Jump to content

ButcherBiird

Members
  • Posts

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ButcherBiird

  • Birthday 03/29/2000

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS, IL2, FS2020
  • Location
    United States
  • Interests
    Flying, Simming, Modeling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This really is the shame of it all. I have tried a few times to get NineLine on discord to look at this post and I think he said he did a while ago, but I never heard anything further than "I'll have a look".
  2. The A8 entered production in February of 1944. Given the number they produced within the year it was in production, that averages to about 555 A8s per month being produced. How that translates to how widely did the units get it by when I have 0 clue, but I believe most of the big FW squadrons had already received them by April as you say. However, on page one of this thread, that I will link below, you will find a post with a source stating that the kits for adding the EN system to the A8 would be available, from BMW, by March 1944 onwards as testing had already shown that "the increased boost is [] most remarkable" - Report linked below. Then as we know EN was a standard modification by July 1944. Post about March 1944:
  3. This post was never intended to be about all the other what if modifications and I would like it to stay focused only on the boost. Nobody ever claimed EN would be some miracle fix all for the Anton. It would simply make it a little more aggressive with acceleration and top speed. The boost raises final horsepower the engine produced by 250 horsepower or nearly 15%. That is nothing to sneeze at in a WWII fighter. It is a significant amount of engine performance that the aircraft had historically. Us people who love the Anton simply want it to be represented as accurately as possible within the simulation and that includes this boost system which the plane was widely known to have even before our timeline in the game. In the end most of us who love the Anton just simply love it and would argue its effective how it is, it's simply just not accurate to what it was. I would also disagree with the ability to remove the boost unless you are planning on making missions that predate March of 1944. If that's the case by all means do as you will I have never been one to harp on timeline continuity being the most important factor of DCS WWII. However, there are lots of people that continuity does matter to, and most servers are running June, July, and August missions where you would probably have been hard pressed to find an Anton that didn't have the system. I believe the Devs have also stated that the Anton in DCS is meant to be a representation of what you would've encountered in June of 1944. By that logic the Anton should have the EN system, and it shouldn't be something that is an option as by the stated mission of the Devs that would be standard fare on an A8 of that time. Lastly, I never have claimed and as far as I know nobody (who has intelligently added to this thread) has claimed the EN system is a "magical solution to all [of our] A-8 problems". It is simply a system that historically existed on our favorite aircraft and one that should be included just to add to the accuracy of the simulation. I personally know I will never get to fly an Anton irl. DCS is the closest I will ever get and with each passing year less and less flying examples of any plane exist. As far as I know there are no surviving A8s with the original BMW801 engine left in flying condition. So, I personally want the history to be preserved in this digital format for myself and any others who want to fly this or any bird that they will probably never get the chance to touch irl. Is it really too much to ask that we keep our digital preservation as accurate to the historical artifact as possible especially when we fly this because we know we will never get to fly the real deal?
  4. Still here, still waiting for the improved and accurate engine performance. Thanks for the meme I stole @EnvyC
  5. Probably the best thing to come to this thread in a while lol
  6. I love seeing that this topic is gaining some traction in some ways. We may have to keep hoping and being patient for a while but it'll come.
  7. This is an amazing find. Shows that the Germans were probably modifying the A8 to have the boost from March on. The official manual I linked above shows that it became standard and expected practice in July so no reason at all we should not have it in the simulation. I love the Anton, it's my favorite of all time but lets be honest, even with this boost it will still be out matched by everything else it will only be more realistic and more fun to fly so what's the drawback?
  8. Except this really shouldn't be a bug. IRL the anton did achieve boost pressures of 1,58 and 1,65 ata. Checkout this thread for more info as those boost pressures were nowhere near enough to destroy the BMW801. It was running those pressures for to long that imposed a thermal limit as overheating is a no no but it says in the official flight manual 1,58 and 1,65 could both be maintained for 10 minutes at a time at which time the engine needed to cool then you could do it again.
  9. We must remain hopeful on the subject. I talked to NineLine on the discord asking him to read this and acknowledge it etc. a while back and he told me he had read it and passed it on to higher ups. So while not a promise of anything it is much more promising than the usual "will come with a later variant" etc.
  10. After learning about the BMW801 and the boost systems that most if not all A8s had by the end of the war I'm not sure this is a bug. 1.42ata seems to be reasonable to cruise around on and was an artificial limitation imposed to prolong engine life not because the engine couldn't handle it... Please look here: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/288040-erhohte-notleistung/
