Take it from me I am NOT an ‘Experten’ - this is the first time in 42 years I have time to actually pursue a hobby!!!
warm regards,
weinace:p
Then you should purchase the book, the relation information-value, is very good.
here another site of an austrian artist with very well made profiles:
Thanks Panzerknacker for ALL your information!
Will search out Austrian site.
Warm regards,
weinace:p
A very interesting thread. I am planning to do a series of prints of FW-190D-9 profiles. Thank you
But it’s true the story about Kurt Tank that runs away from P51d with his unarmed Ta-152 prototype using engine boost system?
Good news about the profiles.
Make sure you do a ‘super detailed weathered’ one of Heinz ‘Negus’ Marquardt’s aircraft - he was top scorer in an Fw190D-9.
Looking forward to seeing profiles,
Regards,
weiance:)
Hello
Thank you for the tip: I was planning on doing other aces, but your’s is a great suggestion. 
Stay tunned for the prints.
Best regards
I’ve seen the story repeated in books so often over the years that I believe it. Granted, I have yet to see confirmation of some details from Tank himself, but the constancy with which this particular story turns up and is repeated leads me to think that in this case it is truthful.
Kind Regards burp, Uyraell.
I ask just because i found it in several books, but like you i never find an official document about it.
Quoting from one book in my possession: “The performance of the Ta 152 H-1 was such that it could escape any Allied fighter with ease, and Kurt Tank himself has related how easily he pulled away from a flight of P51D Mustangs that jumped him during a test flight.”
The above is in “Famous Fighters of the Second World War”, William Green, 7th Impression, 1960, MacDonalds publishers.
From another book of mine:“Tank himself easily outpaced a flight of P51D Mustangs which surprised him on a test flight, but only ten of the H sub-type had flown when the war ended.”
“The Illustrated Directory of Fighting Aircraft of world War II”, Bill Gunston, Salamander Books, 1988.
Taking note of the above, I’m inclined to believe the reported event as genuine.
While William Green’s books have at times been criticised as the years have passed since they were published, he was noted as having researched his topics rather more thoroughly than many of his contemporaries. Historiographers may well debate Green’s works, but my own view is that at the time they were published they were seminal, and even today may be relied-upon for all but the most very obscure of minor details.
Kind Regards burp, Uyraell.
The Tanks History is true, it has been confirmed in several sources. The Ta-152 was an proposed solution against the B-29 wich supposedly was going to attack Germany in 1944, thing that you know never happen. As it was used, medium/low altitude anti-fighter anti-recce aircraft interceptor was in fact superior to many allied fighter, his specially designed wing gave it a tigh rate of turn and the MW 50 wather methanol injection an awesome acceleration capabilities.
The funny thing is that with MW 50 Ta-152 can use both MW 50 and GM-1, a precursor of nos implants of nowadays super car that you can see in film like Fast & Furios.
PK, Thank you for the additional confirmation,
burp, I have long been intrigued by the MW50 and GM1 performance enhancement systems.
To my eyes, it seems unusual that more was not made of similar systems elsewhere, though I freely acknowledge the Allies had somewhat of a lead in supercharger technology, and that Germany was, by using the bottled systems, effectively making up for lost ground.
One of many small conundra the Second World War produced, as en inevitable byproduct of the conflict itself.
Kind Regards, Uyraell.
The funny thing is that with MW 50 Ta-152 can use both MW 50 and GM-1, a precursor of nos implants of nowadays super car that you can see in film like Fast & Furios
Yes it is, the modern “NOS” =Nitrous Oxidizer System was no more no less that the GM-1 ( Göring meschung eins, Goering Mixture one). A good system but eventually droped because the corrotion induced in the engine was somewhat high.
The wather Methanol injection was pretty more safe and not only allowed more power but also cooled the supercharger inlets so it can operated far more time than GM-1 nearly 10 minutes.
Both system were developed for auxiliary high altitude power-up since ( as mr Urraell said ) the 2 or 3 stage german supercharges were a bit less efficient than english/allied ones and there were no turbosuperchargers available ( turbokompressorlader in german)
Actually - I would disagree with the idea that German compressors were somehow less efficient therefore requiring water injection. Being less efficient would mean that they required more power to drive, is all. Compressed air is compressed air and heats the same for a given compression/time factor. The issue really was fuel quality. Poor fuel is going to be more apt to detonate and thus require lower cylinder inlet temps than a higher quality/octane fuel (quality and octane both being factors but different things).
