# Is the Spitfire Really Superior to the FW-190 ... continued



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 9, 2005)

now you've just try and get me to do it


----------



## Udet (Jul 9, 2005)

I do not think I can ever get tired of answering a flat NO to this question.

Do not forget the most produced version of the Spitfire throughout the war was the Mk V (A,B and C) with some 6,500 machines manufactured.

Then the Mk IX follows with some 5,600 toys delivered.

Do not forget the Butcher Bird upon its arrival to the west in 1941-42, treated the Mk V with utmost brutality, feasting with this particular version. 

So the most produced version of the Spitfire *showed what perhaps made the clearest and purest case of inferiority before its foes in the western front after the BoB.*

The F versions of the 109 after the BoB treated the contemporary Spitfire in a very similar fashion.

On other thread (P-51 vs Fw190, Bf 109), Mr. Plan_D puts the Spitfire 21 as fighter capable of surpassing the Bf 109 K-4. Very unlikely. The K-4 could swallow it with relative ease, since the 21 was already becoming a real pig to fly, and saw its manouvering further diminished.

The chances of a Spitfire 21 against a G-10, Fw 190 "long nose" or a Ta 152 are, being generous, ghastly.

Although many prefer the G-10 and G-14 over the K-4, the former made a great version.

The only Sptifire models that to some degree could deal with the Fw 190 were the Mk XIV, produced in real modest numbers: less than 1,000 items delivered.

The Mk IX, the second most produced version of the Spit, with some 5,700 planes, was not up to meet the standards of the Fw 190.

See production tables for the Spitfires from mid 1943 to war´s end: all models that followed were produced in very modest quantities, perhaps feeling real safe to know the 8th AF was beginning its assembly in significant numbers in England.

Only when the massive USAAF assembled in full in England in 1944, could the Spitfire achieve any improvements in its performance against the Luftwaffe.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2005)

plan_D said:


> There is no doubt that the Bf-109 was an equal to the Spitfire in combat



Okay now you said the 109 was equal to the Spit in combat now if the 190 was better than the 109 which it was, how does the 190 then compare to the Spit?


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 10, 2005)

I think the Fw-190's that were matched with their Spitfire counterparts were generally better weren't they?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 10, 2005)

I will ignore Udet because he doesn't have a clue and it would waste my time. 

Adler - I believe I stated the Bf-109 as being the equal to Spitfire in the Battle of Britain. That would be Bf-109E against Spitfire I...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2005)

Okay then I misunderstood what you read.


----------



## Hop (Jul 11, 2005)

> Do not forget the most produced version of the Spitfire throughout the war was the Mk V (A,B and C) with some 6,500 machines manufactured.
> 
> Then the Mk IX follows with some 5,600 toys delivered.



That ignores the fact that 1,050 Spitfire XVIs were made, which was identical to the IX apart from having a Merlin produced in the US. Also 1,650 Spitfire VIIIs, basically the same as the IX apart from minor modifications.

The VIII/IX/XVI family were more numerous than the Vs.



> So the most produced version of the Spitfire showed what perhaps made the clearest and purest case of inferiority before its foes in the western front after the BoB.



Uh, no.

The Spitfire V was in service from Spring 1941. It was a full year before the 190 became an effective front line fighter, suffering as it did from numerous engine troubles.

You cannot put the RAF's difficulties in 1941/42 down to just the relative aircraft, the tactical situation was against them hugely, as they were conducting offensive sweeps against the best units in the Luftwaffe, over terrain friendly to the Luftwaffe, and most importantly, against targets the Luftwaffe could chose to defend or not.

Unlike the BoB, where the RAF had to defend their aircraft factories, command centres, bases etc, especially in preperation for the feared invasion, the Luftwaffe in 1941 and 42 were not oblidged to defend targets in France/Beguim/The Netherlands, and engaged only under favourable conditions.



> The F versions of the 109 after the BoB treated the contemporary Spitfire in a very similar fashion.



Emphatically not. The RAF were very pleased with their performance against the 109F.



> On other thread (P-51 vs Fw190, Bf 109), Mr. Plan_D puts the Spitfire 21 as fighter capable of surpassing the Bf 109 K-4. Very unlikely. The K-4 could swallow it with relative ease, since the 21 was already becoming a real pig to fly, and saw its manouvering further diminished.



Why the Spitfire 21? The XIV was far more involved in the war.

And given a fight between the XIV and the K4, I think I'd make the same choice as Eric Brown.



> The only Sptifire models that to some degree could deal with the Fw 190 were the Mk XIV



What, the 190A?

From an RAF evaluation of the 190A vs Spitfire LF IX:

"I am convinced through experience that the Spitfire with Merlin 66 engine is superior at all levels"

About the only clear advantage the 190A had was it's roll rate, and with the clipped wing Spitfire the difference was not that great. In turn and climb the Spitfire IX was far superior, in speeds there wasn't much to chose between them, in acceleration the Spitfire had the edge. 



> See production tables for the Spitfires from mid 1943 to war´s end: all models that followed were produced in very modest quantities, perhaps feeling real safe to know the 8th AF was beginning its assembly in significant numbers in England.



No, rather see that the Spitfire IX remained a front line aircraft from summer 1942 to the end of the war, at no point did the RAF feel the need to abandon it and switch to only Griffon engined Spitfires.

"Although pilots think that the P-51 is the best American fighter, they think the Spitfire VIII is the best fighter in the air." USAAF 31st FG war diary, when they transitioned from the Spitfire VIII to P-51s.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 11, 2005)

First of all I just want to say great post and welcome to the site.

While I agree with most of what you are saying with such things as the happy eneogh with the Spitfire that they were not going to replace her with anything else or the fact the the you say the Spitfire was better than the P-51 which I completely agree with. 

I would not go as far to say that the Spit IX was superior to the Fw-190A. Just look at the 1941 Dieppe Raid in which the Fw-190A even though they were outnumbered seriously hurt the Spitfire V's. I would agree with you that the Spit XIV was superior in some areas and the Spit MK. 21 was better than the Fw-190A. 

When it comes to your evaluation of the Spit IX and the Fw-190A, what kind of Fw-190A and how was she configured. You also have to take into account that she was being flown by a British Pilot inexperienced in how the Fw-190A flies. 

Through all of this dont take me wrong the Spitfire was a marvelous aircraft and one of the greatest of all times.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 11, 2005)

The Spitfire IX was an equal of the Fw-190A. The Spitfire XIV was superior to the Fw-190A as was the Spitfire 21. 

I really should avoid this 'discussion' from now on because it's repeats of the same old junk. And I really can't take anyone seriously when they say that the Spitfire 21 was a pig to fly.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 11, 2005)

I will agree with you on both points you just made.


----------



## alejandro_ (Jul 12, 2005)

In my opinion the Fw-190 is a step ahead against the Spitfire; the main advantages include:

- Excellent rolling characteristics.
- Dive as well as boom zoom capacity.
- Higher resistance.
- Stronger armament (more firepower and reliable guns).
- Higher maximum speed.
- Better maneouvrability at high speeds. It should be kept in mind that the combats over Europe were, at the end of the war, at medium and high altitudes, engaging at very high speeds.
- Higher range.
- Well suited to ground attack.
- Kommandogedraft to ease engine controls.

Regards.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 12, 2005)

I agree..


----------



## plan_D (Jul 12, 2005)

I don't but I'm not repeating myself - just go through old thread.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 12, 2005)

Plan D can not be budged.  Any I am a faithful 190 man on this topic.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 12, 2005)

Well, really, they're both wonderful aircraft and both sides can produce facts about either aircraft to prove why they're wonderful. No one will be budged off this because they're just amazing aircraft - the pair of them. 

And I think that from the Spitfire IX onwards any Fw-190 pilot would be worried that he'd come up against a Spitfire. And any Spitfire pilot would be worried that there's a Fw-190.


----------



## Hop (Jul 12, 2005)

> I would not go as far to say that the Spit IX was superior to the Fw-190A.



I wouldn't necessarily disagree.

Personally I'd prefer to be in the Spitfire, but they were certainly closely matched.



> Just look at the 1941 Dieppe Raid in which the Fw-190A even though they were outnumbered seriously hurt the Spitfire V's.



Oh, there's no doubt the 190 was superior to the Spitfire V, allthough the V did manage to close some of the gap with it's later boost increases (the Spitfire V went from 12 lbs boost up to 16 lbs, adding hundreds of feet a minute to the climb rate and up to 30 mph to the level speed)

But Dieppe was against Spitfire Vs, not IXs. Although there were 4 active Spitfire IX squadrons in service at the time, they were used to cover the first 8th AF heavy bomber raid at the time of the Dieppe landings, and didn't play a part in the air battle.



> When it comes to your evaluation of the Spit IX and the Fw-190A, what kind of Fw-190A and how was she configured.



It was an A4 I believe.



> In my opinion the Fw-190 is a step ahead against the Spitfire; the main advantages include:
> 
> - Excellent rolling characteristics.



And much worse turning



> - Dive as well as boom zoom capacity.



And much worse climbing



> - Higher resistance.



If you mean resistantce to damage, then not really. The 190 had it's problems, a tendency to catching fire was one of them.



> - Stronger armament (more firepower and reliable guns).



Only with the 4 cannon armament, and then not by much. The Hispano was a well sorted cannon in the Spitfire by 1942 and 43, it had a much higher muzzle velocity than the Mg 151, which helped in shooting accurately.



> - Higher maximum speed.



Typically not, the speeds were usually similar. The 190 usually had an edge at low altitude, the Spitfire at high altitude.



> - Better maneouvrability at high speeds.



Only in the rolling plane. The Spitfire had much better elevator control at high speed.



> It should be kept in mind that the combats over Europe were, at the end of the war, at medium and high altitudes, engaging at very high speeds.



At higher altitude the advantage is definately with the Spitfire. It's lower wing loading and higher powerloading (especially at altitude) meant a higher ceiling, and much better manoueverability at high alt.



> - Higher range.



Not significantly. Beware of looking at high speed cruise figures for Spits without tanks and comparing them to low speed cruise figures for other aircraft with tanks.



> - Well suited to ground attack.



It was undoubtedly better at ground attack than the Spit.



> - Kommandogedraft to ease engine controls.



Later Spitfires had interlinked controls, requiring only the throttle to be set, boost, mixture, prop speed etc were all set automatically.



> And I think that from the Spitfire IX onwards any Fw-190 pilot would be worried that he'd come up against a Spitfire. And any Spitfire pilot would be worried that there's a Fw-190.



Agree 100%. They were well matched.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 12, 2005)

These aircraft were fery well matched - isn't that why we like to debate them?  

wmaxt


----------



## plan_D (Jul 12, 2005)

The problem is this debate has been going on for a long time and everyone has produced something - no one will move from one side to the other. 

We all went into this discussion with "They were equally matched" (except Udet but he doesn't have a clue "Spitfire 21...fly...like pig") - and we've all came to the conclusion that "They were equally matched"


----------



## evangilder (Jul 12, 2005)

Then I guess they both flew like a pig?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2005)

I agree with you on this Plan_D and agree with your assumption of the pilots of each aircraft meeting each other. I really doubt that we will ever come to a conclusion which one was better. 

Now on that note how can we debate and compare these aircraft some more on a different note?


----------



## alejandro_ (Jul 13, 2005)

Hop

The turning was of secondary importance in the high speed combats. IIRC the corner speed and turning radius of the Fw-190 at high speeds was excellent, with the controls well harmonized.



> If you mean resistantce to damage, then not really. The 190 had it's problems, a tendency to catching fire was one of them.



Yes, there was a issue with the cylinders and the fuel injection. On the other hand the Spitfire radiator was quite vulnerable, one shot could knock it out. The higher rolling capacity it's a great advantage because many manouvers start with a roll. The Spitfire had a mediocre rolling rate at high speeds (that's why the wings were modified in the Mk21).Anyway, IMO, in the sort of fighting in the Western Front the Fw-190 had a slight edge.



> At higher altitude the advantage is definately with the Spitfire. It's lower wing loading and higher powerloading (especially at altitude) meant a higher ceiling, and much better manoueverability at high alt.



I probaly agree with you if we are talking about a Fw-190A and a Spitfire MkIX. On the other hand I think the Fw-190D-9 has an edge in high altitude over similar Spitfires.



> Later Spitfires had interlinked controls, requiring only the throttle to be set, boost, mixture, prop speed etc were all set automatically.



Could you say which version? IIRC it was starting with the MkXIV. It would be nice if you can explain a bit more on these controls, the info I got is fairly limited.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 13, 2005)

HOP wrote:



> Only with the 4 cannon armament, and then not by much. The Hispano was a well sorted cannon in the Spitfire by 1942 and 43, it had a much higher muzzle velocity than the Mg 151, which helped in shooting accurately.



The Mauser shoot at higher rate of fire and it could deliver a more large amount of high explosives per second that the Hispano.

For example. the A-6 version that introduce as standar the 4 xMG-151 battery, was enourmous hard hitting.
The inner electromechanically sincronizated guns shoot at 670-680 rpm and the externals Mg-151/E had a rate of 750 -770 rpm.
so the total rate of fire was about 2900 rpm...and dont forget the MG that probably helped a little.









> But Dieppe was against Spitfire Vs, not IXs. Although there were 4 active Spitfire IX squadrons in service at the time, they were used to cover the first 8th AF heavy bomber raid at the time of the Dieppe landings, and didn't play a part in the air battle.



Actually they saw some combat, they claimed a FW-190 destroyed and loss one Spit.

And Udet...the raid was in 19th august 1942...not 1941


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2005)

Which aircrafts guns had the better stopping power? I dont know if that sounded right? Do you understand what I mean?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 13, 2005)

Well...I believe that this weapon topic was discussed already in here:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1092

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1188


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 17, 2005)

Ah thanks.


----------



## vanir (Jul 22, 2005)

Hi  I'm new here, great forum guys, love it.

Aren't we largely talking as has been suggested, personal preferences and flying styles here? I mean comparing the two is a little like comparing an interceptor to an attack plane isn't it?
One of the most decorated German aces was a Stuka pilot, responsible for numerous (I forget how many), fighter kills.

Aren't we kinda forgetting the blokes who flew them?

Bader got Bf 109 victories in his Hurricane didn't he? Obviously the better aircraft? No, I don't really think there's such a thing so long as the designs are relatively contemporary to each other.

(this is a bodgied example that's probably wrong all over the place but still):
Hurricane strengths, stability, willingness, good armament. Weaknesses, construction, hp/speed, fixed wooden prop (updated later).
109E strengths, hp/speed, climb rate, dive capacity, powerful armament. Weaknesses, complicated, heavy, uncomfortable.

So the better aircraft? I should think it's up to the pilot on the day, and what others can take from that, tactically.

Myself, I like the Fw-pig. But it stalls too easy and can't take a hit. If I had to get near the ground I'd go a Gustav or a Kurfurst.
Choice with the Spit? Nah, fuel injection and bottled boosters rule. Just don't go up top unless you've got a Dora.
Now the Dora, I'd take that over anything but a Schwalbe.

But then I'd probably get shot down 6 days out of 7, so don't listen to me.
My impression of the Spits? Overrated. It's not the Superplane every teenage combat fighter enthusiast searches for, there isn't one. But it's a top high altitude fighter intercept, I think designed to assuage a public fear of Luftwaffe bombers generated in the 30's and had the agenda of taking out escorts. But this is just an opinion, like I said I'd probably get shot down.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2005)

uh - Welcome!


----------



## plan_D (Jul 23, 2005)

I hate people who call the Spitfire over-rated.  

And welcome.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 23, 2005)

no the spitfire was far from over rated............

and, whilst you make some good points about pilot preference, i feel i must point out that the hurricane's construction was most definatly a strengh, as it was very strong and easy to repair.........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 23, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I hate people who call the Spitfire over-rated.
> 
> And welcome.


Ditto.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 23, 2005)

wow, those eyes are rolling in perfect sync.....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 23, 2005)

Creepy, huh?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 23, 2005)

> Myself, I like the Fw-pig. But it stalls too easy and can't take a hit. If I had to get near the ground I'd go a Gustav or a Kurfurst.



I think id rather be taking hits in a plane with a radial than an inline...


