MW 50 or GM-1

[Bremspropeller]

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. 

Edited Thursday at 07:31 PM by Bremspropeller

[Mr_sukebe]

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.

[Crumpp]

18 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

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.

This does not make any sense at all.  You have a game with the most unrealistic match ups and mish-mash of types, most of them very late war.  I fail to see the logic.

GM-1 was approved.  Certain engines came from the factory set up to use it and it was an option for the guy flying missions.  It was not recommended for all the reason's discussed and I certainly do not advocate it was used very commonly at all.   MW-50 was never used operationally except in some testing.  It simply did not deliver as much performance gains as C-3 Einspritzung and Erhohte Notleistung especially when you realize it was possible to run C-3 Einspritzung at all altitudes.  Erhohte Notleistung was essentially the exact same thing in the big picture without requiring new parts to be manufactured.

In the case of GM-1, there is no "what if".  Factually, the system was available, approved, and the equipment in place.  When i was in the service, we got HK USP's issued.  Nobody EVER used them.  We called it the "Laura Croft" gun and they sat in the arms room collecting dust.  That does not change the fact that if I wanted to take a huge, bulky, suppressed, .45 caliber pistol I most certainly had that option.

If it is implemented in your game, GM-1 will probably reflect its use in reality.  I wouldn't ask for it for sure.  

18 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

External supercharger inlets.

Tested.  Degraded performance for very little gain in FTH and abandoned.

 

18 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

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

And?  You can pick apart in hindsight til the cows come home.  All sides make mistakes as human beings are prone to do.  You can "What if" forever without resolving a thing.  Look at the Allied handling of Jet Engine Development or Compressible Aerodynamics.  "What IF" Frogs had pockets?  Would they carry pistols and shoot snakes?  

 

 

18 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

The Einbauvorschrift above states the injection nozzles of GM1 and possibly MW50 (poor wording) being in place.

Yep they sure did come from the factory all set up to use the approved system.

 

18 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

It also mentions that appliances and the actual implementation of the systems are to be carried out by the airframer.

It is kind of like when the Military orders a Machine Gun.  The Machine gun does not arrive from the factory with ammunition either or a pintle, tripod, and T&E.  I guess that makes Machine Guns useless. 

 

18 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Erhöhte Notleistung in the field.

Yes of course.  I have dozens of pictures of FW-190's complying with "Focke Wulf Modification Nr 133" which is the Technical Order allowing the retrofit of Erhohte Notliestung to the FW-190's that did not come from the factory with it.  Only those modified aircraft required the yellow disc and that was actually removed at the end of the periodic inspection cycle. 

It's almost exactly like the inspection program for War Emergency Power use that the USAAF had and most Airforces had similar required maintenance steps for such things.

Those with the factory install were not marked externally as the whole aircraft had to go thru the acceptance process anyway.

You can find more pictures of that yellow disc than you can P-51's in invasion stripes with tail radar or Bf-109K4's in Normandy, LOL. 

[Crumpp]

21 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Erhöhte Notleistung made way more sense, as is was simpler and worked across all altitudes.

How do you miss the significance of a Normal Fighter Variant crashing in England in August of 1944 equipped with Erhohte Notleistung?  It literally makes your argument if you know the technical history.

How do you miss the significance of that airplane having a Q series engine and the much less common approved but not recommended might not have been used at all GM-1 to your whole argument that Erhohte Notleistung was much more common.  It is a fact a EN equipped engine landed in England in 1944.  It's a fact that EVERY engine meant for a fighter came from the FACTORY equipped with Erhohte Notleistung starting in July 1944.  That aircraft is literally a Werknummer block from JULY for NORMAL FIGHTER Variant.  It is definitive proof that program was ground reality.  In terms of your game, I would bet it was much more common than a few 2nd TAF Spitfires using 100/150 grade fuel engaging German Fighters instead of chasing V1's over England.

