PDA

View Full Version : Interesting GAF-related material from Lone Sentry



Blutarski2004
05-04-2007, 08:13 AM
Looks like some new wartime tech intel material has been posted on Lone Sentry. Here are two. There are a few others referring to 109G model and German fuel quality. Very interesting.


http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/recent-flying-limits.html

RECENT FLYING LIMITATIONS IMPOSED ON GERMAN AIRCRAFT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An indication of possible reckless or unintelligent flying on the part of GAF pilots may be found in recent instructions, establishing certain restrictions on the operation of various airplanes, issued by the Germany Air Ministry. This was done to reduce the loss of, or damage to, particular planes by overtaxing their capabilities. The particular types covered are the FW-190, the Me series, the He-177, and the Ju-88.

The maximum permissible operating speed for the FW-190 have been reduced from 466 mph at all heights to the following:

Up to 10,000 ft - 466 mph
From 10,000 ft to 16,500 ft - 428 mph
From 16,500 ft to 26,250 ft - 360 mph


These speeds are to be marked on the air speed indicators in each aircraft and are only permissible with strengthened elevators. Aileron corrections at high speeds must remain within moderate limits.

The He-177 combines light elevator control with good elevator effect, but has a comparatively low factor of safety, with the result that wrinkling of the skin on the wings or wing failures may occur from careless flying. Permissible pull-out acceleration at the present time amounts to 2.3g with a flying weight of 27 tons, and crews are reminded that high stresses may be caused when pulling out of a glide at high speed, by sharply pulling up out of horizontal flight at any speed, and in steep turns or by strong vertical gusts at high speed. A warning is issued that the automatic pull-out apparatus can unintentionally cause a strain of over 2.5g by tail-heavy trimming before the release of the bombs, by pulling back on the control column at the time of the automatic pull-out if the centre of gravity lies too far to the rear, or when dive-bombing is done in very gusty air. In the latter case, speed should be reduced to 186 mph. The pilot must be trained to watch closely the air speed indicator and the acceleration warning apparatus during every pull-out.

In the case of all aircraft of the Me-109 series, including the Me-109G, attention is called to the numerous accidents caused by wing breakages, resulting from strains induced by air speeds in excess of the permissible maximum limits. All previous limitations are therefore cancelled and the following are substituted (previous limits are given for comparison):

Limit Previous Limit
Up to 10,000 ft 466 mph 466 mph
At 16,500 ft 435 mph 425 mph
At 23,000 ft 357 mph 382 mph
At 30,000 ft 280 mph 341 mph
At 38,000 ft 248 mph 304 mph


A corresponding notice is to be placed on all airspeed indicators in these aircraft.

Warning is also given against yawing in a dive, which under certain conditions leads to high, one-sided wing stresses which the wing tips cannot support. When yawing occurs, the dive is to be broken off gradually, without exercising force. Wing tips must be examined and checked frequently for signs of failures. When yawing is encountered during turning, correction must be made with the rudder only and not with the ailerons. Mention is also made of high-wing stresses caused by the unintentional unlocking of the landing gear especially the dropping of one side in a dive. It is stated that steps are being taken to prevent this.

Apparently, even the yellow recognition paint on the ailerons changes their characteristics unfavorably and paint already put on is to be removed.

Reference is made to the difficulty of controlling Ju-88 aircraft at a dive angle of 60?, and it is stated that in the future they are to be rigged for a dive angle of 50? only. This will limit the indicated air speed in the dive to between 329 and 341 mph as against 341 to 354 mph obtained in a 60? dive.


= = =


http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/fw190.html

THE PRESENT VERSION OF THE FW-190

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some interesting modifications have been reported from examination of crashed Focke-Wulf 190s, used as fighter-bombers.

The engine is the fully rated BMW 801 D-2, equipped with doping pipes running to each of the 14 cylinders instead of only to 7 as in the previous model. This system is used to increase the power of the engine for a limited time during an emergency. The tank for the doping of gas or fluid is removed from the cockpit to behind the seat, and is of larger capacity, presumably in order to effect the doping of all 14 cylinders. The three fixed louvers at each side of the rear end of the engine cowling on the original design have been replaced by three adjustable gills, which are controlled by a small rotating handle on the upper instrument panel.