----------



## vanir (Jul 23, 2005)

Oh come on, the presentation of the Spitfire as a WWII fighter is the British equivalent of the Stars and Stripes coming up during the movie and all of a sudden the hero is immune to gunfire and blows up entire buildings with his .44"

It's about en par with any front line fighter of its day. In 1943 that meant the Bf 109G, but documentarians persist in claiming the Fw 190 was a clearly superior aircraft. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I don't think Supermarine Spitfire meant Superhuman fighter design. It was average, in a time when average was damn good.

Luftwaffe to RAF fighter kill ratio in 1943 was 8:1, for whatever that's worth.

Besides, it's ugly. Check out those wings, man. Talk about pussy whipped designers. I betchya Mr Supermarine had to book sex a week in advance.
"And here is my new design for bomber intercept, I thought of it brushing bits of flower petals off after my wife cracked a vase over my head."


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 23, 2005)

Wow, someone else who, like me, doesnt find the Spitfire amazing to look at! Im gonna like you, even if you dont appear much of an Fw-190 man....  Welcome.


----------



## vanir (Jul 23, 2005)

> I think id rather be taking hits in a plane with a radial than an inline...


Documentarians as the source materiel once again, but I heard the reason the 109 was pushed as a late war fighter-bomber was due to the Fw's radial being more suceptable to ground fire.
They do tend to interview war vets on film and give plenty of war footage...

But it's not like I was there to know.

 tanks for the welcome, not trying to poo-poo the parade or anything.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 23, 2005)

Hey, hey, hey!!!
I'll tolerate many things, but the Spitfire is _not_ ugly!  

(Or overrated. :-" )


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 23, 2005)

Ok ill give you that, it isnt ugly, just dull. Like Japanese car


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2005)

vanir said:


> Besides, it's ugly. Check out those wings, man. Talk about pussy whipped designers. I betchya Mr Supermarine had to book sex a week in advance.
> "And here is my new design for bomber intercept, I thought of it brushing bits of flower petals off after my wife cracked a vase over my head."



Searche the internet and find out about elliptical wings - they were used for a purpose (although I know Soren won't agree with me)

The designer of the Spit, Reginald Mitchell was one of the most brilliant aircraft designers of his day as not only designing the Spitfire, but designing the Supermarine SB racers of the 1930s. He died of Cancer before the war.


----------



## vanir (Jul 23, 2005)

Yeah I was just poking some fun.

Can you tell me, were the Spit's wing design to give high altitude characteristics? Was it as I suspect, designed to answer the public phobia built in the 1930's about bomber air power?


----------



## Udet (Jul 23, 2005)

Mr. Hop:

That was quite an interesting attempt to mingle and play with the several versions of the Spitfire, flawed though. But I will not debate further on that particular matter.

The V version of the Spitfire got dramatically surpassed by the Butcher Bird. It appears you have sound doubts on the matter even when you see the outcome of two famous battles that have been cited here: Dieppe and Channel Dash; on both occasions the RAF deployed a very significant effort and received brutal treatment at the hands of the Fw190s and Bf 109s. The V happened to be one of the main characters of such battles.


Also your argument trying to justify the performance of the RAF over France in 1941-1942 does not hold water.

The Spitfires were going nowhere in gaining anything over the Luftwaffe both over the Channel and France in 41/42 and first half of 1943.

So the Luftwaffe pilots decided when to engage the Spitfires over France after the BoB? That is part of the logic of war, to decide when to hit and when to wait.

Whatever...whenever they "decided" to engage them, the Spitfires went down in juicy numbers.

The arrival of the USAAF to England and its gradual assembly, jugs and jugs, gave the RAF a fresh breeze. Now the Luftwaffe would eventually find itself dramatically outnumbered as time passed.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 23, 2005)

Correct me if Im wrong, but did this guy just state that the Bf-109 was LESS susceptable to ground fire than the Fw-190???


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 23, 2005)

yes, he said he'd rather take a -109 than a -190 for a ground attack mission..........


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 23, 2005)

Thats just plain silly...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 23, 2005)

but remeber, it is our job to educate him, not call him stupid...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 23, 2005)

Fw-190F-8....IDEAL....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 23, 2005)

i'd rather be in a jug.........


----------



## plan_D (Jul 23, 2005)

Udet, go get a clue. 

No one stated the Spitfire V was superior or even an equal to the Fw-190. It was able to handle itself up against Bf-109F. 

My argument does hold water, you're just dumb. 

The Luftwaffe only engaged the RAF over France when it was in favourable terms for them to engage. The RAF didn't have the luxury during the Battle of Britain. Use a bit of grey matter. 

And anyone who calls the Spitfire overrated are just stupid as well and like to be controversial, when they're just a tit. It's like calling the Mustang overrated - and if you think it was overrated go into the Polls section and the P-51 Vs P-47 thread.


----------



## Udet (Jul 23, 2005)

Mr. Plan_D:

Clues? I have got plenty of them. It should be you wondering if you ve got any. 

When necessary, yes, I am totally controversial.

It is more about giving a response to the question giving life to this thread.

I have stated the answer such a question deserves: NO.


To put an even grimmer horizon before your sight, this time it is not a matter of preference or personal taste. With the sole exception of the Spitfire XIV, that could have some parity with the Butcher Bird, no Spitfire ever could tangle with the A series of the Fw 190; the scenario for the Spitfires gets even worse during the second half of 1944 when facing the "long nose" D version and the final model in the evolution of the Focke Wulf: the Ta 152. 

Fortunately for the Spitfire pilots, by the time the D version and the Ta 152 entered service the European skies were also loaded with Jugs and Mustangs, very favorable circumstances and helpful friends to have fighting in your side. 


Be very sure on this: the Bf-109 E-3 who saw action over England during 1940 performed many many times better against the MkI Spitfires and Hurricanes, than any version of the Spitfire ever came close to achieve fighting the Fw190 during 1941, 1942 and the first half of 1943 -before the 8th assembled in full in England-.

Your inconsistent and void remarks are amusing.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 23, 2005)

> Your inconsistent and void remarks are amusing.


Which is why we here like him so very much.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2005)

vanir said:


> Yeah I was just poking some fun.
> 
> Can you tell me, were the Spit's wing design to give high altitude characteristics? Was it as I suspect, designed to answer the public phobia built in the 1930's about bomber air power?



Elliptical wings are supposed to reduce induced drag and provide early stall warning. During WW2, they were found expensive and time consuming to build. High altitude performance? I think that might of been part of the equasion.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 23, 2005)

Again, Udet has kindly shown us the lack of knowledge he currently holds in that shallow well of his. 

No Spitfire but the Spitfire XIV could tangle with the Fw-190. A joke, surely? I feel some strange feeling, it's kind of like I am repeating myself to someone who knows nothing and will not accept anything but his own views on the matter. 

Whatever your eyes see on your screen or book when you read [that is assuming you do read], it probably will be the complete opposite. For the Fw-190 did overcome the Spitfire V with ease, no debate there and I don't believe there ever was. Except maybe in your mind, the creation of confrontation to inflate your swelling ego. Why it swells, I do not know. A legend in your own mind, I suppose. 

The Spitfire did achieve an equal standing with the Fw-190A series with the Spitfire VIII, IX and XVI. All of which are basically the same model of Spitfire - the XVI being a U.S built Packard-Merlin Mk. IX. I do much prefer discussing this with Soren because even with the insults and slanging it does degrade into sometimes, his points do hold water and he does produce facts to back up his statements. You on the other hand have a personal vendetta against the Allied armies of World War 2, it seems these days to be more against the United Kingdom but we can't stay the same forever. 

As quite clearly mentioned by I believe everyone on this forum involved in this discussion, aside from you, the Spitfire XIV was a superior dogfighter to the Fw-190A, of any variant. That also brings into account the Spitfire XII, which at low altitude was also superior to the Fw-190A. The Spitfire XII being solely created to stop the Fw-190 low-level nuisance raids. 

The Spitfire XIV and Fw-190D were equal partners in a dogfight, always coming to the pilot skill. It has been agreed by everyone but you, again. 

And then the Ta-152, of course the most magnificent piston-engined fighter ever to be created. One with hardly an experience in combat but is marvelled by all as unbeatable in the hands of a capable pilot. Certainly, it was a remarkable aircraft but it was too little, too late and it's combat experience against a Spitfire? None. It never met one. That said, it would have been interesting to see it come into contact with the Spitfire 21. 

I wish I could say the waste that you leave behind on these forums was amusing but it really isn't. It's more like a dose of VD - and with all those lovely women you date, you'll have had that experience. Sure, they don't chew with their mouth open but we can all do that, Udet. They just hide their VD behind a civilised mask. 

Enjoy.


----------



## alejandro_ (Jul 23, 2005)

plan_D

Interesting message, could you point me to the old thread where you discussed this in more detail? I am interested in the maneouvrability of the Spitfire at high speeds, I have read it wasn't as good as the Fw-190.

Regards.


----------



## vanir (Jul 23, 2005)

I stand corrected. I had it the wrong way around (I just looked it up). It seems the air cooled radial was less susceptable to ground fire than a liquid cooled inline, my mistake (see what weekend alchohol will do to you?).

Also found this pearler in my travels:


> Even when escorts arrived, the FW-190 was never a pushover for any Allied pilots, anyplace, anywhere. When an overenthusiastic American manufacturer printed an advertisement that displayed an FW-190 to mock it with the caption: "Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Wulf?" -- they got a copy of the ad sent back to them in the mail along with a letter signed by everyone in a bomber unit that said: "We are."


----------



## plan_D (Jul 23, 2005)

I don't blame them for being scared of the Fw-190. I don't think any bomber crew wanted to be caught on the wrong side of a Fw-190A-8/R8!  

The Fw-190 pilots weren't too happy about going up against the escorting P-51s either. 

And I think everyone with a bit of sense can agree that if a Fw-190 met a Spitfire in 1944-1945 neither the Spitfire or Fw-190 pilot would think it was going to be an easy kill.


----------



## vanir (Jul 23, 2005)

Resounding agreement there plan_D.

Don't mind my teething troubles btw, I'm already learning a lot from this site.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 24, 2005)

The problem with comparing the Spitfire and the 190 as fighters is the timeframe and evolutionary changes that each went through in the 1941 to 1945 period. The Spitfire Vb alone went through 1300 modifications in its service life, making absolute comparisons tough.

Right off the bat after its 1941 appearance you would have to say that the 190A was undoubtly the superior fighter. Look at the advantages of a Fw-190A2 (the first real production version, 400 built) compared to a classically equipped Spitfire Vb (+12lbs boost Merlin 45);

1) Significantly faster at all altitudes up to about 7500 meters (25, 000 feet). The A4 topped out at about 390 mph at 6000m, the Spitfire Vb at 375mph at 7000m. There was a general 20-30 mph advantage to the 190, more so at lower altitudes.

2) Higher rate of roll at all speeds and all altitudes.

3) Significantly better acceleration, particularly at low altitude.

4) Significantly better dive, both in absolute speed and dive handling. The 190 could simply run away from the Spitfire in a dive if the pilot found himself in trouble. At 500 mph true the control were described as "although slightly heavier, are still remarkably light"

5) Better sighting view. The 190 had about half a ring better deflection sighting than a Spitfire V.

6) Better search view. The 190A had what the ADFU described as "the best yet seen by this unit". There were very few canopy obstructions to the side or rear due to the bubble type canopy.

7) Superior climb. The Fw-190 climbs at a higher m/sec and higher speed than the Spitfire Vb until very high altitude (27,000 feet or higher)

8) Superior armament. The 190A2 has 2x MG FF, 2x Mg151.20 and 2x MG 17. Firing Mingenschloss shells (about 2 in 5 in most ammo load-outs) the MGFF and MG 151/20 come out only very slightly less destructive than the Hispano. The 190A2 had more cannon ammunition per gun than the Spitfire Vb (60rpg for the Hispano in a B type wing)

9) Trim setting. The 190 was set very well for trim and cruise settings, reducing the pilots workload considerably.

10) Kommergranate or automatic engine controls. This allowed novice pilots to get accustomed to the type very quickly. 

So the 190 was faster in level ad dive speeds, a superior climber, had heavier armament and light control at high speeds than a Spitfire Vb. Sounds scary, and for a Spitfire pilot in early/mid 1942 it was. His only major advantage was a better sustained climb at altitude and a much tighter turning circle and better turn times. The 190 had a lot of problems with the BMW-801 as well. There was insufficient cockpit cooling, the engine ran quite roughly and was prone to catching fire in mid-air. FW-190s were banned from making long overwater flights for quite a while. 

The British tests of the Farber 190A3 rated it as superior fighter to the Spitfire Vb in almost every respect, with the exception of horizontal turn.

Things, however, tend to have a habit of changing. By June 1942 the two stage Merlin 61 was put into the redesigned and reinforced Spitfire Vc airframe, resulting in the Spitfire IX. The 190 got better as well though, with the beginning of serial production of the 190A3 in mid 1942, getting an up-rated (1,700 hp) BMW-801-D2 which improved speeds at all levels by about 5-10 mph and was MUCH more reliable.

The Spitfiire IX did much to redress the balance in favour of the Spitfire. The primary boost was in level and dive speed. The Vc airframe was much tougher than the old Vb, it could dive to higher speeds and the Merlin 61 accelerated in a dive faster. Alieron and elevator mass balances were adjusted improving control harmonisation and rate of role (if only minorly). Cannon ammunition went from 60 prg to 120 rpg. The oil cooler was redesigned. All of a sudden the Spitfire was neck and neck with the 190 when it came to combat.

Going down my list of advantages for the 190A2 we now see a large swing.

1) The 190 only faster below 1000m/ 3,000 feet and between 5000- 6500m/ 18,000- 22,000 feet. At all other heights they are either even or the Spitfire has the advantage. Above 7000m/ 23,000 feet the Spitfire has a noticeable advantage, up to 20mph over 8000m.

2) The 190 ALWAYS rolled faster than the Spitfire, even the clipped wing birds. However, the Spitfire did continually and incrementally improve it roll rate during the war.

3) The 190 posses superior acceleration below 23,000 feet. Above this height the Spitfire has a very slim margin, which increases with altitude.

4) The 190 is still a better diver. The Spitfire IX is not out-dived as badly as the Vb though.

5) The Spitfire offered no improvement to the sighting view of the type.

6) The Spitfire IX improved the all around visibility of the Spitfire family (less cockpit framing) but couldn't compete with the 190s bubble canopy.

7) The Spitfire IX climbs better than the 190. The gap is marginal below 20,000 feet but increases rapidly after this point.

8)The Spitfire IX now had double the cannon ammunition but the Fw190A3 also increased its load-out, so I would still go with the FW here.

9) As above

10) The Spitfire IX did lessen the pilots workload but as I'm not a pilot I can't really comment as to how much.

So, in mid-1942 the absolute superiority of the 190A is replaced by a neck and neck horse race with the Spitfire IX. The 190A received a boost when Mw-50 is introduced in late 1942, with the 190A4 and slightly lengthened 190A5. Still, its now apparent the there are something that the Spitfire can do better (turn, climb, speed at medium and high alts) and there are things that the 190 does better (dive, roll, shoot [sight and guns] and high speed control).

All in all the end of 1942 the RAF didn't feel like it was prey for the 190. I would hardly say that a Merlin 61 engined +16lbs boosted Spitfire is better than a 190 but it is certainly a more even match.

Sorry for the essay though, it’s my first post here. Just wanted to bring some facts to the discussion and leave a god first impression.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 24, 2005)

Nothing wrong with being thorough. Welcome aboard. 

But prepare to be swarmed by Spitfire fans.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 24, 2005)

Good post and welcome... If u hang around, ull see that this is a very heated and often opinionated discussion... Your points are just about all correct, but there will be others who will contest ur points...

There are more than a couple Aussies, or as I like to say, Vickys, here.... I think ull get along just fine....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 24, 2005)

Great Post and welcome!


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 24, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> But prepare to be swarmed by Spitfire fans.



Well, I'm quite a Spitfire fan myself. British aircraft are, shall we say, my cup of tea. Bring them on, I love a good dogfight.

My last post left touching on the Merlin 61 engined Spitfire IX facing the 190A3 towards the end of 1942. The RAF had 4 squadrons fully operational with the IX by Dieppe and averaged about 2 squadrons converting to the newer version a month. Meanwhile the Luftwaffe operated 190A3/A4s and began to transition to 190A5 in mid 1943 with JG 2, JG 26 and maybe JG 56 (??) flying from France and Belgium. 

