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

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:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

Oh no - Not Eric Brown!

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

That one quoted statement is quite true.

Yeap

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

Yup

yeap