could do this with an Allison. 

 

It is just that  real pilots of WW2 did not treat their aircraft like some sort of Mario Kart or similar

 

Show me historic tests of P-40 doing that. Real fighter pilots would prioritize threats; if you have a bandit on your six and you could tap these +1700hp you would. Prolonging TBO will you do no good if you have a bullet in your torso.

 

And if you find a historic P-40 doing +1700hp in tests why we can not have one in the game? A game which is supposed to be based on history...

Edited April 6, 2019 by Ehret

[CountZero]

2 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

Timers aren't in the game for all planes. You get a fresh Yak or La-5F every time you spawn. Were they immune to wear, abuse, defects or failures?

 

Why is it continuously overlooked?! Perhaps because it make timer justifications look silly.

Why there is such hysteria against the US pursuit planes, too? The P-39s were among best scoring western planes in the history of the WW2 in the VVS service. It's inconceivable that Pokryshkin (and his squadron) could score that high if he was flying such endurance cripple we have in the game.

You can waist your time fighting timers system  and nothing will change, or you can just play the game and propose some simple changes that will make timers more bearable, (like some info when they run out, or eaqual emrgancy eating combat timer on axis airplanes like on usaf ) and maybe something will change, i see no reason why devs will change system they hav now for something els and spend their time on it insted something els, ull just be ignored.

[Ehret]

Just now, 77.CountZero said:

You can waist your time fighting timers system  and nothing will change, or you can just play the game and propose some simple changes that will make timers more bearable,

 

No - I'm not fighting timers system as such. I'm trying to justify playing the game longer in a hope that something improves. I have a way to make my virtual hobby perfectly bearable; enjoyable again even.

12 minutes ago, Fumes said:

So your admitting you want unrealistic engines because people will fly like Mario. I can think of several other mechanical things we could screw up in game because people dont use them realistically 

 

I dunno about him but his justifications are hilarious because people are already flying like Mario. Only thing you need to do that is to select "a correct plane"; like the La-5F or the K4 and just enjoy your full/high-bore lasting the whole fuel load.

 

It's only the US pursuit planes "plebs" which is forbidden from doing so.

[Kurfurst]

Glorious Sonderforsazh Masterrace

Vs

Puny Pursuit Peon

 

Round MDCXIII

[Ehret]

11 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Glorious Sonderforsazh Masterrace

Vs

Puny Pursuit Peon

 

For a feudal system to stay it must have many more peons than lords. Otherwise it will crumble and you have severe peons shortages, already.

[Pict]

The OP's original question;

On 3/31/2019 at 11:51 PM, SCG_ErwinP said:

So, my question is: will the US planes (P-38, P51, P47) catch me up at this altitude in similar situation?

 

Appeared to me to be well answered in the second post;

On 3/31/2019 at 11:56 PM, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

P-51 maybe depending on how it is modelled.

 

With the logical inclusion of the Tempest as another contemporary for the K4 & D9;

On 4/1/2019 at 7:10 PM, easyhomewin said:

Not sure about the US planes, but the tempest would have caught you according to this:

Spoiler

 

 

I would like to know what other contemporary aircraft the K4 & D9 faced and how they would fare in the OP's original question? My guess is these would include the Spitfire Mk.14 (Mk.12 as well possibly) and the La-7?

 

==============

 

The WEP debate seems a little off topic to me, particularly in relation to a P-40's top speed on the deck and I'm surprised the dead horsemen haven't showed up yet  

 

But dead horse spotting seems to be about as consistent as WEP timers in BOX, where some of us can look at chicken wings and see a dead horse...

Spoiler

 

...but others have a somewhat livelier sense of imagination 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited April 6, 2019 by Pict

[Legioneod]

5 minutes ago, Pict said:

I would like to know what other contemporary aircraft the K4 & D9 faced and how they would fare in the OP's original question? My guess is these would include the Spitfire Mk.14 (Mk.12 as well possibly) and the La-7?

 

Well speed wise, with 150 fuel the P-47 and P-51 would have little trouble hanging with 109s and 190s at the OPs altitude, the XIV would be close as well.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

People don't mind getting factory fresh perfect airframes (which certain nations didn't even have the quality control to reliably produce) which they willingly over-g the hell out of every flight with no long term degradation, or factory fresh cannons and machine guns with perfect spread but certain members don't want factory fresh perfect engines and instead want to "simulate" long term engine use with dictatorial timers based solely on manuals.

 

Really makes me think.

Edited April 6, 2019 by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal

[Sublime]

18 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

People don't mind getting factory fresh perfect airframes (which certain nations didn't even have the quality control to reliably produce) which they willingly over-g the hell out of every flight with no long term degradation, or factory fresh cannons and machine guns with perfect spread but certain members don't want factory fresh perfect engines and instead want to "simulate" long term engine use with dictatorial timers based solely on manuals.

 

Really makes me think.

Theres a lot to your point.  Theres reallly no way for us to realistically figure out and model each nations different policies on engine use, fuels, aircrame stress, and weapons.  So I agree the timers are crazy.

Since as you said the only really thorough numbers documentation we have (not anecdotes) are from factory fresh planes.

I think we should just model the planes on that. At least then if we modellef the planes on their final factory settings we.d know thats how they really acted.

If we want to start dealibg with engine degradation on tge front I think an overhaul needs to be done or maybe make timers an option and hace an option where all planes flying according to their flying trial specs out of the factory. Purely because thats the best most reliable documentation we have

[=475FG=_DAWGER]

48 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

People don't mind getting factory fresh perfect airframes (which certain nations didn't even have the quality control to reliably produce) which they willingly over-g the hell out of every flight with no long term degradation, or factory fresh cannons and machine guns with perfect spread but certain members don't want factory fresh perfect engines and instead want to "simulate" long term engine use with dictatorial timers based solely on manuals.

 

Really makes me think.

Excellent point.

 

Engine timers are the equivalent of the wings falling off after you fly normal combat for five minutes.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Manual time limits have no basis on the physical reality of short term engine durability. The P-47B/C/D manual has a military power time limit of 5 minutes in January 1943. In November 1943 this was extended to 15 minutes? What changed? The engine didn't change, nor did the power setting (52 "Hg at 2700 rpm). What changed was the addition of an official War emergency power setting sometime in the middle of 1943. This is not a technical issue but an administrative issue. Why was WEP added? Because there regular reports from the front either from units or company representatives of pilots over boosting the hell out of their engines and outright ignoring the manual and the manual limits were changed sometime in 1943 to better reflect that and legally cover their asses from a 5 minute Military power only to 5 minute War Emergency and 15 minute Military power.

 

And even then, there are official documents and pilot AAR writing about exceeding 5 minutes on WEP.

E.g.

 

"Greater powers to be used for short periods (15-20 minutes) during combat"

 

 

Edited April 6, 2019 by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal

[LColony_Kong]

Regarding the various comments about throttling back or up a P-38 engine to increase maneuverability I can only repeat that this was not practiced as far as I know. When I was overseas in 44 and 45, flying the J winter thru summer, the policy was to drop tanks and push up MP to 45 inches when German fighters were spotted in a position where an engagement was likely. When you actually went for them, throttle up to WEP, 60 inches or so, rpm all the way up too, up past 3000 rpm. And there it would stay until the engagement was over and you remembered to throttle back. You could easily be at WEP for 20 minutes or more."

[Legioneod]

34 minutes ago, Fumes said:

Regarding the various comments about throttling back or up a P-38 engine to increase maneuverability I can only repeat that this was not practiced as far as I know. When I was overseas in 44 and 45, flying the J winter thru summer, the policy was to drop tanks and push up MP to 45 inches when German fighters were spotted in a position where an engagement was likely. When you actually went for them, throttle up to WEP, 60 inches or so, rpm all the way up too, up past 3000 rpm. And there it would stay until the engagement was over and you remembered to throttle back. You could easily be at WEP for 20 minutes or more."

 

Completely agree with this, and plenty of other first hand accounts show whats possible. Unfortunately some say that first hand accounts aren't credible and shouldn't be used when determining engine limits, despite the fact that first hand accounts are the best sources in how the aircraft was actually flown vs what the manual says.

[Ehret]

Keeping RPMs at constant level for whole engagement is probably safer for engine, too. It reduces risk of a detonation, allows for faster throttle response and doesn't add additional changes of momentum for engine's parts.

 

From what I could gather about late WW2 type engagements with matched opponents you can rarely gain a bigger angle at once; you are not only fighting with the enemy but your own inertia and G-loads, too. It just take more room to turn, chases are longer and deltas of velocities and altitudes higher. At such principles 5m is not much - 10m is about right for one fight but can get longer easily.

 

Add the jet to all that and the 5m of WEP for Allied prop fighters becomes a nasty joke.

[JonRedcorn]

46 minutes ago, Ehret said:

Keeping RPMs at constant level for whole engagement is probably safer for engine, too. It reduces risk of a detonation, allows for faster throttle response and doesn't add additional changes of momentum for engine's parts.

 

From what I could gather about late WW2 type engagements with matched opponents you can rarely gain a bigger angle at once; you are not only fighting with the enemy but your own inertia and G-loads, too. It just take more room to turn, chases are longer and deltas of velocities and altitudes higher. At such principles 5m is not much - 10m is about right for one fight but can get longer easily.

 

Add the jet to all that and the 5m of WEP for Allied prop fighters becomes a nasty joke.

Ok dude we get it. Making 75 posts in this thread isn't going to change anything. Literally said the same thing over and over again. The devs know.

Edited April 6, 2019 by JonRedcorn

[Ribbon]

I think this is one of those gameplay decisions where you choose between two scenarios taking in mind multiple factors;

-you can have fully realistic engine limits where virtual pilots would push them all the time making combat enviroment nonhistorical way above real ww2 pilots did cos we have restart button and infinite number of planes.

Or you have semi'realistic engine limits making combat enviroment reflect ww2 scenario.

I think it's really hard to achieve ballance between two.

[Legioneod]

18 minutes ago, JonRedcorn said:

Ok dude we get it. Making 75 posts in this thread isn't going to change anything. Literally said the same thing over and over again. The devs know.

 

Hear a broken record long enough eventually you'll change it.

 

12 minutes ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

I think this is one of those gameplay decisions where you choose between two scenarios taking in mind multiple factors;

-you can have fully realistic engine limits where virtual pilots would push them all the time making combat enviroment nonhistorical way above real ww2 pilots did cos we have restart button and infinite number of planes.

Or you have semi'realistic engine limits making combat enviroment reflect ww2 scenario.

I think it's really hard to achieve ballance between two.

Problem is you'll never be able to enforce realistic behavior in a game, we already see this with the way players fly and throw their life/aircraft away.

 

Model it realistically and let the players decide how they want to fly.

[Matt]

11 minutes ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

Or you have semi'realistic engine limits making combat enviroment reflect ww2 scenario.

I highly doubt that a P-47 pilot who got engaged by 109 or 190 stuck to exactly 5 minutes full power, then to 5 minutes combat power and then switched back to continous power and hoped that could survive long enough to be able to switch back to WEP or combat power.

 

That's basically the point, the current limits don't make combat itself more realistic. Sure back then they didn't climb or cruise around all the time with WEP. Which atleast for the P-47, D-9 G-14 and K-4 you basically can't do, because you'll run out water or MW-50. And during realistic missions you probably can't do that in the majority of the planes (again talking BoBP here), because you'll run out of fuel.

 

Of course that can be a problem in MP with short mission durations, but forcing mandatory semi-realistic engine limitations for everyone just to cope with the semi-releaistic behaviour of people in semi-realistic (if it all) missions in MP is a bit overkill imo.

[Ribbon]

9 minutes ago, Matt said:

I highly doubt that a P-47 pilot who got engaged by 109 or 190 stuck to exactly 5 minutes full power, then to 5 minutes combat power and then switched back to continous power and hoped that could survive long enough to be able to switch back to WEP or combat power.

 

That's basically the point, the current limits don't make combat itself more realistic. Sure back then they didn't climb or cruise around all the time with WEP. Which atleast for the P-47, D-9 G-14 and K-4 you basically can't do, because you'll run out water or MW-50. And during realistic missions you probably can't do that in the majority of the planes (again talking BoBP here), because you'll run out of fuel.

 

Of course that can be a problem in MP with short mission durations, but forcing mandatory semi-realistic engine limitations for everyone just to cope with the semi-releaistic behaviour of people in semi-realistic (if it all) missions in MP is a bit overkill imo.

I didn't read those books so i don't know much their flight behaviour in combat situations, if they did push the engines beyond limit without damage than at least devs could prolong time till damage occurs and throw in some fluctation on temps and oil press, sound, rpm fluctation and soo on which would gradually increase over time so pilot can react on time saving his engine and potentionally life.

 

[Venturi]

16 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Been reading and not really seeing an answer:

Would these engines actually fail in the scope of a single flight due to excessively long use of certain power ratings?

If Yes, how?  Instantly and catastrophically?  Partially?  

What warning would the engine give before failing?

 

I am absolutely against any attempt to model random engine wear.  I want to take off with a good engine.  If failure of a good engine due to running too long at a certain power setting is a thing then I would not mind some randomization after limits are exceeded.  This way you could take your chances if you had to.  If this sort of failure is not a thing then don't model it.  

 

 

 

 

Detonation is the rapid single sortie killer. Dictated by fuel octane and total maximum cylinder pressure (as dictated by compression ratio and intake charge pressure), as well as other parameters such as cylinder temp, RPM/boost mismatch, mixture mismatch.

Everything else is wear.

14 hours ago, Fumes said:

Yes and I dont want a 1700bhp p40. The main issue of contention is time limits of aircraft with regulated MP. Not allowing higher than authorized settings. The p40 and planes like it would likely need their own solution. 

 

The solution is to model detonation. If no detonation, then no likelihood of rapid engine failure. Period.

 

No sim to my knowledge has yet successfully implemented (or even tried to implement) the correct simulation of WW2 boosted aero engines or how they are managed at the limit. Which most taildragger pilots will tell you, is a large part of flying their aircraft. Probably the most knowledgeable people about this in principle are the Reno air racers.

 

Edited April 6, 2019 by Venturi

[Rattlesnake]

On 4/5/2019 at 11:30 AM, gorice said:

 

 It's the Yak that is at a disadvantage here, because it doesn't have any boost setting.

Not that simple. Check the stats.

The Yak can produce about 1200 horsepower indefinitely in-game. The P-39 by contrast gets 1550hp max possible and 1325 take off, but they are limited to 2 and 5 minutes respectively. The P-39's Military power is only 1150, and that is limited to 15 minutes. The maximum continuous power for the P-39 is 1000. When you consider that the P-39 is significantly heavier while having less horsepower except during very brief periods it becomes difficult to argue that the P-39 clearly has the advantage here. 

[Rattlesnake]

5 hours ago, Venturi said:

 

Detonation is the rapid single sortie killer. Dictated by fuel octane and total maximum cylinder pressure (as dictated by compression ratio and intake charge pressure), as well as other parameters such as cylinder temp, RPM/boost mismatch, mixture mismatch.

Everything else is wear.

 

The solution is to model detonation. If no detonation, then no likelihood of rapid engine failure. Period.

 

No sim to my knowledge has yet successfully implemented (or even tried to implement) the correct simulation of WW2 boosted aero engines or how they are managed at the limit. Which most taildragger pilots will tell you, is a large part of flying their aircraft. Probably the most knowledgeable people about this in principle are the Reno air racers.

 

DCS says they’ve made the thermodynamic modeling of their prop engines accurate. Who can say? I have broken their P-51D with WEP,  but takes longer than five minutes and the gauges were showIng hot. Is this how a real P-51 would behave? Unknown, but it’s a lot more manageable.

[Ehret]

14 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Model it realistically and let the players decide how they want to fly.

 

The technical modeling is the only place we can have an unobstructed realism.

A "sim" is not a job, not a military service, not a duty, no one fights for real lives here. It's all voluntary for players what to do in a game of the simulator genre. You can convince people to follow some rules but forcing anything is backward if possible at all.

3 hours ago, Rattlesnake said:

DCS says they’ve made the thermodynamic modeling of their prop engines accurate. Who can say? I have broken their P-51D with WEP,  but takes longer than five minutes and the gauges were showIng hot. Is this how a real P-51 would behave? Unknown, but it’s a lot more manageable.

 

It's possible to seize the P-51D engine within 30s if you sidestep too much and the air-scoop is out of air stream. You will get some funny noises and it's still possible to recover but something is off after that.

The auto-rads are set to react in the very last moment to keep the drag at minimum. That's why temp gauges can be so close to the red-lines. That's can be dangerous, indeed. If you are anticipating hard climbs it's prudent to switch to the manual control.

Another thing which I found the hard way are the G-loads - you can damage stuff inside the plane by throwing it around.

 

So yup - you can (and should) push hard(est) when it's necessary. Between such events - you care about your ride a lot. Seems to be realistic.

[Kurfurst]

11 hours ago, Venturi said:

The solution is to model detonation. If no detonation, then no likelihood of rapid engine failure. Period.

 

 

Modelling knocking and detonation is entirely unneccessary because in real life no engine was cleared for a rating it was suffering knocking and detonation effects. It simply does not happen unless some part of the engine is faulty and is quite random. Such as spark plugs not working as designed due to heat or lead build up for example.

 

What killed engines - besides battle damage - was prolonged high temperatures that decreased lubricatation qualities (viscosity) of the oil, causing friction  between moving parts and local heat build up, that also effected the properties of materials of the engine.

 

High coolant temperatures had similar effect as the coolant would boil away, the heated parts which had very small clearance expanded and could lead to things like stuck cylinders and other moving parts etc and under extreme load it lead to rapid and catastrophic mechanical failure.

[Ehret]

35 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

What killed engines - besides battle damage - was prolonged high temperatures that decreased lubricatation qualities (viscosity) of the oil, causing friction  between moving parts and local heat build up, that also effected the properties of materials of the engine.

 

You may be right about the LW's planes... They had poor fuels, poor oils, poor bearings and relatively low boost pressures thus could be that most engines seizures in LW were due reasons you listed.

[Kurfurst]

Its just that nobody in their right mind cleared an engine rating for operation az which it could be expected to self destruct within minutes due to detonation. It doesn’t matter if its a US, British, German or Soviet engine. It simply did not happen.

[MiloMorai]

32 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

You may be right about the LW's planes... They had poor fuels, poor oils, poor bearings and relatively low boost pressures thus could be that most engines seizures in LW were due reasons you listed.

Higher compression ratios tho.

 

Very late war fuel wasn`t the best but C3 was just as good as 100/150 Allied fuel.

[LColony_Kong]

36 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Its just that nobody in their right mind cleared an engine rating for operation az which it could be expected to self destruct within minutes due to detonation. It doesn’t matter if its a US, British, German or Soviet engine. It simply did not happen.

Just to add to this...

 

The 1min on the f4 is particularly absurd. A engine with a power limit within 1 min of destruction would be useless. We're such insanely narrow margins for error operationally doable the german s would just have allowed 1.7 ata on g6's without water. That would also probabaly last about 1min

[=621=Samikatz]

Pilots can be suspicious folks and I'm sure if they heard engines could blow up after 5 minutes of particularly spirited use they wouldn't be happy

[Rattlesnake]

36 minutes ago, Fumes said:

Just to add to this...

 

The 1min on the f4 is particularly absurd. A engine with a power limit within 1 min of destruction would be useless. We're such insanely narrow margins for error operationally doable the german s would just have allowed 1.7 ata on g6's without water. That would also probabaly last about 1min

When you read about official/manual limitations on  power settings never forget that these things were flown by young men, and not just any young men either, but rather the sort who had quite happily competed to fly the fastest machines available in life and death situations. Read about some of the motoring shenanigans famous pilots got up to when not flying. Stern warnings to only use a given power setting 1-5 minutes in emergencies must surely have been to an extent a strategy whose purpose was “Well, if we say five minutes in emergencies *maybe* they won’t hot-rod for 30 minutes just for the hell of it the first time they get out of sight with her.”

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

1 hour ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Its just that nobody in their right mind cleared an engine rating for operation az which it could be expected to self destruct within minutes due to detonation. It doesn’t matter if its a US, British, German or Soviet engine. It simply did not happen.

There are 2 ways detonation conditions can occur ingame

 

P-40E with its unrelgulated manifold and CAT exceeded limit. Problem with this is again, the manual limits for CAT are about double under what they should be according to Kelsey's P-38 testing. Allison set a limit of 45C temperature clearly without doing any sort of testing to find the true limit. When Kelsey tested the P-38s engines to (near) destruction, when the engine started backfiring, detonating and one intercooler blew up, CAT was 90C.

 

Too low RPMs combined with high manifold pressure.

Edited April 7, 2019 by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal

[Ehret]

1 hour ago, MiloMorai said:

Very late war fuel wasn`t the best but C3 was just as good as 100/150 Allied fuel.

 

I meant stuff like gums which occurred often.

[3./JG15_Kampf]

Someone with more knowledge could clarify, but I think between 5km and 6km the D9 and more speed than P47 and P51. I do not remember well, but in the old 46 it was like this

Edited April 7, 2019 by 3./JG15_Kampf

[Ehret]

56 minutes ago, Fumes said:

The 1min on the f4 is particularly absurd. A engine with a power limit within 1 min of destruction would be useless. We're such insanely narrow margins for error operationally doable the german s would just have allowed 1.7 ata on g6's without water. That would also probabaly last about 1min

 

Yes, yes it is. Even worse if top settings were on such edge already then just continuous/nominal would be very risky.

[LColony_Kong]

11 minutes ago, 3./JG15_Kampf said:

Someone with more knowledge could clarify, but I think between 5km and 6km the D9 and more speed than P47 and P51. I do not remember well, but in the old 46 it was like this

190 is faster on deck. They trade blows at medium heights, with 51 gaining upper hand above 22k or so

Personally I think 190d with mw50 should be a mod that is rare. D models operated initially at 1700hp, then up to 1900 in october44. Mw50 didn't show up till November. By 1945 only like 60 of the mere 180 or so d models had mw50

The first thirty production aircraft were delivered to the unit (III./JG 54) at the beginning of October 1944.

[...]In September 1944 an equipment kit was installed which raised boost pressure and increased the Jumo 213 A's emergency output from 1,750 to 1,900 h.p. The installation was carried out on-site by Junker's Tecnical Field Service (TAM). This increased emergency power could be used at altitudes to 5000 meters. At the same time, use of takeoff power (1,750 h.p.) was extended to 30 min., while authorization was given to use combat power (1,620 h.p.) without restriction.

The Junkers technical field service visited III./JG 54 monthly. In October the number of Fw 190 D-9s on strength with the Gruppe rose to 68. Of these, 53 had been converted to 1,900 h.p. and one was delivered by Focke-Wulf with the MW 50 system. The remaining 14 were in the process of being converted and completion was imminent.

[...]In its November report, Junkers noted that all the aircraft of the three new Gruppe were being converted to 1,900 h.p. and that the work was significantly more difficult at frontline airfields where there were no hangers.

By the end of December 1944 there were 183 Fw 190's in operation with the increased performance modification, and 60 more had been delivered with the MW 50 system and were at the point of entering service. ^*