By the end of April 1943 the 190A4 was in service and the 190A5 had entered production, improving the 'Butcher Bird' once again. The engine mounting was lengthened 15cm to reduce vibration and strenthen parts of the airframe. The Mw-50 Methanol/Water injection system also had a revised installation. The FW could now do approx 400-410 mph at 6000m with the Mw-50. Reports mention that there may of been a 2 minute operatonal limit imposed on Mw-50 in initial service, mostly due to overheating problems. This is contentious though as the manuals generally state 5 minutes or even ten minutes of operation per use. There was enough mixture for about 25 minutes of operation.

What the Mw-50 did was to significantly enhance the boost levels and speed of the 190, albeit for limited periods. The FW was now faster than ever, but weight creep was affecting its handeling, Kurt Tank actually developed a new wing for the A6 variant, to deal with the problem as well as to revise armament options. The 190 was always known for its very high stall speeds. It stalled at about 110-120 mph straight and level, compared to 70-80 mph in the same attitude for the Spitfire. In turns there was little if any warning of the vicious snap-stall that could develope. This made the 190 unsuited to traditional low speed dogfighting, Tank having realised that high speed would keep pilots alive better than sharp turns. Tank actually wanted higher wingloadings so that he could increase the speed of the 190. 

In parallel with the improvements to the 190 the Spitifre was also seeing upgrades. Most noticably the Merlin 61 was fitted with an improved Bendix-Stromberg carburettor and other modifiactions and turned into the excellent Merlin 66/70/71 family. The Merlin 66 appeared about March 1943, alowing the Spitifire to increase its horsepower and boost levels in almost all regiemes of flight, as well as reducing crankcase loading with a heavier weighted crankshaft. 

The Spitifre IX operating a Merlin 66 at +18lbs was between 15-20 mh faster below 11,000 feet than the Spitifre IX with a Merlin 61 at +16lbs. Up high there was very little difference in speeds, but down low the Sptifire was finally catching up with the 190. Its rate of climb was now much better at low altitude, particularly in the L.F. clipped wing versions of the Spitfire IX, which accounted for around half of all Merlin 66 production. Given how close the A3 had been to the Merlin 61 Spitfire IX in terms of low to medium level performance, the A4/A5 now had even less envelopes where it was ascendent. The RAF also deployed around 200 Merlin 70/71 high altitude versions of the Spitfire IX. It could reach around 415-418 mph at 27,000 feet, making it markedly better than the Fw190 above 20,000 feet.

Add to this the conversion of Spitfire V ariframes for lew level duties. The rather unkind epithat of "clipped, cropped and clapped" was added to them. Clipped, as in the wings, cropped as in the supercharger impellers were cut back for low alt usage and clapped, as in clapped out old airframes. However, these modifications turned the Spitfire V into a very useful low level fighter. Adding a Merlin 50M or 55M and running the engine at 18lbs boost meant that the formerly outclassed Spitfire V was now challenging the Fw190 at low altitudes.

Compared to a 'classic' Spitfire Vb/c with a Merlin 45/46 the L.F. version was a menace down low. With clipped wings and modified airframes (whip aerial, revised mirror rairings, removing the carburettor ice guard) it was up to 20 mph faster than the Vb/c on the deck. At full throttle height of 6000 feet a clipped L.F. V could make close around 350-360 mph. In 1943 some Spitfire Vbs also had their 'fishtail' type exhaust stubs replaced with multi-ejector stacks, the better aerodynamics and thrust generated by the new exhausts adding a further 5 mph down low.

With clipped wings a Spitfire V L.F. was only some 10-15 degrees per second slower in roll than a Fw-190. So, at the Fw-190s peak roll rate of about 165 degrees/second, the Spitifre was less than 10% slower in the roll. Only a few Allied fighters ever out rolled the 190, the P-38L with boosted alierons, the Mustang and Tempest are the only ones that come to mind, and even they only did so at high speed. At such low altitudes the traditiona FW flick over and dive was not effective and the FWs generally had to perform a shallow nose over followed by a serise of high speed zoom climbs to escape.

The little Spitfire V could now hope to compete with the 190A5 at low altitude. With a Merlin 50M the Spitfire climbed over 4,500 feet per minute until 5,000 feet and maintaned a 4,000 fpm climb until 10,000 feet. After this performance fell off rapidly however due to the cropped supercharger impeller on the M serise Merlins. With a Fw 190A4/A5 running at 1.42 ATA [highest cleared boost for the A5, used in mid 43 - early 44] the Spitfire V held roughly level pegging in speed from about 5,000 to 10,000 feet. Above or below these heights the Fw190 generally outran the Spitfire V but could not outclimb it at any height below 10,000 feet. 

With the combination of Spitfire IX H.F. above 30,000 feet, Spitfire F/L.F. at 20,00 feet and Spitfire L.F. Vb/c at 5000-10000 feet the Spitfires now had the numbers and the all altitude abilities to deal with the 190 effectively. 

More later, I'm just warming up to this. I knew there was a reason I had kept all the Rechelin and RAE reports on my HD!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 24, 2005)

Good stuff!


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jul 24, 2005)

Jabberwocky said:


> By the end of April 1943 the 190A4 was in service and the 190A5 had entered production, improving the 'Butcher Bird' once again. The engine mounting was lengthened 15cm to reduce vibration and strenthen parts of the airframe. The Mw-50 Methanol/Water injection system also had a revised installation. The FW could now do approx 400-410 mph at 6000m with the Mw-50. Reports mention that there may of been a 2 minute operatonal limit imposed on Mw-50 in initial service, mostly due to overheating problems. This is contentious though as the manuals generally state 5 minutes or even ten minutes of operation per use. There was enough mixture for about 25 minutes of operation.



Jabber I believe some of your info is incorrect. The MW50 was tested on A-4s but was never installed in operational A-5s. What was used was the injection of C3 fuel which allowed the A-5 to use 1.62ata for a minute or two and under 1000m. This limit was later increased. The first A that could use MW50 operationally was the A-8 but again the C3 fuel injection was the preferred method.

For more info on the 190A contact, http://www.white1foundation.org/


Faber's captured A-3 ran rough and was down on power because it used British fuel which was not compatable with German C3 fuel. C3 had additives which the British fuel lacked.

Do you have any info on this JG56?


----------



## alejandro_ (Jul 24, 2005)

According to 

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avfw190.html#m2

Jabberwocky is right:



> The Spitfire IX did help even the odds over the long run, but Focke-Wulf was still churning out better versions of the Butcher Bird. The "FW-190A-4" went into production in late 1942, the primary improvement being the addition of an "MW-50" water-methanol power boost system for the BMW-801 engine. The MW-50 injected water into the engine's cylinders to raise the engine's redline limit for a short period of time. The methanol was mainly intended as anti-freeze.



Regards.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jul 24, 2005)

Don't believe everything you read on the net alejandro.

This is what your link says about the 109K:

_The initial production models were the "Bf-109K-2" and the "Bf-109K-4", with deliveries beginning in October 1944. The Bf-109K-2 was fitted with the DB-605ASC or DB-605DC engine, with GM-1 nitrous oxide boost as standard, and three-gun armament, featuring an MK-108 or MK-103 Motorkanone and twin MG-151/15 cowling guns. The Bf-109K-4 was identical, but featured cockpit pressurization._

Note the MG151/15. The K was only fitted with the MK108. A modified MK103, the MK103M, was tested but never installed. There was no K-2s produced though they were scheduled to start production at Erla, WNF and MTT Regensburg in Feb 1944. In March 1944 the decision was made to standardize on the K-4.

On the 190A with MW50, please look at these A.L. Bentley drawings and tell me where the MW50 tank was fitted on the A-5. http://www.albentley-drawings.com/fw190a_f_g.htm

Bentley did his drawing using Focke-Wulf documentaion as well as a/c inspections.


----------



## Hop (Jul 24, 2005)

> 4) Significantly better dive, both in absolute speed and dive handling. The 190 could simply run away from the Spitfire in a dive if the pilot found himself in trouble. At 500 mph true the control were described as "although slightly heavier, are still remarkably light"



At higher altitudes the Spitfire had a dive speed advantage due to i's thin wing. The Spitire had about the highest Mach limit of any WW2 prop fighter.



> 7) Superior climb. The Fw-190 climbs at a higher m/sec and higher speed than the Spitfire Vb until very high altitude (27,000 feet or higher)



The Spitfire V had a better climb rate than the early 190s, up to at least the end of 1942.

The AFDU report on Faber's 190 says differently, but the AFDU made an error in their tests, running their 190A3 at a higher power setting than the Germans allowed. In fact, the RAF used what was the German's 3 minute rating as a 30 minute rating, and used a 3 minute rating that the Germans didn't use on the A3.

In short, the AFDU overboosted their captured 190.

I can document this if you want proof, but it's quite clear in the AFDU report as well, where they say there is evidence the engine has been derated. (they adjusted the engine to run at it's "full" rating even though this was higher than the Germans allowed)



> Cannon ammunition went from 60 prg to 120 rpg.



This is also the case for most Vs as well. The Vc had 120 rpg to begin with, many Vbs were refitted with the Vc wing as they came in for overhaul.



> 3) The 190 posses superior acceleration below 23,000 feet. Above this height the Spitfire has a very slim margin, which increases with altitude.



Even the AFDU, who were overboosting their 190, found the accelertion to be roughly similar (the 190 has an acceleraion advanage except at altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage, or some such iirc)

Against a 190 A3 or early A4 running the correct boost the Spitfire IX should have an acceleration advantage in most cases.



> 7) The Spitfire IX climbs better than the 190. The gap is marginal below 20,000 feet but increases rapidly after this point.



Again, this is due to the AFDU overboosting their 190, at the correct rating the Spitfire has a significantly better climb rate.



> 10) The Spitfire IX did lessen the pilots workload but as I'm not a pilot I can't really comment as to how much.



The interlinked controls meant the pilot set the throttle, mixture was already automatic, the rpm was set according to the throttle setting. I'm not sure when the interlinked controls came in, though. But note even without the interlinked control, the Spit had a constant speed prop, automatic boost conrol, and automatic mixing. That gave 2 power controls, one for throttle, one for rpm, and they were usually operated simultaneously.



> So, in mid-1942 the absolute superiority of the 190A is replaced by a neck and neck horse race with the Spitfire IX.



I'd broadly agre with that, with the proviso that the Spitfire was easier to fly, and easier to get the best out of. 

And you've missed some things ou of your list, eg handling, the Spitfire had much more forgiving handling, the 190 had dangerous stall charaacteristics.



> The 190A received a boost when Mw-50 is introduced in late 1942, with the 190A4 and slightly lengthened 190A5.



MW50 _may_ have been used operationaly on low level A4 jabos, it was not in widespread use, and was not used in fighters.



> With a Fw 190A4/A5 running at 1.42 ATA [highest cleared boost for the A5, used in mid 43 - early 44]



That's the rating the AFDU used for their test of Faber's 190 back in August 1942, which is why their findings on the 190 needed to be treated with caution.



> Faber's captured A-3 ran rough and was down on power because it used British fuel which was not compatable with German C3 fuel. C3 had additives which the British fuel lacked.



The [possibly] higher octane rating of C3 at this time would allow higher boost, it didn't confer more power at the same settings.

In fact Faber's 190 had more power than it did in German service, because the RAF used 1.42 ata, 2700 rpm as the 3 minute rating, when it was actually limited to 1.35 ata, 2450 rpm

The AFDU used 1.35 ata, 2450 rpm as the 30 minute rating, the Germans used 1.28 ata, 2350 rpm

So what the Germans consider emergency power the AFDU used as a climb setting, and as emergency setting they used far more than the 190 was cleared for.


----------



## Hop (Jul 24, 2005)

> With the sole exception of the Spitfire XIV, that could have some parity with the Butcher Bird, no Spitfire ever could tangle with the A series of the Fw 190; the scenario for the Spitfires gets even worse during the second half of 1944 when facing the "long nose" D version and the final model in the evolution of the Focke Wulf: the Ta 152.



Udet, I'll espond with a post every bit as full of facts, sourced information and evidence as you've posted:

The FW190 couldn't hope to compete with the Spitfire IX, it was completely outclassed by the British plane.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 25, 2005)

I'm a big Spitfire fan and most of my information on the FW comes from the Faber 190A3 tests and the USAAF and USN comparative tests carried out in 1943. I'd usually be rooting for the Spitfire but early on there is no doubt in my mind that the Air Ministries conclusion that the "FW190 is the best all round fighter in the world today" was correct.

While I'll accept that the Faber tests are skewed (particularly down low) because of the British running at 1.42 ata, I still think that they are a very good general guide to the perfroance and handling of a mid 1942-1943 190. They will give higher climb and level speeds than the 1.32 ata tests. However, the British never pushed the 190 into 1.42 boost for aything longer than 2 minutes.

The Faber tests states quite clearly that the 190 could outclimb the Spitfire at all altitudes. Specifically, point 49 states that 

"The climb of the Fw190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the FW is steeper. Under maximum continious climbing conditions the climb of the FW is approximately 450ft/min. better up to 25,000 feet."

Point 50 of the same test states that;

"With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW190 is even more marked"

1.32 ata will knock some, but not all, of that climb advatage away. The 190 definately zoom climber far better than the Spitfire.

The same tests compare the Spitfire IX with the 190A3. Point 61 states that; 

"The FW190 is faster than the Spitfire IX in a dive, particularly in the initial stage. This superiority is not as marked as with the Spitifre VB"

The 190 had a higher wing-loading and a smaller wing. Like the Spittfire it also had quite a thin wing. Standard LW tactics for disengaging fighter combat was to flick roll and invert and dive for home using their birds superior dive acceleration and capabilities. The LW recieved a rud shock when it came up against the P-47 as all of a sudden it found itself being outdived. 

The comparative acceleration tests of a P-38F, Spitifre IX at 16lbs and a 190A4 have the 190 outaccelerating the Spitfire by about 200 yards initailly and then both evening off.

As for the Spitfire IX definately being a better fighter than the 190, well that is a HIGHLY contentious statement, and depends on what time you make the judgement against what type of 190. I've lurked here a while and I've seen you in other forums Hop so I know I'm not going to change your mind on this. But, before getting the Merlin 66 I feel that you are wrong. At most a Merlin 61 engined Spitfire IX had level pegging and I think that the 190 was a touch better in fulfilling its roles. Down low (below 15,000 feet) I would pick the 190A over almost any Spitfire IX variant, with the exception of a clipped wing L.F. IXe or a +25lbs boosted version.

And you were right about the 190A4/A5 not mounting Mw-50 in large numbers. While the ENGINES had the capacity to use it it wasn't standard installation until the 190A8. The 190A5 could, and did, mount the 115litre tank for the Mw-50 though and it was likely used in some numbers as it was an easy and available field modification (and remembering all the 190 and 109 field mod designations will be the death of me).

I only think that the A serise was surpassed clearly when the Spitfire XI/XVI started to used 25lbs boost, just prior to D-Day.

One thing that we all forget though is the Sptifire XII, the low level, Griffon III or Griffon IV engined version. First flying in squadron strength in January/February 1943 it was more than a match for the 190 at low altitudes. Here is where the British get their revenge, with an excellent high/low perfromance combination. Only 100 were built but initial testing showed that the XII was the best low altitude Spitfire version until the +25lbs L.F. IX came along. Production airframes of the XII (particularly the last 60 birds with the Griffon IV) climbed better, rolled faster and handled better than the IX. It saw service with 2 squadrons from very early 1943 until late 44/early 45 when both transitioned to the XIV.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jul 25, 2005)

Hop, are you saying that an engine with fouled plugs, which the A-3 had, would develop the same power as an engine with un-fouled plugs? The plugs fouled because the British fuel was not formulated to be used in the 801, which the C3 was. It has nothing to do with octane rating.

For more/better info ask Crumpp.

Green and Swanborough in their 190 book say the boost was reduced to 1.35 in order to conserve engine life as the A-3 was so much more superior to the Spit V. They, in their technical description of Faber's a/c from the RAE report, have a table that shows only 1.35ata being the max boost. 1.35 gave 1595hp @ 2500' and 1455hp at 18000'.

Are you saying the A-9, of which some 1800 were produced, with 2000hp could not 'compete' with 25lb boost Spit IXs?


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jul 25, 2005)

Jabber, the 115l tank could not be mounted in the A-5 as a /R5 since there was now way to get it into the fuselage > the hatches were too small. Also when the A-8 mounted the tank, the area had to be reconfigured from the previous models. 

Even when fitted to the A-8, it carried C3 since C3 injection was the preferred method of getting more power.


