01.03.2008, 21:50
sorry, but really difficult to believe what you wrote.
The weight penalty was already there since the installment of the extra tank and the weight of the system itself was not that much that could create a significant performance deficit when the system was not working, while it created a real performance difference when it was working.The main problem was the increase of fuel consumption when the system was working.I cannot think of anything else that problems with the engine life of the BMW801 and operational restrictions that could make its operational usefulness marginal: For example the limit of 6 min max MW50 power/10 min without MW50 that was -roughly- applied in the DB605 to be reduced in a level that was decided as dissapointing. A way to ensure this could have been via manifold pressure -which by coincidence, can help you reduce detonation, therefore use lesser fuel.MW50 was a smart way to extract more power out of engines that were using lesser quality of fuel but not so as the quality of the fuel is improved (I am in a bit of difficulty with the Bf 109K-4 C3,I think that in order to achieve this improvement in power there should have been various improvements in the engine). Fw 190s had already a hard job against La-5s in low alt, I don't think that anyone in the german fighter command would had ever thought that MW50less Fw190s were "doing the job".
Now about A-5 1.65s, I think that we all know that the main difference in the power/alt graph is made by the difference in supercharging, and we haven't been informed for a change as such in the 1.65, neither a change in ATA could result in a change in the performance curve by itself.In fact, a reduction in ATA is an indication that lesser fuel was used.
The weight penalty was already there since the installment of the extra tank and the weight of the system itself was not that much that could create a significant performance deficit when the system was not working, while it created a real performance difference when it was working.The main problem was the increase of fuel consumption when the system was working.I cannot think of anything else that problems with the engine life of the BMW801 and operational restrictions that could make its operational usefulness marginal: For example the limit of 6 min max MW50 power/10 min without MW50 that was -roughly- applied in the DB605 to be reduced in a level that was decided as dissapointing. A way to ensure this could have been via manifold pressure -which by coincidence, can help you reduce detonation, therefore use lesser fuel.MW50 was a smart way to extract more power out of engines that were using lesser quality of fuel but not so as the quality of the fuel is improved (I am in a bit of difficulty with the Bf 109K-4 C3,I think that in order to achieve this improvement in power there should have been various improvements in the engine). Fw 190s had already a hard job against La-5s in low alt, I don't think that anyone in the german fighter command would had ever thought that MW50less Fw190s were "doing the job".
Now about A-5 1.65s, I think that we all know that the main difference in the power/alt graph is made by the difference in supercharging, and we haven't been informed for a change as such in the 1.65, neither a change in ATA could result in a change in the performance curve by itself.In fact, a reduction in ATA is an indication that lesser fuel was used.