Some more drawings of the FW190C

[Azimech]

To keep the stuff out of the SOW:BOB update topic. For all you turbocharger-lovers out there :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v436/flexyco/fw190v18-1.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v436/flexyco/fw190v18-2.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v436/flexyco/fw190v18-3.gif

[swiss]

removed from the update thread:


They were built - unfortunately the turbo[TK11] was prone to failures and never worked the way it was supposed to.
Now add the increased weight, and as a result the thing showed only minor superior performance over the standard 190.
But with working late 20th century turbo they could be awesome.

(BTW: Thanks the 603, they had an additional MG151)
- 3xMG151 wingroot and engine
- 2xMGFF wing
- 2xMG131 fuselage

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/1331/v18x.jpg (http://img72.imageshack.us/i/v18x.jpg/)



http://www.focke-wulf190.com/images/fw190C.jpg
http://focke-wulf190.com/images/190c_2.jpg

www.focke-wulf190.com

If anyone from TD reads this:
I want one! :grin:

[T}{OR]

OT stuff from BoB update thread:

If you look carefully you'll see thin lines, a pipe, attached the exhaust pipes, running through the fuselage, into that thing behind the intercooler. That's the turbocharger. You'll see a pipe go through the intercooler and from the intercooler back to the engine. It seems they had it right to keep the supercharger attached to the engine, since the turbo takes load of from it, decreasing the load on the engine to drive the supercharger, and being able to boost even more. It was probably even coupled with the barometric device that regulated the variable hydraulic clutch. Anyway I would've chosen that spot due to the CoG.

I wish Flugwerk would build a 190C, just to see how it performs.

Ah yes, you're right. I was missing the pipeline that was coming out of the exhaust. And the fact that turbo is lined up axially long with the plane's axis.

Having a supercharger and turbocharger - shows why it was so complicated for the era.

A number of attempts were made to use turbochargers on the BMW 801 series as well. The first used a modified BMW 801D to create the BMW 801J, delivering 1,810 PS (1,785 hp, 1,331 kW) at takeoff and 1,500 hp (1,103 kW) at 40,000 ft (12,200 m), an altitude where the D was struggling to produce 630 hp (463 kW). The BMW 801E was likewise modified to create the BMW 801Q, delivering a superb 1,715 hp (1,261 kW) at 40,000 ft (12,200 m), power ratings no existing allied engine could touch. However none of these engines ever entered production due to high costs, and the various high-altitude designs based on them were forced to turn to other engines entirely, typically the Junkers Jumo 213.

- - - -


Lovely... :cool:

Q: What is the purpose of the small radiator, just below the engine? Second (SC) inter-cooler?

[Azimech]

I think it's the oil cooler.

[T}{OR]

Makes sense. The intake pipes aren't running through it.

[Fliegenpilz]

Wow! Nice drawings... did you make them by yourself? And, is there a website or something similar where more of those can be found (with cockpit details like here)?

Greetings, Fliegenpilz

[swiss]

Wow! Nice drawings... did you make them by yourself? And, is there a website or something similar where more of those can be found (with cockpit details like here)?

Greetings, Fliegenpilz

Some here: http://www.ufindbook.com/ebook-history-and-military/focke-wulf-fw-190c-fw-190d-9-ta-152-part-2.html

-> click ebook search and dl

[JG27CaptStubing]

I think it's the oil cooler.

Actually it's an intercooler to keep the air going back to the turbos from Frying them...Also lowering the tempurature makes the air thicker. Interesting to see how its both Turbo Charged and SuperCharged.

[T}{OR]

Actually it's an intercooler to keep the air going back to the turbos from Frying them...Also lowering the tempurature makes the air thicker. Interesting to see how its both Turbo Charged and SuperCharged.

TC's inter-cooler is below the cockpit - that big heat exchanger. If it indeed is the second inter-cooler it could only be related with SC, to cool the air after it passes through SC. Watch how the air/exhaust flows and how the pipeline is designed.