----------



## Hop (Jul 25, 2005)

> Are you saying the A-9, of which some 1800 were produced, with 2000hp could not 'compete' with 25lb boost Spit IXs?


Perhaps I should have put a smiley on my last post. It was intended as an answer to Udet's opinion, and was simply the opposite of his opinion, that the Spitfire can't compete with the 190A. It wasn't meant as a serious reply.



> Hop, are you saying that an engine with fouled plugs, which the A-3 had, would develop the same power as an engine with un-fouled plugs?



If you're running it beyond it's full power rating, yes.

The RAE tested the 190 more thouroughly, they got considerably better climb figures out of it than FW did, even at almost the same ratings.



> Green and Swanborough in their 190 book say the boost was reduced to 1.35 in order to conserve engine life as the A-3 was so much more superior to the Spit V.



The real reason is that until the exhaust was chromed the engine suffered badly from overheating, and I believe it had some other problems as well.



> They, in their technical description of Faber's a/c from the RAE report, have a table that shows only 1.35ata being the max boost. 1.35 gave 1595hp @ 2500' and 1455hp at 18000'.



Yes, the RAE, who tested after the AFDU, stuck to the correct ratings, although they believed the full rating was as much as 1.5 ata.

But the AFDU used 1.42 ata 2700rpm as the emergency rating, 1.35 ata, 2450 rpm as the 30 minute rating.



> I'd usually be rooting for the Spitfire but early on there is no doubt in my mind that the Air Ministries conclusion that the "FW190 is the best all round fighter in the world today" was correct.



Before the appearance of the Spit IX I'd agree.



> While I'll accept that the Faber tests are skewed (particularly down low) because of the British running at 1.42 ata, I still think that they are a very good general guide to the perfroance and handling of a mid 1942-1943 190. They will give higher climb and level speeds than the 1.32 ata tests. However, the British never pushed the 190 into 1.42 boost for aything longer than 2 minutes.



They didn't run any of the planes at maximum power for more than 2 minutes, though.

For example, they conducted all climb tests at what they believed was climbing power. For the Spitfire, that meant the 1 hour rating. But for the FW, which they thought was allowed to use 1.42 ata, they actually used emergency power as the climbing rating. 

So the climb tests against the Spitfire actually show the results of the Fw 190 running at emergency power against the Spitfire running at climbing power.

When you compare German tests of the Fw190 against British tests of the Spitfire, the Spitfire, even the V, clearly climbs better. 



> The Faber tests states quite clearly that the 190 could outclimb the Spitfire at all altitudes. Specifically, point 49 states that
> 
> "The climb of the Fw190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the FW is steeper. Under maximum continious climbing conditions the climb of the FW is approximately 450ft/min. better up to 25,000 feet."



There's two problems with that. Firstly, as already noted, the AFDU were running the 190 at emergency power, the Spitfires at climbing power.

Also, the best climb speeds were not that similar, the 190 climbed better than the Spitfire V at higher speeds. The Spitfire definately had a better climb angle.

I believe the AFDU were climbing the 190 at fairly high speeds, and trying to follow it with the other aircraft. This from Lucky 13, by Hugh Godefroy, who was the Spitfire pilot in those tests:

"With a higer wing loading than the Spitfire, the 190's maximum rate of climb was attained at an air speed of about 240 miles an hour. The Spitfire IXB's maximum rate of climb was attained at 160 miles an hour. Thus, if you were foolish enough to try to follow the 190 in full throttle climb at the same angle, you would soon find out that he was above you. On the other hand, if you pulled away and held the Spitfire at an airspeed of 160, you would climb at a much steeper angle and end up with a height advantage."

They were wrong on the 190 climb speed, of course, it's best climb was actually about 170 - 180 mph, similar to the Spitfire IX. But because it had a speed advantage over the Spitfire IX at low levels, the higher the speed you climb, the better the relative climb of the 190.

That goes even more so for the 190 vs Spitfire V, of course.



> The 190 definately zoom climber far better than the Spitfire.



Yes.



> The same tests compare the Spitfire IX with the 190A3. Point 61 states that;
> 
> "The FW190 is faster than the Spitfire IX in a dive, particularly in the initial stage. This superiority is not as marked as with the Spitifre VB"
> 
> The 190 had a higher wing-loading and a smaller wing. Like the Spittfire it also had quite a thin wing. Standard LW tactics for disengaging fighter combat was to flick roll and invert and dive for home using their birds superior dive acceleration and capabilities. The LW recieved a rud shock when it came up against the P-47 as all of a sudden it found itself being outdived.



Godefroy again has a slightly different take on that ("Jamie" was flying the 190 in the tests):

"If Jamie followed the favorite German technique of flicking over on his bank and going straight down, he would pull away from me in the first two or three thousnd feet. After that the Spitfire IXB could gradually catch him."



> The comparative acceleration tests of a P-38F, Spitifre IX at 16lbs and a 190A4 have the 190 outaccelerating the Spitfire by about 200 yards initailly and then both evening off.



I'm not sure whether the acceleration tests were run at climbing power or maximum power, but either way the 190 was still being overboosted. If at climbing power for the other planes, the 190 was running at emergency power, if all were at emergency power, the 190 was at 1.42 ata, 2700 rpm, instead of 1.35 ata, 2450 rpm.



> As for the Spitfire IX definately being a better fighter than the 190, well that is a HIGHLY contentious statement, and depends on what time you make the judgement against what type of 190.



Just to make it clear, that wasn't a serious suggestion. At least, I think the Spitfire IX was slightly better than 190A series, but I'd consider both planes closely matched.


----------



## vanir (Jul 25, 2005)

> The MW50 was tested on A-4s but was never installed in operational A-5s. What was used was the injection of C3 fuel which allowed the A-5 to use 1.62ata for a minute or two and under 1000m. This limit was later increased. The first A that could use MW50 operationally was the A-8 but again the C3 fuel injection was the preferred method.


I know warbird details less than you guys, but I know engine characteristics pretty okay.
Obviously this C3-injection raised octane rated fuel delivery. Does precisely the same thing as water injection (MW-50), that is, lowers the knock rating at a given rpm. This allows you to either use more boost or higher rpm at the same boost (longer emergency power running and that sort of thing). Engine knock stops high performance engines dead, it shuts down their power production if operation within its limits is sustained, and it can literally rattle the motor apart, hole pistons or snap conrods if sustained even further.
If C3 injection is not nitrous oxide and it's not water injection, the only other thing it could be is octane booster additives.
Water injection is better for the engine...but with higher octane rated fuel you can play with the mixture settings and even though you're going burn out the valves, really get some short term grunt. The motor will be coming out after a few runs, if it's still in one piece.
Just thought I'd mention, I don't think this C3 injection would've been the preferred method by the engine itself. Water injection really improves supercharger efficiency (giving more dynamic boost without having to change the static settings).


> the 115l tank could not be mounted in the A-5 as a /R5 since there was now way to get it into the fuselage > the hatches were too small. Also when the A-8 mounted the tank, the area had to be reconfigured from the previous models.
> Even when fitted to the A-8, it carried C3 since C3 injection was the preferred method of getting more power.


That sounds like why pre-A8's probably used a fuel additives injection, as in it sounds logical to me. However if the A8 was reconfigured to mount the 115l MW-50 tank, considering it is a far better, safer system of reducing engine knock ratings for more power production, why wouldn't it have used it?
I'd speculate any notation where "C3 injection" was preferred to "MW-50" would be for difficulties relating to fitment. It is better to keep a standardised octane and use water injection than it is to use fuel additives. The same supercharger settings give more cylinder fill for a start...


Just a few thoughts.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 25, 2005)

Excellent initial posts, Jabberwocky. 

I think the basic agreement among the most of us is the Spitfire V was inferior to, Spitfire IX equal to and Spitfire XIV superior to the Fw-190A. More detailed information is starting to come out and your posts were great. 

Welcome.  8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 25, 2005)

That is pretty much what everyone agrees to here.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jul 25, 2005)

vnir,

C3 injection was injected simular to MW50, at the blower.

C3 is the German designation for their 'high test' fuel. B4 is the designation for 'regular' grade fuel. 190s with the BMW801 required C3 grade fuel.

A couple of links that might interest you,

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/Tom Reels/Linked/A5464/A5464-0638-0654 Item 6A.pdf
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/prim...45_45_sec2.htm#Composition and Specifications


----------



## Soren (Jul 25, 2005)

Welcome to the Forum Vanir  

And good posts btw


----------



## Soren (Jul 25, 2005)

And welcome to you to Jabberwocky


----------



## vanir (Jul 25, 2005)

Thanks for the links, Krazi.
I see the octane (R+M/2) of C3 sits at around 110 (ie. approx. 130 rated and 95 min motor method), compared to the 104 octane used in the Merlin 25, whereas the B4 resides at closer to 97-100 octane.

In an engine enhancement, increased power can be gained by raising the dynamic compression ratio but this limits rpm, or by increasing intake/exhaust flow dynamics but this sends torque production up the rev-range (both through valve timing), either way this increases cylinder pressures and/or temperatures under the same boost. Frequently as an engine undergoes development, valve timing and dynamic compression ratios will continually be varied in conjuction with balanced port flow rates.
Predetonation can occur at high performance tunings and this can be countered by either higher octane fuels or water injection.

In an aircraft engine this means it'll start knocking at high power settings unless you're either using a higher octane fuel (C3), or switch on a water injection system (MW-50).

This brings me to my point of confusion.
A higher octane fuel doesn't lower cylinder temperatures, it just burns at a higher one.
Water injection actually lowers the cylinder temperatures, allowing standard grades of fuel to be used without predetonation.
Blower efficiency is directly proportional to temperature, water injection lowers blower temperatures, with many models actually increasing boost at a given boost setting (you set it for say, 1.35 ata and it delivers at the cylinders as if it was say, 1.4 ata and does so with less chance of predetonation than it did before you started modifying anything, this effect is more pronounced with roots-type blowers and works more like vastly improved intercooling on impeller-types, allowing ones with greater island-cfm to be fitted instead).

When racing engineers put together an engine, it is always preferable to build one for standard grade octanes. Motors last longer. Most race tracks use pump grade petrol these days for endurance racing.

So I don't at all understand why C3 injection would be preferrable to MW-50, except on limited run, early production test engines whilst the bugs are being sorted out.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2005)

MW-50 anyhow was not meant for long use anyhow. It never was a replacement for a supercharger.


----------



## Hop (Jul 28, 2005)

> So I don't at all understand why C3 injection would be preferable to MW-50, except on limited run, early production test engines whilst the bugs are being sorted out.



It's preferable because it means you don't require a separate tank and plumbing for the MW50, which means less weight, or you can carry extra fuel in the place of the MW50, which means more range.

It also doesn't have the corrosive effects on the engine MW50 had.



> Blower efficiency is directly proportional to temperature, water injection lowers blower temperatures,



So, as I understand it, did C3 injection.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2005)

I did not know that MW-50 was corrosive to the engines. Can you tell me more about it.


----------



## vanir (Jul 28, 2005)

Hop said:


> > So I don't at all understand why C3 injection would be preferable to MW-50, except on limited run, early production test engines whilst the bugs are being sorted out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'd like to hear how MW-50 corrodes engines also, although I don't necessarily doubt that for some reason unknown to me it did in the Messerschmitts it was installed in. I understand that a combat pilot of 109's referred to this. I just don't understand how it would. Nitrous oxide would damage an engine but MW-50 shouldn't at all (and they do have almost identical plumbing).

Also, as I mentioned C3 is simply a higher octane fuel. It doesn't lower temperatures, any temperatures anywhere in the engine or anywhere else compared to any other gasoline fuels. It burns at higher temperatures.
What this means is operational cylinder temperatures which would significantly and immediately hurt performance and engine reliability with lower grade fuels, does not do so with higher octane fuels. This means you can either run a higher level boost or at higher operating rpm than you otherwise could with lower grade fuels.

But actual blower efficiency at the same settings would deteriorate. A lot of the time though this doesn't matter, because if you put higher octane fuel in a given engine you could get away with putting a bigger supercharger rating on it anyway (higher island-cfm or roots pump rating). The settings when you do this though become very precise because everything's running at higher temperatures and pressures and the whole mess starts to get unforgiving.

An example of an engine treated this way might be the overblown and "bottle boosted" AS series of 109G, with their particularly short operational engine life, but this is speculation. I know relatively little specific engineering details on given models of warplanes.

What I can do is computer model a Merlin 25 I have complete specifications for. I'll get back to you with some results of simulated MW-50 and C3 installations and regular grade fuel.

I'll see if I can find some specifications for DB engines on the web to get it as close a comparison as I can.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jul 28, 2005)

vanir,

C3 was injected, *not into the cylinder(s)*, but into the intake induction system upstream as was MW and did *exactly* the same as what MW50 did.

Btw, Tech Description #284, dated 28.11.44, for the A-8 states "will be produced only with the aux fuel tank". No MW50.


----------



## vanir (Jul 28, 2005)

KK,
From links you posted:


> There were two (2) grades of aviation gasoline produced in volume in Germany one the B-4 or blue grade and the other the C-3 or green grade. Both grades were loaded with the equivalent of 4.35 cubic centimeters tetraethyl lead per gallon. The B-4 grade was simply a fraction of the gasoline product from coal and coal tar hydrogenation. It contained normally 10 to 15 percent volume aromatics, 45 percent volume naphthenes, and the remainder paraffins. The octane number was 89 by a measurement corresponding to the C.F.R. motor method. The C-3 grade was a mixture of 10 to 15 percent volume of synthetic isoparaffins (alkylates and isooctanes) and 85 percent of an aromatized base stock produced by hydroforming types of operation on coal and coal tar hydrogenation gasolines. The C-3 grade was permitted to contain not more than 45 percent volume aromatics. This aromatic limitation sometimes required that the base stock component include some diluents other than the aromatic fraction, which could then be balanced if necessary by the inclusion of slightly more isoparaffin. (The C-3 grade corresponded roughly to the U. S. grade 130 gasoline, although the octane number of C-3 was specified to be only 95 and its lean mixture performance was somewhat poorer.)


And MW-50 is a water injection system which is completely different, operates completely differently and its function is completely different.
Let me paraphrase the above paragraph for you. You drain your fuel tank of B4 standard grade aviation fuel. You refill your fuel tank with C3 high octane aviation fuel. You aircraft is now C3 injected.
You yourself wrote:


> C3 is the German designation for their 'high test' fuel. B4 is the designation for 'regular' grade fuel. 190s with the BMW801 required C3 grade fuel.


Which led me to think you understood how it worked. I know how that works. I'm not trying to be rude, just stating the facts. Trust me, the basic engineering principles apply whether a car or aircraft engine. High octane fuel is high octane fuel and water injection is water injection. They are different.

I appreciate the confusion that they may address a similar issue with engines: fuel predetonation. Performance motors that overheat do it and motors with too much boost, incorrect tuning or overmodification do it. Mosty it's about cylinder temperatures.
But the way they fix it is as different as they are. Water injection cools the cylinder temperatures. Higher octane fuel doesn't predetonate until a higher temperature in the first place.

So, on an air cooled Fw190 it is obviously better to run the highest octane you can get your hands on. It's like a Porsche 911, sit at the lights too long and the motor starts pinging. Air cooled. An Fw190 under certain conditions may easily overheat. MW-50 is a good emergency measure but it's better as a power enhancement. If a given Fw190 has a tendancy to overheat under normal conditions, higher octane fuel or improved cooling is a must.

More about this comparison in my test model of a DB605 I did last night.
_________________________________________________________

Ran some models to compare MW-50 with C3 injection and standard M4 grade gasoline. 35 litre simulated DB605 engine based on a Merlin 25 shell (fuel injection added, supercharger specifications revised to listed and other data modified to suit).

First let me say the two engine models are like comparing small block to big block V8's. Very different, the DB makes around 30% more torque almost right off idle to the Merlin and produces horsepower much more easily, with very lazy cam grinds.

But the DB needs at least 2-5 degrees timing retard if it's not going to start snapping conrods so it loses a couple of hundred horsepower right there. On M4 grade gas. So where it should be producing around 1700hp it actually produces more like 1475hp but it's got over a thousand horsepower almost coming off idle, so that makes a big difference. The Merlin has more output...the DB is a more powerful engine. Funny the way that works, huh?