Various armament combinations have been found on FW-190s. The original aircraft had as regular equipment two 7.9-mm machine guns mounted above the engine and two MG-151 20-mm guns mounted in the wing roots, all four firing through the propeller arc, and two outboard Oerlikon FF 20-mm cannons. Recent crash reports from England have not included the outboard cannon in the armament. The reason for the omission of the Oerlikons has not been given, but it is possible that the use of these cannon was either experimental or limited to special types of operations. In one crashed plane, only the MG-151 20-mm guns were found, the 7.9-mm machine guns having been removed from the mountings, and the firing channels in the top of the cowling having been blanked off.

A bomb carrier labeled E.T.C. 501 is mounted under the center line of the fuselage. This can carry either a 550- or 1100-pound bomb. There is no fairing around the carrier, but long streamlining is fitted behind, stretching far back along the underside of the fuselage.

The armor, which appears to be unchanged, consists of a 13-mm steel plate behind the head and shoulders of the pilot, 8-mm armor back of the pilot's seat, strips between the seat and the sides of the fuselage, 5 or 6 mm thick, and a bullet-proof windshield 1 3/4 inches thick. The engine is protected by the foremost ring of the engine cowling which is 5-mm armor, and by a second ring, of 3-mm sheet steel. The bullet-proof glass windshield is fitted with a gasoline spray which can be turned on by a small control on the lower instrument panel. This spray washes away oil that may be deposited on the windshield from the engine.

The normal fuel tanks are now of the fully flexible type, with a capacity of 139 U.S. gallons, and, in addition to these, there are two jettisonable fuel tanks carried under the wing, each holding 80 U.S. gallons. These are jettisoned mechanically by pulling a small T-shaped handle in the cockpit.

Modifications have been made to the airframe, but the main dimensions are unchanged. There is internal stiffening in the wings and in the rear end of the fuselage. The new type of boost gauge, already found in the Do-217, is fitted, and also a modified fuel-flow indicator for the two main tanks and the outboard jettisonable tanks. A red bulb above the indicator lights when the fuel supply is down to 20 minutes flying. There is a fitting for a small camera in the rear part of the fuselage. The oxygen bottles are of a new spherical type.

Apparently certain faults were found in the design and manufacture of the electrical equipment in the original FW-190s, and these findings resulted in some gradual changes. The plywood top of the fin has now been equipped with an 8-inch aerial mast of the same material, altering the appearance of the top of the fin and shortening the aerial. The radio installation used with the short aerial is a very light type of FuG 16 Z with a remote-control frequency selector.

It is believed probable that an improved version of the FW-190 may shortly appear, re-engined with a BMW 801 E or the 801 J with an exhaust-driven supercharger, which would necessitate considerable modification of the air-frame design. Further development will mainly depend on whether the new engine has 18, 21, or 27 cylinders. Such a redesigned airplane is likely to have a much higher performance. An attempt may be made to improve the speed and climb of the 190, which at present decreases rapidly above 25,000 feet. The MG-151 20-mm guns may be replaced by a larger caliber type, such as the reported 25-mm Rheinmetall. Major improvements of performance and load-carrying capacity are to be expected only with a new type of power plant. The aircraft may be developed chiefly as a fighter-bomber.

luftluuver
05-04-2007, 08:23 AM
Great stuff Blut. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I see a many page thread coming. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kurfurst__
05-04-2007, 12:38 PM
Some (if not all) appear to merely repeat British Air Intelligence report circulations. Some of these I have in their original British for, which are somewhat more detailed and differ at some points (some info seems to have been 'lost in translation' from British to American http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Lonesentry is a very nice detailed site which makes a great job at collecting available material and publishing it in a nice an objective manner.

JG14_Josf
05-04-2007, 01:45 PM
In the case of all aircraft of the Me-109 series, including the Me-109G, attention is called to the numerous accidents caused by wing breakages, resulting from strains induced by air speeds in excess of the permissible maximum limits.