I would still go with the oil cooler, like Azimech said.

[swiss]

BUT:
1.
Looking at the blueprint it looks like:
SC->IC->Turbo->Intake
Which I think is odd, very odd. I would expect the highest pressure/temp rise passing the turbo.


2.
Another funny thing is the exhaust manifold and the tubing, outside the airplane.
@10K amsl you got what, -35°?
And your flying >600kph.
Now, cooling down the exhaust gases can't really add to the efficiency, or am I wrong?


Any thoughts?


EDIT:
Point one seems wrong after drawing some lines - but now the setup looks even weirder.

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/9664/v182.jpg (http://img152.imageshack.us/i/v182.jpg/)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/DB_603_E.jpg/800px-DB_603_E.jpg

I mean, I would expect they bypassed the SC at some rpm level(And maybe shared the IC for it too), if my drawing are correct, it's more like Turbo->IC->SC->Intake.

[T}{OR]

He was talking about the thing under the engine, which an oil to air "heat exchange device".
The big one in the belly is the IC.
Your 2nd point is right, the first one wrong, the compressed air never goes "back" to the turbo.
Also, the turbo has to deal with way higher temp(exhaust gases) then the compressed air could ever reach.
Usually it's like:
Filter(if there is)->Turbo(rise in temp due compression)->IC->Intake

Now I have to correct you on this one. :)

Turbine is just that - a turbine. Turbocharger is driven by the kinetic energy of exhaust gases. It does not use the same exhaust gases to feed the engine. It sucks in the same air the normal, mechanically driven supercharger would.

The only scenario where you would use (recirculated) exhaust gases is when you want to lower emissions set by certain standard (e.g. EGR valve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas_recirculation)). And this is way too modern technology for WW2.

BUT:
1.
Looking at the blueprint it looks like:
SC->IC->Turbo->Intake
Which I think is odd, very odd. I would expect the highest pressure/temp rise passing the turbo.


2.
Another funny thing is the exhaust manifold and the tubing, outside the airplane.
@10K amsl you got what, -35°?
And your flying >600kph.
Now, cooling down the exhaust gases can't really add to the efficiency, or am I wrong?


Any thoughts?

I too think this would be odd. This is the way I understood it (twice as shorter route / intake manifold):

Exhaust valves / TC + fresh air => IC (for TC) => SC > engine intake valves (or manifold if you want).

[Tempest123]

Interesting, looks simililar to a p47 in concept, i would guess that cooling down the exhaust just allowed lower temps in the turbo parts, maybe better for extended use? What was the range of the 190c, was it a short range interceptor?

[Azimech]

No, the supercharger on the DB60x series is fitted directly to the intake manifold.

The path is Air-Turbo-Intercooler-Supercharger-Intake-Exhaust-Turbo-Air :)

The amount of energy in the exhaust gasses is so tremendous that even flying with -50 C hardly cools it, and the pressure remains high until the gas has expanded behind the turbo.

Edit: Thor was sooner :)

[swiss]

Maybe because you misunderstood the drawing...

Red: Exhaust
light blue: fresh compressed hot air
blue: cooled down compressed air

I did not draw the point where the exhaust gases leve the system, nor the the actual intake.

Back to the 190:

Exhaust valves / TC + fresh air => IC (for TC) => SC > engine intake valves (or manifold if you want).

[T}{OR]

Thanks thor, really, really, nice from you. Again, I am aware how a turbo system works.
Where, btw, did I suggest to return exhaust gases? ;)

I honestly apologize if I offended you in any way. Please to re-read what you wrote (why I misunderstood you). Also, I just saw the drawing - which you added later on by editing the post.


Maybe because you misunderstood the drawing...

Red: Exhaust
light blue: fresh compressed hot air
blue: cooled down compressed air

I did not draw the point where the exhaust gases leve the system, nor the the actual intake.