Erhohte Notleistung was approved more than six months earlier.  The Operational Fighter Geschwaders were asking for it since the successful testing of C3-Einspritzung.  They definitely noticed that the Ground Pounders got a big performance improvement.  It had been anticipated for a year and half and before that testing for C3 Einspritzung for all altitudes for use in fighters had been successfully tested for operational use.  Erhohte Notleistung literally grew out of that whole program when they realized the engine did not require all the extra knock limited performance.  

You are aware of massive improvements in C3 fuel knock limited protection?  The RAE noticed it from just 13 samples puzzling over the improvement in Rich Mixture Performance.  They also worried about the hydrogenation process Fisch Trop had developed that literally became by 1944 how 99% of all German Aviation fuel was produced.

The RAE noted the fuel samples for C3 going as high as 140(+) Octane in 1941.  The United States did their own testing and I am sure you know there are multiple methods of determining Octane levels and they don't correspond to the same values either.  The United States Petroleum board was worried that C3 fuel was already 145 Octane in 1942.

 

Edited Friday at 05:10 PM by Crumpp

[Bremspropeller]

Erhöhte Notleistung arrived on the front some time in July '44 by both field mod kits and new built aircraft. What was cleared when by whom is pointless when it wasn't used in the field (GM1). I won't repeat myself again. Have fun arguing with yourself.

[Crumpp]

[Bremspropeller]

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?

[Crumpp]

[Crumpp]

11 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

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?

It's in March 44.

 

[Bremspropeller]

Thanks!

Same thing (no mention of GM1) to note on this performance table from 10 June 44:

Quote

Eingeklammerte Werte gelten für Start- u. Notleistung und MW50!

Values in brackets are for Take-off and Emergency Power with MW50!

Bei Fw 190A-8 für Notleistung und erhöhtem Ladedruck!

On Fw 190A-8 for Emergency Power with increased Manifold Pressure! [= Erhöhte Notleistung]

LLK = Ladeluftkühler Intercooler

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.

[Bremspropeller]

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).

[Crumpp]

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Same thing (no mention of GM1)

Change the channel, your brain is stuck on GM-1, LOL.

It's not a mystery.  The instructions are very clear.  The equipment is very clear.

On 7/25/2025 at 10:23 AM, Crumpp said:

GM-1 was approved.  Certain engines came from the factory set up to use it and it was an option for the guy flying missions.  It was not recommended for all the reason's discussed and I certainly do not advocate it was used very commonly at all.   MW-50 was never used operationally except in some testing.  It simply did not deliver as much performance gains as C-3 Einspritzung and Erhohte Notleistung especially when you realize it was possible to run C-3 Einspritzung at all altitudes.  Erhohte Notleistung was essentially the exact same thing in the big picture without requiring new parts to be manufactured.

In the case of GM-1, there is no "what if".  Factually, the system was available, approved, and the equipment in place.  When i was in the service, we got HK USP's issued.  Nobody EVER used them.  We called it the "Laura Croft" gun and they sat in the arms room collecting dust.  That does not change the fact that if I wanted to take a huge, bulky, suppressed, .45 caliber pistol I most certainly had that option.

If it is implemented in your game, GM-1 will probably reflect its use in reality.  I wouldn't ask for it for sure.  

 

It was approved for the 80gr/sec use in July 44.  Definitely, every FW-190A8/R11 came equipped to use it.  It's use in the BMW801D2 engine was approved but not recommended.  
The BMW801Q and BMW801S series came standard with it.

Drawbacks:

1.  It's heavy and unlike the normal 115 liter fuel tank, you are not using it up while you fly to the combat zone thereby decreasing your weight.  Fuel is more useful.  GM-1 gives you no viable performance boost unless you are operating in the Altitude band above 8km and there it gave the FW-190A8 a 58kph increase in speed at Climb and Combat Power.  Below that, it is just extra weight.

2.  It cannot be readied the night before or allowed to sit for long periods.  It must be filled and used within a 6-8 hr time frame.  It will leak out of the system.  Therefore, your alert flights have to be filled just as they come on duty and the system pressure monitored.  This was a huge problem for the British as their transit times to the combat zone were much longer.

3.  It is extremely flammable and Liquid Nitrous requires special handling/equipment.  The Germans used Liquid Oxygen daily which is even worse so unlike the Royal Airforce at least the Ground crews were already familiar with the procedures and equipment for handling such HAZMAT.  The fill ports for the Liquid Nitrous were external and  it could be done directly from the portable fill tank cart.  You just plugged it in and open the valves to pressurize the system.  Those valves must O2 clean and not come into contact with any Petroleum based products just like every Pilot O2 Oxygen system in existence no matter if is liquid or compressed. 

BTW.

There are many more BMW801Q engines and BMW801S engines in existence today than there are BMW801D2's.

The BMW801D2 is extremely rare to find and it took years of searching to find one that could be rebuilt for White 1.

Guess what motor is Displayed at the BMW Museum:

Notice the Rocker Box Housings modification to simplify maintenance and Exhaust Routing for Cylinders 9-10...

 

BMW801D2 for comparison, Notice the Rocker Box Housing:

Notice the exhaust routing on Cylinders 9-10:

 

Here is the FW-190A8 that is on display getting ready for display.

Notice what engine it has....

 

[Crumpp]

10 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Thankfully wwiiaircraftperformance is back online!

Since that is the reference material for the approval of GM-1 at 80gr/sec in the BMW801D2 engine it says EXACTLY what I have told you.

And for the third time:

 

12 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

No mention of GM1 equipment for Rüstsatz 11 (Blatt 4).

LOL.

Okay let's walk you through it using the specific instructions from Focke Wulf and BMW.

1.  What is the only engine the FW-190A8/R11 came from the factory with?

A.  Chevy 350 V8

B.  Lycoming O-360A1A

C.  BMW801Q (BMW801TU) 

*hint - its the same motor found on the NORMAL FIGHTER Variant that crashed in England in August 1944.  You know the airplane that wasn't an R11...

The FW-190A8/R11 operated by II/JG301 for example:

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

 

2.  True or False

"The BMW801Q engine came equipped from the factory to use GM-1"

A. True

B. False

It's an open book test so I will give you a hint:

*GM-1 is mentioned right here in the Engine Installation manual...the document the guy picking up a wrench uses...

 

How do we know this was ground reality?

Well, we have an airplane with this exact engine equipped from the factory to use GM-1:

The British conclude it was equipped to use it.

 

On 7/25/2025 at 10:23 AM, Crumpp said:

GM-1 was approved.  Certain engines came from the factory set up to use it and it was an option for the guy flying missions.  It was not recommended for all the reason's discussed and I certainly do not advocate it was used very commonly at all.   MW-50 was never used operationally except in some testing.  It simply did not deliver as much performance gains as C-3 Einspritzung and Erhohte Notleistung especially when you realize it was possible to run C-3 Einspritzung at all altitudes.  Erhohte Notleistung was essentially the exact same thing in the big picture without requiring new parts to be manufactured.

In the case of GM-1, there is no "what if".  Factually, the system was available, approved, and the equipment in place.  When i was in the service, we got HK USP's issued.  Nobody EVER used them.  We called it the "Laura Croft" gun and they sat in the arms room collecting dust.  That does not change the fact that if I wanted to take a huge, bulky, suppressed, .45 caliber pistol I most certainly had that option.

If it is implemented in your game, GM-1 will probably reflect its use in reality.  I wouldn't ask for it for sure.  

 

[Bremspropeller]

31 minutes ago, Crumpp said:

Definitely, every FW-190A8/R11 came equipped to use it.

Nope. No GM1 tank fitted.

31 minutes ago, Crumpp said:

The BMW801Q and BMW801S series came standard with it.

Double nope. See above.

[Crumpp]

28 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Nope. No GM1 tank fitted.

LOL

It takes less time to fit the 85liter GM-1 tank than it does to equip a P47 with rockets.

28 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Double nope. See above.

Either you are just flat out lying to try to win an internet discussion for some reason or not reading the full instructions.

 

 

 

 

FW-190A8/R11's had production priority for the BMW801Q/TU series engines.  Without that engine, it wasn't produced.

Edited Sunday at 03:57 PM by Crumpp

[Bremspropeller]

2 minutes ago, Crumpp said:

Since that is the reference material for the approval of GM-1 at 80gr/sec in the BMW801D2 engine it says EXACTLY what I have told you.

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.

6 minutes ago, Crumpp said:

Okay let's walk you through it using the specific instructions from Focke Wulf and BMW.

1.  What is the only engine the FW-190A8/R11 came from the factory with?

No tank means no GM1.

6 minutes ago, Crumpp said:

The FW-190A8/R11 operated by II/JG301 for example:

No mention of GM1 use  for II/JG 301 in the JG301/302 unit History or with Jochen Priesn's "Jagdfliegerverbände".

8 minutes ago, Crumpp said:

2.  True or False

"The BMW801Q engine came equipped from the factory to use GM-1"

A. True

B. False

It's an open book test so I will give you a hint:

*GM-1 is mentioned right here in the Engine Installation manual...the document the guy picking up a wrench uses...

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.

35 minutes ago, Crumpp said:

Well, we have an airplane with this exact engine equipped from the factory to use GM-1:

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.

36 minutes ago, Crumpp said:

The British conclude it was equipped to use it.

No. They concluded it had "provisions".

[Bremspropeller]

22 minutes ago, Crumpp said:

It takes less time to fit the 85liter GM-1 tank than it does to equip a P47 with rockets.

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.

22 minutes ago, Crumpp said:

Either you are just flat out lying to try to win an internet discussion for some reason or not reading the full instructions.

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 

24 minutes ago, Crumpp said:

FW-190A8/R11's had production priority for the BMW801Q/TU series engines.  Without that engine, it wasn't produced.

And without the tank and piping, there's no NOS.

[Crumpp]

29 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Two new access panels were required and the oxygen tanks were to be fitted differently (iaw Ta 152 design).

LOL

You literally see those access panels on EVERY FW190A8 ever built.  One is on the Left side above fuselage access door.  It doubles as the installation point for the auxiliary fuel tank fill port or GM-1 fill port.  It is the same thing.

The other is the big round hole in the bottom of the FW-190A8 right under the tank installation.

 

29 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

yet no piping

It is not any harder to run that hose from the tank than to the intake fittings than it is to run a wire to launch rockets thru the wing of your P51, P47, P38, F4U...

You actually run fewer hoses and shorter distances than you do wiring up the rockets, LOL.

In fact, there are already at pathway thru the bulkheads for it on the FW-190A8.

I guess they never fired rockets out of US airplanes either because they were not "fitted" for rockets by your reasoning.

Edited Sunday at 04:49 PM by Crumpp

[Crumpp]

39 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

R4s supposedly at 10./JG11 in winter 44/45, but no mention of GM1 there either.

R4 designation does not exist because it denoted an FW190A re-engined with a BMW801S series engine.  The decision was made and published in Technical Description Nr 284 to just call them FW-190A9's irregardless of who installed the BMW801S engine.

Once again:

On 7/25/2025 at 10:23 AM, Crumpp said:

GM-1 was approved.  Certain engines came from the factory set up to use it and it was an option for the guy flying missions.  It was not recommended for all the reason's discussed and I certainly do not advocate it was used very commonly at all.   MW-50 was never used operationally except in some testing.  It simply did not deliver as much performance gains as C-3 Einspritzung and Erhohte Notleistung especially when you realize it was possible to run C-3 Einspritzung at all altitudes.  Erhohte Notleistung was essentially the exact same thing in the big picture without requiring new parts to be manufactured.

