MW 50 or GM-1

[Crumpp]

Quote

He decided to desert. To do so he had to wait for a favourable moment, which presented itself on 30th August 1944. On that day he was flying one of fourteen FW 190A8s being sent to reinforce JG 26 at Brussels-Melbroek. Kuhn was flying Werknummer 171747. Time was getting short. At 11:30 he took off for Belgium. He passed Aachen & Ostend and then headed west. Close to the many ships at sea he crossed the North Sea. So as not to run the risk of being shot down by British flak, he did not head for a known aerodrome, but managed to put his aircraft down in open country near Monkton in Kent. It was a good landing and his aircraft suffered only minor damage. It would receive the serial AM230 and would be displayed to the public many times; at Farnborough in 1945 , then going to the Science Museum in London in 1946. It was later scrapped.

As for Kuhn he remained a POW in Great Britain until 1949. In the 1980s he was given a friendly welcome by Dutch military aviation veterans. His peers managed to sponge over his ‘intermezzo’ in the Luftwaffe.

That aircraft was not only equipped and could use GM-1 which was approved in 1943 for the FW-190, it was also using Erhohte Notleistung.  

 

Erhohte Notleistung was approved in December 1943 for 10 minutes of use.  The investigation began in mid-1942 and came out of testing C-3 Einsptrizung when two of the test aircraft were flown with erroneously installed systems.  It was discovered that two of the test aircraft flew the entire test regiment with an inoperative system that was not injecting C3 fuel into the supercharger.  Those two aircraft instead ran a straight manifold pressure increase to 1.65ata (2000PS static power).  All the test aircraft engines were torn down afterwards and no discernable wear was discovered between the test aircraft with correctly installed C3 Einspritzung systems and the two that did not.  This lead to an investigation of C3-Einspritzung being used at all altitudes above its approved 1KM.  That series of test was successful and after confirming with BMW, it was decided that the C-3 Einspritzung system was an unnecessary complication.  In December 1943, testing of a straight manifold pressure increase in the BMW801D2 engine was completed and approved.  The system was put out to the Geschwaders beginning in January 1944 and incorporated in all production FW190's by July 1944.

In January 1945 BMW801's were again raised to 2200PS Static Power:

 

The engine program you see with the BMW801Q series was a secondary program fitting reserve engine parts from the BMW801F program.  The BMW801F program was killed by BMW.  Basically, they determined that there just wasn't any huge design changes between the BMW801D2 and the F series.  The major design changes could be just folded into current BMW801D production streamlining the system and saving resources.   You can look in the FW-190A8 POH and see the exhaust changes from the BMW801F.  The BMW801Q engine was very much a secondary program. The engine only being fitted to the R11 all weather fighter variants as it was just worked out to the increased oil cooler armor unique to the 801Q power egg was there to offset the weight of the autopilot system in IFR equipped fighters.

 

But of course, none of this ever happened in reality just like 14 FW-190A8/R11's equipped with a secondary engine program being sent to just one of several squadrons that flew the R11's using GM-1 and Erhohte Notleistung from Airplanes MADE IN JULY 1944 ever made it anywhere outside of the imagination.  Especially when normal production BMW801D2's when it just technically impossible for Germany to produce a piece of hose with a pull cable in order to tap into a bleed air line to make a controlled leak and the instructions in the POH for marking the very few FW-190A8's that squeaked out of the factory without the system in before July 1944.....whatever.  

It's just weird too that priority for installing Erhohte Notleistung went to the FW-190A8/R6 variants which made up the vast majority of the FW-190's present in 1/JG1....one the was one of the few Luftwaffe units to respond to D-Day.  In fact, ~80% of the Luftwaffe units facing the allied invasion were equipped with FW-190's.  6 months is just too soon for anyone to produce a piece of hose and a pull cable.  Probably because Germans did not want to put an aircraft that could fight in a fight.  Makes sense to me, right?

[Mr_sukebe]

This suggests that only 100 of the 481 available aircraft on DDay were fighters;

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/g/gaf-invasion-normandy.html

This article states that JG26 had 3 fighter groups on DDay, two of which were A8s and one being a G6.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdgeschwader_26

Edited July 21 by Mr_sukebe

[Crumpp]

Quote

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_A-8_15-3-44.pdf Quickly realisable Options for increasing Performance in the FW190 with 801D through engine modifications - 15 Mar 1944

That is a crap translation.  "Greifbare möglichkeiten" means AVAILABLE CAPABILITIES.  It is not some speculative document on hopeful wishes.  It is a document that came out of Travel Report Bengelmann 1-44 about a visit to BMW Munich from January 27 to February 5, 1944.  It is simple clarification of the current state of the engines increased performance ALREADY approved and in use.

