Information about the FW190B?

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by wiking85, Apr 29, 2014.

  1. wiking85

    wiking85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Chicagoland Area
    Does anyone have any information about this aircraft and why it wasn't pursued as much as the FW190D? I know it depended on the turbocharged BMW801J that required too many rare raw materials to mass produce, but what about the 2 stage, 4 speed BMW801E and R that would have had sufficient high altitude performance and not required a major production line conversion for the late coming Jumo 213 or even DB603?
     
  2. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,987
    Likes Received:
    432
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The Dietmar Hermann's book about Fw's hi-alt fighters does not mention the turbochargerd BMW 801J for the Fw-190B (nor does it for any of the 190s/152s). The main feature of the 190B was to be the wing of increased area (from 'regular' 18.3 m^2 to 20.3 m^2), pressure cabin and GM-1 system for the BMW 801D. Several photos of the TI+IK with 'big wing' can be seen in the book. That aircraft 1st flew at January 20th 1943, and after some time it received the 'regular' wing. Several other experimental Bs were outfitted with 'regular' wing.
    Why the LW didn't 'bite'? Going by the book, seems they were not thrilled with GM-1, it's shortcomings were too great in their eyes. Like much of dead weight and leaking of the contents of the GM-1 tank.

    The Fw-190 with a 2-stage engine would've been the blast, but it seems like the Germans were convinced in the merits of the 2-stagers only after RR prove them the worth. That is despite early experiments with DB-601C/D and DB-628. But, why a 4-speed S/C drive??
     
  3. wiking85

    wiking85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Chicagoland Area
    Not sure what you mean here.

    As to the rest, I'm pretty confused as to why the LW didn't use the existing developments of the supercharged BMW 801 that they developed and were ready in 1943-44.
     
  4. stona

    stona Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    7,511
    Likes Received:
    943
    Trophy Points:
    113
    #4 stona, Apr 29, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2014
    According to Smith and Creek all four Fw 190 B-0s (V46, V47, V48 and V49) were powered by 801 Ds. The first of the four, V46, 0046, TI+IK was the only one fitted with the larger 20.3 m2 wing and then only between March and October 1943.

    There were serious problems fitting a BMW 801 J into the Fw 190 airframe according to provisional drawings. It was a much bulkier engine assembly. The supercharger needed to be lowered by at least 50mm which would have entailed major work on the engine/supercharger assembly. An extra attachment point was required on the lower strut of the engine bearer frame.
    Compared to liquid cooled versions, no central cannon could be fitted and though this gave an opportunity to fit a larger fuel tank I suspect that at a time when ever heavier armament was considered a requirement this may have been a disadvantage.

    Once again things are easier to write than do.

    [​IMG]

    Cheers

    Steve
     
  5. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,987
    Likes Received:
    432
    Trophy Points:
    83
    For the needs of the ww2 engines with 2-stage superchargers, 2 supercharger speeds were proven as efficient, or flexible enough. So just use two-speed gearbox (as in regular 801), and you should be fine, in case the 2-stage supercharger is installed. Don't bother to develop 4-speed gearbox, you just waste time that you don't have.
    Please not that 'speed' and 'stage' are two distinctive different terms.

    I'm not sure what do you mean by 'the supercharged BMW 801'? Nobody used non-supercharged engines in ww2, at least not for combat A/C. With the 801J, BMW simply introduced turbo-supercharger and it's ancilliaries to the 801D.
     
  6. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,987
    Likes Received:
    432
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Thanks for the photo, Steve. Does that book have any photo of the Fw-190B with turbo?

    The Hermann's book shows photos of the 0046 (TI+IK) with regular engine exhaust section and 'cheeks' for internal intakes. Also, the chart (RoC) is presented, with caption "Fw 190B mit 801D Werkn.: 0046"; further: "Erprobungstraeger [new line] fuer grosse flache (20.3m^2). Dated 24. V 43, type's weight 3580 kg. No armament, internal intakes.
     
  7. wiking85

    wiking85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Chicagoland Area
    By supercharged I meant two stage like the BMW 801E, but you mentioned on another thread about why that wasn't produced. What made it different from the 801S?

    Thanks Stona and Tomo.
     
