Bremspropeller

The 1%-thing is a technique, not a procedure. Don't get too hung up on it. For CW correction, you'll have to adjust your pull. You're basicly adjusting your pattern for crosswind all the way round. In the break-turn by adjusting your pull and in the base-turn by adjusting your rate of descend and your angle of bank. The upwind, downwind and final segments will require you to adjust your heading to fly the correct track over the ground. Assuming your're doing two 180° turns.

So on 4 April 44, reps from Fw and BMW meet at AGO in Oschersleben, determining the neccessity of the changes to the airframe for GM1 installation to be implemented after contract assignment. Some minor internal fixture stuff, tank integration, the neccessity of two additional acces doors and a reworked oxygen-bottle setup (similar to the one "on the Ta 152"). They also agree on getting the required and missing data by 6 April 44 and they agree on getting notice by AGO about the go-ahead on serial production on 8 April 44. Incidentally, on 8 April 44, there's three losses of A-8s, which mark the first known losses (acc Rodeike): 2./JG 1 - WNr. 170 044 - Ofw Anton-Rudolf Pfiffer takes the chute near Salzwedel, which by chance is only 100km from Oschersleben where AGO is about to decide whether to go ahead (or not) with GM1 system implementation into their A-8 production 1./JG 11 - WNr. 170 034 - Uffz. Herbert Nast KIA above Lüneburger Heide (a bit farther north than Salzwedel) 2./JG26 - WNr. 170 009 - Lt. Karl-Heinz Willius KIA near Kamperzeedijk (sounds dutch to me) That's three Cottbus-built A-8s with access panels ("...those were in all A-8s...") that supposedly were only determined to be neccessary four days prior. Fiction. No, you claimed the R4 designation ceased with the re-naming to A-9 by the end of November iaw Baubeschreibung 284. Then you show a source about exactly that supposed R4 designation (A-8 with swapped TS motors), which allegedly started "into service" in December 44 - after the "renaming to A-9" in those circumstances was decided. ======================================== What we've established so far: - no GM1 use in operations on 190A aircraft (or F/G for that matter) - AGO was to build 200 airframes with full up GM1 equipment with the "Rüstsatz 4" designation (Fw 190A-8/R4), starting in April 44 - this never materialized for reasons not quite clear so far* - supposedly there were eleven R4 aircraft in 10./JG 11 by the end of 1944 which came out of several production lots from AGO WNrs, built beween August and October 1944 - Erhöhte Notleistung was introduced in July 44 on D motors, TU motors were built into new aircraft in June 44 with the same rating, TU motors slightly heavier - D and TU motors are interchangeable, TU motors had provisions (injector nozzles) for GM1 but lacked the piping and tank - the 115l tank behind the pilot was standard and could be removed and exchanged for a 140l MW50 tank (115l ws also possible) or a 85l GM1 tank, this never happend in operations - A-9 aircraft were earmarked for TS engines after the delay of the TH motors with production starting in "fall 1944" (Focke-Wulf Entwicklungsmitteilung 3 August 1944), TS engines can be installed on A-8s (e.g. in depot maintenance) - TS engines into production airframes in September 44 at Cottbus (possibly with Mimetall Erfurt in August, but unlikely) - Baubeschreibung 284 dated late November 44 mentions that production aircraft with TS motors are named A-9 (which was already clear in August), it does not state aircraft are to be renamed A-9 after the swap from a D or TU motor to a TS motor. - the R4 designation for TS engines in the 190A-8 cannot be proven (or disproven for that matter) - the existence of those "R4" aircraft could match with R4s (eleven!) at 10./JG 11, incidentally built by AGO...or not *Most likely the bombing attacks onto the factory from 11 April 44 which caused severe damage and other, following attacks in late May and in June were the reason why AGO wouldn't go ahead.

The one where it was determined that there's gonna be a need of two additional access doors for GM1 installation (as well as a reconfiguration of the oxy-bottles, which you seem to not care about), which you claim were in all 190A-8s and which halted delivery for two months. Report dated 4.4.44, first loss 8.4.44 R4: "Entered service 12.44" - so after which the designation was supposedly dropped?

That explains why the first known A-8 losses on the front in the west were a full four days after the date of the report.

Strawman. We're here 'cause you're claiming an A-8 with a TS motor was initially designated R4, which so far you've failed to prove.

It is. The translation is not correct. See above. "Mit Anlauf der vollständigen TS/TH Triebwerke wird die bisherige Serienbezeichnung Fw 190A-8 geändert und erhält die Bezeichnung Fw 190A-9." With the beginning of serial production of complete TS/TH engines [TH never was built in serial production], the designation will be changed from A-8 into A-9. This is a remark to the fact that the TU motor was a combination of D and TH components, which the TS wasn't. "Anlauf" designates the beginning of serial production. There's no reference of an engine swap at all. "Anbau" / "Einbau" would make sense in that regard, but not "Anlauf". By the time of the report, factory-built A-9s were already in service. Production started in September '44 (Fw @ Cottbus, mostly R11s). The A-9 designation for TS powered aircraft was already in place by August. Mimetall at Erfurt supposedly built A-9s starting in August 44 (!), which does not make sense and they were most probably a mix-up. Other sources (acc Rodeike) identify those as A-8s. Externally, the A-8 and A-9 would look very similar, depending on the motor (e.g. TU in the A-8) and canopies fitted.