As far as Allied applications of such systems, water injection (this would be the equivalent of MW50) did achieve reasonably widespread use, mostly on radial engines. Other allied engines, the Merlin 66 and R2800-8 for examples, used intercoolers (air/glycol and air/air respectively) which did the job of water injection but were arguably lighter systems and unlimited in use - not speaking to boost limitations. Allied water injection systems used alcohol mixed with the water (sound familiar?) to prevent freezing at altitude (not necessary if it was expected the water would be consumed on takeoff and climb). MW50 or water injection (speaking of both sides) was typically used at lower altitudes where the supercharger (generic) could overboost the engine well past detonation. Once the altitude was achieved where detonation was no longer an issue water injection was no longer needed BUT a smaller improvement (because the supercharger was providing less boost) in performance was still possible due to charge cooling (something like 4%). At more extreme altitudes ambient temperatures were often so low to begin with that water injection became impractical (how many gallons of water do you want to haul to altitude - lol). At these altitudes nitrous oxide (which has twice as much oxygen as air AND can supply quite a bit more charge cooling in phase change - liquid to gas - than water) was used on a limited scale throughout the war on the German side, most notably late in the war on the Ta152H which also carried water for lower altitude use.
So - in a nutshell - the Allies typically used intercoolers in place of water injection and turbos (to augment the engine superchargers) in place of nitrous. (notable exception: P-47 - it used intercoolers AND water on later models)
Still thinking about the lack of turbos on the German side. Since the Germans had prototypical turbo installations in test, flying in some cases, on various aircraft I would guess that the exotic metals shortage forced them to put the priority on jet engine (giant self-contained turbo) production effectively killing the turbo program. No facts come to mind to back that up . . .
Even with prioritizing the jet engines the manufacturers were asked to reduce the exotic metals required by 100% (LOL), Junkers brought it down by 90%.
Randy, you’re in essence correct. Of note regarding the various TK and TKL installations in the FW190B series prototypes, are the serious issues regarding exhaust temperature, said exhaust gases being ducted to the turbocharger installation under pressure, yet the heat thereof eroding the piping and causing various metallurgical issues, requiring thus the development of intercoolers and the associated employment of rare metals and alloys. Wm Green refers “Warplanes of the Third Reich”.
Kind and Respectful Regards Randy, Uyraell.
As far as Allied applications of such systems, water injection (this would be the equivalent of MW50) did achieve reasonably widespread use, mostly on radial engines. Other allied engines, the Merlin 66 and R2800-8 for examples, used intercoolers (air/glycol and air/air respectively) which did the job of water injection but were arguably lighter systems and unlimited in use - not speaking to boost limitations. Allied water injection systems used alcohol mixed with the water (sound familiar?) to prevent freezing at altitude (not necessary if it was expected the water would be consumed on takeoff and climb). MW50 or water injection (speaking of both sides) was typically used at lower altitudes where the supercharger (generic) could overboost the engine well past detonation. Once the altitude was achieved where detonation was no longer an issue water injection was no longer needed BUT a smaller improvement (because the supercharger was providing less boost) in performance was still possible due to charge cooling (something like 4%). At more extreme altitudes ambient temperatures were often so low to begin with that water injection became impractical (how many gallons of water do you want to haul to altitude - lol). At these altitudes nitrous oxide (which has twice as much oxygen as air AND can supply quite a bit more charge cooling in phase change - liquid to gas - than water) was used on a limited scale throughout the war on the German side, most notably late in the war on the Ta152H which also carried water for lower altitude use
Now you mentioned I remeber that the high altitude recce Junkers Ju-86P and R did use GM-1 until late war. I suppose the thing you described of temperature at high altitudes was involved, also the junkers Jumo diesels in those types had a lesser operation temperature than petrol powered engines.
Beautiful warbird, In Cornelius Ryan`s book, The Longest Day, El dia mas largo in spanish, I read a story about Joseph “Pips” Priller an FW190 pilot, who alone with his wingman attacked the invasion fleet and according to that book, it was recognized as a dare and brave deed for the crew of an american destroyer, as I remember.
i’ll be reading a lot this weekend -LOL-, another lovely topic and great info, tanks many times to you all.
greetings stano666