In the case of GM-1, there is no "what if".  Factually, the system was available, approved, and the equipment in place.  When i was in the service, we got HK USP's issued.  Nobody EVER used them.  We called it the "Laura Croft" gun and they sat in the arms room collecting dust.  That does not change the fact that if I wanted to take a huge, bulky, suppressed, .45 caliber pistol I most certainly had that option.

If it is implemented in your game, GM-1 will probably reflect its use in reality.  I wouldn't ask for it for sure.  

 

[Bremspropeller]

30 minutes ago, Crumpp said:

You literally see those access panels on EVERY FW190A8 ever built.  One is on the Left side above fuselage access door.  It doubles as the installation point for the auxiliary fuel tank fill port or GM-1 fill port.  It is the same thing.

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.

30 minutes ago, Crumpp said:

I guess they never fired rockets out of US airplanes either because they were not "fitted" for rockets by your reasoning.

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.

23 minutes ago, Crumpp said:

R4 designation does not exist because it denoted an FW190A re-engined with a BMW801S series engine.  The decision was made and published in Technical Description Nr 284 to just call them FW-190A9's irregardless of who installed the BMW801S engine.

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.

 

Edited Sunday at 05:19 PM by Bremspropeller

[Crumpp]

FW-190A5 fuselage.  Can you spot the difference?

 

FW-190A8 Fuselage:

 

 

 

[Crumpp]

13 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Fw Entwicklungsmitteilung 3 August 44 already stated the TS engine to be used for the A-9. Thats almost four months before Baubeschreibung 284

And Baubeschreibung 284 does not change a thing on FW-190A9 production.  All FW-190A9's were built with BMW801S engines.  Baubeschreibung 284 only speaks to older airframes using older engines that are re-engined with a BMW801S engine.  Those aircraft are to be redesignated as an FW-190A9.  The engine installation changes the type designation.

No FW-190A?/R4...just FW-190A9's and whatever Rusatze kit was installed.

Can you imagine the nightmare of keeping track of your FW-190A8/R4//R6 around or having to order parts for your previously flown FW-190A8/R6 before it got a motor swap???

Baubeschreibung 284 simplifies all that just calling in an FW-190A9/R6.

[Bremspropeller]

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:

32 minutes ago, Crumpp said:

The decision was made and published in Technical Description Nr 284 to just call them FW-190A9's irregardless of who installed the BMW801S engine.

Is completely made up by you.

1 minute ago, Crumpp said:

And Baubeschreibung 284 does not change a thing on FW-190A9 production.  All FW-190A9's were built with BMW801S engines.  Baubeschreibung 284 only speaks to older airframes using older engines that are re-engined with a BMW801S engine.  Those aircraft are to be redesignated as an FW-190A9.  The engine installation changes the type designation.

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.

4 minutes ago, Crumpp said:

Can you imagine the nightmare of keeping track of your FW-190A8/R4//R6 around or having to order parts for your previously flown FW-190A8/R6 before it got a motor swap???

Baubeschreibung 284 simplifies all that just calling in an FW-190A9/R6.

Except that it never mentions motor-swaps.

"Anlauf" means "start of serial production".

 

[Crumpp]

GM-1 and Erhohte Notleistung could be used together.  

GM-1 and C3-Einsptrizung could not.

[Crumpp]

25 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Is completely made up by you.

No, it is not.  Factually the Luftwaffe Depot maintenance facilities overhauled and recycled damaged aircraft all the time.  That is exactly where White 1 came from as it started out an FW-190F8 as delivered from the factory and was converted to an FW-190A8 by the receiving yard/Depot Maintenance in Norway.  

 

 

 

When magic happens and a BMW801S motor appears upon an FW-190A8 it now to called an FW-190A9 and NOT an FW-190A8/R4.

 

Edited Sunday at 06:05 PM by Crumpp