What you drew looks alright by me. Azimech also understood it like I did.

[swiss]

Great, we finally agree. :grin:


But I still dont get Turbo->SC.
It says they used an additional turbo, but nowhere a modified charger, which they probably had to, since it had to deal with altered pressure.
Also, I thought SC work with lower pressure compared to turbos.
Plus, the SC is fed with (still)hot air and heats its up again.
I have some doubts concerning efficiency, what is the SC's purpose? Reduce IC lag?

I guess I'll have to do some research.

looks similar to a p47 in concept,

Not really, the P47 just had a turbo/IC setup - but they called it "exhaust-supercharger" which adds to the confusion.
That is according to the infos I just found. I'd be more than happy to hear about a combo system.

http://www.savagesquadron.com/USpage/USFighters/Thunderbolt_P47D-4a.jpg
http://www.aviation-history.com/republic/p47-turbo-sys-3.jpg

[koivis]

Not really, the P47 just had a turbo/IC setup - but they called it "exhaust-supercharger" which adds to the confusion.


Well, actually it was a similar system to Fw 190C. As far as I know, every P&W R-2800 made also had an internal supercharger mounted directly behind the engine, driven by the crankshaft. The confusing thing here is, that while the air from turbocharger went indeed to the carburetor, from there it continued to the supercharger! After that, it's of course going to cylinders. Some pictures to clarify:

P-47 Engine, supercharger in blue colour, carburetor is the black thing on top of it:
http://www.midwaysaircraft.org/images/90%20%20Second%20L%20H%20side%20of%20engine.jpg

Another view, showing the duct leading to carb, blue object is the supercharger:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/P-47D-40_R_2800_side.jpg

Rolls Royce Merlin had almost the same setup (I think most WW2 engines did), except it had an liquid cooled intercooler as the last thing before the intake. Also of note here (two stage version) is that the air is cooled between the stages too!
http://www.jshawmsc.f2s.com/images/supercharger.gif

Hope this helps, I get sometimes confused with this technology too.

[T}{OR]

Great, we finally agree. :grin:

Yeah. :D

But I still dont get Turbo->SC.
It says they used an additional turbo, but nowhere a modified charger, which they probably had to, since it had to deal with altered pressure.
Also, I thought SC work with lower pressure compared to turbos.
Plus, the SC is fed with (still)hot air and heats its up again.
I have some doubts concerning efficiency, what is the SC's purpose? Reduce IC lag?

I guess I'll have to do some research.


I am guessing it has something to do along the lines what Azimech wrote:

... It seems they had it right to keep the supercharger attached to the engine, since the turbo takes load of from it, decreasing the load on the engine to drive the supercharger, and being able to boost even more. It was probably even coupled with the barometric device that regulated the variable hydraulic clutch. Anyway I would've chosen that spot due to the CoG.


On the second thought...


Well, actually it was a similar system to Fw 190C. As far as I know, every P&W R-2800 made also had an internal supercharger mounted directly behind the engine, driven by the crankshaft. The confusing thing here is, that while the air from turbocharger went indeed to the carburetor, from there it continued to the supercharger! After that, it's of course going to cylinders.

Now that makes no sense. A supercharger compressing a mixture of air and fuel?! What was the compression ratio inside the cylinders then (ε)?

Unless... Doh! But of course. I am 90% sure this is a Pressure Carburetor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_carburettor) since allied engines didn't have fuel injection. So you could say this was a form of fuel injection - to prevent negative G cutouts. Or at least has something to do with how Pressure Carburetor functions.

Question here is - is Fw-190C using proper mechanical fuel injection or a Pressure Carburetor as well?


Rolls Royce Merlin had almost the same setup (I think most WW2 engines did), except it had an liquid cooled intercooler as the last thing before the intake. Also of note here (two stage version) is that the air is cooled between the stages too!

As it should be, or else you risk injecting too hot air inside the cylinder. Merlins had to have a mechanically driven SC because their exhaust was - almost non-existent. :)


A very interesting thread if I may say so! :cool:

[T}{OR]

After skimming through this document:

http://faculty.sdmiramar.edu/wnorth/249/249six.pdf

I am not so sure what this last supercharger is for. If someone can provide more accurate drawings maybe it will be more clear. I can't make out exactly how it works from the pictures posted.

And the added bonus is the fact it is already and hour past midnight here. So I will continue this discussion tomorrow.

EDIT: Something like this:

http://www.accessscience.com/loadBinary.aspx?filename=109400FG0030.gif

[koivis]

To confuse myself I and others even more, I present you the ultimate in piston engine technology, actually the most powerful piston engine to have ever powered an aircraft:

Dobrynin VD-4K

I kinda feel sorry for air when it faces this 24-cylinder, six-bank, four-row, 59,5 liter monster, as it has to go through a most confusing route:

Air from intake goes to turbo, turbo blows air into a two-stage, variable geometry supercharger, air goes to cylinders (I assume it had direct injection). Exhaust gases go trough three "blowdown" turbines between the cylinder banks (one for each 8 cylinders = 2 banks), then continues towards the back to go turn the aforementioned turbosupercharger. Probably, after this point, the exhaust gases don't have anything more to give...

The blowdown turbines are mechanically connected to crankshaft, in this case adding some 700 free horsepower. Of course, there is also the two-stage supercharger, and all this most likely needs whole lotta intercooling and other extra piping. I could draw a picture of that, but it's late, and I think that would take some time.:-P

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobrynin_VD-4K
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobrynin_VD-4K

I have a few wonderful books, "TDevelopment of Piston Aero Engines" and "World Encyclopedia of Aero Engines", both by Bill Gunston. These explain the engine and one of them might even have a picture of it. I don't have access to my library at the moment, so the third source is my memory.

Off topic it is, could you pls forgive me...;)

[T}{OR]

Air from intake goes to turbo, turbo blows air into a two-stage, variable geometry supercharger, air goes to cylinders (I assume it had direct injection). Exhaust gases go trough three "blowdown" turbines between the cylinder banks (one for each 8 cylinders = 2 banks), then continues towards the back to go turn the aforementioned turbosupercharger. Probably, after this point, the exhaust gases don't have anything more to give...

The blowdown turbines are mechanically connected to crankshaft, in this case adding some 700 free horsepower. Of course, there is also the two-stage supercharger, and all this most likely needs whole lotta intercooling and other extra piping. I could draw a picture of that, but it's late, and I think that would take some time.:-P

The reason for "added" complexity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-compound_engine


It was realized that in many cases the power produced by the simple turbine was approaching that of the enormously complex and maintenance-intensive piston engine to which it was attached. As a result, turbo-compound aero engines were soon supplanted by turboprop and turbojet engines.

[koivis]

I am not so sure what this last supercharger is for.

It's for supercharging the engine! (sarcasm) Well, really, if there wasn't a supercharger, the engine would probably put out considerably less power. The only reason why such large engines have internal superchargers is because otherwise, they would need to be even bigger. Without it, there would be less air turning the turbo, and it would provide less boost. I'm not aware of any WW2 aircraft having only a turbosupercharger without a normal, crankshaft driven one.

If this sounds stupid, it could be because it's way past midnight here too.:rolleyes:

The reason for "added" complexity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-compound_engine

Yes, exactly! I read that article, just used the Dobrynin as an example as even a bit more complex than R-3350 TC. Napier Nomad is another case, you simply cannot describe that one (atleast thefirst version) without a picture or two.

You have to remember that the first turboprops and turbojets were considerably less fuel efficient than the turbo-compounds, and for the same power, while the TC probably weighed twice (or more) as much, it still burned much less fuel. That's why Canadair Argus changed to R-3350 TC from Bristol Proteus, and why the big piston airliners (Starliner, DC-7) soldiered on for so long. It was the weight and complexity that killed them, and the more advanced (two-spool) or larger (Kuznetsov NK-12!) turboprops in development.

[Azimech]

Thor, the reason the carburettor was placed on top of the supercharger in allied engines was that it increased the efficiency of the supercharger due to the cooling of the air due to vaporisation of the fuel. This was the main reason Rolls Royce chose the carb over fuel injection, because they considered it. On big radials the supercharger has the bonus of better distribution of the mixture to the cilinders.

Koivis, amazing find! I don't mind offtopic if it's about beautiful technology (and huge and absurdly complex engines ;-) )

For fun you should see diagrams of the oil distribution system in big radials, it looks like spaghetti XD

Okay, here's a BIG ONE:

http://www.enginehistory.org/P&W/R-4360/4360oil.jpg

[swiss]

Now it's really getting confusing.
That SC in pics of the p47 engine looks like it's driven by the crankshaft.
So it's not a turbo-compound-engine(of which I didn't even know they exist until tonight) - or am I wrong?

Back to the 190

... It seems they had it right to keep the supercharger attached to the engine, since the turbo takes load of from it, decreasing the load on the engine to drive the supercharger, and being able to boost even more. It was probably even coupled with the barometric device that regulated the variable hydraulic clutch. Anyway I would've chosen that spot due to the CoG.

Concerning the power draw of the sc:
Does it matter whether it compresses:
-ambient air to Xpsi
vs
-X psi to ?X psi
It needs to "work" either way, no?:confused:




And then there's the heat issue again.
While googling I found this neat little calculator I'd like to share: http://www.stealth316.com/2-turbotemp.htm
Of course there are a ton of factors, but at least it's a start.

I used a pressure of 4.37psi@10k
Temp: -58°F
source:
http://sydney.edu.au/engineering/aeromech/aero/atmosphere/atmtab.txt
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-pressure-d_462.html

Whatever I tried, the results in the Intake manifold, after the SC, were actually worse then directly after the turbo.
Maybe I'm reading wrong though.
:confused:

[T}{OR]

You have to remember that the first turboprops and turbojets were considerably less fuel efficient than the turbo-compounds, and for the same power, while the TC probably weighed twice (or more) as much, it still burned much less fuel. That's why Canadair Argus changed to R-3350 TC from Bristol Proteus, and why the big piston airliners (Starliner, DC-7) soldiered on for so long. It was the weight and complexity that killed them, and the more advanced (two-spool) or larger (Kuznetsov NK-12!) turboprops in development.

Very interesting stuff, I agree.

Indeed early Turbos were indeed heavy. Last month I was in BMW's Museum in Munich - the comparison in size between F1 turbochargers back in '70s and today is astonishing. Today you can basically just 'attach' it to the exhaust manifold lol.



Thor, the reason the carburettor was placed on top of the supercharger in allied engines was that it increased the efficiency of the supercharger due to the cooling of the air due to vaporisation of the fuel. This was the main reason Rolls Royce chose the carb over fuel injection, because they considered it. On big radials the supercharger has the bonus of better distribution of the mixture to the cilinders.

For fun you should see diagrams of the oil distribution system in big radials, it looks like spaghetti XD

It really did look to me as if there was a bonus of better mixture distribution (on the P&W R-2800) if you put another compressor behind the Carburetor. I forgot about the fuel vaporisation.

LOL, a proper spaghetti indeed. :) Reminds me of the cross section of an automatic gearbox.


Now it's really getting confusing.
That SC in pics of the p47 engine looks like it's driven by the crankshaft.
So it's not a turbo-compound-engine(of which I didn't even know they exist until tonight) - or am I wrong?

No I don't think it is. A turbo compound engine would have a turbine for power recovery on the exhaust section.

SC is indeed driven by the crankshaft. That was my point of confusion as well...


Concerning the power draw of the sc:
Does it matter whether it compresses:
-ambient air to Xpsi
vs
-X psi to ?X psi
It needs to "work" either way, no?:confused:

You mean X to Y psi?

By either way do you mean: X => Y & Y => X, or ambient to X & X to Y?

It will compress whatever you input first, to a certain ratio.



And then there's the heat issue again.
While googling I found this neat little calculator I'd like to share: http://www.stealth316.com/2-turbotemp.htm
Of course there are a ton of factors, but at least it's a start.

I used a pressure of 4.37psi@10k
Temp: -58°F
source:
http://sydney.edu.au/engineering/aeromech/aero/atmosphere/atmtab.txt
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-pressure-d_462.html

Whatever I tried, the results in the Intake manifold, after the SC, were actually worse then directly after the turbo.
Maybe I'm reading wrong though.
:confused:

I didn't have a chance to test this calculator (typing as I am on my way out), but out of the blue I will say that it isn't this simple. You need to take into account various stuff like difference in the pressure affecting compressors efficiency, various thermodynamic & hydrodynamic laws, etc.

Are the some formulas written that were used in the calc?

Very interesting find, none the less!

[koivis]

I did not say that a normal turbocharged R-2800 or any similar engine would be a turbo-compound engine. I just meant to say that no matter what extra components are added around the engine (including turbos and turbo-compound turbines), it almost always still has a normal, integral, crankshaft driven supercharger.

[Azimech]

I've been searching the internet for more info on this type, but it's going slow. I'd like to find detailed cockpit info, because there is a strong indication that it used an rpm gauge for the turbo, like on the P47. It might have had additional controls as well.
Actual RLM flight test data would be cool as well.

The problem is I don't have proper sources and searching with keywords produces a whole lot of ...

So if anyone stumbles upon these things, post them here :grin:

[swiss]

I suggest we both delete those OT posts.
(did already so)

[Azimech]

I don't mind OT, does anyone?

[swiss]

actually I do, otherwise we could move on to discuss the taste of Swedish strawberries.

[Azimech]

I like swedish strawberries :-P

One application the Caesar probably wouldn't be a Kaiser in is night fighting. Imagine those long exhaust collectors... glowing red hot. Would be a nice sight during tourist flying.

But there simply was no space like in the P47 to place them inside the fuselage (imagine them next to the central fuel tank ... brrrr XD

[T}{OR]

Last few days have been hectic for me, to say the least. Apart from OT, I see I haven't missed that much. :)

I've been searching the internet for more info on this type, but it's going slow. I'd like to find detailed cockpit info, because there is a strong indication that it used an rpm gauge for the turbo, like on the P47. It might have had additional controls as well.
Actual RLM flight test data would be cool as well.

The problem is I don't have proper sources and searching with keywords produces a whole lot of ...

So if anyone stumbles upon these things, post them here :grin:

Do post when you have some more info, I'd do the same in my spare time (after Xmas of course)

[Azimech]

Some guy posted in my thread on a different forum. He wrote a book about some FW190 models.

http://www.amazon.de/Die-Focke-Wulf-H%C3%B6henj%C3%A4ger-H%C3%B6henj%C3%A4ger/dp/3925480692

He does not have all info but some interesting stuff anyway:


As far as I know it exist no photograph from the cockpit of the Fw190V18U1. The book contains various photos of the machine, also two diagrammes of the flight performances and a summary of the test results.
The book contains also the complete Focke-Wulf construction description Nr. 252 from 17.8.1942 about the Fw 190 with DB603 and an exhaust turbocharger.
The maximum turbocharger rpm was 19000. At 10 200 m height activated the overspeed trip unit and over this height the constant rpm was 19600. The turbocharger switched on automatically.

Dietmar Hermann


But at some point in time there must have existed a photograph of the cockpit, take a look at the cockpit drawing from that russian model kit. And why I think it's genuine: Where's the Revi? And the panel has a completely different setup compared with the A4-A9, the D9-D15 and even the Ta152 C & H.