Bladderburst Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 I just got the FW190A8 aircraft handbook. Just in case that you don't have this, if you (the devs) would like to have some photos/scans you can contact me in PM. 3
MiloMorai Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 Online @ http://www.simcentrum.com/uploads/Manual-FW190a8.pdf 3
Bladderburst Posted April 14, 2014 Author Posted April 14, 2014 Online @ http://www.simcentrum.com/uploads/Manual-FW190a8.pdf Yep that's the thing. 1
EliteWing Posted April 15, 2014 Posted April 15, 2014 Have to love the old 14cyl BMW motors in the FW190....
Bladderburst Posted April 15, 2014 Author Posted April 15, 2014 Have to love the old 14cyl BMW motors in the FW190.... Pretty much the same as a double wasp, still a great engine.
Sternjaeger Posted April 26, 2014 Posted April 26, 2014 Pretty much the same as a double wasp, still a great engine. The only real thing they had in common was the number of cylincers and double row setup, the BMW was much, much more refined engine.
69th_chuter Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 The only real thing they had in common was the number of cylincers and double row setup, the BMW was much, much more refined engine. First, the 2800 had 18 cylinders (the 2600 Twin Cyclone* had 14) and, second, the 801d-2 produced less than 80% by BOTH weight AND displacement (specific power) the horsepower of the typical B series 2800 for most of the war; BUT, yes, the 801 is a mechanical jewel even the "we're not afraid of mind-numbing complexity" British can appreciate (Napier Sabre, Rolls Eagle '44). Seriously, it's easy to under-appreciate the 2800 but on closer inspection one can see how very remarkable in power power producing and manufacturing design breakthroughs it was. *The 2600 is an awesome motor in its own right, powering the B-25, Avenger, A-20 and SB2C and it, as well, posted better power/weight and specific power numbers than the 801. What the 801 had was it was nearly two inches smaller diameter than the 2800 and four inches smaller than the 2600. 1
Crump Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 First, the 2800 had 18 cylinders (the 2600 Twin Cyclone* had 14) and, second, the 801d-2 produced less than 80% by BOTH weight AND displacement (specific power) the horsepower of the typical B series 2800 for most of the war Depends on which R-2800 you are talking about and how you count the weight and power. Dry vs installed weight.....the R-2800 wins. Installed weight vs installed weight is not so good for the R-2800 even with 300 cubic inches more displacement depending on the aircraft. For example, the installed weight on an FW-190A2 was ~2326lbs for the BMW 801 vs ~3240lbs for the P-47D's R-2800. That makes for 1.8 pounds per Horsepower for the Focke Wulf vs 2.12lbs per Horsepower for the P-47's....just looking at the installed weight of just the engine at maximum continuous.
Sternjaeger Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 First, the 2800 had 18 cylinders (the 2600 Twin Cyclone* had 14) and, second, the 801d-2 produced less than 80% by BOTH weight AND displacement (specific power) the horsepower of the typical B series 2800 for most of the war; BUT, yes, the 801 is a mechanical jewel even the "we're not afraid of mind-numbing complexity" British can appreciate (Napier Sabre, Rolls Eagle '44). Seriously, it's easy to under-appreciate the 2800 but on closer inspection one can see how very remarkable in power power producing and manufacturing design breakthroughs it was. *The 2600 is an awesome motor in its own right, powering the B-25, Avenger, A-20 and SB2C and it, as well, posted better power/weight and specific power numbers than the 801. What the 801 had was it was nearly two inches smaller diameter than the 2800 and four inches smaller than the 2600. that's correct, I was thinking of the Cyclone, sorry. But they're still two radically different approaches to radial engine technology, and the BMW is a far more refined design, just think about how beautiful the installation on the FW190 is.