There can be no reasonable doubt as to the potential for destruction of the primary structure on any plane that exceeds the maneuvering limit (Va) measurable as true air speed. This is a matter of fact that every pilot knows or should know as fact.

This is very simple physics (even I can understand it). When the plane is flying faster than the maneuvering limit the plane can be deformed by the force of air upon the plane structure no different than trying to fly a kite during a hurricane. In other words the amount of force involved is sufficient to destroy the plane (with a design safety factor). In other words the published maneuvering limit (true air speed) is based upon the potential for permanent deformation rather than the potential for destruction.

If the maneuvering speed is 400 mph, then, that plane can be permanently deformed at 401 mph if the plane is maneuvered (accelerated) by the forces involved (lift, inertia, drag, elasticity, tensile strength, etc.) because the forces involved reach a magnitude sufficient to cause permanent deformation and/or destruction (with the safety margin allowing for a margin of safety).

Is this not understood?

Did the link provide any information on why the Germans didn't utilize a maneuvering speed limitation? I could not find one.

During those days there must have been a learning process concerning how easy (or difficult) it was to destroy fighter planes once the primary structures were capable of exceeding the pilot's limit for g force.

Example: If a WWII fighter plane (at combat weight) deformed the primary structure at 12 g and that g load began to be possible at 400 mph, then, such a situation (12 g at or above 400 mph) was going to be difficult for the pilot to remain conscious during the event.

This is why, in part, designers built in restrictions limiting the ability of the pilot to generate high g once the plane passed the speed where high g is possible.

A perfect example is the bob weight on the Spitfire elevator control.

There can be no question (except in games) concerning the potential for destruction of the primary structure once a plane is flying well above the maneuvering speed.

There must be (to be discovered precisely) an exposure time factor concerning load tolerances at those speeds well above maneuvering speeds.

Example:

How much time can the pilot withstand while the plane is accelerated at 13 times the rate of gravitational acceleration (9.8 m/s^2). It is not often the case where 13 g is expressed in terms of accumulated units of distance.

Example:

9.8 times 13 equals 127.4 m/s^2

I think this must be understood for what it is - for sure. How much force is involved at the speeds where a multi ton airplane can be forced to move 127.4 meters in one second? The force moving the plane 127.4 meters in one second is not engine power. The force used to move the plane 127.4 meters on one second is air force call it lift or drag or whatever word you want to use to describe the force that is used to move tons of aluminum structure 127.4 meters in one second and simply be sure that the force is a huge force capable of causing a lot of damage.

The flip side is looking at any structure on the ground being exposed to a 400 mph hurricane. Things can tend to bend a bit.

Check this out:

More forces involved than meets the eye (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=b8ad024661e045e4ef1e283523159fe3&threadid=204285&perpage=25&pagenumber=1)


In the ten or so minutes that are missing at the end on Part 1 Capt. Brown told about a dive speed test in the spitfire (flown by another RAE test pilot) where they achieved such a high Mach number that the prop got torn off the airplane along with the reduction gear, and the wings were swept back by the drag to such an extent that there was a 3 inch gap in the leading edge of the wing roots. The pilot was very lucky to make it in one piece, and that speed is till the fastest achieved by a piston engine plane ever. He then went on to the start of the jet-age with the German prototypes of the late 1930's as we start Part 2.

The effort to make believe that a game can simulate the forces involved accurately is itself a game. The real air force is really forceful?

M_Gunz
05-04-2007, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
The bullet-proof glass windshield is fitted with a gasoline spray which can be turned on by a small control on the lower instrument panel. This spray washes away oil that may be deposited on the windshield from the engine.

And the whole time you're thinking "Dear God, don't let the engine catch on fire!".

M_Gunz
05-04-2007, 02:13 PM
Is there translated or untranslated POH's for 190's around the community, like there's a chance they aint?

What they say about maneuvers at speed?

