MW 50 or GM-1

So, you're agreeing with me that GM1 wasn't operational in Fw 190As.

4 hours ago, Crumpp said:

Total Strawman.  Nobody ever said that is not lag time.  You are focusing on GM-1 because it is the only power increase discussed in that even makes any remote sense for the translation of "Maybe Hope So Perhaps One Day it Might Happen".

All three systems were approved months before that document was completed. The other two systems were complete and approved months before.  One set up for GM-1 was approved as well with that programs testing ongoing for variations.

You have to tune Nitrous Oxide changing both the fuel metering and the Oxide metering.  It is all linked together and changing one, effects the other.  You cannot seem to seperate or differentiate between 80gr/sec and 150gr/sec.  You seem to think it is all the same thing just because it called GM-1.

In July '44 Focke Wulf clarified that GM-1 at 80gr/sec was approved for use but not recommended.  C-3 Einspitzung was approved BEFORE July 1943 when it appears in the Operating Instructions and Erhohte Notleistung for Fighters in December 1944 two months before the clarification document.   

The more complicated the upgrade, the more lag time required.  Erhohte Notleistung was a hose, a T-fitting with a specially sized hole to induce a controlled leak, and a cable pull valve to activate the leak.  Pretty sure the Germans were "Maybe Hope So Perhaps" capable of making some hose in a timely manner. 

I'm focussing on GM1 because people are requesting it (same as MW50), while it was never used, as it (unlike MW50) quite blatantly sucked in handling. You had to know before starting the motor if you were going to need the additional boost above critical altitude or not, which quite obviously is a BS system. It also couldn't be stored for very long, so logistics - especially on dispersed airfields - was a nightmare.

Erhöhte Notleistung made way more sense, as is was simpler and worked across all altitudes. It was available in about mid July '44 and the kit-installation could be identified by a small yellow ring fwd of the left triangular windscreen.

There were other, obvious and relatively simple solutions the RLM messed up:

1) External supercharger inlets. A 15-minute sheet metal job, providing ~700m more critial altitude.

2) Sitting on their hands concerning Jumo 213 development in 1942, leaving the Luftwaffe without a proper counter to the P-51 for the better part of a year.

3) Not being able to call a winner in the whole Jumo 213 vs DB 603 affair (let alone the infighting with Mtt and their raggedy-a$$ aircraft). This alone cost another significant amount of time in high altitude Fw 190 development.

4) Wasting time in development of the 190B up to a fieldable aircraft (with GM1), but stopping just before it was ready.

Do you need even more examples of RLM dropping the ball in program steering, aircraft development and procurement? You think that pragmatic solutions were going to be easy? Seems to me you have yet to meet proper german bureaucracy - let alone one mixed with a nepotistic centralized planned economy.

4 hours ago, Crumpp said:

It's not a report.  It is the Engine Installation manual.  Yes it is updated in preparation for 1.8 ata it replaces the previous manual from May 44.  

None of that is the point.  It is a FACT that EVERY BMW801TU/BMW801Q engine came with GM-1.  They all did.  Without it....It's not a BMW801Q engine, it is a broken engine that is missing parts.

You're sticking to semantics on one behalf, while assuming stuff on the other. 

The Einbauvorschrift above states the injection nozzles of GM1 and possibly MW50 (poor wording) being in place. It also mentions that appliances and the actual implementation of the systems are to be carried out by the airframer. It then gives a couple of instructions about the routing of the associated lines.

It does not say there was an operational GM1-system "coming with the motor", besides the injection nozzles being in place. So were the MW50 nozzles apparently. What's more interesting in that regard is that both systems can't be built into the same airframe at the same time, as they'd need different tanks, taking up the same space inside the fuselage. GM1 would need the 85l tank, MW50 using the 115l tank (see MW50 installation on the Dora). It shows that BMW was providing Fw and the RLM with a motor that could use either system, but ended up with Erhöhte Notleistung in the field.

4 hours ago, Crumpp said:

The fact there is physical evidence of that engine being put into normal production FW-190A8's in England in August 1944 is very significant.  The July 1944 instructions actually read that the BMW801Q series will replace the BMW801D2 in FW-190A's beginning in July 1944.

WkNr 171747 was built at Focke Wulf Cottbus in July-August 1944.

Focke-Wulf Entwicklungsmitteilung from 3 August 44 states that the TU motors had been delivered fom "circa June". It's got the same power output as the D-2 (including Erhöhte Notleistung), being 60kg heavier. No mention of a GM1 system. Looks like "provisions" of the RAE actually means nozzles only.

4 hours ago, Crumpp said:

It most certainly does differentiate the difference between "provisions" and a "tank" by specifically talking about the lack of a tank.  English, Native Speaker. 

Do you really think the RAE who had more experience with Nitrous Oxide than probably anyone else during the war would not look to see if there where feed lines and valves with jets installed?  Obviously they looked at hard enough to find the data plate.....

Again, what are you trying to prove? You're arguing GM1 was available/ cleared/ operational. Without a tank (which is not actually stated in the report), it factually is incapable of GM1'ing.

The report states "Provision for GM1 power boosting installation, the routing for the GM1 tank being in the position previously occupied by the FuG 16." Farther down, it's stating it (obviously) was equipped with Erhöhte Notleistung.

There is no differentiation between the 115l tank and the 85l tank - the latter of which would be required for an operating GM1 system. The former one being a stock installation in the A-8. 

What's the story of the 190A-5 GM1 wing installation you showed earlier out of that Beladeplan dated 3 November 42? It hints at an outboard wing installation, replacing the MG/FF. A similar wing installation IIRC was tested in the 190B initially, but it never came to fruition in either way. 

To add, I was just reading how when Galland was asking for more fighters with the expectation of increasing bomber group sizes, that funding instead went to “terror” weapons like the V1 and V2 and how Hitler was still insistent on building bombers to strike back at the UK.