 

 

Again, everybody thought that C3-Einspritzung would be the boost system for ALL FW-190's at ALL altitudes due to SS+GL and BC+XO running with just straight manifold pressure increases for the entire C3-Einspritzung test.  BMW was getting calls from units wondering what the status was and why the upgrade kits were missing the entire supercharger injection portion of C3-Einspritzung. Example:

"Hey Fritz, I thought there was supposed to be a whole assembly to inject fuel into the supercharger intake.  It seems to be missing from those kits we got.  

"No, Herman, it is just a hose that puts a controlled leak into the supercharger bleed air line.  You open the leak by pulling the cable."

"Oh, Okay Auf Wiedersehen."  

 

 

The DECEMBER 1943 Operating Instructions incorporates C3-Einspritzung as it had already been in use for almost a year before the "Quickly Realisable" baloney translation.

 

 

This is the result of the anticipation of C3-Einspritzung successful testing at all altitudes and approval for use.  

Fw-190 Part 7.pdf

Edited July 22 by Crumpp

[Crumpp]

19 hours ago, Mr_sukebe said:

This suggests that only 100 of the 481 available aircraft on DDay were fighters;

That is probably about right.  AFAIK Those available fighters units during the Battle of Normandy where, 1/JG1, I/JG26, II/JG26, and III/JG26.  Only III/JG26 operated Bf-109's the other three FIGHTER units flew FW-190's with 1/SKG10 as the ONLY ground attack unit also Operating FW-190G8's and FW190G3's.

The bulk of the Luftwaffe Air Superiority Fighter capability was placed upon the FW190 which of course is a fighter that can't fight.....right.

 

[Mr_sukebe]

???

Circa 2/3rds of the fighter production in 44’ were for 109s and the Luftwaffe will have been only too well aware that fighters outfitted with additional cannons to shoot down bombers, are going to struggle in a dogfight, which I assume is why the fighters were told to avoid allied fighters and focus on the bombers.

Edited July 22 by Mr_sukebe

[Crumpp]

1 hour ago, Mr_sukebe said:

I assume is why the fighters were told to avoid allied fighters and focus on the bombers.

The order to avoid fighters wasn't type specific.  Goering didn't give a hoot what was mounted on a Bf109.  He just wanted his boss Adolf to stop interrupting his heroin and partying.

Shooting down fighters did not get the attention of the Gröfaz but Bombers turning cities to rubble sure did.  Shooting down bombers and ignoring fighters came from the very top.  It was one of huge strategic mistakes made by the Luftwaffe that Galland and many other Field Grade officers relate in Post War POW interrogations. 

Galland wanted to push the Jagdgeschwader forward in order to attack Allied formations over England and the Channel concentrating on fighter escorts.  The idea was to force allied fighters to fight and either shoot them down as they struggled to keep their tanks or drop their tanks leaving them useless for long range escort.

The heavy fighters and JU88's could then attack the unescorted bombers over europe.  Goering nixed that plan because his boss wanted bombers not fighters.

 

[Mr_sukebe]

Probably just aswell that it was nixed, it’s a dumb idea.  
A key benefit of flying over your own territory is the ability to bail out from either combat, or technical mishap and most probably get to go home, as against a POW camp.

Trying to move the combat outside of Europe would have been a disaster.

 

On top of that, there were more than enough shorter ranged allied fighters (eg Spitfires), that could have seen off the Luftwaffe fighters, and still send out long range escorts such as the P38s, P47s and P51s.

Edited July 22 by Mr_sukebe

[Crumpp]

2 hours ago, Mr_sukebe said:

Probably just aswell that it was nixed, it’s a dumb idea.

Depends on the time frame.  It would have made life much more difficult on the Allies on the Western Front and probably would have extended the life of the Luftwaffe.  The lack of engagement against Single Engine Fighters was a huge mistake.  SE Fighters are the instrument of Air Superiority and by May 1944 there was no safe haven even over their own airfields.  

 

 

It would have prolonged the war but not changed the outcome.  Possibly even prolonging it enough for the Me262 to make more of an impact but nothing could change the outcome of the simply overwhelming armada arrayed against them.