Kurfurst__
05-04-2007, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
There can be no reasonable doubt as to the potential for destruction of the primary structure on any plane that exceeds the maneuvering limit (Va) measurable as true air speed. This is a matter of fact that every pilot knows or should know as fact.

Indeed. The 109 dive limit was intercepted something like in May or June 1942, and originally it stated the dive limit decrease for the 109F, and it noted it will also apply to the 109G (which had yet to enter operational service, so I guess the accidents part refers to the known 109F accidents. The G-series sported reinforced wings, however).

As a matter of fact such limitations noted during dive are rather the rule than the exception. Planes at the time were not stressed for that kind of thing, Spitfires had similiar restrictions on them after they were fitted with metal ailerons which could overstress the wing, and I've even seen some NACA document for the P-47 's wing. The problem was IIRC the wings at the time were not stressed for twisting forces, ie. application of multiple control forces at once, say rudder + ailerons or ailerons + elevator; this was something new at the time, when limits were very much imposed by 'trial and error' methods Generally, overapplied controls were a problem in these planes.

It's something similiar to saying that the P-47 didn't behave too well at Mach 2. None of the other planes of the era did, though.

Kurfurst__
05-04-2007, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
The bullet-proof glass windshield is fitted with a gasoline spray which can be turned on by a small control on the lower instrument panel. This spray washes away oil that may be deposited on the windshield from the engine.

And the whole time you're thinking "Dear God, don't let the engine catch on fire!". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same thing on the 109 btw. Basically a rubber hose, with holes, led in front at the bottom of the windscreen. Dang useful in certain situations.

M_Gunz
05-04-2007, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
The bullet-proof glass windshield is fitted with a gasoline spray which can be turned on by a small control on the lower instrument panel. This spray washes away oil that may be deposited on the windshield from the engine.

And the whole time you're thinking "Dear God, don't let the engine catch on fire!". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same thing on the 109 btw. Basically a rubber hose, with holes, led in front at the bottom of the windscreen. Dang useful in certain situations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I remember SWOTL. Nobody told Lucas about those. Did those planes have automatic shutoff
valves on pressure drop (leak) in the oil lines? I've read about those being featured in
some planes and non-existant in others but not about the degree to which it was done, like
per cylinder for a radial.
Still if a valve cover gets shot or crankcase gets holed then the supply of oil will get
steadier and blacker quickly enough. I guess you'd not care about the fuel wasted cleaning
the windscreen about then, the engine is on a timer anyway. But if the loss was cut off
then yes even better to see as well how to get for home soon.

Kurfurst__
05-04-2007, 03:43 PM
You see if you have oil in the windscreen, that's probably also means the fastest possible emergency landing. Now, under such circumstances, when you need to land fast and anywhere where possible, it might help to be able to see through the windscreen. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Blutarski2004
05-04-2007, 05:37 PM
IMO, yaw and the asymmetrical load it puts upon the airframe at very high/terminal speed is the problem. It can be caused by cross control inputs or improper trim of a control surface.

This is where the lack of pilot controllable rudder trim, as in the 109, can create a problem. In such cases the pilot has to counteract the eccentric force imparted by the asymmetrical airfoil of the 109's vertical stabilizer by loading up the rudder. If the pilot is ignorant of the need to do so, or over-compensates, or lacks the necessary stamina to keep the rudder down in a lengthy dive, the aircraft can easily get into a condition which invites structural failure.

No, Kurfurst - I'm not trying to trash the 109. I'm simply pointing out a consequence of a specific design decision made by Messerschmitt. All designs are the result of compromises between competing performance and operational requirements.

Kurfurst__
05-05-2007, 02:48 AM
It's hardly a design compromise on Messerschmitt's part. All aircraft in Germany below 5 tons take off weight were not presribed to have adjustable rudder trim. The FW 190 neither had any adjustable rudder trim either, funny that I see that alleged 'problem' about rudder trim - of which only the wartime Brit reports seem to complain - get mentioned.