  11. Hi all I have seen time and time again the request for more boost and various systems for achieving higher ata on the Focke-Wulf 190 A8. Now I have also seen some confusion surrounding these systems leading to some threads being closed and tagged with a "should come with a future variant." My hope is to sort out some of that confusion and maybe get the proper system modelled within DCS. System number 1: MW50. This is the same standard 50:50 mix of methanol and water that most late war German fighters see. I won't get further into detail as this method was tried, passed over and later gone back to due to a fuel shortage but was not the first pick for the 190 due to a small rise in cylinder head cracks. System number 2: C3 Injection. This method took extra fuel and injected it directly into the supercharger which was able to increase the ata to 1.58 in the low supercharger gear and 1.65 in the high gear at altitudes under 1000m (3281ft). This method was designed and used on variants used as fighter bombers such as the F8/G8. Thus this system may be a viable option for those aircraft when they are released but not for our current fighter variant. (Page 82 of the Haynes Focke-Wulf Fw190 1939 onwards (all marks) owner's workshop manual) System number 3: Erhöhte Notleistung. This method is by far the most relevant to the current model of Anton we have. During 1944 this method was developed and "controlled by inserting a pilot-operated stop cock in the pressure line of the boost regulator, with the effect of overriding the supercharger boost pressure regulator to allow a short-term boost of supercharger power." (Page 82 Haynes...) Now this system is further outlined in the Official FW190 A8 handbook linked below. Part 6 of the handbook outlines the C3 injection system and then talks about the Erhöhte Notleistung stating: "A newer method of increasing the emergency speed of the fighter has been to insert a pilot operated stop cock... When this system is incorporated supplementary fuel injection is no longer necessary and is, therefore, omitted." This clearly states they are two separate systems one being favored over the other. In Part 7 section C. this new "Emergency Power System" is outlined. "The increased power is gained by bleeding air from the supercharger pressure line (6,1), in which are located two nozzles connected in series. A flexible tube (6,2), through which a portion of the boost air can be drawn off off when the valve (6,3), is opened, is connected into the supercharger air line between the fuel mixture chamber and the boost pressure regulator. The two nozzles, the first of which has a smaller inside diameter, are so constructed that when the actuation valve (6,3) is opened, the air pressure within the boost pressure drops to a very low level; this causes the throttle valve to open wide, thereby increasing the maximum obtainable boost pressure, at 2700 RPM, from 1,42 ata, to 1,58 ata at the low supercharger setting, and to 1,65 ata at the high supercharger setting. The higher boost pressure results in in increased fuel consumption, due to the greater quantity of fuel injected into the cylinders." Now unlike the the C3 injection system this does not have an altitude restriction as it is not injecting fuel directly into the supercharger and enrichening the mixture without proper accounting for the fuel to air ratio. This system does have increased fuel consumption as the mixture is increased appropriately through injection into the cylinders to account for the increase in air consumption as well with the higher boost pressures. This system is simply overriding the boost pressure regulator and "tricking" the throttle valve to open to its fullest extent. ONE LAST TIME this is not a C3 injection system, it does not directly inject fuel into the supercharger, it does however manipulate boost pressures and "trick" the throttle into opening wider. (This is the figure from the Official A8 handbook note its lack of injection into the supercharger and the lack of fuel lines in general. It is only manipulating boost pressures.) Lastly it is noted in the Haynes publication on page 83 that "in early 1945 orders were given that limited time emergency power for fighter variants (A series) could be achieved by a simple manifold pressure boost to 1.8ata, giving the equivalent power boost to around 2,400ps." (2,367hp). I am not arguing for the inclusion of this as it doesn't make clear if this was a result of MW50 or the Erhöhte Notleistung system, it makes it sound like the Erhöhte Notleistung is the system used but I have no backing evidence and that seems to be unrealistic as I can find performance charts with 1.58ata and 1.65ata but not 1.8. Interesting to note though. Links: Official Focke Wulf 190 A8 handbook (english translation) http://lexpev.nl/downloads/fw190a8.pdf Unfortunately I am unable to find a PDF of the Haynes publication but here is a picture of the cover so you may find the proper book if you wish to purchase it like I did. (ISBN: 978 0 85733 789 4) This publication sites the original manual many times but keeps a ton of information all in one place Notes: I did go back through to try to eliminate repeating information. I apologize for the length but I wanted to draw the distinct difference between the systems as I have seen them be confused one for the other. The A8 is a true passion of mine and I only wish to see it modeled to its accurate capabilities and not continue to see it be put down as these systems are incorrectly assumed to be the same. If anyone has any questions or further information please ask I will be paying attention to this thread. Some have already pointed to this system but I have not seen anyone explain how the system works or what it is simply that it is. My hope is this clarifies the matter.
×
×
  • Create New...