 

The Allies fielded bomber missions that contained more bombers than the Luftwaffe had fighters to shoot them down.  Some of the raids in 1944, the Allies put more Aircraft in the sky than the entire Luftwaffe Fighter Forces on all fronts combined.

This the Defense of the Reich strengths on 3 June 1944:

 

 

The units we previously listed stationed in France were stripped away to deal with the Normandy landing further reducing the fighters available to fend off the Allied bomber campaign.

[Mr_sukebe]

If anything, my belief is that attempting to engage US bombers over England would have finished off the Luftwaffe even faster, as they would have lost pilots much quicker.  
 

The 1000+ aircraft redeployed as a result of DDay weren’t just from France.  On top of that, the Allies knew they were being sent and also which airfields they were going to, which made them easy pickings.  Those 1000 made no significant difference.

Edited July 23 by Mr_sukebe

[Crumpp]

7 hours ago, Mr_sukebe said:

If anything, my belief is that attempting to engage US bombers over England would have finished off the Luftwaffe even faster, as they would have lost pilots much quicker.

Well, that is the thing about speculation.  It's an opinion and you are entitled to it as I am to mine.  I see the hubris of Leadership only wishing to deal with immediate effects to its own disaster.  Saw it several times in my Military Career.  My opinion aligns with Galland and the Field Grade Officers while yours aligns with Flag and Politicians.

Why do you think pilot casualties would have risen more than they eventually did by not attacking over the Channel?  Casualties would have increased by leveled off at some point to a more sustainable level in my opinion.

IMHO, the attacking German fighters would have held the initiative.  Their only goal was to get the escort fighters to drop their much needed extra fuel tanks and not necessarily shoot them down.  The mere presence of enemy fighters would cause those tanks to be stripped.  If they did not drop them then the fight would have been easy as the Allied fighters would be sitting ducks.  Sure you could escort them but only to the point the escorts ran out of fuel or require the escorts to carry drop tanks.  Then they are in the same boat as fighters escorting the bombers.  The range was a huge problem for the Allies.  Only the P38 could reach Germany without carrying drop tanks, the rest of the allied designs would have been limited to the coast of France.  If the Allies had to concentrate on P38's then your 1000 fighters becomes 500 as production is cut in half because each plane needs two engines.

 

 

You should read:

https://books.google.com/books/about/Luftwaffe_Fighter_Bombers_Over_Britain.html?id=q1zfo63_KRYC

Excellent book.  It details how roughly 40-50 German aircraft tied down an entire Allied Fleet for much of the war.   Post war assessment of the campaign led to a complete shift in modern warfare doctrine.  Fortunately, the Luftwaffe lacked any form of effective BDA (Bomb Damage Assessment) combined with Flag and Political Leadership of the Luftwaffe that was  incompetent.  Without it, the war could have been a whole long longer, more difficult, and more costly.

 

7 hours ago, Mr_sukebe said:

The 1000+ aircraft redeployed as a result of DDay weren’t just from France.  On top of that, the Allies knew they were being sent and also which airfields they were going to, which made them easy pickings.  Those 1000 made no significant difference.

I am not sure what you are talking about here.  That chart is not the size of forces sitting on airfields.  It is the size of forces in the AIR on individual missions during allied bombing raids. 

Edited July 23 by Crumpp

[Bremspropeller]

23 hours ago, Crumpp said:

"Greifbare möglichkeiten" means AVAILABLE CAPABILITIES.

It doesn't. "In Kürze greifbare Möglichkeiten" means "shortly available/feasible possibilities (solutions)". Greifbar implies a possibility, not a given and already available capability.

Further down in the same report, dated 15 March 1944:

"Shipping-/ Supply-situation:

GM1 equippability starting with Fw 190A-8. Supply from manufacturer - however by AGO only - in April 1944.

Shipping/ Supply of GM1-devices still unsure*. Negotiations RLM-Braunschweig."

It hints at the possibility of equipping GM1 from the manufacturer (as long as it's AGO) with projected availability in April '44, if GM1-device supply can be assured.

I haven't seen any actual proof of GM1 or MW50 use in operations with 190As - maybe excluding the Mossie hunter units.

*probably relating to OEM-allocation for GM1-devices.

Edited July 23 by Bremspropeller

[Mr_sukebe]

My logic for expecting higher losses are:

- Longer flight durations just to get to and from the combat zone, which burns fuel the Luftwaffe didn’t have and adds wear to engines

- Fighters sent to England would be intercepted by not just the long range fighters, but most probably the hone defence fighter groups, which if anything would be more dangerous than coming across a bunch of P51s, as we know all too well that the Spitfire was a better dogfighter

- if you get shot down or have a mechanical failure over England or the Channel, you don’t get to bail out and take a taxi back to base.  Instead you get escorted to Canada to a POW camp or maybe get picked up by air sea rescue

 

 

Edited July 23 by Mr_sukebe

[Crumpp]

3 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

It doesn't. "In Kürze greifbare Möglichkeiten" means "shortly available/feasible possibilities (solutions)". Greifbar implies a possibility, not a given and already available capability.

That does not make sense.  All three systems discussed where already approved and operational.  Of the three, only GM-1 was considered required special handling, equipment, and training due to the liquid nitrous and icing concerns even though it was approved for use.

C3-Einsptrizung was approved in July 1943 and it's instructions are found in the POH.  In August 1943, investigation began into using it at all altitudes.  That investigation was completed in September 1943.  By that time, teardown, testing and examination of the engines from SS+GL, BC+XO, and the other aircraft that participated in the first C3 Einspritzung testing was complete so work began on examining just a straight manifold pressure increase instead of the more resource intensive C3 Einspritzung.  That investigation was complete and approved on 20 December 1943.

The investigations are done, complete, and approved in all three systems discussed.  In fact, the February Travel Log publishes the exact same information a month earlier.

In context, it makes NO SENSE.

3 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Further down in the same report, dated 15 March 1944:

"Shipping-/ Supply-situation:

GM1 equippability starting with Fw 190A-8. Supply from manufacturer - however by AGO only - in April 1944.

Shipping/ Supply of GM1-devices still unsure*. Negotiations RLM-Braunschweig."

It hints at the possibility of equipping GM1 from the manufacturer (as long as it's AGO) with projected availability in April '44, if GM1-device supply can be assured.

I haven't seen any actual proof of GM1 or MW50 use in operations with 190As - maybe excluding the Mossie hunter units.

 

Yep, GM-1 was problematic.  It was approved nonetheless and its published manual did not appear for a month after this document briefly covering the boost systems of the FW-190.  The system is included in the FW-190A5 Weight and Balance sheets:

 

As stated, dealing with liquid nitrous required special equipment and training on the part of the ground crew and pilots.  AFAIK, GM-1 was only used by those units receiving the R11 All Weather variant.  Those units required additional training in Instrument Flying as well.  Even that was not as problematic as one might think as the Luftwaffe routinely used LOX and was already familiar with the HAZMAT/Handling concerns of Liquid Gas.  It also increased the risk of intake icing so pilots had to be aware of the conditions it was used as well as recognize the symptoms of intake icing.  That being said...all airbreathing airplane engines are subject to intake icing even today.  I turn the Engine Anti-Ice on every flight when conditions warrant.

 

3 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

"In Kürze greifbare Möglichkeiten"

Explain the fact C3 Einsptirzung was published in the FW-190A5 Flugzueg Handbuch almost a year earlier.  Explain the fact Erhorte Notleistung was approved 3 months beforehand and GM-1

 

 

 

Given the fact all three systems are tested and approved translating this as some pie in the sky "we are checking into it" makes little sense at all.

C3 Einspritzung - Approved in June 1943.

GM-1 - Approved in December 1943 for higher injection rate of 150gr/sec and approved/used at 85gr/sec in mid-1943.

Erhorte Notleistung - Approved for use in December 1943.

 

Edited July 23 by Crumpp

[Crumpp]

2 hours ago, Mr_sukebe said:

My logic for expecting higher losses are:

- Longer flight durations just to get to and from the combat zone, which burns fuel the Luftwaffe didn’t have and adds wear to engines

- Fighters sent to England would be intercepted by not just the long range fighters, but most probably the hone defence fighter groups, which if anything would be more dangerous than coming across a bunch of P51s, as we know all too well that the Spitfire was a better dogfighter

In the publication I read I did not get impression Galland was not talking about trying to blanket England in German fighters.  Instead he was advocating intercepting the escorts over the channel with the express goal of engaging escort fighters in order to force them to drop their extra fuel.  It wasn't about intercepting bombers or fighters over England.