So you're claiming that two months after the start of serial production at two different factories, Fw people (!), BMW people and AGO people meet up at a third place to identify the need for those exact access panels already there. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_A-8_Besprechungs-Niederschrift_4-4-44.pdf Got any comments on the required changes to the oxy-tank arrangement (like in the Ta 152) as well? Btw this part: Is completely made up by you. Really? Where? It says that the D and TU motors are interchangeable and that with the start of production of the TS/TH motors (TH never happened) that aircraft will be called A-9. There's not a single word on exchanging or swapping the motors (TS) in the field, which you're implying. The A-9 was a thing since early '44. At first projected with the F motor and later with TH delays, earmarked for the TS. In August. No R4 designation. Except that it never mentions motor-swaps. "Anlauf" means "start of serial production".

A-8 serial production started in February '44 at Focke-Wulf Cottbus and Fieseler (Kassel), so two months later, delegates from Fw and BMW meet at AGO to conclude they'll need access panels that have already been there. Makes sense. Well, we do have factual proof of US airplanes actual firing rockets for starters. Quite the opposite of any fully-fledged and operational GM1 system in combat on a 190A-8. Nope. Fw Entwicklungsmitteilung 3 August 44 already stated the TS engine to be used for the A-9. Thats almost four months before Baubeschreibung 284 (late November 44) and just about after the GM1 device was cancelled from the specs for both the A-8 and A-9. No mention of your "R4" in association with the A-9 in that report.

Not According to AGO, BMW and Fw. See report. Two new access panels were required and the oxygen tanks were to be fitted differently (iaw Ta 152 design). Those designs were to be introduced into AGO serial production with the yet to be awarded contract. You're turning in circles. A motor with nozzles in place, yet no piping and no tank cannot provide GM1 injection. That's not an internet argument. That's common sense And without the tank and piping, there's no NOS.

No, it's not. You're basing your point on "it could be done". I'm basing my point on "there's no evidence for the use of GM1". None. Your "proof" furthermore specifies there's no spec for the GM1 tank ("nicht gefordert" doesn't translate into "not normally done") in the A-8. Meaning there's no Rüstsatz that covers GM1 installation and any deviation would be a field mod, as the R4 had been cancelled. No tank means no GM1. No mention of GM1 use for II/JG 301 in the JG301/302 unit History or with Jochen Priesn's "Jagdfliegerverbände". The GM1 injection-nozzles are there, but the whole upstream-affair (plumbing, piping, tank) is to be fitted by the airframer. You - again, conveniently - cut that away. The only airframer earmarked for production was AGO for 200 airframes (some modifications were required, see report below). The R4 spec was cancelled, however. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_A-8_Besprechungs-Niederschrift_4-4-44.pdf Some (eleven known in total acc. Rodeike) R4s supposedly at 10./JG11 in winter 44/45, but no mention of GM1 there either. Neither in Prien's JG1/JG11 unit history, nor in Jagdfliegerverbände. AGO WNr. blocks with known "R4s" are: 732 001 - 732 310 (built August '44) 733 670 - 733 790 (built September '44) 733 960 - 733 999 (same) 734 350 - 734 400 (same) 738 100 - 738 400 (built October '44) The GM1 requirement had been dropped by late July 1944. Most likely as Erhöhte Notleistung had been put into serial production (June 44) and field-modifications. As acc. Rodeike many of those WNrs were built to R2 or R6 specs, there is a possibility of mix-ups or typos in unit-docs. It had the nozzles in place. You conclude acc. the report it had no tank, I conclude they're not specifying which tank was installed. As they're not mentioning any difference to the common A-8 (see "later intelligence" portion), it's highly likely it had a standard 115l tank. The wrong tank for NOS'ing. No. They concluded it had "provisions".

Nope. No GM1 tank fitted. Double nope. See above.

Thankfully wwiiaircraftperformance is back online! http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/td284.pdf Blatt 2: "[...] Zur Zeit ist jedoch für die Großserie der Fw 190A-8 nur der Einbau des zusätzlichen Kraftstoffbehälters eingeplant." Blatt 3: "[...] Der Einbau einer GM1-Anlage anstelle des Zusatzbehälters im Rumpf ist grundsätzlich möglich, jedoch für die Baureihe Fw 190A-8 nicht gefordert. Der Einsatz erfolgt in Höhen ab 8km und ergibt einen Geschwindigkeitsgewinn von ~58km/h bei Steig- u. Kampfleistung." No mention of GM1 equipment for Rüstsatz 11 (Blatt 4).

Same thing for me. Playing around with the brightness knobs belowthe HUD doesn't help either.

Thanks! Same thing (no mention of GM1) to note on this performance table from 10 June 44: Note: GM1 is also not noted for the Ta 152H, however. As it already had a two stage three speed supercharger with intercooling, the additional value of GM1 under normal circumstances is questionable anyway. Unless the mission is going to go really high. The range table I mentioned earlier (dated 15 March 45) in contrast mentions GM1 in it's fuel tank tabulation for the Ta 152.

Good ole TH motor - by mid '44 it was projected for a (delayed) serial production in May '45. Never materialized. By that time, Anton production was already ramping down and only Doras and Ta 152s were going to be built from mid '45 (June ~ July) onwards. Range and performance tables of Focke-Wulf (one I have is dated 15 March 45) never mention MW50 or GM1 for the 190A, while mentioning Erhöhte Notleistung for the Anton, MW50 for the Dora and GM1 and MW50 for the Ta 152C and H. BMW - Langenhagen Drift: Did BMW ever go to Langenhagen to do the integration of the GM1 second stage into the TH? When was the date of the report-excerpt you cherry-picked and at which time was the intergation performed and considered done?