So there's where the climb rate of 109's comes in. It's not that they can actually do more than say, a Spitfire in a prepared race at maximum outputs, it's that in actual combat conditions they're already moving air more easily to start with. They've got an inherent head start that might not show up on listed maximum specs but would be known by experienced combat pilots.

Use C3 test fuel (high octane) and the knock index drops so low you can advance the spark curve right back up to get the engine's producing 1600hp by 2400rpm. With a bit of tuning, leaning it off and a few adjustments here and there you'll be getting that 1700hp at 2800/1.42ata that you should and better fuel economy to boot.
Volumetric efficiency has marginally dropped however (engines should be built for the fuel they'll be using from scratch), but still far exceeds that of the Merlin.
With this fuel the blower should really be adjusted or even changed.

Now switch back to a straight MW-50 fitment on M4 fuel. First the knock index with this stuff drops so significantly you've got to lean the mixture right off from the cockpit or you'll flood the engine. Perhaps the system includes this adjustment as part of engine management (it'd be smart if it did). Spark advance can proceed to best output. But 1900hp emergency power is no sweat. You can make 1800 climbing power if you want and you don't have to play around with camshaft profiles like you should for C3. And volumetric efficiency is improved over the standard engine. The blower should really be changed to the 25% larger AS variant if this engine will use MW-50 frequently under combat conditions, for best results. It'll break 2000hp easy in that case but will need a little babying when the water injection's not running (tendancy to overheat, predetonation, etc.).

This is with ideal computer modelled test conditions at sea level and intended only as a rough guideline for comparisons between higher octane fuels and water injection on large, blown motors, and some general engine characteristics.
Unfortunately I couldn't model GM-1 fitment due to problems with my graphics client in the program.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 29, 2005)

Excellent and interesting post dude... We need to get you and soren together....


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jul 29, 2005)

vanir,

MW50 only cools the cylinders indirectly because the fuel mixture in the induction system has been cooled by the injection of MW50. 

Inject any fluid into the front end of the induction system and the fuel mixture temperature will be lowered by vaporization.

Btw, the British carbs did the same thing, lower the fuel mixture temperature(slightly). Have you not heard of carb icing? Even cars can have icing problems.

You are confusing 'fuel injection'. The Germans used direct fuel injection and I agree that 'injecting' more fuel at the cylinders is of no help. Inject it at the front end of the induction system, which BMW did for the 801, it acts the same way as MW injection. C3 injection uses the same plumbing as MW injection.

Maybe this link will help with your confusion, www.forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/9991053533/r/5711054833


----------



## vanir (Jul 29, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> vanir,
> 
> MW50 only cools the cylinders indirectly because the fuel mixture in the induction system has been cooled by the injection of MW50.
> 
> ...


KK,
The link doesn't work for me, however this one click me clearly shows the location of the direct injection's fuel injectors.
The BMW 801 does not use any kind of injector plate as you suggest. It is not a throttle-body injection system, that is injectors mounted prior to a plenium chamber or ahead of the port runners but is a direct injection system, that is, individual injectors squirt right into port runners or cylinders.

Okay. Using fuel as a charge-coolant is a bit flawed, though I appreciate the logic behind your suggesting it.

Firstly, in a hypothetical case of adding additional fuel injectors "upstream" to an existing fuel system, more fuel in the same amount of air means you're simply richening the mixture. Doesn't matter where you're doing it, you're retuning the engine. So unless you're going to come up with a proportionate amount of increased air intake all you're doing is throwing the motor out of tune. Big time.
But don't get me wrong, richening the mixture is the first thing you do when your motor starts pinging. Say your Fw190 gets a little hot coming in for a landing and starts to splutter when there's plenty of fuel on the guage...richen it up, so it doesn't stall if you've gotta suddenly open the throttle and do a flyaround. I'm talking about an 8th turn on the knob or a quater inch on a lever here, not shoving in a whole 'nuther set of injectors.
Mixture settings are pretty important. Air-fuel ratio. Once again this is as a "just in case that's what you meant, or would say next."

But there is one system which does in fact include an additional set of gasoline injectors, usually placed in the manifolding kinda like you suggested: nitrous oxide.
This is for the same reason, in reverse. Nitrous has no fuel burning value. None. All it does is puts a super-condensed charge of oxygen into the intake. So you have to put more vastly more fuel in when it's switched on, hence the extra injectors. They switch off again when you turn the nitrous off.

Next thing. Fuel already does the best thing it can do to cool _cylinder_ temperatures (because that's what causes predetonation rather than intake temperatures, which affect volumetric efficiency), with the lead put in it. This is the sole and entire reason there is lead in leaded gasoline, to cool cylinders down quickly for the next intake stroke. That's because if they can't cool the cylinder temperatures down, the next intake charge is going to explode whilst it's still coming in.
Lead in gasoline takes some of the cylinder temperature out the exhaust valve.

So even though it isn't exactly what you suggested, you can in fact increase cylinder cooling by putting in more lead via increasing fuel intake...but you throw the engine out of tune (ie. it won't even run). Or you can increase the amount of lead in the same mixture of fuel...but then it won't atomize or burn properly so your engine won't run.

How about moving the injectors completely to a throttle-body setup (as per say, blow-through carburettored induction only this is an injector plate, so the supercharger heats up air by compressing it and then you squirt mmm...nice cold fuel into the air ahead of the port runners)?

Cooling the intake charge does improve volumetric efficiency and helps a little with cylinder cooling, especially if the resultant mixture is not vapourised but atomized (ie. still little tiny droplets).
But using fuel to cool the intake charge will vapourise rather than atomize the mixture as it absorbs heat and reduce its ability to cool the cylinders upon entry (picture scalding hot steam for effect...doesn't cool stuff down much...but that is a statement for illustrative puposes alone). And worse than that, cooling anything via heat induction doesn't work if the heat doesn't go anywhere. It just gets carried by the lead in the vapourised gasoline directly to the cylinders, which is precisely what the stuff was designed to do. It will initally cool the charge itself, hell it'll vapourise nicer and fill the now even hotter cylinders with that much more air-fuel mixture. Problem is the cylinders will be hot, every cycle it'll be burning a little more mixture than it would've otherwise so it'll get even hotter, you'll be putting vapourised and not atomized mixture, which is just dying to immediately explode, carrying heat from the induction system and supercharger directly in there and in no time it'll start to go bang before the spark plugs tell it to.

Direct injection is widely known for its improved characteristics towards predetonation. Multipoint injected engines use much higher compression ratios than carburettored ones at the same fuel octane. This is because the fuel is atomised by the injectors upon entry, carrying as little residual heat as possible into the cylinder, absorbs some of the residual cylinder temperature vapourising upon entry and is quickly burned and the lead is thermally free to carry some of the produced heat away from the cylinder walls via induction, out the exhaust port.
Before direct fuel injection you just plain had to lower the compression ratio from optimum on any hardworking gasoline engine.

Air charge coming into the system is heated by superchargers through either being compressed (impeller types), or being blown in under pressure (screw types, which have their own heat problems but if you can keep them cool they atomize draw-throughs beautifully). Whilst any freely inductive materiel injected into the airflow after the supercharger will dramatically help cool oxygen intake charge (moreso than intercoolers alone), using gasoline to do it will either or both:
a) throw your mixture out of whack
b) carry the heat to the cylinders in the lead
In draw-through systems the injected fuel is being used to cool the supercharger itself, which is almost necessary for a screw-type as it increases its notably poor efficiency. But the charge is all hot coming out the other side so you still need some kind of intercooling and preferrably, water injection to avoid those predetonation problems. Impeller types, as used on German engines are usually oil cooled so heat isn't as much of a problem, but the charge compression of that kind of supercharging is going to put heat in the mixture anyway so that's no good for cooling the intake. It's going to:
a) reduce the capacity of the mixture to cool the cylinder by vapourising instead of atomizing it
b) carry the heat produced in supercharging right to the cylinders in the lead.

Now don't get me wrong, if you had to make do without direct injection like the Merlin did there's things you can do to lessen the impact. But you wouldn't switch back to the worse system from the better to get more power or improve engine characteristics, it's quite the opposite.

Using water is a great idea. Just behind the supercharger is right where Germans put MW-50 injection. Water vapourises freely so it conducts the heat from the incoming oxygen charge, it doesn't have lead to induce it back into the cylinders when it gets there, injected atomizing fuel doesn't get a chance to vapourise prematurely itself and it doesn't adversly affect the tuning of the engine, providing only a minimal oxygen increase which isn't such a bad thing with a lower knock index anyway.
You put methanol in the water so it doesn't freeze when you climb to 20,000 feet and Bob's your uncle.

So *broken record time* C3 does nothing to reduce the cylinder temperatures and prevent predetonation. It simply burns at higher temperatures. Water injection lowers cylinder temperatures. It is cylinder temperatures which causes the problems with engines like the BMW 801, DB605, Porsche 911 Turbo, your old man's Jaguar, etc.

I do however, appreciate your time and logical thinking on the matter. Engineering high performance motors can be tricky and is a road of dead pilots and lessons learned by trying.


----------



## Hop (Jul 30, 2005)

Vanir, are you claiming that C3 injection wasn't used? The original documentation shows it was.

To quote from an allied description from captured aircraft:

"Extra Emergency Performance (Fuel injection into air intake)

This system is used on the BMW 801 D to increase the emergency performance. It provides for the overriding of the boost regulator and the simultaneous injection of C3 (96 octane) into the port air intake to prevent detonation and provide internal cylinder cooling."

further on:

"The second cock opens a pipe line from the fuel pump to a spray nozzle fitted into the port air intake. The spray nozzle is calibrate to pass 14.3 +- 1.43 gallons per hour at a pressure of 18 to 25 lbs sq in"


----------



## vanir (Jul 31, 2005)

Okay this is getting boring now.


> Vanir, are you claiming that C3 injection wasn't used?


That's right. I'm claiming martian soil was used to strengthen German airframes.


> The original documentation shows it was.


No it doesn't. It shows C3 fuel was used. C3 is a fuel. F-u-e-l. I've been reading quite a bit about the BMW 801 in the last few days.


> To quote from an allied description from captured aircraft:


And here is a link for the allied report on engine testing the BMW 801:
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1945/naca-wr-e-192/
It doesn't mention anything about a special injection system some of you seem to have assumed the D variant of the BMW 801 sported. But it also doesn't mention the length of Bugs Bunny's ears.
Yours is anecdotal and mine occidental. Engine blueprints show no additional fuel injection system was used in the air intake nor anywhere else.


> "Extra Emergency Performance (Fuel injection into air intake)


He might as well have called it Super-duper power producer. The allusion is clearly incorrect, port injection is a LONG way from the air intake for a start. It's just outside the cylinder.


> This system is used on the BMW 801 D to increase the emergency performance. It provides for the overriding of the boost regulator and the simultaneous injection of C3 (96 octane) into the port air intake to prevent detonation and provide internal cylinder cooling."


Yeah compared to the carburettors on Merlins maybe. Context is important and this guy is obviously comparing direct injection to carburettors.

How many ways can I put it? Fuel injection at the AIR intake does not cool down cylinder temperatures, I've already mentioned this. PORT injection is not fuel injection at the air intake.
The bit that says "to prevent detonation" is the higher octane rating of the fuel. The bit, "to provide cylinder cooling" is just a general reference to direct injection systems as opposed to carburettors or throttle body fuel intake, he's giving a general description of multipoint fuel injection, also known as direct injection and may be at the port, intake manifold or cylinder. If it was cylinder injected he'd be saying, "to provide cylinder cooling," precisely as he did for port injection. If it was manifold injected he'd be saying, "to provide cylinder cooling."
Say hello to direct injection vs other fuel delivery systems.

And how many ways can I put this part? C3 is not a fuel delivery system it's a fuel (95 min. octane motor method or as high as 130 rated octane at the pump).

Your out of context insinuation is that the BMW 801D used a special fuel injection system in conjunction with this fuel. It did not. It used precisely the same fuel injection system as all BMW 801 model radial engines.

So once again, here's some additional background for you. Daimler Benz used cylinder fuel injection. BMW used port injection, which is about four inches further back. It has absolutely no opportunity whatsoever to cool intake charge. It does not reduce cylinder temperatures any more than cylinder injection. Both are direct fuel injection systems. It does create a low pressure area at the ports for uncooled air intake charge but the DB system gets slightly more immediate throttle response and better cylinder fill.
Port injection is not at all unique to the 801D nor C3 fuel.


> "The second cock opens a pipe line from the fuel pump to a spray nozzle fitted into the port air intake. The spray nozzle is calibrate to pass 14.3 +- 1.43 gallons per hour at a pressure of 18 to 25 lbs sq in"


It doesn't say secondary spray nozzle and doesn't have to be read that it does. Perhaps if you post a link to the document I'll be able to tell you what is meant by "second cock" on the fuel pump valve, I'd say one drives a mechanical fuel pump and the second opens the valve, from here.
If the BMW 801D had a secondary fuel injection system installed I should think this would have been mentioned on at least one document I have read or I should be able to find it on the engineering blueprints for this engine. No on both counts.

It is possible to arrange a secondary fuel distribution in injection, similar to the vacuum or mechanical secondaries available on carburettors. However this MUST be combined with an increase in air intake volume (not just boost pressure) and no such modification for this is listed nor appears in BMW 801D engineering renditions either.
I understand such a system is the assumption of some of you. It is simply misguided by out of context statements and poor descriptions.

{It is also a common fallacy by V8 owners that Spreadbore carburettors with secondaries fitted are a high performance carburettor. They're not, Squarebores without secondaries are but they guzzle juice at part throttle applications.}

It is clearly stated in several documents relating to the BMW 801 series engines that the D variant did not change or alter its injection system to any other variant but simply used a higher octane fuel.
When you do that, you can change your boost settings. That's how they got more power.

Wanna know how? You get the boost regulator and a hacksaw...


----------



## Gille (Jul 31, 2005)

Vanir

Nothing Hop says is in the slightest bit controversial for those familiar with the FW190A.

MW-50 was tested in the 190A but it was discovered that direct injection of C3 fuel (a secondary line was run from the main tanks) was more efficient as a charge coolant than methanol-water. It also had the advantage that it did not require a special tank to be installed.

C3 injection (C3-Einspritzung) was first fitted to 190A-5 jabo's, it could only be run in first supercharger gear and it allowed the engine to be run at 1.58ata boost.

The first standard fighter variant to receive the system was the A-8, in this variant the system could be used at all altitudes, it allowed 1.58ata boost in the first supercharger gear and 1.65ata in the second. Speed charts for the A-8 and A-9 show this extra boost level.

The German name for the extra boost that could be run while the engine was cooled by this system was "Erhöhte Notleistung" (extended emergency power). If you google using this term you will find a lot of discussion on the various specialist aviation boards and sites regarding this system. Alternatively you can look at the Flugzeug Handbuchs for the A-5 to A-9 where a description of the system is included (Teil 7, page 31 of the A7-9 guide).


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jul 31, 2005)

vanir,

yes it is getting very boring because of you.

You had better do some much more reading and also contact _White 1 Foundation_. 

Btw, your link only mentions the Fw190A-1, A-2, A-3. No mention of the BMW 801TU or later 190 models. You should also get hold of Fw190 Modification Instruction No 133. If no such system was installed then why are 3 different sparkplugs listed as to be used when installed? The 801C in the A-1/A-2 used B4 fuel.

Care to explain the following for a D-2 engine, if C3 injection was not used. This *is not* the injection of C3 fuel to make the engine run.

Fw190 2700 rpm / 1.42 ata BMW801D2 without C3 injection
1800 PS sea level
1490 PS 19028 feet
341 mph sea level
400 mph 20770 feet

Fw190 2700 rpm / 1.58/1.65 ata BMW801D2 with C3 injection (10 minutes)

2050 PS sea level
1695 PS 19028 feet
359 mph sea level
405 mph 18044 feet


Just in case you missed what Gille (a quite knowledgeable person on the 190) posted,

_MW-50 was tested in the 190A but it was discovered that direct injection of C3 fuel (a secondary line was run from the main tanks) *was more efficient as a charge coolant than methanol-water*. It also had the advantage that it did not require a special tank to be installed._

So vanir, when are you going to admit you did not have a clue after all your long winded text diarrhea?


----------



## Hop (Jul 31, 2005)

> Okay this is getting boring now.



Vanir, you've got a theory that injecting fuel ahead of the supercharger isn't going to provide usefull charge cooling, and therefore it wasn't used. In fact it was, it was used in later 190s to enable extra boost, it was also used in Merlins throughout the war for it's charge cooling effects.

