DCS Fw 190 D-9 Flight Manual

I have something to add.

Page 24: "The pilot simply has to move the throttle lever to set the desired manifold pressure. The "Bediengerät" takes care of the rest, setting all other parameters to allow the engine to properly operate at the desired manifold pressure, given the current flight conditions."

That's not right. The Jumo 213 engines were flown by rpm. The manifold pressure was irrelevant, only for monitoring reasons.

In the manual of the Jumo 213, doesn't matter which version, it says, the engine is flown by rpm!

That's the reason why all power outputs are given with "rpm" and not with "ata".

3250rpm = Start- und Notleistung

3000rpm = Steig- und Kampfleistung

2700rpm = Dauerleistung

and so on...

Source:

JUMO 213 A-1, C-0 Motoren-Handbuch

Ta152H Handbuch

I have something to add.

 

Page 24: "The pilot simply has to move the throttle lever to set the desired manifold pressure. The "Bediengerät" takes care of the rest, setting all other parameters to allow the engine to properly operate at the desired manifold pressure, given the current flight conditions."

 

That's not right. The Jumo 213 engines were flown by rpm. The manifold pressure was irrelevant, only for monitoring reasons.

 

In the manual of the Jumo 213, doesn't matter which version, it says, the engine is flown by rpm!

 

That's the reason why all power outputs are given with "rpm" and not with "ata".

 

3250rpm = Start- und Notleistung

3000rpm = Steig- und Kampfleistung

2700rpm = Dauerleistung

and so on...

 

Source:

JUMO 213 A-1, C-0 Motoren-Handbuch

Ta152H Handbuch

+1

Add Fuel consumption ...and than you are 100% Correct :)

+1

Add Fuel consumption ...and than you are 100% Correct :)

+1

:P

I have something to add.

 

Page 24: "The pilot simply has to move the throttle lever to set the desired manifold pressure. The "Bediengerät" takes care of the rest, setting all other parameters to allow the engine to properly operate at the desired manifold pressure, given the current flight conditions."

 

That's not right. The Jumo 213 engines were flown by rpm. The manifold pressure was irrelevant, only for monitoring reasons.

 

In the manual of the Jumo 213, doesn't matter which version, it says, the engine is flown by rpm!

 

That's the reason why all power outputs are given with "rpm" and not with "ata".

 

3250rpm = Start- und Notleistung

3000rpm = Steig- und Kampfleistung

2700rpm = Dauerleistung

and so on...

 

Source:

JUMO 213 A-1, C-0 Motoren-Handbuch

Ta152H Handbuch

Not saying you are wrong... But it is ironic that the aircraft has a constant speed propeller and the engine is managed by rpm.... shouldn't the rpm be constant, with the propeller pitch being managed by the manifold pressure, like the mustang??

The pilot didn't change RPM or MP, but throttle/thrust lever. The mechanical computer controlling the engine adjusted RPM, prop pitch, manifold pressure, etc... automatically depending on thrust lever position.

Not saying you are wrong... But it is ironic that the aircraft has a constant speed propeller and the engine is managed by rpm.... shouldn't the rpm be constant, with the propeller pitch being managed by the manifold pressure, like the mustang??

Not really.

The difference compared to the P-51 is that you simply set the RPM of the engine, and the Automatic management system sets Boost and Propellor Pitch to best possible performance out of Airspeed and Airpressure(altitiude).

Thats how i did understand the Engine management system.......maybe iam also not 100% exact.

The pilot didn't change RPM or MP, but throttle. Kind of like how you adjust throttle in your car. The mechanical computer controlling the engine adjusted RPM, prop pitch, manifold pressure, etc... automatically depending on throttle lever position.

Don't compare a car with an aircraft!!! Completely different.

In a car you increase throttle and the throttle body opens or closes, giving more or less air into the engine... On an aircraft i the same, but the propeller pitch auto adjusts itself to keep the RPM constant... so, if you increase throttle on an aircraft, more power will be available, more pitch will be added to the propeller in order to transform power into thrust without increasing engine RPM...

The cars have gearboxes, that rely on gear ratios.... But that's a completely different story....