69th_chuter Posted June 20, 2014 Posted June 20, 2014 Depends on which R-2800 you are talking about and how you count the weight and power. Dry vs installed weight.....the R-2800 wins. Installed weight vs installed weight is not so good for the R-2800 even with 300 cubic inches more displacement depending on the aircraft. For example, the installed weight on an FW-190A2 was ~2326lbs for the BMW 801 vs ~3240lbs for the P-47D's R-2800. That makes for 1.8 pounds per Horsepower for the Focke Wulf vs 2.12lbs per Horsepower for the P-47's....just looking at the installed weight of just the engine at maximum continuous. I was thinking of B series 2800s. I believe max continuous on the 2800-59 was 1625hp for a lb/hp of 2.0 instead of 2.12(lol - big dif) and also, that the 3240 pounds you quote for the Jug's motor includes the 950 pound turbo. *IF* one adds the roughly 800 pounds (basic) weight of a TK 11 turbo to the weight of an 801D-2 we get, based on a generous round number of 1300hp, a lb/hp of 2.4. Actually, we should look at the turbo equipped 801J which made more hp than the 801D; we'll use its 1430 rated hp and weight of 3036 pounds bare for an uninstalled hp/lb of 2.12. The heaviest non-turbo B series 2800s were the three-speeds that weighted about 2500 lbs installed (later ones were lighter) and had normal powers of 1675 for a lb/hp of 1.49.
69th_chuter Posted June 20, 2014 Posted June 20, 2014 that's correct, I was thinking of the Cyclone, sorry. But they're still two radically different approaches to radial engine technology, and the BMW is a far more refined design, just think about how beautiful the installation on the FW190 is. Oh, absolutely! For appearance. But if performance counts the 2800 puts up the numbers. The 801 reminds me of a Luger and the 2800 a P-38 (maybe not a war end production ... uugghh), except that in this case the P-38 outperforms the Luger (instead of being a draw). Don't forget, BMW learned radial engines from Pratt and there are some striking detail similarities between the two motors which just shows how engineers can evolve in parallel.
Sternjaeger Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 well the Germans ditched the radial for high performance fighters eventually, but it still remains that it would have been interesting to see where they could have got with it.. having said that, what was the most advanced radial BMW made? Wasn't it something used on some bomber?
JG52EvilMerlin Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 The engine "egg" is not an engine design, its a means of fitting an engine quickly to the Fw-190 as one unit. Lets not forget that the 801 still used older technologies for its valves (2 per cylinder vs. 4 per cylinder for most other contemporary engines), the horrible lack of super-turbocharging which very much impacted the Fw 190A's performance at altitude limiting it to supercharging in very limited aspects. That does not mean the 801 was any more developed than the R-2600, which was more of a bomber engine in any manner. Compare more to the Double Wasp (2800) which was a FAR more reliable engine than the 801. The 2800 weighed only a few more pounds than the 801, the 2600 was about 100lbs lighter. And while the 2600 and 801 had SIMILAR (42.7 vs. 41.8) the 2800 and 801 had much closer physical sizes (52.8" diameter vs. 51" diameter, the 2600 was actually 55") Sure part of that reliability may have had to due to war time conditions in Germany, but never the less, the R-2800/57 was a 2800 HP engine. Even if the BMW 802 had entered service it was still "only" 2550 HP. Now the Kommandogerät was an outstanding piece of technology however... (and yes, I'm well aware of the cylinder difference in the engines, I'm simply pointing out the 2400 was a bomber engine and the 2800 was a fighter engine)
Eldur Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 Pretty much the same as a double wasp, still a great engine. Rather a similar engine, but not the same. Nevertheless they're all great The BMW 132 (those are used in the Ju-52) practiucally were licensed and improved "Pratt & Whitney R-1690 Hornet As". The first BMW built engines after acquiring the license in 1928 were even called BMW Hornet. In 1933 they got a license to build Hornet Bs, but in meantime they already were developing the BMW 128 and 132. They're still pretty similar so even today Ju-Air has plenty of spare parts from P&W to keep their original BMW 132s running for at least over half a century. So it's just a thing that happend numerous of times in the wars... Oberursel engines were engineered from French Monosoupapes, BMW radials have their roots in P&W engines, same as russian radials. Russian RD-10 and RD-20 jet engines were practically BMW 003... and what do we have today? FW-190-A8/Ns flying around with ASh-82Ts (improved FNUs)
oneeyeddog Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 Online @ http://www.simcentrum.com/uploads/Manual-FW190a8.pdf Thanks for this MM.
MiloMorai Posted July 31, 2014 Posted July 31, 2014 Lets not forget that the 801 still used older technologies for its valves (2 per cylinder vs. 4 per cylinder for most other contemporary engines), the horrible lack of super-turbocharging which very much impacted the Fw 190A's performance at altitude limiting it to supercharging in very limited aspects. The R-2800 only had 2 valves per cylinder. Ditto for the R-2600. The 801 had a single-stage two-speed supercharger. I'm simply pointing out the 2400 was a bomber engine and the 2800 was a fighter engine If the R-2800 was a fighter engine, then why did the C-46, PV-1, 2 (B-34) and B-26 use them?
Crump Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 *IF* one adds the roughly 800 pounds (basic) weight of a TK 11 turbo to the weight of an 801D-2 we get, Without the IF..... The installed weight on an FW-190A2 was ~2326lbs for the BMW 801 vs ~3240lbs for the P-47D's R-2800. That makes for 1.8 pounds per Horsepower for the Focke Wulf vs 2.12lbs per Horsepower for the P-47's....just looking at the installed weight of just the engine at maximum continuous.
Crump Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 altitude limiting it to supercharging Most fighters during world war II were supercharged for a reason and it was not due to the inability to produce a turbocharger. That is a big myth. All sides produced turbocharger but only the United States accepted their disadvantages on fighter aircraft. That is easy to understand when you realize the United States faced very different problems in homeland defense from most of the combatants in World War II. We (I am a US citizen) also accepted much larger fighter designs than our European contemporaries. Supercharging offers distinct advantages in a dogfight over Turbocharging. Supercharger allows instant power changes, cooler temperatures, mechanical reliability, lighter weight, and retention of exhaust thrust when compared to turbocharging.
NZTyphoon Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 All sides produced turbocharger but only the United States accepted their disadvantages on fighter aircraft. That is easy to understand when you realize the United States faced very different problems in homeland defense from most of the combatants in World War II. We (I am a US citizen) also accepted much larger fighter designs than our European contemporaries. Nonsense; Japan and Germany both intended to use turbochargers on large fighter aircraft eg; the Nakajima Ki-87 Length: 11.82 m (38 ft 9.375 in) Wingspan : 13.423 m (44 ft 0.5 in) Height: 4.503 m (14 ft 9.312 in) Wing area: 26.00 m² (279.860 ft²) Empty Weight: 4,388 kg (9,672 lb) Loaded weight: 5,633 kg (12,416 lb) Max Takeoff Weight: 6,102 kg (13,448 lb) and Blohm und Voss BV 155 series, plus there were experiments with Fw 190s, which needed a large, under-fuselage fairing. The U.S was the only country that was able to build turbocharger systems reliable enough to be installed in, and used on operations by fighters en-masse.