When a theory says that something won't work, and history says it did work, it's time to re-examine the theory, not to try to change history.



> No it doesn't. It shows C3 fuel was used. C3 is a fuel. F-u-e-l. I've been reading quite a bit about the BMW 801 in the last few days.



190s used C3 as fuel for almost the entire war. Fairly late in the war they began injecting the fuel into the air intake ahead of the supercharger for it's charge cooling effects, that's what "C3 injection" describes.



> Engine blueprints show no additional fuel injection system was used in the air intake nor anywhere else.



Try looking at the correct blueprints.



> He might as well have called it Super-duper power producer. The allusion is clearly incorrect, port injection is a LONG way from the air intake for a start. It's just outside the cylinder.



No, he means port as in left, as in the opposite of starboard. Fuel was injected into the left air intake.



> Yeah compared to the carburettors on Merlins maybe. Context is important and this guy is obviously comparing direct injection to carburettors.



No, he's comparing the 190 to the later 190 with fuel being sprayed into the air intake.

Read the description. "a pipe line from the fuel pump to a spray nozzle fitted into the port air intake. The spray nozzle is calibrate to pass 14.3 +- 1.43 gallons per hour at a pressure of 18 to 25 lbs sq in"

Do you think he's imagining that?



> How many ways can I put it? Fuel injection at the AIR intake does not cool down cylinder temperatures, I've already mentioned this



Well, the engine designers of the time thought it did, obviously you are more experienced in this than they were. And to think this useless C3 injection system was used, when they could have been running at 1.65 ata boost all along without it. Silly BMW.



> PORT injection is not fuel injection at the air intake.



It's injection at the port (left) air intake.



> The bit that says "to prevent detonation" is the higher octane rating of the fuel.



No, C3 has the same octane rating whether it's injected into the air intake or directly into the cylinders. But directing it into the air intake provides charge cooling, which allows higher boost without detonation. That's why they did it.



> The bit, "to provide cylinder cooling" is just a general reference to direct injection systems as opposed to carburettors or throttle body fuel intake, he's giving a general description of multipoint fuel injection, also known as direct injection and may be at the port, intake manifold or cylinder. If it was cylinder injected he'd be saying, "to provide cylinder cooling," precisely as he did for port injection. If it was manifold injected he'd be saying, "to provide cylinder cooling."
> Say hello to direct injection vs other fuel delivery systems.



So why the nozzle injecting 14 gals an hour into the air intake? How do your _theories_ account for it?



> And how many ways can I put this part? C3 is not a fuel delivery system it's a fuel (95 min. octane motor method or as high as 130 rated octane at the pump).



Hence the term C3 _injection_



> Your out of context insinuation is that the BMW 801D used a special fuel injection system in conjunction with this fuel. It did not. It used precisely the same fuel injection system as all BMW 801 model radial engines.



I won't go into which 801 variants used C3 injection, because I don't know, I do know it was used on later 190 A variants, I think on d9s as well.

Are you saying all 190s had a fuel nozzle spraying into the air intake, operated by a valve in the cockpit? Or that none did? 

Clearly the late war ones with C3 injection did, those without C3 injection didn't.



> BMW used port injection, which is about four inches further back. It has absolutely no opportunity whatsoever to cool intake charge.



I have no idea where BMW injected fuel into the engine, I assumed it was directly into the cylinders. But I do know that the C3 injection system used a nozzle to spray fuel into the air intake. The port intake, to be exact.



> It doesn't say secondary spray nozzle and doesn't have to be read that it does. Perhaps if you post a link to the document I'll be able to tell you what is meant by "second cock" on the fuel pump valve, I'd say one drives a mechanical fuel pump and the second opens the valve, from here.



No, the first one opens an air bleed into the boost pressure regulator, causing the regulator to open the throttle to provide up to 1.65ata, instead of 1.42 ata. It has nothing to do with the fuel system.

It's alluded to in the first paragraph, that I already posted:
"It provides for the overriding of the boost regulator and the simultaneous injection of C3 (96 octane) into the port air intake to prevent detonation and provide internal cylinder cooling."

The first cock over-rides the boost regulator, the second sprays fuel into the air intake.



> If the BMW 801D had a secondary fuel injection system installed I should think this would have been mentioned on at least one document I have read or I should be able to find it on the engineering blueprints for this engine. No on both counts.



Then you need to read more. Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.

As to engine blueprints, it was a system fitted to the aircraft, not the engine, so probably wouldn't show up on engine blueprints.



> I understand such a system is the assumption of some of you. It is simply misguided by out of context statements and poor descriptions.



It's a matter of historical record.



> It is clearly stated in several documents relating to the BMW 801 series engines that the D variant did not change or alter its injection system to any other variant but simply used a higher octane fuel.



The problem with that is C3 was the standard fuel for the 190 in the earlier A variants as well. Even Faber's A3, captured in summer 1942, was running on C3.



> When you do that, you can change your boost settings. That's how they got more power.
> 
> Wanna know how? You get the boost regulator and a hacksaw...



Or you operate the lever that opens the first cock that bleeds air into the regulator allowing the throttle to open more fully allowing higher pressure.​


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 31, 2005)

Good discussion here and good links to all of you. Learning some new stuff about the system as a whole.


----------



## vanir (Aug 1, 2005)

sorry I got a bunch of posting errors that reposted ridiculously and went stupid on my computer.


----------



## vanir (Aug 1, 2005)

lalala


----------



## vanir (Aug 1, 2005)

yep it just plain kept reposting and telling me it was in php debugging mode.


----------



## vanir (Aug 1, 2005)

> Vanir, you've got a theory that injecting fuel ahead of the supercharger isn't going to provide usefull charge cooling, and therefore it wasn't used. In fact it was, it was used in later 190s to enable extra boost, it was also used in Merlins throughout the war for it's charge cooling effects.


I'd like to mention I appreciate basic engineering principles being attributed to theories of mine, however injecting fuel ahead of the supercharger cools the supercharger and heats the mixture.
Look, I think you don't know what you're talking about and telling me the sky is green. I apolegise...however that is what I'm thinking.

The engineering facts are no fuel delivery at the air intake was used on any BMW 801A-D series engines whatsoever. None of them. I don't think it was used on any 801-series engines at all, including bomber variants. Please provide engineering blueprints, specifications or papers which say otherwise. I've got ones which don't. Argue with proof so that I may physically see where I have it wrong and apolegise.

It was not used on Merlins for charge cooling effects. Merlins used carburettors because they did not develope fuel injection. There was no other reason. The only reason I'd put carburettion on a draw-through centrifugal supercharger is for convenience or carb insulation. It'd get more horsepower closer to the head.


> When a theory says that something won't work, and history says it did work, it's time to re-examine the theory, not to try to change history.


History doesn't say it did. You do. You've so far offered no corroberative evidence to support these claims. Anecdotal evidence simply won't do for supporting claims which challenge engineering principles and printed technical documents. If you'd like to suggest an additional fuel delivery system to the BMW 801D in Fw190's which does not appear on technical specifications and documentation please provide some clear evidence for it.


> Fairly late in the war they began injecting the fuel into the air intake ahead of the supercharger for it's charge cooling effects, that's what "C3 injection" describes.


Nothing I've seen documents this. There is no reason to think a system which appears nowhere but the claims of a couple of individuals should exist where it does not on any technical documentation. Please provide proof.

BMW 801D's used C3 fuel. This whole "C3-injection" thing, without any corroberative evidence of a technical nature is equivalent to an urban myth.
The reason the 801D used C3 fuel was because they were trying to get more power out of it and didn't want it predetonating. I've already explained how this works. No additional fuel injectors nor even air intake volume is required. But if you did one, you'd have to do the other and then re-evaluate your supercharger for size and specifications. There's no way around this, it's a fact.

Let's be very clear on what your utterly unsupported claim is:

1. that the BMW 801D used C3 fuel. Yes that is supported by corroberative evidence.

2. that the BMW 801D in the Fw190 used an additional fuel injection system mounted at the engine air intake (on the port side) at emergency power settings. No that is not supported by any corroberative evidence whatsoever. Just to be clear, easily misinterpretive anecdotal evidence is not corroberative evidence. You did have corroberative evidence before you made this assumption?

3. that the system "..opens an air bleed into the boost pressure regulator, causing the regulator to open the throttle to provide up to 1.65ata, instead of 1.42 ata." No that's an incorrect description of how a boost pressure regulator works. Look back over the last part or learn about superchargers, fuel delivery systems and boost regulators.
If you've quoted from a source, please provide the link so I can tear apart the author's obviously questionable knowledge. For example:


> Or you operate the lever that opens the first cock that bleeds air into the regulator allowing the throttle to open more fully allowing higher pressure.


That's just not how boost pressure regulators work. You said, "it has nothing to do with the fuel system." I say, it has nothing to do with "the throttle opening more fully."

4. that this is system was introduced to improve cylinder cooling and prevent predetonation at emergency power settings. No that is incorrect according to motor engineering principles. Ask around at your local race track if you prefer anecdotal evidence to engineering specifications.

The following is quoted from the very first link in a Google-search for draw-through supercharger cooling and a bit of site navigation. It must be mentioned that screw-type roots superchargers like GM and B&M performance ones available today work completely differently to centrifugal or compressor-type superchargers used in BMW, DB and Merlin fighter engines.


> Although many roots and twin screw superchargers bolt directly to the manifold, most centrifugal superchargers require an extra tube called a Discharge Tube to carry the air to the intake {edit: ie. the HEAD PORTS} through the throttle body.


This is the type of supercharger used on the BMW 801-series.


> Some supercharger systems include an aftercooler (more commonly called an "intercooler"). Superchargers heat air as it is compressed. Although the intercooler is not necessary on most street applications, its performance becomes increasingly important on higher-output systems (with correspondingly higher charge temperatures).


This problem is accentuated by the radial engine being air cooled in the first place.


> An aftercooler is a heat exchanger placed between the compressor and the engine’s inlet. Vortech uses the term "aftercooler" as we feel it is more accurate; it is "after" the compressor. "Intercooler" means a heat exchanger placed between two compressors in a multi-stage system, but has been used as a synonym for an aftercooler ever since it was incorrectly stuck on the backend of a Volvo in about 1981. Aftercoolers and intercoolers are both also called charge coolers.


Intercooling and aftercooling may also be provided by water injection in the discharge piping.


> For heat exchanger design purposes, the gases in air are classified as a low-density fluid. Air going through a supercharger is called "charge air". A supercharger compresses the charge air before it enters the engine. The act of compression both increases the energy and density of the charge air, but this act also generates a proportionate amount of heat. Heating is undesirable, as it tends to decrease the density of the charge air.


Using fuel delivery at the _air intake_ increases the density of air, causing a proportionate increase in temperature above and beyond the original air-charge compression. Even if it's say 10 degrees cooler going in because you decided to mount a draw-through carburettor like Merlin did, it ends up 50 degrees hotter coming out the other end than it would've otherwise, due to the increased density. As I mentioned, with leaded fuels the problem is compounded by the lead in the fuel which holds onto that heat rather stubbornly during any subsequent "intercooling."
{sidetrack: How did Supermarine fix this? High island-cfm superchargers that compress less harshly for a given boost rating (but work better at higher altitudes than they do at low ones). A minimum 104 octane fuel (approx. 96 min. motor method octane as compared to C3's 95). A higher operating rpm permitted wider duration cam grinds and therefore lower dynamic compression ratio at the same static rating. And big banks of intercoolers and radiators (the equivalent to what Messerschmitt used for 87 min motor method octane fuel at the same static compression ratio and a 21 psi boost emergency pwr/19psi climbing pwr).}

*broken record time* using additional fuel delivery into the air intake system does not reduce predetonation. What it does is richens the mixture of air-fuel charge entering the engine, thereby throwing your engine _way_ out of tune. How are you going to account for this, invent a secondary air-intake throttle body somewhere on the engine as part of this magical mystery "C3-injection system" ? It's getting bigger and more complicated with every post.


> Try looking at the correct blueprints.


Try posting, displaying or linking to any blueprints at all.


> No, he means port as in left, as in the opposite of starboard. Fuel was injected into the left air intake.


Not according to the pictures, one of which I posted a link to in pdf format. You can tell it's the fuel injector because it has a little arrow to it marked "fuel injector." You can tell it's the C3 fuelled engine from an Fw190 because it has bold print that says "BMW 801D engine."
It clearly shows the fuel injector is at the cylinder head and nowhere near the air intake for the engine. That is more in concordance with head-port intake than left air intake. 
Mate, the blueprints support what I'm saying, and challenge what you say, which appears based solely on one piece of dubious anecdotal evidence.
You may be great at arguing for the sake of itself, but your argument isn't supported by any credible data.


> No, he's comparing the 190 to the later 190 with fuel being sprayed into the air intake.


How do either of us really know he wasn't comparing it to the Space Shuttle. Yes, he was a seer, a Celt and a magician. He's right here in fact and he wants his pointy hat back.
Your argument is somewhat less than compelling.


> Read the description. "a pipe line from the fuel pump to a spray nozzle fitted into the port air intake. The spray nozzle is calibrate to pass 14.3 +- 1.43 gallons per hour at a pressure of 18 to 25 lbs sq in"
> 
> Do you think he's imagining that?


No I think you're making a completely unqualified assertion based on what you've decided to assume without cross-referencing and seeking to correlate your data. If you could show me a picture of this system you've imagined at the engine air intake, I'd really appreciate it. I think it was simply a poor description when what was meant was head-port intake. That one thing would explain everything (occam's razor anyone?).
I didn't decide to think this, I was led to this consideration by physically looking at the engineering blueprints for myself. I originally thought it meant precisely what you do, but knew from personal experience this didn't make any sense. I've tried mounting fuel delivery a foot and a half from the head, I've tried it a few inches away, I've pulled down the head to get 3hp by changing the finish on the ports, I've found 10hp from properly mounting a bonnet scoop and custom made manifold heat plate, all to get a 3-litre race engine to beat 5 and 6-litre race engines in the same class. So I looked it up. I checked. As it turns out the allusion of the source materiel you're using appears to be wrong and any direct assumption from it out of context.

Like I said whoever wrote it should get a good slapping. It's not your fault or mine, I don't seek to blame you for it. But you've continued to argue with me a second time obviously without even checking up on a claim you appear to have simply assumed from one or a number of uncorroberated, anecdotal, unknowledgable or out of context sources. If I am wrong in this assertion, please provide the evidence so that I can see the error of my ways and experience.

Even the statement itself doesn't make any sense, doesn't that bother you? It doesn't make any sense because the only fuel injectors are clearly shown on the blueprints for the BMW 801D and they are at the head ports. But you haven't bothered to look those up or find me ones which show otherwise.
It doesn't make any sense because the BMW 801D did not have multiple air intakes or throttle bodies, it was not a twin supercharged engine, it only has one air intake for the engine so why specify a "port" air intake? It makes sense if what should have been written was "port intake."
What annoys me is that your entire argument, which is full of engineering flaws and that Sir most certainly is a matter of physical example, appears completely based on this one piece of anecdotal rendition.
Post some proof, it's somewhat more conductive of interactive relationships between active minds than sitting here picking each other's posts apart.


> It's a matter of historical record.


Mate, saying things like that as an argument is just childish where you don't provide the proof so that we may both observe it together.

Here's what I think. Some airman or even a foreign pilot, who'd spend half a day looking for a left-handed wrench saw an MW-50 injection system and had no idea what he was talking about, then a few people including at least two in this thread took his anecdotes as gospel. Either that or due to a complete lack of any personal knowledge of the systems involved you simply took this anecdotal evidence completely out of context.

That assertion makes sense, it fits the description and it matches the blueprints.


----------



## Gille (Aug 1, 2005)

I'm too lazy to reinvent the wheel and go and scan all the original C3-injection documents, so I'll just post a link to a post by Kettenhunde at IL-2 forums that contains a couple of the relevant ones:

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/9991053533/p/9

There's also an article from earlier this year on MW-50 and C-3 injection testing in the 190A from a German aviation magazine floating around which documents why they went with the C-3 injection instead of MW-50. I posted a link to scans of it over on LEMB but it got lost with the recent big crash, don't suppose anyone kept a copy?


