The 115L-tank (MW-50 or GM-1, depending on the Rüstsatz) wasn't used due to stability(CoG)-issues IIRC.Different question - have you ever seen a picture of a 190 A-9 (in service) with the MW50 logo?
Sometimes, it was used as an aux fuel-tank, though.
But that limitation applies to the TH/ F engine as well
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
Sounds very plausible to me
Thanks for the info
Ok, thanks Kettenhunde!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.....
Now, if possible, can someone provide me a speed chart of the machine with such power?
Sure it was.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>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
Did that happen in the same fantasy world where the BMW 801S was called BMW 801F?
[sub][i][b][color:black]Our M
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
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.
It shows the result of the FW-190A9's level speed performance over several altitudes.You're aware that the header says A-9 with 801 F AND 801 TS
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.
No it is 2400 hp. You are not accounting for the power increase of MW50.That's for 2250 hp, not 2400.
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
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?
Posting Permissions
Bremspropeller
Reply With Quote