Crump Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 The U.S was the only country that was able to build turbocharger systems reliable enough to be installed in, and used on operations by fighters en-masse. No, the other countries did not pursue it because it the performance gains were not worth the disadvantages. Making this determination involved experimentation leading to the conclusion. You falsely conclude that just because they experimented with turbochargers and did not enter any of the designs into mass production that they were somehow incapable of doing so. The capability existed but the conclusion reached that performance gains where not worth the disadvantages. The Germans did produce and field turbochargers on bomber engines. http://www.ju388.de/Ju388.html One again, if you are going to drone along at a constant power setting at high altitude, a turbocharger is ideal. If you are going to dogfight, then a turbocharger is not ideal. In fact, the German turbochargers where much better than the United States models. From a article on engine technology published post war by the British Ministry of Defense:
MiloMorai Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 I don't know why Crump linked to a German language site when the same site is available in English, which is the language of this site. http://www.ju388.de/Ju388US.html
NZTyphoon Posted August 17, 2014 Posted August 17, 2014 Nope, not interested in "debating" this any further with Crump because it's a futile exercise; this is more rewarding. Of more interest, here's a drawing of the Kommandogerät
69th_chuter Posted August 17, 2014 Posted August 17, 2014 (edited) Without the IF..... The installed weight on an FW-190A2 was ~2326lbs for the BMW 801 vs ~3240lbs for the P-47D's R-2800. That makes for 1.8 pounds per Horsepower for the Focke Wulf vs 2.12lbs per Horsepower for the P-47's....just looking at the installed weight of just the engine at maximum continuous. The reason for the "IF" is you're comparing apples to oranges. The installed weight of the P-47 engine includes the weight of the turbo installation which the 190 is lacking. So, I thought it more appropriate to compare a turboed 801 to a turboed 2800, or how about non-turboed to same. How about the turboed 801TJ, it put out 1464hp at 37730ft and weighed 3036lbs* while the turboed 2800-59 put out 1550hp at 38000ft and weighed 3240lbs. And, as for the more advanced German turbos: Did you notice "The turbine wheel employs hollow steel blades, similar in conception to those in the German jet engines"? That is because they were doing their very darndest to build a steel jet engine because the factories were told they couldn't have the 55 odd pounds of nickel and other high temp metals to build their engines with, so they developed buckets of advanced cooling technology to get the exotic metal use down to about five pounds per engine. Since fundamental jet and turbo technology are one and the same, the turbos went the same direction. For all the cooling high tech, tho, the engines and turbos didn't perform any better than their original lower cooling tech, trick metal prototypes, they just didn't melt. It took the post war era to properly meld the German cooling tech with exotic metals. So then, the Germans decided to limit turbo use to concentrate their very limited metal resources on the jets. * Author Jason R. Wisniewskiv quotes 3542lbs dry, but that's everything firewall forward less prop. Edited August 17, 2014 by chuter 1
MiloMorai Posted August 17, 2014 Posted August 17, 2014 http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgMakeModel.nsf/0/CF0F9435E20432008525676A006759E7/$FILE/5E-8.pdf Type Certificate Data Sheet Information for the R-2800
Crump Posted August 17, 2014 Posted August 17, 2014 The reason for the "IF" is you're comparing apples to oranges. The installed weight of the P-47 engine includes the weight of the turbo installation which the 190 is lacking. How is it "apples to oranges"??? The R-2800 as installed in the P-47 requires the 950lbs of turbo-supercharger to produce rated power. The FW-190 does not. It is simply a more accurate comparison of capability. The weight is a severe penalty to the R-2800 until altitude is reached. At altitude the R-2800 becomes king. Unfortunately little to no combat occurred at the altitudes the P-47 realizes its performance advantages over other contemporary designs. It was that fact and characteristic of turbo-supercharger technology of the day for large piston engines that lead most nations to conclude the disadvantage of weight increase, lack of instantaneous power, maintenance issues, production complexity, and added expense just was not worth it for severe weight penalty incurred throughout most of the combat envelope for a fighter of the day.