:smilewink:

And prop aircraft have gearing as well. Or do you think the propeller spins at the same speed as the engine revs?

A whole bunch of post war car engine innovations came precisely from ww2 aircraft engine developments.

Not really.

 

 

The difference compared to the P-51 is that you simply set the RPM of the engine, and the Automatic management system sets Boost and Propellor Pitch to best possible performance out of Airspeed and Airpressure(altitiude).

 

Thats how i did understand the Engine management system.......maybe iam also not 100% exact.

That's the hard part to understand for me, because in WW II there were no ECU's and all that is available today!!! I know that the Dora had a mad engine management unit (I take off my hat to the engineers behind it)!!!

But the boost pressure was managed in order to compensate for the loss of pressure as the altitude increases (like the mustang, but the difference was that the mustang only had 2 supercharger phases). And as the supercharger was directly linked to the engine via a belt or a chain... It is very hard for me to understand other way of managing the engine than managing it by manifold pressure...

But once more, i'm not saying that anyone is wright or wrong, myself included...

Cheers

And prop aircraft have gearing as well. Or do you think the propeller spins at the same speed as the engine revs?

 

A whole bunch of post war car engine innovations came precisely from ww2 aircraft engine developments.

Hey, man!!! i'm not sayong that there are nor gears between each other.... All i say is that there is no gearboxes between them.... there is a constant gear ratio between the engine and the propeller.... the only shing that changes is the blades pitch....

RNeves - it's not that hard to "understand other way of managing the engine than managing it by manifold pressure". You just have to remember, that every piston engines power does not depend only on how hard it "wants" to work (throttle), but also on how hard it "can" work (load imposed by external factors). In very simplified terms, its power is proportional to:

a) displacement;

b) mean effective pressure;

c) revs.

While flying an airplane or driving a car you cannot do anything about a), but You can surely control MEP (throttle -> manifold pressure -> mean effective pressure) and revs - you control the engine load by adjusting the prop pitch or letting prop governor/some sort of a control unit to help you with that task (or use gearbox in a car). CSP-equipped planes relieve pilot of a constant, manual adjusting of prop pitch, but he still has to choose manifold pressure and revs combination carefully. In theory, you get the same power output by using low MAP/high revs or high MAP/low revs combination. In reality fuel consumption and danger of pre-ignition complicate things quite a bit.

German solution with only one lever for the pilot to operate was indeed a "grandaddy" of todays ECUs (or should we say FADECs). By the way, superchargers in both DB-60x and Jumo -21x series were driven by hydraulic torque converters (similar to the ones in auto-gearboxes), so they were not exactly "directly linked to the engine", but could and did rotate separately, commanded by control unit.

RNeves - it's not that hard to "understand other way of managing the engine than managing it by manifold pressure". You just have to remember, that every piston engines power does not depend only on how hard it "wants" to work (throttle), but also on how hard it "can" work (load imposed by external factors). In very simplified terms, its power is proportional to:

a) displacement;

b) mean effective pressure;

c) revs.

 

While flying an airplane or driving a car you cannot do anything about a), but You can surely control MEP (throttle -> manifold pressure -> mean effective pressure) and revs - you control the engine load by adjusting the prop pitch or letting prop governor/some sort of a control unit to help you with that task (or use gearbox in a car). CSP-equipped planes relieve pilot of a constant, manual adjusting of prop pitch, but he still has to choose manifold pressure and revs combination carefully. In theory, you get the same power output by using low MAP/high revs or high MAP/low revs combination. In reality fuel consumption and danger of pre-ignition complicate things quite a bit.

 

German solution with only one lever for the pilot to operate was indeed a "grandaddy" of todays ECUs (or should we say FADECs). By the way, superchargers in both DB-60x and Jumo -21x series were driven by hydraulic torque converters (similar to the ones in auto-gearboxes), so they were not exactly "directly linked to the engine", but could and did rotate separately, commanded by control unit.

when i said that it was hard for me to understand other ways of managing the engine, i was talking about the pilot itself, i mean that the most obvious way to do so was like in the p51 (setting a desired RPM with a lever, and setting the manifold pressure with the throttle)...