As for the assymetric rudder trim being the cause of the jaw - doh! Every plane, assymetric rudder profile or not, produce yaw in dive which needs to compensation. Yawing is usually a result of insufficent directional stability - ever wondered why tailfin was put on Mustangs, or enlarged rudders on Spits and Messers? The only plane I know to have specially suffered from because of design feature was ironically the first Spits, with their assymetric radiator layout - they kept yawing in dives hard. The problem disappeared when they fitted the second radiator, and I am sure there are quite a few others,

BTW at the time that this problem was first ecountered on the much faster 109F and this communque issued (May 1942 or so), the solution was already worked on. That was the simple addition of an enlarged tail unit, tested before the summer of 1942 with the rudder being fitted with a Flettner tab to reduce stickforces, and was being fitted to 109s from 1943 onwards.


If the pilot is ignorant of the need to do so, or over-compensates, or lacks the necessary stamina to keep the rudder down in a lengthy dive, the aircraft can easily get into a condition which invites structural failure.

Which is so generic it applies to all planes...

Blutarski2004
05-05-2007, 06:02 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
It's hardly a design compromise on Messerschmitt's part.

..... I disagree here on basic principle. Every design decision is in effect a compromise. This fact of life is not unique to Willi Messerschmitt or the 109. Every aircraft designer must face it. As you so nicely put it, it "is so generic it applies to all planes..."



All aircraft in Germany below 5 tons take off weight were not presribed to have adjustable rudder trim.

..... Your reply begs the question of why so many other fighter aircraft ofthe period DID have in flight-adjustable rudder trim.



The FW 190 neither had any adjustable rudder trim either, funny that I see that alleged 'problem' about rudder trim - of which only the wartime Brit reports seem to complain - get mentioned.

..... IIRC, the FW190 did not have an asymmetrical vertical stabilizer profile which produced a lateral vector.



As for the assymetric rudder trim being the cause of the jaw - doh! Every plane, assymetric rudder profile or not, produce yaw in dive which needs to compensation.

..... Yaw can be produced to different degrees by different factors: witness yaw in Mustangs due to gear door flexing into the airstream, which was often attended by wing failure. The 109's issue was asymmetrical force which could not be trimmed for in flight. Properly trained pilots could compensate for it with opposite rudder; other pilots did not or could not and sometimes suffered dramatic structural airframe consequences.



Yawing is usually a result of insufficent directional stability - ever wondered why tailfin was put on Mustangs, or enlarged rudders on Spits and Messers?

..... The early bubble canopy P51s and P47s as well indeed had directional instability problems before the addition of fillets - and over a relatively wide speed range IIRC. And, no, I've never wondered about need and use of vertical stabilizers of increased size/height; I understand the factors which make it necessary.




The only plane I know to have specially suffered from because of design feature was ironically the first Spits, with their assymetric radiator layout - they kept yawing in dives hard. The problem disappeared when they fitted the second radiator, and I am sure there are quite a few others, [QUOTE]

..... I agree.


[QUOTE] BTW at the time that this problem was first ecountered on the much faster 109F and this communque issued (May 1942 or so), the solution was already worked on. That was the simple addition of an enlarged tail unit, tested before the summer of 1942 with the rudder being fitted with a Flettner tab to reduce stickforces, and was being fitted to 109s from 1943 onwards.

..... A succession of larger and taller vertical stabilizers were fitted to the 109 to counteract the ever-greater torque being produced by engines of progressively increasing power.

The asymmetrical lift-producing airfoil of the 109's vertical stabilizer was another means to that end. But at extremely high dive speeds it produced too great a counteracting effect. In fact, there are merits in the use of an asymmetrical vertical stabilizer as a design - it could produce an effect equal to that of a larger rudder and do so with less skin area and profile. Its only real drawback was that at the very high terminal speeds reached in a dive it was too effective.



Which is so generic it applies to all planes...

..... Did you ever hear the story about the scorpion and the frog?

JG14_Josf
05-05-2007, 08:18 AM
..... Did you ever hear the story about the scorpion and the frog?