It was about saving the SE fighters to engage Allied escorts forcing them to turn back due to lack of fuel instead of wasting them trying to concentrate on escorted bombers over Germany.  Once that happened and the escort was stripped away, the heavy twin engine fighters such as the JU88's could them engage the bomber without interference. 

 

As for the entire Allied Air Fleet and the ADGB responding....

They had a very hard time with just 40-50 FW190's carrying a tiny bomb load.  In fact, they were not effective at all in stopping the raids.  You really think they would have been more effective trying to reach out across the channel AND maintain their Defense of Great Britain?

Edited July 23 by Crumpp

[Bremspropeller]

15 minutes ago, Crumpp said:

That does not make sense.  All three systems discussed where already approved and operational.

The document linked before proves otherwise. Again, no mention of GM1 use in frontline service, except maybe for special Mosquito hunter units (which might even have been 109s - can't be bothered to check atm).

Native speaker here. No need for grasping straws on your end.

 

Edited July 23 by Bremspropeller

[Mr_sukebe]

6 minutes ago, Crumpp said:

In the publication I read I did not get impression Galland was not talking about trying to blanket England in German fighters.  Instead he was advocating intercepting the escorts over the channel with the express goal of engaging escort fighters in order to force them to drop their extra fuel.  It wasn't about intercepting bombers or fighters over England.

It was about saving the SE fighters to engage Allied escorts forcing them to turn back due to lack of fuel instead of wasting them trying to concentrate on escorted bombers over Germany.  Once that happened and the escort was stripped away, the heavy twin engine fighters such as the JU88's could them engage the bomber without interference. 

 

As for the entire Allied Air Fleet and the ADGB responding....

They had a very hard time with just 40-50 FW190's carrying a tiny bomb load.  In fact, they were not effective at all in stopping the raids.  You really think they would have been more effective trying to reach out across the channel AND maintain their Defense of Great Britain?

 No, that still doesn’t work.

There was a reason that the Luftwaffe waited close to the German border before engaging the bombers, ie to avoid the shorter range allied fighters.

If a bunch of 190s had gone in at altitude over the channel, there would have been time to get a shed load of Spitfires up to meet them.

The nuisance raids were effective because they went in at very low level, so as to avoid radar, giving little time to respond. 
The only vague would be to go in at low level, then try to max climb to 25,000 feet to intercept, putting the initiative height advantage firmly with the allied screen of fighters.

That might have distracted some of the screen, but not all, and the 190s would probably have been cut to ribbons.  

You really think that any of the above options sound sensible?

[Crumpp]

43 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Again, no mention of GM1 use in frontline service, except maybe for special Mosquito hunter units (which might even have been 109s - can't be bothered to check atm).

So, Physical Evidence from a crashed plane showing up in England in August of 1944 is dismissed.

All these FW-190A8/R11's had GM-1 at 150gr/sec...

https://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg301.html

 

43 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Native speaker here.

So is my wife and half my friends.  They disagree and so does every translator available.  It is not a cut and dry thing so quit trying to minimize the discussion.

 

Edited July 23 by Crumpp

[Crumpp]

23 minutes ago, Mr_sukebe said:

There was a reason that the Luftwaffe waited close to the German border before engaging the bombers, ie to avoid the shorter range allied fighters.

I have never seen that as a reason.  I have always understood coming from The General Of Day Fighter for the Luftwaffe that the reason was the Luftwaffe effort was to counter each raid just before it hit the target with a maximum effort to just bring down bombers with orders to ignore allied fighters.  That is what the excerpt stating the directives I posted earlier from POW transcripts.

Just like Goering wanted the bombers to have a visual on the fighter escort in the Battle of Britain, Hitler wanted the German people to see the Luftwaffe defending their cities.

That strategy was dictated from higher and one of the reason's Galland just went back to flying as his input had no effect anyway.

[Spirale]

The more i fly this plane, the more i like it, glorious history , great ingeneering

 

[Bremspropeller]

1 hour ago, Crumpp said:

So, Physical Evidence from a crashed plane showing up in England in August of 1944 is dismissed.

There is no physical evidence.

The report mentions "provisions for GM1", but doesn't specify which tank was installed "instead of the FuG 16" - the 115l Zusatzbehälter or the 85l GM1 tank.

1 hour ago, Crumpp said:

All these FW-190A8/R11's had GM-1 at 150gr/sec...

Negative. The R11 Rüstsatz did not include GM1, but it did include some more advanced IFR equipment.

RLM projected a run of 200 airframes, supposed to be built by AGO under the designation A-8/R4. GM1 was later cancelled by RLM for the use on the 190, though, as performance with GM1 was less than the 109's performence with the DB605D without GM1.

GM1 was cancelled altogether by August '44 due to lack of necessity. Acc Rodeike only a few R4s supposedly are known to have been flying with 10./JG 11 around the op Bodenplatte timeframe.

3 hours ago, Crumpp said:

That does not make sense.  All three systems discussed where already approved and operational

GM1 wasn't, as clearly stated in your travel-report Bengelmann:

"Dieses ist um so zweckmäßiger, als die Aussicht besteht, daß auch für Fw 190 mit 801D Motoren die GM1 Anlage noch zum Einbau kommen wird."

So on 04 FEB '44 a mock up of the 801TH GM1 device was shown, which would have an 80g/s nozzle, according to required specs. Fw proposed the use of the same device which was already designed for the 801D, as this design was prospectively to be used in the future. See above how this worked out.

3 hours ago, Crumpp said:

Explain the fact C3 Einsptirzung was published in the FW-190A5 Flugzueg Handbuch almost a year earlier.  Explain the fact Erhorte Notleistung was approved 3 months beforehand

Approval by Rechlin or an OEM's test-bench doesn't include kits ready for shipment and modifications starting at the front units or even serial production in all branched-out factories. As we can see, GM1 was earmarked for some 200 AGO airframes only.

Final approval by RLM is a different matter altogether.

3 hours ago, Crumpp said:

Given the fact all three systems are tested and approved translating this as some pie in the sky "we are checking into it" makes little sense at all.

That's because you're busy reading things into stuff that's not written there.

It's not "we're checking into it", but "the following solutions can be offered on short'ish notice".

Seems you're not understanding we're dealing with a centralized planned economy here, where changes aren't just incorporated because some test or general approval make it seem favorable. Changes are incorporated into specificly ordered blocks, which at times may not happen for several months.
 

[Crumpp]

55 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Seems you're not understanding

The the highlighted portion of the document is talking about GM-1 at 80gr/sec instead of 150gr/sec?  Cutting your consumption rate in half would be worth it if the performance holds.  You are confusing details with the big picture.  GM-1 was not widespread in its use.  It was approved and it was used.  It was approved at the time the document briefly covering the increased performance available at that time was released.

 

 

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

Approval by Rechlin or an OEM's test-bench doesn't include kits ready for shipment and modifications starting at the front units or even serial production in all branched-out factories. As we can see, GM1 was earmarked for some 200 AGO airframes only.

Final approval by RLM is a different matter altogether.

Rechiln is the RLM's approval authority for all technical aircraft changes.  That is why the KTB entry is so important.  It is the equivalent of the FAA's Master Airworthiness List:

https://drs.faa.gov/browse/ADFRAWD/doctypeDetails

 

[Crumpp]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

Approval by Rechlin or an OEM's test-bench doesn't include kits ready for shipment and modifications

Certainly not.  IIRC the timeline for delivery from the factory fully equipped was July 1944.   Did it take six months to produce a couple of hundred sets of tubing and a pull cable?  Probably not.  As for the GM-1 kits, those are much more complicated however they had far fewer to make.  GM-1 is pretty complicated stuff to use.  It pretty much requires filling the tank and in using it in a very short period of time.  It does not sit and leaks out.  You can see that being tested in several of the flight test report where they note the aircraft was allowed to sit untouched for the engineers allotted time to test the system loss.

 

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

The report mentions "provisions for GM1",

Is more than just a tank.

[Crumpp]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

 A-8/R4.

Designates the fitting of a BMW801S series engine.  That designation was done away with as it was just decided to replate the aircraft as an FW-190A9.

Yes, it could come with GM-1 but that has NOTHING to do with its use in the BMW801D2.

The BMW801Q series would have GM-1 fittings and was approved to use it.

May 1944:

 

Edited Thursday at 12:01 AM by Crumpp

[Bremspropeller]

8 hours ago, Crumpp said:

You are confusing details with the big picture.  GM-1 was not widespread in its use.  It was approved and it was used.  It was approved at the time the document briefly covering the increased performance available at that time was released.