Didn't know the superchargers on those engines were driven like that (and that detail itself explains alot to me :smilewink:).

So, what you say is that the only thing the pilot has to do is set the ammount of thrust with the throttle lever and the control unit sets the best conjunction of throttle body opening, propeller pitch and supercharger load in order to extract the maximum efficiency (fuel) of the engine on every throttle setting??

 

So, what you say is that the only thing the pilot has to do is set the ammount of thrust with the throttle lever and the control unit sets the best conjunction of throttle body opening, propeller pitch and supercharger load in order to extract the maximum efficiency (fuel) of the engine on every throttle setting??

Seems so....The FW-190D was equiped with the throttle lever only.

It just doesnt have a extra boost or Propellor pitch lever (maybe for emergency procedures only).

Just have a look to page 72 of the handbook (first post).

Isegrim is right.

On Daimler Benz and BMW engines, the pilot controls the manifold pressure direct by the power lever. You know 1,35ata is Kampfleistung, you move the lever forward and watch the manifold pressure indicator. The pilot didn't control the rpm directly. Every maifold pressure value had it's own rpm value.

Daimler Benz 601 or 605

-1,42ata with 2700rpm = Startleistung/Notleistung

-1,35ata with 2400rpm = Steigleistung/Kampfleistung

On Jumo 213 engines, it's another story.

The pilot doesn't care about manifold pressure. He choose only the rpm setting and has to watch the fuel consumption. The manifold pressure was only for monitoring purposes.

That's what i meant. I hope it helps.

How much time can we run the engine at full throttle berofe losing it?? Is any reference to this in the manual?

Hi RNeves,

no, there's nothing in the manual. I miss it too.

From what i know:

The version we have, a Dora with MW50, it should be 10 minutes.

After that, a pause for at least 5 minutes with normal power setting.

After these 5 minutes, again 10 minutes with maximum power setting.

Hi RNeves,

 

no, there's nothing in the manual. I miss it too.

 

From what i know:

 

The version we have, a Dora with MW50, it should be 10 minutes.

After that, a pause for at least 5 minutes with normal power setting.

After these 5 minutes, again 10 minutes with maximum power setting.

Yup, this is vital information during combat, so, i think ED might have this covered already for the final version of the manual...

Let's wait and see!

It would be nice to have the manual this weekend, so that we had time to read it before the release date...

:pilotfly:

Don't know, if it has been already mentioned but "Wagerecht" should be changed to "Waagerecht". "Waage" = "Libra", meaning horizontal Bombdrop.

Hi,

"Wagerecht" on the instrument panel is authentic

Hmpf - the direct link is not working

this should work :

copy the link

open a new tab

insert the link

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/instrumente/katalog/Schaltkasten/gross/Fl%2050869.gif

It's authentic, nonetheless it's a typo...

What i can imagine is, the word waagerecht is to long on the right site, so they wrote it with only with one "a"???

That would be like calling the "moon" just "mon". Can't really imagine that. If they would had wanted to save some space, they probably would have written something like "wg.recht".

Strange... :/

That would be like calling the "moon" just "mon". Can't really imagine that. If they would had wanted to save some space, they probably would have written something like "wg.recht".

Strange... :/

Hi,

"Wagerecht" - someone made the decision

Finish - no can`t imagine, no probably would have

:D What´s your problem ?

I know it's strange, but all pictures of the ZSK244 show "wagerecht".

If you look into the manual of the ZSK, it's called waagerecht... :D

Do we have an ZSK244 expert?^^

It's authentic, nonetheless it's a typo...

 

What i can imagine is, the word waagerecht is to long on the right site, so they wrote it with only with one "a"???

I know it's strange, but all pictures of the ZSK244 show "wagerecht".

 

If you look into the manual of the ZSK, it's called waagerecht... :D

 

Do we have an ZSK244 expert?^^

I don't get what your problem is. Do you want it authentic or do you want it conforming to the current issue of the Duden (probably even according to the latest "Rechtschreibreform" :o)?

I'd say, "authentic" is the way to go ... similar to the Lancester/Lancaster issue ...

I don't have any problem with that.

It wasn't my concern.

I said it's authentic, dunno what's your problem?