Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
VR-DriftaholiC

FW 190 A5 U17 Boost

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

States 1.65 ATA under 1000m. In my testing it's 1.6ata 2700 at 20m then drops steadily until 1000m it is down to 1.4ata 2700

 

Is this correct or is it bugged

 

All the radial 190's seem like I'm seeing lower manifold pressure then I remember. 

Edited by driftaholic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At low speeds, 1.65 were only achievable at sea level. Ram effects at higher speeds would increase this a little bit, but the real system did not provide 1.65ata up to 1000m. It did provide more than 1.42ata up to 1000m. Basically the proper statement would be "more than 1.42ata, up to 1.65ata, up to 1000m".

 

You can get a pretty good idea about increased boost distribution (also how it differed on various aircraft) from the charts on the last two pages of the below report (altitude (Höhe) is the x axis):

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Erprobung_2581.pdf

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

One of the A4 tested exceeded 1.65 ata and reached 1.675 ata  - is it from ram air effect - or am I reading it wrong?

 

It looks like normally 1.65ata on the deck then dropping between 1.46 to 1.52 ata when 1km reached for the jabos with C3 injection?

 

October 1943...wouldn't even fighters be capable of using this system, why didn't some of them try it?

 

 

 

Edited by CUJO_1970

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

One of the A4 tested exceeded 1.65 ata and reached 1.675 ata  - is it from ram air effect - or am I reading it wrong?

 

It looks like normally 1.65ata on the deck then dropping between 1.46 to 1.52 ata when 1km reached for the jabos with C3 injection?

 

October 1943...wouldn't even fighters be capable of using this system, why didn't some of them try it?

 

 

 

 

 

a8boost44.png

a8boost440.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Thanks - yes I'm aware of the later "dry boost" system like used in the A8.

 

I was wondering why C3 injection ("wet boost") was not commonly used on earlier 1943 A5/A6 pure fighters like it was used on the A5 U17 bombers... even if it was only available up to 3,280 ft or so it seems like it could have come in handy.

 

I had read before that the A5/A6 fighters were considered to have such  a speed advantage on the deck (especially on eastern front) that it wasn't needed.

 

The boost was so easy to add, why not "hot rod" the pure fighters for low altitude work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fighter bombers would fly low all the time, with bombs attached or at least racks attached which slowed them down enough to be rather easily intercepted by enemy fighters like the La-5 or Yak-9. In a fighter role, the Fw190 had a completely different mission profile flying at far higher altitudes, and given the tactical limitations of the Soviets (and in fact the Western Allies) at the time, which only very rarely allowed their fighters to engage in extended sea level chases, there'd be little to no gain for the fighter versions. Essentially, fighters would often already get away by simply diving to ground level, with no necessity to actually run there.
As opposed to in game perception, even simple systems don't come for free in terms of maintenance or logistics, so it's only logical to fit them where they regularly could make the difference between life and death or success and failure, and not fit them where they are useless >99% of the missions.

 

Things changed when the performance of the Fw190 continued to drop with the performance of the opponents increasing, while tactical restrictions were getting dropped (change from close escort to free hunt in the West, for instance).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2020 at 10:38 PM, CUJO_1970 said:

^^Thanks - yes I'm aware of the later "dry boost" system like used in the A8.

 

I was wondering why C3 injection ("wet boost") was not commonly used on earlier 1943 A5/A6 pure fighters like it was used on the A5 U17 bombers... even if it was only available up to 3,280 ft or so it seems like it could have come in handy.

 

I had read before that the A5/A6 fighters were considered to have such  a speed advantage on the deck (especially on eastern front) that it wasn't needed.

 

The boost was so easy to add, why not "hot rod" the pure fighters for low altitude work?


because it wasn't reserved for the U17....unless 2JG54 flew only with U17's...
Ernholte-stuff was tested operationaly by them , and it's not a dedicated jabo squad 😉
the modification for the emergency injection was a simple piece of kit to be assembled on site by grease monkeys and also applicable on old A4's.
I don't see the JG54 Big chiefs allowing the removal of the system once the 3months testing was done, because (use German wing kommander's heavy voice)"ach nein, zu kan't have it, those are nicht U-17"...so yes, it's a total biais. All versions should have it, until the arrival of the higher fuel pumps and the bypass allowing the 1.65 on both supercharger levels.
So, Still a Wurger lover after those 16years??? 😋

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's cost/weight/benefit/availability. Not just one or two factors that generally reserved it for jabo's. Funny this topic came up. I was just doing some light reading on the matter independently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JV69badatflyski said:

because it wasn't reserved for the U17....unless 2JG54 flew only with U17's...
Ernholte-stuff was tested operationaly by them , and it's not a dedicated jabo squad 😉
the modification for the emergency injection was a simple piece of kit to be assembled on site by grease monkeys and also applicable on old A4's.
I don't see the JG54 Big chiefs allowing the removal of the system once the 3months testing was done, because (use German wing kommander's heavy voice)"ach nein, zu kan't have it, those are nicht U-17"...so yes, it's a total biais. All versions should have it, until the arrival of the higher fuel pumps and the bypass allowing the 1.65 on both supercharger levels.

 

What source does that come from?

Share this post


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

 

What source does that come from?


The one source that got banned :dry:, but has access to a tremendous quantity of "Focke-wulf meetings minutes" and other FW originals docs that we won't see elsewhere.
This info was posted , included the scans of docs in german, on the private White1Fundation forum a very long time ago(15years+?).
There was a very long explanation of the wurger's boost history, included all the tech info and graphs.Very informative.
But being banned, the source won't be able to share it with us... ;)

  • Thanks 1
  • 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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...