The big picture is Fw tested GM1 several times, and with the A-8/R4 had aircraft production blocks reserved at AGO for 200 airframes with GM1 equipment installed. This never materialized. If the airframes were built with the GM1 equipment in place isn't clear (it's likely, though). There's no evidence for GM1 use in the field by Fw 190A squadrons.

At the time of the Bengelmann visit, GM1 had already been projected and cancelled for the A-6 and the experimental (and ultimately cancelled) 190B was in testing.

8 hours ago, Crumpp said:

Rechiln is the RLM's approval authority for all technical aircraft changes.  That is why the KTB entry is so important.  It is the equivalent of the FAA's Master Airworthiness List:

Just because Rechlin or the FAA aprove a modification, this doesn't mean the kit or serial installation is commercially available for procurement and implementation. 

A gap of several months is more than reasonable, even today.

8 hours ago, Crumpp said:

Is more than just a tank.

Certainly, but not only does the report not mention what exactly it means by "provisions" and "tank". It also fails to identify the components of that provision and it's difference to normal vanilla A-8 equipment. Further down, there's no differentiation between the 115l tank and the tank found in the crashed aircraft.

8 hours ago, Crumpp said:

GM-1 is pretty complicated stuff to use.  It pretty much requires filling the tank and in using it in a very short period of time.  It does not sit and leaks out.  You can see that being tested in several of the flight test report where they note the aircraft was allowed to sit untouched for the engineers allotted time to test the system loss.

That's precisely the reason why it wasn't popular at front line units. Especially during summertime. It's not a reasonable solution for operational use and it seems Galland himself didn't think much of it.

8 hours ago, Crumpp said:

May 1944:

The report is signed 1 October 44. 

1 May 44 is the date of the design to be replaced.

By that time, the "Erhöhte Notleistung" rating discussed is most probably 1.8 ata.

[Crumpp]

8 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

The big picture is Fw tested GM1 several times, and with the A-8/R4 had aircraft production blocks reserved at AGO for 200 airframes with GM1 equipment installed.

Wow.  I already told you once that R4 variant was scrapped.  R4 denotes an FW-190A8 re-engined with a BMW801TS engine.  That engine came with GM-1 fitted just like the BMW801TU/BMW801Q2.  The decision was to delete the R4 designation and just label the airframe an FW-190A9.

8 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Certainly, but not only does the report not mention what exactly it means by "provisions" and "tank".

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.....

8 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

ust because Rechlin or the FAA aprove a modification, this doesn't mean the kit or serial installation is commercially available for procurement and implementation. 

A gap of several months is more than reasonable, even today.

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. 

 

8 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

The report is signed 1 October 44. 

1 May 44 is the date of the design to be replaced.

By that time, the "Erhöhte Notleistung" rating discussed is most probably 1.8 ata.

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.

The FW-190A8/R11 all came with BMW801Q engines.  Every one of them.  It was the ONLY variant that could not use a BMW801D2.  Why?  It had a lot of "Junk in Trunk" with the single axis autopilot for IFR operations.  That equipment put the CG so far rearward it had to have the heavier installation of the BMW801Q engine.  Even with that motor, it required Propeller weights to bring the CG back into normal range.

 

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.

 

Every single FW-190A8/R11 and FW-190A9 of any designation was capable of using GM-1 if they wanted it.  They came from the factory ready with all the provisions.

https://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg301.html

Brems,

 

This is just speculation but from what I know on tuning Nitrous Oxide, it is jet up until you blow the motor for hot-rodders.  That obviously does not apply for aircraft and its unusual to jet down from a higher injection rate that does not blow the motor.  That is because cars are not dealing with Altitude.

One of the Tactical drawbacks with the 150gr/sec was the FTH altitude.  That altitude was set to combat very high altitudes of the B29 and because of the risk of intake icing in lower, warmer, moist air.  It's engagement altitude was above most of the fighting as the B29 never materialized in the ETO.  It does not do much good to have a great boost system that works at 30,000 feet if you are not fighting B29's/P-47's and all the fighting is taking place at 20,000 feet.  That makes the most sense, IMHO as why they started working on the lower injection rate.

Pretty sure the 80gr/sec system was designed to lower the FTH but like everybody that used Nitrous in aircraft, intake icing becomes a large issue.

That is of course outside the normal issues with Nitrous Oxide of handling and leakage.

Edited Thursday at 05:02 PM by Crumpp