Page 3 of 26 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 254

Thread: Fw 190 A-9 performance with BMW 801F-1 and Fw 190 A-10 | Forums

  1. #21
    Different question - have you ever seen a picture of a 190 A-9 (in service) with the MW50 logo?
    The 115L-tank (MW-50 or GM-1, depending on the Rüstsatz) wasn't used due to stability(CoG)-issues IIRC.
    Sometimes, it was used as an aux fuel-tank, though.

    But that limitation applies to the TH/ F engine as well
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  2. #22
    Senior Member Kettenhunde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,530
    That is why they increased the oil cooler armor thickness to 10mm. That combined with the heavier weight of the BMW801H/S series helped with the CG issue.

    An BMW801D2 required the propeller weights. the tank was not approved until ~August 1944 and the only information on its inclusion into production is a mention that it is planned in the September/October time frame.

    MW was not used in the BMW801 U/H/S series until Jan 1945 either.

    The MW system consisted of the non-self sealing tank. The GM-1 system on the FW-190A fighter series had two different systems. One did not use a tank in the fuselage but rather lox bottles in the wing very similar to the pilots oxygen bottles. The nitrous was in liquid form just like the pilots O2.

    The fuselage tank for GM-1 was 85 liters. It was approved for 20 minutes of use over 8KM in altitude.

    [sub][i][b][color:black]Our M
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  3. #23
    Sounds very plausible to me

    Thanks for the info
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,615
    Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
    The original poster was asking for the 2400 hp F model, the TS wasn't rated that high


    Sure it was.....
    Ok, thanks Kettenhunde!

    Now, if possible, can someone provide me a speed chart of the machine with such power?
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    3,899
    Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The original poster was asking for the 2400 hp F model, the TS wasn't rated that high
    Sure it was.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Did that happen in the same fantasy world where the BMW 801S was called BMW 801F?
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  6. #26
    Senior Member Kettenhunde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,530

    [sub][i][b][color:black]Our M
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  7. #27
    Senior Member Kettenhunde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,530
    Now, if possible, can someone provide me a speed chart of the machine with such power?

    Here you go.


    [sub][i][b][color:black]Our M
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    3,899
    That's for 2250 hp, not 2400.

    You're aware that the header says A-9 with 801 F AND 801 TS and not that the F engine was designated TS. These had pretty much the same performance unless WEP was engaged.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  9. #29
    Senior Member Kettenhunde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,530
    You're aware that the header says A-9 with 801 F AND 801 TS
    It shows the result of the FW-190A9's level speed performance over several altitudes.

    So how did they switch engines, again??

    The only difference was the MW50. When the TS was approved for MW, the H designation was dropped. The engine was developed and major change to the E series was hydraulic controls instead of electro-mechanical.

    That's for 2250 hp, not 2400.
    No it is 2400 hp. You are not accounting for the power increase of MW50.

    Even at fixed manifold pressure and rpm of 1.32ata @ 2400U/min, MW50 added ~200 hp to the engine power output.

    Honestly, JtD I could care less what you think and have no interest in pursuing any conversation about airplanes, weather, or anything else with you.

    You are free to believe what you want and I will go back to ignoring you. It is not my job to correct misconceptions on the internet.

    Feel free to hit the archives and in a few years you might have the collection we do.

    [sub][i][b][color:black]Our M
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    3,899
    So a chart showing performance for 2250 hp and explicitely states it is without MW50 is 2400 hp and with MW50 because you say so?

    It is painfully obvious that your job is not to correct misconceptions...

    Do you care to share with the rest of the forum how many curves on the first chart refer to power settings in excess of 1.65 ata / 2700 rpm?
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

Page 3 of 26 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •