No WEP for FW 190 A-9

[greybeard1]

Is it correct?

Thanks,
GB

[Zorin]

Is it correct?

Thanks,
GB

CHeck the guide that came with 4.11. It is in your main IL-2 folder.

[jermin]

Your post answered nothing. I would have copied and pasted the content here if I really wanted to help OP.

I also want to know the details.

[greybeard1]

4.11 manual mentions only A-5 and A-6 as having no more WEP. I'm unable to find anything about A-9.

S!
GB

[greybeard1]

Once again, we argue with ourself: can't understand this "Daidalos Team Discussion" forum where TD is still missing.

Good bye,
GB

[MicroWave]

I believe it was answered in the other thread:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=381733&postcount=61

[IceFire]

Or in otherwords... no it doesn't have WEP but it does have more power at 100% than it used to.

[badatflyski]

Tha A9 used 1.65 + C3 injection-> 1.78Ata

Several staffels flew the A7/8 with a D2 with the same settings without any pb's (jg300+301) beeing monitored by FW factory.
The A5 1.65ata on the 2 blower's stages flew, just as the A6/7/8.

here some info from a very "knowledgable" person working with a real 190:

"Increasing Knock Limited Performance in the BMW801D2
Part 1
Throughout the war, the BMW801D2 was continually developed to keep
pace with the performance of the allied fighters faced by the FW-190
equipped Geschwaders. The engine became a reliable workhorse and made
the FW-190 one of the best performing low altitude fighters of the war.
It began its design lifecycle with a top shaft output of 1670PS at
Start u Notleistung at 1st Gear supercharger full throttle height and
gained 150 PS by wars end at the same settings. Additional boost systems
raised this power output to over 2100PS. The BMW801D2 was developed to
the limits of its potential and even beyond a point when other motors
such as the BMW802 showed greater promise for a similar effort.
The Achilles heel however continued to be high altitude performance.
This article in two parts will discuss the 4 major systems used to
increase knock-limited performance in the BMW801D2 above the engines
normal Start u Notleistung rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June of 1942 BMW completed a theoretical investigation in the potential
development of the motor. Without any major change to the motor it was
possible to increase shaft power output at full throttle height by 40PS
at Start u Notleistung and 110PS at Steig u Kampfleistung. With some major
changes it was possible to get a shaft output of 2000PS without additional
knock limiting performance enhancements. It was determined that the motor
had the potential for developing between 2000PS-2200PS by injection of
knock limiting agents such as water or alcohol water mixtures.
Work began immediately on putting the theory into practice.
Prototype motors were constructed and work began on improving the power
output of the motor at all levels. By July 1942 BMW had constructed several
prototype motors to begin laboratory bench testing. BMW801D2V15 achieved
1950PS shaft output without ram or knock limiting performance enhancements
during this phase. In the quest for attaining the full potential of the
BMW801D2 three knock limiting agent injection systems and one method of
oxygen enrichment of the charge were shown to be practical or worthy of
further investigation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
C3-Einspritzung, The Bomber and Attack Pilots Insurance
The first system to see operational adoption was the injection of C3 fuel
as a knock limiting agent directly into the left side of the supercharger
intake.
Motors were modified with stronger pistons adopted from the BMW801E/S
development. These new pistons became the production standard on all
BMW801D series motors in June 1943.

On the 10th of April 1943 the first flight testing of the new system began
with a 25-minute flight in the low altitude portion of the 1st gear
supercharger and resulted in 8 minutes of the systems use.
By the 22nd of April 1943 test flights were using the system as long as 15
minutes and at manifold pressures as high as 1.8ata between 3.5km and
7km altitude.
Initial flight-testing was completed on the 17th of May 1943.
The flight test results concluded however that the system produced 2050PS
in the 1st Gear Supercharger and that a manifold pressure of 1.65ata could
be used reliably. As the pressure fell off with altitude however,
the standard fuel pump was not able to provide sufficient quantities of fuel
to allow the system to develop additional power in the 2nd Gear Supercharger.
The engine cooling was also not sufficient enough for the system to be used in
climbing flight. The fuel pump could not deliver enough fuel to the left hand
supercharger intake to keep cylinder temperatures within operational limits at
climbing speeds. It was felt that a further 50PS of thrust power could be
gained by changing the propeller reduction gearing to a more suitable ratio
in order to fully exploit the new power gains of the motor. The initial
testing was completed and the findings compiled by the 19th of July 1943.
It is interesting to note that JG54 begins reporting experience with the
new system in 23 July 1943."

And a personnal question TO FatCat : has the radiator drag penalty been changed/removed/minimized for the Anton family in the patch?:rolleyes:

[FC99]

And a personnal question TO FatCat : has the radiator drag penalty been changed/removed/minimized for the Anton family in the patch?:rolleyes:
I didn't work on FM in 4.11 so I'm not 100% sure but I don't think that anything is changed about radiators.

[badatflyski]

I didn't work on FM in 4.11 so I'm not 100% sure but I don't think that anything is changed about radiators.

:evil: oh man, i'm so disapointed you didn't add your touch on this one:mad:

ooooh FRACK about the drag penalty for rads on Anton's , maybe for the next patch:grin:
Will try to get some RL data from real specialists.

[JtD]

What exactly sets the radiator on the 190 apart from all other radiators on WW2 warbirds?

[KG26_Alpha]

What exactly sets the radiator on the 190 apart from all other radiators on WW2 warbirds?

It doesn't have one, thus should have no parasitic drag effect ?

"Kurt Tank's cowl completely enclosed the engine. Cooling air was admitted through a hole in the front of an oversized propeller spinner; a cone in the middle of the hole was intended to compress the air, allowing the small opening to create sufficient airflow. In theory, the tight-fitting cowling also provided some thrust due to the compression and heating of air as it flowed through the cowling."

It does have a complex oil cooling system that runs around the inside of the forwards cowling housing though.




.

[FC99]

What exactly sets the radiator on the 190 apart from all other radiators on WW2 warbirds?
I think that Bada talks about lowest drag setting being partially opened rads.

[AndyJWest]

The BMW-engined Fw 19Os had an engine-driven fan to increase airflow through the cowling. Presumably this must have taken some power to drive, and I could just about imagine the back pressure from a fully-closed cowl actually reducing available power - though whether this would be significant is hard to tell.

[KG26_Alpha]

The BMW-engined Fw 19Os had an engine-driven fan to increase airflow through the cowling. Presumably this must have taken some power to drive, and I could just about imagine the back pressure from a fully-closed cowl actually reducing available power - though whether this would be significant is hard to tell.

It was just behind the prop, forcing air over the engine and into the oil cooler ring (red), no power loss there, nice try .

[JtD]

The description of the enclosed cowling is that for the V1 prototype model, and as the concept proved unsuccessful, it was dropped for the V2 and later. These aircraft also were powered by a BMW 139, and engine-wise had little in common with serial production models.

The Fw 190 possessed an oil cooler ring, with an adjustable gap to adjust the cooling capacity. The standard size was 10 mm, but it had to be increased to 20 mm for tropical use and F model attack aircraft. This increase cost the plane 15-20 km/h at sea level.

The Fw 190 also had adjustable cooling gills on the side of the aircraft, which allowed the cooling of the engine or more precisely the cylinders. These pretty much worked like any other cooler on any other aircraft, including speed loss as it was opened. One effect I know of was a reduction of 500m in ceiling, therefore about 1 m/s in climb, with open cooling gills.

Lower drag with partially open radiators was a feature of the D-9, where the flush setting was a partially open one. However, even this feature wasn't anything special, other aircraft have this, too. I haven't seen it for the A models.

Il-2 simplifies by treating two cooling mechanisms as one and calling them radiator, and having them both adjustable by the pilot in flight. It also simplifies the drag characteristics of the radiators throughout.

Imho, if the radiator of the Fw 190 gets special attention in terms of cooling and drag relation, all other aircraft need to see the same treatment, as there seems to be nothing especially special about the Fw. A global rework would be nice, but the research alone is a tremendous job.

[KG26_Alpha]

The description of the enclosed cowling is that for the V1 prototype model, and as the concept proved unsuccessful, it was dropped for the V2 and later. These aircraft also were powered by a BMW 139, and engine-wise had little in common with serial production models.

The Fw 190 possessed an oil cooler ring, with an adjustable gap to adjust the cooling capacity. The standard size was 10 mm, but it had to be increased to 20 mm for tropical use and F model attack aircraft. This increase cost the plane 15-20 km/h at sea level.

The Fw 190 also had adjustable cooling gills on the side of the aircraft, which allowed the cooling of the engine or more precisely the cylinders. These pretty much worked like any other cooler on any other aircraft, including speed loss as it was opened. One effect I know of was a reduction of 500m in ceiling, therefore about 1 m/s in climb, with open cooling gills.

Lower drag with partially open radiators was a feature of the D-9, where the flush setting was a partially open one. However, even this feature wasn't anything special, other aircraft have this, too. I haven't seen it for the A models.

Il-2 simplifies by treating two cooling mechanisms as one and calling them radiator, and having them both adjustable by the pilot in flight. It also simplifies the drag characteristics of the radiators throughout.

Imho, if the radiator of the Fw 190 gets special attention in terms of cooling and drag relation, all other aircraft need to see the same treatment, as there seems to be nothing especially special about the Fw. A global rework would be nice, but the research alone is a tremendous job.

?
^
What's that got to do with anything posted here.

Were talking about the 801 series.

I suspect the oil cooler isn't even physically modelled on the FW's as its such a simplified cooling code as you mention.

It seems strange to put emphasis on cooling in v4.11 and still have an archaic cooling code.



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/alpha1/bmw801d.jpg

[JtD]

?
^
What's that got to do with anything posted here.

Were talking about the 801 series.It was you who posted a wiki quote describing the cooling of the BMW 139 powered V1, which has nothing to do with the BMW 801. If you didn't mean it, fair enough, forget my comment.

It's one thing to make a global code a lot more complex as it previously was and tune given parameters for better accuracy. It's a completely different thing to built individual solutions for each and every plane modelled, from scratch.

[badatflyski]

The BMW-engined Fw 19Os had an engine-driven fan to increase airflow through the cowling. Presumably this must have taken some power to drive, and I could just about imagine the back pressure from a fully-closed cowl actually reducing available power - though whether this would be significant is hard to tell.

The engine cowl isn't hermetic at all. Antons didn't need any cooling flaps openning till 1.32ATA included (and even higher, depending on air temperature and pressure), the 801 was actually an overcooled engine, as the time to put the engine to minimal take-off oil temp was the same as the time needed to a Merlin to blow up in the same situation, and Yes it did take some power, from memory 40PS, but the total engine power is calculated on the prop and not on the crankshaft as it is on English or American planes (see definition PS vs Bhp ), so when BWM says it's 1820PS, it is 1820PS on the prop, but when Rolls Royce says it's 1700Bhp you have to reduce that power with the power lost in the gear reductor.:rolleyes:

The Fw 190 possessed an oil cooler ring, with an adjustable gap to adjust the cooling capacity. The standard size was 10 mm, but it had to be increased to 20 mm for tropical use and F model attack aircraft. This increase cost the plane 15-20 km/h at sea level. .

Source please, nothing about it in the BMW801C/D maintenance and repair manual...or i missed it completely:grin:


The Fw 190 also had adjustable cooling gills on the side of the aircraft, which allowed the cooling of the engine or more precisely the cylinders. These pretty much worked like any other cooler on any other aircraft, including speed loss as it was opened. One effect I know of was a reduction of 500m in ceiling, therefore about 1 m/s in climb, with open cooling gills..


The difference between a cooling grill with an max openning of about 5 cm, situated in the air flow + high pressurized exhaust gazes and letting out air itself with higher pressure than the surround air (prop fan beeing like a sort of compressor, extracting the heat from the oil radiator and pushing air into the admission intakes build inside the engine cover) and a frontal 1/2m² radiator, even with an adjustable airflow, seems to me like a drag difference between a truck and a race car.
So yes, the grills added certainly some parasite drag because it certainly broke the airflow on the fuselage in a certain matter but the effect should be not so important as 70kmh(from memory) between closed and open as it is in IL2. voilà;)

[JtD]

Source please, nothing about it in the BMW801C/D maintenance and repair manual...or i missed it completely.

Fw 190 A-5/A-6 Flugzeughandbuch Teil 7 Triebwerkbedien- und -versorgungsanlage, Dezember 1943, Page 34 gives the 10 and 20mm gaps.

Focke Wulf Bericht 06011 Flugzeugmuster Fw 190 mit BMW 801D Errechnete Flugleistungen Blatt 109 gives the difference of 15 to 20 km/h.

The radiator as large as it may want to be is always there and the only speed difference from adjusting the radiator will come from adjusting the cooling flap and thereby the airflow through it. That's the same thing as with the Fw 190.
Given that the Fw is an aerodynamically clean plane, screwing with these aerodynamics through radiator adjustments will have a large impact on the speed than it has on a plane with poor aerodynamics, like the Hawker Hurrican or a biplane.
In game the Fw 190 loses about 25 km/h due to open radiators.
Had the cooling fan been some sort of a compressor, the Fw 190 would not have achieved higher full throttle altitudes with external intakes - but it did.

[badatflyski]

Thank you for this info JTD! will check that out; as i wrote above, i certainly did miss that part and certainly others too, 4500 technical pages that's a lot;)

As for the compressor thing, it was more an image than something else, of course it can not be as powerfull as a true compressor, it's a fan.
Like a friend of mine says: sometimes you have to slightly exagerate to make the point and make the other understand your idea.

[KG26_Alpha]

The problem is the engineer will tell you one thing,
and the pilot will tell you another.