MiloMorai Posted August 17, 2014 Posted August 17, 2014 It was that fact and characteristic of turbo-supercharger technology of the day for large piston engines that lead most nations to conclude the disadvantage of weight increase, lack of instantaneous power, maintenance issues, production complexity, and added expense just was not worth it for severe weight penalty incurred throughout most of the combat envelope for a fighter of the day. For sure the second rate P-38s and P-47s did OK against the third rate Japanese a/c but were completely outclassed by the uber 109s and 190s of the Luftwaffe, especially at lower altitudes. Yes the American were idiots for continuing to develop turbocharged engines for its fighters right to the end of WW2. Allison developed the turbo-compound V-1710 engine that was to used in the P-63 but jet engines came along. There was even 150lb of trust from the turbo exhaust. Unfortunately little to no combat occurred at the altitudes the P-47 realizes its performance advantages over other contemporary designs. So no combat occurred over 20,000ft. However were those B-17s and B-24s intercepted? 1
Crump Posted August 17, 2014 Posted August 17, 2014 So no combat occurred over 20,000ft. However were those B-17s and B-24s intercepted? The P-47's performance does not begin to outclass the lighter supercharged aircraft of the day until ~27,000 ft (+). Much higher than the average combat engagement. 88% of the bombing missions flew at altitudes far below the performance gains of the P-47 turbocharger system in 1944.
69th_chuter Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 How is it "apples to oranges"??? The R-2800 as installed in the P-47 requires the 950lbs of turbo-supercharger to produce rated power. The FW-190 does not. It is simply a more accurate comparison of capability. The weight is a severe penalty to the R-2800 until altitude is reached. At altitude the R-2800 becomes king. Unfortunately little to no combat occurred at the altitudes the P-47 realizes its performance advantages over other contemporary designs. It was that fact and characteristic of turbo-supercharger technology of the day for large piston engines that lead most nations to conclude the disadvantage of weight increase, lack of instantaneous power, maintenance issues, production complexity, and added expense just was not worth it for severe weight penalty incurred throughout most of the combat envelope for a fighter of the day. Excellent. So now we're clear on the fact that we're NOT comparing the 2800 with the 801 but the P-47 with the 190, or maybe the P-47 engine installation with the 190's. (No sense bringing up the switch to Jumo.) B series -8w 2250hp - 1800hp @ 20000ft 2469lbs C series -18w 2380hp - 1900hp @ 25000ft 2360lbs Just throwin' those non-turbo numbers out there while realizing that they aren't really European Theater motors so in no way count in this discussion of ____________________________. (Please feel free to fill in the blank.) Seriously. No animosity, good discussion, havin' a good time. I just have to add that I really love the technical side of airplanes (and cars), especially motors (engines, thankyou, to some .... people). GO LEWIS! 1
Crump Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 the P-47 engine installation with the 190's That would be the comparison. Dry weight numbers are meaningless. It is installation weight that counts.
JtD Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 Without the IF..... The installed weight on an FW-190A2 was ~2326lbs for the BMW 801 vs ~3240lbs for the P-47D's R-2800. That makes for 1.8 pounds per Horsepower for the Focke Wulf vs 2.12lbs per Horsepower for the P-47's....just looking at the installed weight of just the engine at maximum continuous. Actually the R-2800-21 as installed on the early P-47 had a maximum continuous power of 1625 to 1650 hp, depending on source, from 0 to 30000 feet. The BMW801C of the A-2 reached a peak power of barely 1300 hp just around the full throttle altitude of 7000 feet. Ignoring the vastly superior performance of the R-2800 above 20000 feet and going with average max. continuous power between 0-20k feet, the R-2800 is at around 1650 hp, the BMW801 a little short of 1200 hp. Assuming the weights you quoted are correct, this puts both engines at around 1.95 lb/hp. 1
Crump Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 Actually the R-2800-21 as installed on the early P-47 had a maximum continuous power of 1625 to 1650 hp, depending on source, from 0 to 30000 feet. The BMW801C of the A-2 reached a peak power of barely 1300 hp just around the full throttle altitude of 7000 feet. Ignoring the vastly superior performance of the R-2800 above 20000 feet and going with average max. continuous power between 0-20k feet, the R-2800 is at around 1650 hp, the BMW801 a little short of 1200 hp. Assuming the weights you quoted are correct, this puts both engines at around 1.95 lb/hp. Ok, whatever. The data I have taken from the BMW data vs PW data shows something else. R-2800: (950lbs turbosupercharger + 2290lbs dry installed weight) / 1625 bhp = 1.99 or 2 lbs per horsepower for the R-2800 as mounted in the P-47C/D series. This is Pratt and Whitney's own data. BMW 801C: 2326lbs / 1300 bhp = 1.81 lbs per horsepower as mounted in the FW-190A2.
MiloMorai Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 Why is the BMW801C even being mentioned? (I think I know why) The BMW 801D should be the engine compared to the PW2800.
NZTyphoon Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 How is it "apples to oranges"??? The R-2800 as installed in the P-47 requires the 950lbs of turbo-supercharger to produce rated power. The FW-190 does not. It is simply a more accurate comparison of capability. The weight is a severe penalty to the R-2800 until altitude is reached. At altitude the R-2800 becomes king. Unfortunately little to no combat occurred at the altitudes the P-47 realizes its performance advantages over other contemporary designs. Wrong again - the R-2800 did not need a turbocharger to produce a higher rated power than the BMW 801 at similar altitudes: the fact is the BMW 801 was heavy for a 14 cylinder radial engine and proved incapable of being rated for combat above C. 22,000 feet without the aid of a turbocharger - this was a major reason why Kurt Tank chose to remodel the 190 with the Jumo 213 and DB 603, after trying very hard to adapt the BMW to use a turbocharger. Had the turbocharger installation proved feasible the Germans would have accepted the 190C with open arms. As chuter pointed out the R-8200-8 series put out very similar power for very little extra installed weight over a BMW 801D: From the Handbuch für die Flugmoteren BMW 801 MA-BMW 801 ML - BMW 801C und BMW 801D Baureihen 1 u. 2 Mai 1942 1,055 kg = 2,326 lbs even the R-2800-5 as installed in the B-26 had higher sustained ratings than the BMW 801C
Crump Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 Wrong again - the R-2800 did not need a turbocharger How is it wrong when it was not the topic of discussion? The point being that the math shows throwing in the turbocharger ruins the engine until high altitude......
NZTyphoon Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 How is it wrong when it was not the topic of discussion? The point being that the math shows throwing in the turbocharger ruins the engine until high altitude...... The point is that Crump was the first to compare the P-47's turbocharged installation directly with the non-turbocharged BMW 801C/D, then made his calculations based on the weight of engine plus turbocharger, which would obviously favour the BMW. Fact is the P-47 installation was atypical of the R-2800 B & C series - one look at the numbers produced will show that. The math also shows that the more typical supercharged, 18 cylinder R-2800-5 or -8 of similar weight to the 14 cylinder BMW801C/D had more power.
Crump Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 The point is that Crump was the first to compare the P-47's turbocharged installation directly with the non-turbocharged BMW 801C/D, then made his calculations based on the weight of engine plus turbocharger, which would obviously favour the BMW. The U.S was the only country that was able to build turbocharger systems reliable enough to be installed in, and used on operations by fighters en-masse. Ohh, So now it is not a fair comparison???? I thought your position was that only the United States could build turbochargers and everyone else was so far behind?
JtD Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 You were pointing out that if you were comparing installed weights of both the R-2800 and BMW801 and set it into relation with max. continuous power, the BMW had a better power/weight ratio, opposing other views expressed in this topic. To illustrate this, you picked one of the heaviest R-2800 installation, took off a couple of hp from it's power and cherry picked a power figure for the BMW. So now the point being made by others would be that if you make a reasonable comparison, the BMW801 isn't better in this regard than the R-2800. 1
MiloMorai Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 The point being that the math shows throwing in the turbocharger ruins the engine until high altitude...... The P-47D still out performed the Fw190A-8 from 0 ft to almost 20kft. Above 20kft the P-47 completely dominated the Fw190A-8.
Recommended Posts