Do I need to google for it?

luftluuver
05-06-2007, 01:23 PM
There is this race car that pulls to the right up to 100mph. From 100 to 120mph it steers neutral. Over 120 mph it pulls to the left. After an hour of racing, even though the driver knows what the car will do, he is still exhausted. Part of the problem is the steering wheel is not centred at low and especially at high speeds. The driver would like an adjuster device to centre the wheel espially at high speed but the car maker says it is not worth the trouble even though it would make driving the car easier.

AKA_TAGERT
05-06-2007, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Looks like some new wartime tech intel material has been posted on Lone Sentry. Here are two. There are a few others referring to 109G model and German fuel quality. Very interesting.


http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/recent-flying-limits.html

RECENT FLYING LIMITATIONS IMPOSED ON GERMAN AIRCRAFT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An indication of possible reckless or unintelligent flying on the part of GAF pilots may be found in recent instructions, establishing certain restrictions on the operation of various airplanes, issued by the Germany Air Ministry. This was done to reduce the loss of, or damage to, particular planes by overtaxing their capabilities. The particular types covered are the FW-190, the Me series, the He-177, and the Ju-88.

The maximum permissible operating speed for the FW-190 have been reduced from 466 mph at all heights to the following:

Up to 10,000 ft - 466 mph
From 10,000 ft to 16,500 ft - 428 mph
From 16,500 ft to 26,250 ft - 360 mph


These speeds are to be marked on the air speed indicators in each aircraft and are only permissible with strengthened elevators. Aileron corrections at high speeds must remain within moderate limits.

The He-177 combines light elevator control with good elevator effect, but has a comparatively low factor of safety, with the result that wrinkling of the skin on the wings or wing failures may occur from careless flying. Permissible pull-out acceleration at the present time amounts to 2.3g with a flying weight of 27 tons, and crews are reminded that high stresses may be caused when pulling out of a glide at high speed, by sharply pulling up out of horizontal flight at any speed, and in steep turns or by strong vertical gusts at high speed. A warning is issued that the automatic pull-out apparatus can unintentionally cause a strain of over 2.5g by tail-heavy trimming before the release of the bombs, by pulling back on the control column at the time of the automatic pull-out if the centre of gravity lies too far to the rear, or when dive-bombing is done in very gusty air. In the latter case, speed should be reduced to 186 mph. The pilot must be trained to watch closely the air speed indicator and the acceleration warning apparatus during every pull-out.

In the case of all aircraft of the Me-109 series, including the Me-109G, attention is called to the numerous accidents caused by wing breakages, resulting from strains induced by air speeds in excess of the permissible maximum limits. All previous limitations are therefore cancelled and the following are substituted (previous limits are given for comparison):

Limit Previous Limit
Up to 10,000 ft 466 mph 466 mph
At 16,500 ft 435 mph 425 mph
At 23,000 ft 357 mph 382 mph
At 30,000 ft 280 mph 341 mph
At 38,000 ft 248 mph 304 mph


A corresponding notice is to be placed on all airspeed indicators in these aircraft.

Warning is also given against yawing in a dive, which under certain conditions leads to high, one-sided wing stresses which the wing tips cannot support. When yawing occurs, the dive is to be broken off gradually, without exercising force. Wing tips must be examined and checked frequently for signs of failures. When yawing is encountered during turning, correction must be made with the rudder only and not with the ailerons. Mention is also made of high-wing stresses caused by the unintentional unlocking of the landing gear especially the dropping of one side in a dive. It is stated that steps are being taken to prevent this.

Apparently, even the yellow recognition paint on the ailerons changes their characteristics unfavorably and paint already put on is to be removed.

Reference is made to the difficulty of controlling Ju-88 aircraft at a dive angle of 60?, and it is stated that in the future they are to be rigged for a dive angle of 50? only. This will limit the indicated air speed in the dive to between 329 and 341 mph as against 341 to 354 mph obtained in a 60? dive.


= = =


http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/fw190.html

THE PRESENT VERSION OF THE FW-190

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some interesting modifications have been reported from examination of crashed Focke-Wulf 190s, used as fighter-bombers.