----------



## vanir (Aug 1, 2005)

Here is a statement from http://www.focke-wulf190.com


> Der 801 D und G wurden als leistungsgesteigerte Version entwickelt. Die Leistungssteigerung erfolgte durch eine geänderte Laderübersetzung und eine höhere Verdichtung in Verbindung mit 95 Oktan Kraftstoff. Die erreichte Leistung lag bei 1270 kW (1730 PS) bei 2700 Umdrehungen pro Minute. Der Ladedruck stieg auf 1,39 bar abs. (abs.= absolut), gegenüber den 1,27 bar abs. bei dem A, und die Volldruckhöhe lag bei 5700 m.


As you can see it clearly states the BMW 801D achieved its higher output through the use of greater supercharger gearing and a higher static compression ratio for which it required the use of C3 fuel.

Here from Wikipedia:


> These were soon replaced with the 801D series engines, which ran on C2/C3 100 octane fuel instead of the A/B/C's B4 87 octane, boosting takeoff power to 1,700 hp (1,250 kW) in the D-1, and 1,730 hp (1,270 kW) in the strengthened D-2. The D models also included 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. Although practically every production model 190 included the 801D engine, it was not until very late in the war that the MW50 kits were actually supplied and available.


The fact that it didn't mention any different fuel injection system between the C3 injected and M4 injected variants is what initially pricked my interest and led me to continually check further, more technical source materiel.

Other various sources say things like:


> The BMW 801D was a 14 cylinder, twin-row radial with direct fuel injection.


Wow, direct fuel injection. Not at the left hand side air intake. Hang on, must be a different engine...nope it's the C3 injected 801D.

This one's a beauty, from the university of western ontario. It basically says "You're wrong mate."


> Beginning in the spring of 1942, series production of a more powerful engine version BMW 801D-2 that replaced previous versions in the Fw 190Fighter created a new plane version designated as Fw 190A-3. The increase in the BMW 801D-2 engine power (to 1730 kW) was due to a higher compression ratio and higher pressure two-speed compressor. A higher compression ratio and charging pressure made it necessary to use high-octane (96 octane) C3 fuel in place of B4 (87 octane) fuel.




I dunno, what can I tell you Hop? Check first, then b*tch-slap me.


----------



## Gille (Aug 1, 2005)

Actually I did have a copy of that article to hand:

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/7306/klassikerdieleistungssteigerun.jpg
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/7471/klassikerdieleistungssteigerun1.jpg
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/4048/klassikerdieleistungssteigerun2.jpg
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/3692/klassikerdieleistungssteigerun3.jpg
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/8185/klassikerdieleistungssteigerun4.jpg
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/365/klassikerdieleistungssteigerun5.jpg


----------



## vanir (Aug 1, 2005)

Oh holy crap Hop (or whoever), I just read your last post. See, now this is the problem about using forums as the entire basis of your source materiel.

Know what "Einspritzung" means? It's German for sequential fuel injection. It's port injection you twit.
K-jetronic injection used on Porsches is also sequential fuel injection. It is Einspritzung. It means a cam opens the injectors sequentially at the ports rather than all at once in an injector plate mounted in the air intake.

Geez, man.


----------



## Gille (Aug 1, 2005)

Vanir

didn't you go and check the references to the Flugzeug Handbuchs which describe the system? I think that would be a rather more reliable source than picking bits off internet sites. 

I'm a bit bemused that you are coming up with all these theoretical reasons why the system couldnt exist when the Pilot's Handbook has a full description of how it worked and drawings of the installation!

PS: the upgrade in power from the 801C to the 801D (which occurred in early 1942) had nothing to do with C3 injection as a charge coolant. It came about because the 801D ran at higher boost and compression requiring C3 fuel. But the 801C was only fitted to the A-1 and A-2.

Testing of the 801D with C3 injection didn't even start until 17 May 1943, it was originally only fitted to Jabo 190's (A-5 onwards) to help overcome the drag from bombs and bombracks and only became a standard fitment to all fighter A's in mid-1944.

All 190A's from the A-3 onwards ran on C3 fuel, and that fuel was injected into the cylinders as part of the normal operation of the engine. But it's not that sort of injection we are talking about, we're talking about the injection of extra C3 fuel (via a nozzle and sprayer) to cool the charge prior to it entering the cylinders - exactly the same principle as MW-50 operated on.


----------



## Gille (Aug 1, 2005)

You can lead horse to water but can't make him drink.

Go and read the article I posted Vanir and the sections of the Flugzeug Handbuch that describe the system.

When you've familiarised yourself with the primary documents I'll be amused to discuss how BMW/Focke Wulf tested and installed a system you say cannot work.

PS: "Einspritzung" simply means "injection" in German, not "sequential fuel injection" or "port injection" or any other limited meaning you wish to assign to it.


----------



## vanir (Aug 1, 2005)

I've looked up every link you've posted and am still yet to see this fabled "special C3-injection system" which "injects fuel into the left air intake to provide additional cooling and prevent predetonation" in any of them.

Every Fw-190 which used C3 fuel used the same (edit: sequential) fuel injection system as every other 801 engine variant.
Every Fw-190 which used MW-50 used C3 (sequential) fuel injection.

The only difference with Fw-190's which used MW-50 and ones that did not is the MW-50.

There is no special variant which had a "special C3-injection system" as an alternate fitment to MW-50 in existence. Anywhere. No document you have provided supports any argument otherwise and every qualified source says that it is so.

C3 is a fuel and a fuel alone.
Einspritzung is the same fuel injection system all BMW 801-series engines used. In fact all Daimler Benz engines used it also.

The only way not to understand this is to not understand how these systems work in the first place.

MW-50 fitment allowed much higher outputs to be gained from C3-injection alone, but initial fitments were unreliable (you actually have to alter the settings of the engine to get the power increase). MW-50 alone gives around 100hp from extra oxygen and increased volumetric efficiency. Increasing boost and other settings allowed 500hp to be gained from MW-50 use but then you have the problem of engine operation when it's not switched on. This is dealt with in the Fw-190's by an improved engine management system.

Due to its early problems and subsequent reputation many pilots may have preferred C3 injection alone for this reason. It did not make it into wide squadron service for this reason. But that is anecdotal.

You really ought to widen your research base to gain genuine value in your interests. Next time ask "Crumpp" to explain how something works to either show he knows what he's talking about or clear up any misconceptions you have to what he is actually saying.

These documents you refer to do not say what you claim. I just read them.

Learn some engineering. Then know what you're talking about. Then argue without researching properly.


----------



## vanir (Aug 1, 2005)

> PS: "Einspritzung" simply means "injection" in German, not "sequential fuel injection" or "port injection" or any other limited meaning you wish to assign to it.


My mistake. In German it means "injection."

However any engineering student studying German engines will tell you it refers only to sequential fuel injection.

From How Stuff Works (translated)


> Einspritzung.
> The entire fuel is injected with a sequential injection so promptly before the end of the sucking in act that it arrives without pre-ageing with air flowing in into the cylinder.
> 
> This kind of injection can be combined only with multipoint injection.



From kzftech.de (translated)


> Einspritzung-Pump nozzle injection is shortened frequently with PD or PDE. Bosch uses the abbreviation UIS for unit Injector system.
> 
> With the pump nozzle injection are fuel-inject pump and nozzle for each cylinder in only one construction unit in summary. That means: High pressure ( approx. 2050 bar ( of S.A.. Table )) at the injecting element of each cylinder one produces separately.



It refers only to sequential fuel injection when used as a description of fuel injection systems. This is probably due to the fact this is the only type of fuel injection system used by German engineers.


----------



## Gille (Aug 1, 2005)

Honestly I doubt you can even read a word of those German articles, either that or you are a bit nutty to be denying the plain language of them.

But lets see - if you really can read German and that article, a little quiz:

- what modification to the 801D is discussed as producing a +80PS improvement in power, why wasn't it implemented and what did they decide to do about that potential modification instead?


----------



## Gille (Aug 1, 2005)

Hmmm...you can read an entire six page technical article in German in 35 minutes well enough to understand it completely and dismiss the author as wrong, but you can't translate four sentences in 25 minutes?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 1, 2005)

or maybe he's not online at the moment??


----------



## vanir (Aug 1, 2005)

You're right, I use a translator program and my own engineering knowledge to gloss over technical data and graph/blueprint. None of which display the "special C3-injection system" described in this thread.

The paragraph you refer to (on page 1 of the document) appears to be discussing the use of twin pressure relief valves for the two-speed supercharger in the BMW 801 which sacrificed some 80hp and caused reliability issues, discovered as a result of testing in 1942.


Could you please point out the paragraph which refers to this "special C3-injection system" ? I'd really like to read about something which has no engineering blueprints, cannot be found on any surviving engines nor technical renditions of the 801D and is challenged by every technical examination of this engine around the world.
Where is the part about the injectors mounted at the engine air intake?
Where is the differentiation between this injection system and any other sequential injection system on BMW series engines?
Where is the part where it was offered as an alternative to MW-50 engines which also used C3 fuel?


----------



## Gille (Aug 1, 2005)

> The paragraph you refer to (on page 1 of the document) appears to be discussing the use of twin pressure relief valves for the two-speed supercharger in the BMW 801 which sacrificed some 80hp and caused reliability issues, discovered as a result of testing in 1942.



Close but not really, which just goes to show the limitations of electronic translation programs.

What that para (under the heading Doppel oder Einzeldusen) is talking about is a trial replacing the double exhaust pipes with a single pipe, producing an 80PS boost. On 16 March 1943 Rechlin advise Focke Wulf that the tests on this modification are succcessful and that it should be implemented however Focke Wulf decide not to changeover but instead apply the change to the 801E engine.

I'm not a native speaker but here's my best effort at summaring the rest of the article:

The para headed Versuch bei der E-Stelle Rechlin talks about the trials with the C-3 injection - (C-3 Einsitzsprung), basically what it says is:

- 6 190s were used for trials starting 17 May 1943 and finishing in July 1943

- the engines were run at 2700/1.65ata with the C3 injection activated

- in all 32 hours of tests were done on the 6 machines

- power output at ground level was 2060PS

- speed gain ranged from 30 to 45kph depending on how the aircraft was configured

The table at the bottom of that page shows the results obtained for the six aircraft with the C3-Einsitzprung.

The article goes on to talk about engine temperatures and notes that two aircraft were run at 1.65ata even without the system running, but that for combat the system should be used. 

The section after that talks about tests from 3 June 1943 by Focke Wulf on a A-5/U8 which obtained a speed boost of +37kmh at 200 meters altitude.

There is then a discussion about the tests done with the MW-50 system, these however only produce a boost of +16kph.

There is then a discussion about the C-3 system being fitted to operational F and G jabo's and the limitations on its use - only to be used under 1000 meters with the supercharger in first gear.

The most interesting section is the last. Basically it says that from July 1944 all A-8s got the C-3 injection system and that it could be operated without altitude restriction with earlier aircraft being able to be upgraded.

It says that in first supercharger gear the engine could be run at 1.58ata and in second at 1.65ata. The gain is speed was 22kph in first gear, 25kph in second and it could be run for ten minutes. The system could be used up to the rated altitude.

I'm sure one of the native speakers could do a far more polished and comprehensive job.


----------



## vanir (Aug 1, 2005)

I'd like also to apolegise for using the notably personal reference, "twit" in one of my above posts. It was wrong and I shouldn't have done it.
And secondly what I should have said and was rightly called out on, was that I'd glossed over the documents relying upon my personal knowledge of motor engineering, particularly the technical data, graphs and blueprints and found no evidence of what has been described in this thread, the "special C3-injection _system_ delivering fuel into the air intake" of the BMW 801D-series engine used by Fw-190s in the documents presented. I maintain that anyone can be simply incorrect however I do not believe so in this case, as both my personal knowledge of high performance systems and quite a bit of research in the last few days coincide for me to conclude.

Those two points are a character failing and I do not wish them to detract from discovering the truth in this matter.

Everything I have researched supports my own personal experience and directly challenges that which has been suggested. Nothing so far corroberates these illogical claims in a clear and credible fashion and they appear to me to be myth based on misinterpretation and a lack of intimate knowledge of fuel delivery systems in high performance applications.

I am however, as I have always been determined to remain open to clearly stated presentations by credible sources. If anyone has any related documentation which is easily translated, or can point out those sections to be translated, or renditions in english and most notably and preferrably, any technical blueprints or similarly clear renditions of this magical air intake injection system of C3 fuel used on any radial engined Fw-190 I would be highly appreciative.
Considering the nature of the claim it must be clearly stated it is a C3 injection system and not being confused with any MW-50 installation, which is indeed at the supercharger discharge piping and may be loosely termed as within the air intake for the engine.

Should anyone manage to assist in the matter, I thankyou in advance for your time.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Aug 1, 2005)

> I've looked up every link you've posted and am still yet to see this fabled "special C3-injection system" which "injects fuel into the left air intake to provide additional cooling and prevent predetonation" in any of them.



Would you like to comment on this oh one of such great 801 knowledge?

C3 kraftstoffzusatz einspritzanlage = C3 fuel additive fuel injection system

C3 zusatzeinspritzung = C3 auxiliary injection

This is from the upper right corner of the 2cd link Gille posted. Note that #8 is the port intake. Also note that #3 is labeled einspritzdüse, ie. injector.

So you read all the links Gille posted? You need to get some better reading glasses.

Do you know what the bulges on each side of the cowling were for. Let me tell you. They were the dual intake ducts that led to the supercharger.

If the 'C3 injection' was not used, why was a yellow ring, a 150mm od dia, 10mm wide, placed on the rear left corner of the fuselage armament cover. Strange that the A-8 manual would mention such a marking for something you says does not exist. 

As for Crumpp. He is part of _White 1_ and has a collection of 1000s of pages of original documents on the Fw190.


----------



## vanir (Aug 1, 2005)

Gille said:


> If you're using machine translation then you must have typed pretty quick to get that whole article in in only half an hour and translated, you did claim that you had read it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I still think the claims made in the thread, the essence of your assertion is a complete misinterpretation, because it doesn't make engineering sense. Everything in my experience has made engineering sense or has been incorrect.
I shall have to gain some proper interpretation of the sections you've pointed out and get to the matter of this "special C3-injection" as opposed to normal 801 series M4 injection. I suspect it will again specify nothing more than fuel octane and tuning alterations without the addition of extra fuel injectors most certainly not in the engine air intake.

In the meantime, could you sparkle me and describe how this system works in one series of paragraphs. I apolegise if I'm asking you to cover old ground however I just have a sense of humour for hearing things that don't add up extrapolated.

Start with the C3-fuel injectors in the left engine air intake again and follow it through how this cools the air intake charge coming out the supercharger...


----------



## Gille (Aug 1, 2005)

The diagrams on the second page of the article are from the Flugzeug Handbuchs and show the layout of the system.

As to how it works, I'm not an aircraft engine guru but AFAIK it works pretty much the same way as MW-50 except that fuel is used as the coolant instead of a methanol-water mixture. With MW-50 the mixture is sprayed on the fuel/air charge so as to reduce the temperature of that charge (by evaporation of the water, the methanol is just there as an anti-freeze) and thus to prevent detonation in the cylinders prior to proper combustion. This lets you run the supercharger on higher boosts that would otherwise be possible without detonation.

C3 injection works the same way except that fuel is used instead of MW-50. If an aircraft can be configured with MW-50 injection I don't see what is so hard about conceiving the same system save that you use fuel instead of a special mixture, its easier to set up because you don't need the special MW-50 tank.

I'm sure if MW-50 worked better in the 801D then the Germans would have used it, but their testing showed the C3 injection allowed higher boosts and gave greater speed.


----------



## vanir (Aug 1, 2005)

Gille said:


> The diagrams on the second page of the article are from the Flugzeug Handbuchs and show the layout of the system.
> 
> As to how it works, I'm not an aircraft engine guru but AFAIK it works pretty much the same way as MW-50 except that fuel is used as the coolant instead of a methanol-water mixture. With MW-50 the mixture is sprayed on the fuel/air charge so as to reduce the temperature of that charge (by evaporation of the water, the methanol is just there as an anti-freeze) and thus to prevent detonation in the cylinders prior to proper combustion. This lets you run the supercharger on higher boosts that would otherwise be possible without detonation.
> 
> ...


This has been my whole problem from the start. Fuel doesn't do that.
Look up any supercharger site on the Web, navigate to centrifugal supercharger intake cooling and read.
There's whole engineering curriculums based on this. They're all wrong, you can't describe specificaly how this system works (perhaps there is some additional system added on C3 injected Fw-190's as an alternative MW-50 style option, hell I don't know), but the one you described does not work in the way you describe.

Either
a) your idea of how this additional system on C3-injected Fw-190's which is not MW-50 works is not accurate
b) the idea that a seperate system on C3-injected Fw-190's which is not used on regular C3-burning Fw-190's nor those fitted with MW-50, is itself inaccurate, caused by a misinterpretation of documents

Either satisfies me as either has been what I've said all along.

It is essential that a suitable presentation of describing the operation of this system is posted for it to be understood. If it is not understood, it could be something other than what is being assumed by some and challenged by me (and every independant, credible web source I can find).

I shall continue searching the web for any suitable documentation, look up any suitably authoritive translations of the documents you've provided and suspend a resounding apolegy for a genuine and clearly specified conclusion.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 1, 2005)

Guys, this is fascinating. I haven't seen a thread become _this_ technically in-depth in ages. 
Just don't freak-out if someone a little less well versed in C3 injection systems (me, for example  ) tries to get a word in somewhere, eh? Thanks guys. 

Nice info by the way.


----------



## vanir (Aug 1, 2005)

Well after much searching I finally found this fabled "special C3-injection system."
From the University of Western Ohio:


> The Fw 190F-8 was powered by a BMW 801 D-2 engine variant adapted for C3 (96 octane) fuel. An additional injector in the left supercharger inlet for emergency short term (10-15 min) engine power increase during flight under 1000 m altitude was standard equipment.


No wonder I couldn't find it, it was used only on the ground attack F-8 variant Fw190 and is a completely different engine setup to that used on the fighter types from A-3 through to A-9. Obviously it appears on no blueprints or documentation for these aircraft. It is not _the_ C3 injection system at all (all BMW801D-2's used C3 fuel and were sequentially or multipoint, direct injected), it is the boost-system used on that, low-altitude model. C3 fuel was used on all Fw-190's from the A-3 onwards due to higher compression ratios and supercharger gearing. All my source materiel has been accurate on this matter.

Now back to the point. The F-8 boost system does not work at all like MW-50 injection.
Far from providing additional charge cooling, the single injector richened the mixture to prevent detonation, which allowed the use of higher boost pressures selected or modified on the variable automatic boost regulator fitted to the standard Fw-190 engine management.
Higher boost settings is what is in fact increasing the power output. Taking it out of optimum fuel-air mixture ratio combined with the use of higher boost rating at emergency power, to prevent predetonation, in effect gaining more than you lose. It is a retuning of the engine and does not work anything like water-injection save that the engine still runs on its normal fuel injectors for its primary fuel flow. Now it has a tiny increase in fuel flow elsewhere in the system.
The plumbing is different, as the MW-50 was placed in the supercharger discharge piping where it would cool intake charge on the compressor outlet where it counts. And of course the F-8 boost system drew from the fuel pump.

It is the equivalent of pouring a little fuel down the throat of a carburettor to get it started after having run dry. Instant rich mixture. It cannot alone increase engine horsepower without other tuning alterations, unless the engine was already out of tune and running leaner than optimum to begin with. In fact the engine would produce more power without the secondary fuel richening but with the additional boost, although the engine would quickly fail due to predetonation.

Which takes me back to my original post. C3 fuel (ie. high octane fuel) does not lower cylinder temperatures, it simply burns at a higher one. No matter where in the system you introduce it (other than right next to the cylinders). I'll even add a bit, which I already explained in the first place, richer mixture burns at higher temperatures than a leaner one, but starts to take your engine out of tune. If your Fw190 is overheating coming in for a landing and starts to splutter, you richen it up so it won't stall when you suddenly open the throttle and go for a flyaround.
Water injection lowers cylinder temperatures.

An important stipulation, all fighter variants from the Fw190A-3 already used C3 and no additional fuel injectors. From the same source regarding the A-3:


> Beginning in the spring of 1942, series production of a more powerful engine version BMW 801D-2 that replaced previous versions in the Fw 190Fighter created a new plane version designated as Fw 190A-3. The increase in the BMW 801D-2 engine power (to 1730 kW) was due to a higher compression ratio and higher pressure two-speed compressor. A higher compression ratio and charging pressure made it necessary to use high-octane (96 octane) C3 fuel in place of B4 (87 octane) fuel.


This is the run of the mill, basic engine fitted to all fighter models from the A-3 onwards, without boost.
And the A-8 which sported the boosting system fitted standard on fighter variants:


> A new model with different equipment. Most important were parts of the MW 50 injection system, used for short term engine power boost. A cylindrical tank of 118 liters capacity was mounted in the rear fuselage. In an emergency, it could be used as additional fuel tank. Tank installation shifted the center of gravity backward and, as a cure, the under-fuselage mounted ETC 501 bomb rack was moved 20 cm forward. This rack became a standard from the A-8 model.


And this booster system was usable under a wider variety of atmospheric-densities, because it cooled the cylinders to prevent predetonation at higher settings, which the F-8 low-altitude booster system did not. It altered the engine tuning.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 1, 2005)

You could have left it at the facts and known that you presented things well. To me, you spoiled it with your last paragraph. The info was great, but remember that it is the last thing you said that will be freshest in ones mind.


----------



## vanir (Aug 1, 2005)

Fair enough. Edited to remove. I apolegise.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 1, 2005)

No problem, it's always a learning experience. You presented a good case. Thats' all you need and that should also satisy the detractors. Great info, by the way! 8)


----------



## Gille (Aug 2, 2005)

Lets deal with this step by step:



vanir said:


> Well after much searching I finally found this fabled "special C3-injection system."
> From the University of Western Ohio:
> 
> 
> ...



University of Western Ohio - is it from an academic or engineering paper? Who's the author? What original documents does he source for those claims?

Couple of points:

"a BMW 801D-2 variant adapted for C3 (96 octane) fuel"

This is poorly expressed, all D-2's ran on C3 fuel, they did not need to be adapted, there were no variants of the D-2 that ran on anything else 

"it was used only on the ground attack F-8"

Logical flaw - you've leaped from a website that says it was used on the F-8 to claiming it's being used ONLY on the F-8. As I explained earlier it was first installed on jabo A's (including F series) and only in mid-1944 became a standard installation for the fighter A's.

'Obviously it appears on no blueprints or documentation for these aircraft."

Really? This is another assertion that is contradicted by the material already posted in this thread. Go and check the references to the Pilot's Handbook for the A-7/A-9 already given in this thread. Why does the Pilot Handbook describe the system and give drawings for it if it doesnt exist in those fighter variants? 

As for the use of the system on German fighters, practice your translation skills on the section headed "Notleistung bis zur Volldruckhohe" and explain to me what it's talking about in the first two paras there:

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/365/klassikerdieleistungssteigerun5.jpg

That paper is written by Dietmar Herrmann by the way, who is the well known author of books on the 190. In a contest between his credibility backed up by orginal documents he cites and scans and yours based on a misreading of one unsourced website I'm afraid he is going to win. I also note that so far you have not produced or referred to one original document that shows MW-50 was ever used on a 190A.

Once we sort out which aircraft used the system then I'm happy to discuss the engineering detail of exactly how the system might have worked. If we refer to the diagrams of the system contained in the Pilot's Handbook we should be able to figure out exactly where the fuel is being injected.


----------



## vanir (Aug 2, 2005)

Mate, the engineering that has been presented in this thread as a description of how the F-8 boost system worked is flawed, it showed a failure in intimately understanding high performance motor engineering principles, the references to which, I provided are clearly documented throughout the field and on the racetrack and apply equally to the Morris sitting in your driveway to the BMW 801 series engines, and you want to fight about it.
I have been very clear that this is the entire foundation of everything I have said.
My entire point has been about the engineering principles from the start. My issue was a simple point clarifying misrepresented engineering principles the poster(s) don't even understand and then claim that a clarification is incorrect because of historical precedent.
Mate the racetracks have 50 years of historical precedents instead of misunderstood ones 50 years old.


Knew I was right about the last paragraph in that last post of mine.

Explain how this system worked and why it gets the claimed results, Gille, that IS the point. If you cannot, then don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about just because you fail to understand how something works.
You say, read in German.
I say, read some engineering. The discussion, my original posting was about engineering principles.

And when it comes to mechanical engineering _principles_ I'll take a contemporary university over a wartime manual any day of the week. A lot of ground has been covered since then.
What I prefer is that the university has a translated copy of the wartime manual and then an appraisal is made.
Considering the nature of curriculums there is no reason to think it would not have investigated manufacturer's manuals (I'll see if I can find a bibliography on the web publication for you), but it is obvious that any statement of a few sentences to describe any piece of mechanical engineering would be sweeping generalisation. It is one which is supported however by every web reference to the Fw190, from historian to university, museums of surviving examples, anecdote, US testing, published technical manuals and reference encyclopediae.
I have the entire fuel system for the BMW 801A saved to my computer as well as a detailed and english marked engine blueprint.
Because the point, in a place of engineering study is, the relevant points of value to mechanical engineering or historical summary. It is a given in motor engineering that each and every individual engine is unique.

The fact remains that _generally speaking_ then, the boost system you described is that of the Fw190F-8 variant, to be used under 1000m. If you knew this and cared to mention it, that whole part of the arguing (about a webpage worth of utterly irrelevant back and forth posts), could have been quickly dispatched and I would have been thanking you for clearing that up for me (you could've gone on to say, "although it was tested/used/put-in-once-in-a-field-modification on fighter-bomber (Jabo) A variants," and it could've started a whole interesting sidetrack). I don't think you did.

And just in case this was a tact, I'm not into learning things by fighting. I fight to kill and investigate to learn.

Secondly, if you had to explain it to a disinterested student, the University's sweeping generalisation would be the easiest and accurate enough to get down to the engineering principles without encouraging misguided contradiction amid a detailed historical study of individual tail numbers.
The discussion was about engineering principles being challenged and/or poorly represented.

All Fw190 fighter models from the A3 onwards already used C3 fuel. I specified this numerous times, why are you extrapolating it above like it's a point I missed? It was the entire basis of my initially expressed concerns regarding obviously flawed mechanical (engineering) descriptions.
Wasn't my initial posting, "C3 injected just means you're injecting C3 fuel instead of M4 fuel. Any Fw using C3 fuel is C3 injected." Didn't I say that? Then went on to describe how regardless, moving the fuel delivery into the air intake would not reduce cylinder temperatures although the higher octane rating would lower detonation because it burns at higher temperatures. Yet this effect is achieved regardless where you put the fuel delivery and in fact is improved by direct injection over air intake mounted fuel injection. Didn't I describe how that works?

The point, is the engineering principles. That is what I brought up. That is what I argued and it took me this long just to get a clear representation of wtf you guys have even been going on about. And if a credible university's homepage publication is the only description I'm going to get, then I'll go with that. It IS a credible reference source for research materiel. Successful University's generally are because their reputation and entire income is dependant upon it.
A wartime engineer's handbook is most certainly also a credible reference source for research materiel, don't get me wrong.
But I'm afraid a bit of finger waving, challenges to learn German and abstract references to engineering systems at least one staunch poster has admitted he doesn't understand just isn't going to do it.

The entire issue I brought up is the engineering principles.



> This is poorly expressed, all D-2's ran on C3 fuel, they did not need to be adapted, there were no variants of the D-2 that ran on anything else.


And are you selectively blind? This is the precise issue I brought up with KK's initial description based on anecdotal (not adequately sourced) references to the F-8 boost system. It is easy to take things either you don't understand yourself or simply choose not to consider properly, out of context.
So here is the quote edited to hold true with all credible reference materiels thus far clearly presented (occam's razor)
(point 1.) The Fw 190F-8 was powered by a BMW 801 D-2 engine variant (of the BMW 801), adapted for C3 (96 octane) fuel.
(point 2.) An additional injector in the left supercharger inlet for emergency short term (10-15 min) engine power increase during flight under 1000 m altitude was standard equipment.


What is wrong with the descriptions given in this thread of how the F-8 boost system achieved its power increase is they are flawed by plain physics. I explained clearly and concisely, why. I've given the ground that it is an engineering awareness which would have understood this, but I'm being continually told accurate engineering principles I continue to post are incorrect physics. This is not so.

Now don't answer me with challenges of "go learn German and then you'll understand," even though at least three posters in the thread plainly appear not to themselves, German-literacy or not.
And don't give me vague links to other forums to argue with someone whom is not present in this one to clarify his postings or people's understanding of them. He could've cleared it up in one hit. "I'm talking about the F-8 boost system." And if he had the engineering awareness we could've continued into a discussion weighing up engineering principles regarding any other assertions he's made or read, both learning in a productive rather than competitive environment. Both right, neither wrong.
_But he's not in this thread._

The claim is that the engineering principles I have posted are wrong because I'm the one who doesn't understand the "special C3 injection system." Tell me how the damn thing worked then and start giving up some ground of your own.


----------



## Gille (Aug 2, 2005)

Vanir

I've come to the conclusion that you're not bothering to read a word I say or bothering to check out the original documents I and others have posted links or copies of.

You are so concerned with being right and "pwning" others that you would rather live in your own fantasy land of what "cannot work" instead of doing the hard work of going and finding out from the original documents what really did happen in real life.

So far in this thread you've got links to original pages from German test reports comparing C3 and MW-50 injection, you've got links to a book where the system is described, you've got references to the exact pages from the Pilot Handbook where the system you say cannot exist is described along with diagrams and you've got a six page article that sets out in great detail the history, testing and installation of the system with copies of the original system diagrams and test results and full citations to the original documents. And all I can conclude is that you haven't read a word of them because otherwise you wouldnt be posting this nonsense.

Against that you've produced nothing, save googling and posting unsourced claims from the internet and your theories of what can and cannot work. 

If you were willing to actually consider the historical documents and what experts on the 190 have written I'd be interested to discuss it, but this has turned into a complete waste of time. So I'll leave you to your imagined pwnings and fantasy world.


Anyone else

Am happy to discuss 190 boost systems with anybody curious.


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 2, 2005)

First, octain, is a rating that is related to the speed of the flame front of that fuel, the higher the Octain the Slower the flame travels. Detonation (knock) is when the fuel burns to fast completing the combustion process Before the piston reaches Top Dead Center, creating reverse thrust on the engine. ANY engine can take a higher grade of fuel WITHOUT modification, but to take best advantage of the better fuel one or all of these things will allow a higher output from the engine, assuming the engine is mechanicaly strong enough: 
More Boost
More Ignition Advance, allowing more of the energy to be utalized.
More Mechanical Compression. 

MW-50 Cools the charge acting as a secondary octain booster. The only modification requirement is a method of introduction into the engine. Early injection cools the air charge. I belive the effect of aftercooling, intercooling, charge cooling is 60deg/f is equal to 1 octain point (this is from memory so I might be off a little) and condenses the charge at the same time. Methanol is a fuel adding power and water adds oxygen and the evaporation of both cools the charge. Their use also allows the same power adding possabilities as increased octain as described above.

I'll leave the mechanical installation of the system and the ultimate outcome of their use to you gents.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2005)

As for translating things I would be happy to translate things as long as they are not too long. I dont have the time to translate page long documents and such not but short things if people would like I can translate from German to English.


----------



## solnar (Aug 3, 2005)

I thought that i would add this to the debate, it is from Captain Eric brown RN who was a famous test pilot,


> . I was to fly the Fw 190 many times and in several varieties — among the last of the radial-engined members of Kurt Tank's fighter family that I flew was an Fw 190F-8 (AMI 11) on 28 July 1945 — and each time I was to experience that sense of exhilaration that came from flying an aircraft that one instinctively knew to be a top-notcher, yet, at the same time, demanded handling skill if its high qualities were to be exploited. Just as the Spitfire Mk IX was probably the most outstanding British fighter to give service in World War II, its Teutonic counterpart is undoubtedly deserving of the same recognition for Germany. Both were supreme in their time and class; both were durable and technically superb, and if each had not been there to counter the other, then the balance of air power could have been dramatically altered at a crucial period in the fortunes of both combatants.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 3, 2005)

Oh no - Not Eric Brown!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2005)

I was actually going to say the same thing even though I somewhat agree with what he saying in this instance.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 3, 2005)

That one quoted statement is quite true.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2005)

Yeap


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 3, 2005)

The rest of the crap that flowed from his mouth, however, was almost pure stank ass shit....


----------



## evangilder (Aug 3, 2005)

Yup


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 5, 2005)

yeap


----------