  8. Mike Williams

    Mike Williams Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2006
    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    28
    • Like Like x 1
  9. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,987
    Likes Received:
    432
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The 801E did not have 2-stage supercharger, just the usual one (= single stage). The 801R was the project with 2-stage supercharger. The S and E were very much similar engines, most of the difference was the timing (years, not valve timing :) ).
     
  10. wiking85

    wiking85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Chicagoland Area
    Why would the S be produced, but not the E?
     
  11. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,987
    Likes Received:
    432
    Trophy Points:
    83
    That remains to be seen :)
     
  12. wiking85

    wiking85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Chicagoland Area
    Any idea when in 1944 it went into service?
     
  13. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    High altitude variants of Me-109G could perform same high altitude mission for lower cost.
     
  14. wiking85

    wiking85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Chicagoland Area
  15. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    215kg heavier. 8kph slower. Not sure I would call that a severe impact.
     
  16. wiking85

    wiking85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Chicagoland Area
    Drag was a big issue. They were slung under the wings on hardpoints.
     
  17. Koopernic

    Koopernic Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2013
    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    BMW801TJ did indeed use Boehler's "sicromal" which was the same chrome/nickel/iron alloy used in the BMW 003A turbojet.

    RLM/Luftwaffe was happy to allow BMW 801TJ development to go along. However this was a bomber engine because the exhaust was to the top and would impact directly on the fighters windshield. The BMW 801TJ was also an "integral turbocharger" in that the engine, intercooler and turbo supercharger were one tightly integrated package rather than separate as per most of the American units which made the unit more compact. If you look at say a Ju 88S with the standard 801 compared to a Ju 388 with the turbo version you will be struck by the much greater diameter of the latter say about 30% bigger: that's the intercooler which consisted of 5 units arranged in an annular fashion. I doubt it would fit around the basic 190 airframe. I would also argue that the BMW801TJ had very large intercoolers designed to allow opperation and greater height than the US fighters and that this bulk precluded integration in a standard fighter.

    This is because the heat rise is purely a ratio of the pressure ratio so the greater the altitude the greater the heat that has to be rejected.

    The RLM/Luftwaffe, for whatever reason was not going to fund a fighter version of this engine, presumably one which could fit into the Fw 190 or more likely Ta 152. The alternative was the BMW 801R which was an inter-cooled and after cooled unit with a 4 speed supercharger. (Note It's my understanding that the impellers had independent drives so they were most likely 2 + 2 speed units). The performance of this engine would not have been too much inferior to the BMW801TJ. The shear size of this engine due to the inter-coolers and its multiple supercharger speeds suggests ability to operate in very thin air over a wide ranger. However unless a VDT (variable discharge turbine) is used a mechanically supercharged engines has more jet thrust. For a Jumo 213E at about 10000m this thrust was over 448lb from memory) which is 200kg and approximately 55% of what a Jumo 004B jet engine produced. Power = Force x Speed(of aircraft) so at 440mph (200ms) that 448lb(2000N) jet thrust is = 400kW (about 550hp) not counting prop losses (in modern turbo props this jet thrust is accounted for by the term "ehp" = equivalent horse power). A Bomber which spends much of its time cruising will benefit from the greater efficiency of the turbo while a fighter will benefit from the jet thrust at the expense of some power. The extra power a turbo engine produces also requires a bigger gearbox and propeller this and the weight of the turbo more or less can nullify the advantage of the turbo.

    Daimler Benz and Junkers had turbo versions of their DB603 and Jumo 213 (even 211) and they showed up in a variety of projects, including the ME 410.

    In general the Germans were able to improve their two speed superchargers to the point that they had acceptable performance at bomber height.
     
  18. Denniss

    Denniss Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2006
    Messages:
    835
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Bf 109 had to rely on good power-to-weight ratio and good maneuverability, both were impacted by the gun pods. Especially climb suffered due to weight gain.

    The BMW 801S was more or less the older D-2 engine with improvements from the 801E/F program which could be implemented without requiring too many production changes. Both E and F required changes that would have required retooling of some production lines.
     
  19. Milosh

    Milosh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,918
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    How many BMW801S motors were built?
     
  20. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    How much did it suffer?

    Me-109 was one of the best climbing fighter aircraft of WWII. It could lose a bit of ability and still climb faster then most contemporary fighter aircraft.
     
Loading...

Share This Page