The engine is the fully rated BMW 801 D-2, equipped with doping pipes running to each of the 14 cylinders instead of only to 7 as in the previous model. This system is used to increase the power of the engine for a limited time during an emergency. The tank for the doping of gas or fluid is removed from the cockpit to behind the seat, and is of larger capacity, presumably in order to effect the doping of all 14 cylinders. The three fixed louvers at each side of the rear end of the engine cowling on the original design have been replaced by three adjustable gills, which are controlled by a small rotating handle on the upper instrument panel.

Various armament combinations have been found on FW-190s. The original aircraft had as regular equipment two 7.9-mm machine guns mounted above the engine and two MG-151 20-mm guns mounted in the wing roots, all four firing through the propeller arc, and two outboard Oerlikon FF 20-mm cannons. Recent crash reports from England have not included the outboard cannon in the armament. The reason for the omission of the Oerlikons has not been given, but it is possible that the use of these cannon was either experimental or limited to special types of operations. In one crashed plane, only the MG-151 20-mm guns were found, the 7.9-mm machine guns having been removed from the mountings, and the firing channels in the top of the cowling having been blanked off.

A bomb carrier labeled E.T.C. 501 is mounted under the center line of the fuselage. This can carry either a 550- or 1100-pound bomb. There is no fairing around the carrier, but long streamlining is fitted behind, stretching far back along the underside of the fuselage.

The armor, which appears to be unchanged, consists of a 13-mm steel plate behind the head and shoulders of the pilot, 8-mm armor back of the pilot's seat, strips between the seat and the sides of the fuselage, 5 or 6 mm thick, and a bullet-proof windshield 1 3/4 inches thick. The engine is protected by the foremost ring of the engine cowling which is 5-mm armor, and by a second ring, of 3-mm sheet steel. The bullet-proof glass windshield is fitted with a gasoline spray which can be turned on by a small control on the lower instrument panel. This spray washes away oil that may be deposited on the windshield from the engine.

The normal fuel tanks are now of the fully flexible type, with a capacity of 139 U.S. gallons, and, in addition to these, there are two jettisonable fuel tanks carried under the wing, each holding 80 U.S. gallons. These are jettisoned mechanically by pulling a small T-shaped handle in the cockpit.

Modifications have been made to the airframe, but the main dimensions are unchanged. There is internal stiffening in the wings and in the rear end of the fuselage. The new type of boost gauge, already found in the Do-217, is fitted, and also a modified fuel-flow indicator for the two main tanks and the outboard jettisonable tanks. A red bulb above the indicator lights when the fuel supply is down to 20 minutes flying. There is a fitting for a small camera in the rear part of the fuselage. The oxygen bottles are of a new spherical type.

Apparently certain faults were found in the design and manufacture of the electrical equipment in the original FW-190s, and these findings resulted in some gradual changes. The plywood top of the fin has now been equipped with an 8-inch aerial mast of the same material, altering the appearance of the top of the fin and shortening the aerial. The radio installation used with the short aerial is a very light type of FuG 16 Z with a remote-control frequency selector.

It is believed probable that an improved version of the FW-190 may shortly appear, re-engined with a BMW 801 E or the 801 J with an exhaust-driven supercharger, which would necessitate considerable modification of the air-frame design. Further development will mainly depend on whether the new engine has 18, 21, or 27 cylinders. Such a redesigned airplane is likely to have a much higher performance. An attempt may be made to improve the speed and climb of the 190, which at present decreases rapidly above 25,000 feet. The MG-151 20-mm guns may be replaced by a larger caliber type, such as the reported 25-mm Rheinmetall. Major improvements of performance and load-carrying capacity are to be expected only with a new type of power plant. The aircraft may be developed chiefly as a fighter-bomber. http://www.leadpipeposters.com/images/1557.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
05-06-2007, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
You see if you have oil in the windscreen, that's probably also means the fastest possible emergency landing. Now, under such circumstances, when you need to land fast and anywhere where possible, it might help to be able to see through the windscreen. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif In that sliding back the canopy and looking out the side was not an option on the 109.. Like it was on most of the US planes

John_Wayne_
05-06-2007, 01:59 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif