| Condition: |
| Jumo calibrated (Vermessener) engine 213 A/1021523462 with supercharger Nr. 1025755295. |
| Erhard “C” pressure retaining valve |
| D-9 Production condition with Methanol installation |
| Standard intake with 75 mm clearance. |
| Surface primed and polished. |
| Engine gap sealed at the wing-fuselage transition after KBV 40957. |
| Armament: 2 MG 131, 2 MG 151 without ammunition. |
| Operable landing gear doors. |
| Conti-Typhoon tail wheel tire as of 20.11 |
| Conti-Perlon tire for main landing gear 20.1. ./. 16.2. |
| Fuel feeder line with shut-off valve as with 190 A as of 12.12. |
| Fairing for deflector for photo equipment installation 5.2 2/2 6.2 |
| Program: |
| 1. | Check of the tuning and power of the engine measured on the Jumo high test stand. |
| 2. | Evaluation of the engine gap sealing. |
| 3. | Testing of the Conti tail wheel and main landing gear tires. |
| 4. | Contamination of the photo equipment plate with deflector in flight operation. |
| Results: |
| 1. | Due to the fact that generally with Jumo-213 A engines a full throttle height ~ 400 m too low results, it should be checked with a measured (vermessenen) engine. For this
purpose, following the loss on the test stand of the C-engine 1001580035 the likewise measured A-engine, W. Nr. 1021523462 was here fitted and flown in Fw 190/210001. Without
new adjustments to engine control gears over the RPMs, total boost pressure regime displays perfect values up to the lower range, so that the adjustments made with the Jumo can
be regarded as good and no change experienced with the mounting of the engine to the fuselage (Chart 10).
However, after addition of the connecting equipment necessary for methanol operation was already below combat performance, recorded on the enclosed graph (Graph 1 b, 1 C),
as well as the boost pressure increase for MW 50 – operation no more the required behavior adequate.
An improvement could have been obtained only by replacement of the MBG, according to a statement from the Jumo mechanics. Thereupon was waived and Graph 2 shows calculated level
speeds with Combat, Take-off and Emergency power.
Since the engine did not shift to high gear and already failed on 16.2, (cylinders 6, 9 and 10 no compression) the measurement could only be conducted in low gear.
However, although according to the Jumo test stand report the engine conforms to the book values, yet it is shown here that the full throttle height, compared with earlier
measurements with the untested engine W.-Nr. 1021521862 (Flight Report Nr. 1), has experienced no improvement in climb and only a small improvement in level flight. |
| The following table summarizes the low gear values reached to date. |
| | Fw 190/21002
uncertified engine
1021521862 | Fw 190/210002
certified engine
1021523462 | Fw 190/210001
uncertified engine
102152059
| Abfallhöhe for pL = 1.4 ata at Combat Power in climbing flight
| 2550 m | 2550 m | 2900 m
| Full throttle height for pL = 1.4 ata at Combat Power in level flight
| 3200 m | 3300 m | 3400 m
| | Full throttle height for pL = 1.5 ata at Take-off power in level flight | 3400 m | 3600 m | 3450 m
|
| The target altitude without ram according to the engine file amounts to pL = 1,4 (n = 3000 RPM) and pL = 1,5 (n = 3250 RPM) 8,202’ (2500 m).
With an assumed 85 %igen ram utilization, the following altitudes therefore must be reached: |
| Climb n = 3000 RPM 9,514’(2900 m)
Level flight n = 3000 RPM 12,467’ (3800 m)
Level flight n = 3250 RPM 12,795’ (3900 m) |
| 2. | The gain in speed of ~9 mph (15 km/h), previously reached through the sealing of the engine cowling gap, was confirmed.
The installation of a sheet metal seal after KBV 40957 improved durability at the location where the rubber seal reached the fuselage-wing transition area.
This was unsatisfactory, since it was already strongly scoured after a few flights and not resilient enough to fit again to the cowling after strong engine buffeting. |
| 3. | The Typhoon tail wheel tire (double profile), copied by the company Conti, was evaluated for flutter behaviour with tail wheel locked.
It was established that the behavior is equivalent to the original tire through take-offs and landings on a concrete runway.
Flutter did not occur, only after touch down for landing were some quick fading lateral movement oscillations noticed.
With the installation of the tire into the tail wheel fork, insufficient free movement was available in the upper area, so that the fork had to be indented. |
| So far 50 takeoffs and landings on grass and concrete runways have been conducted with the Conti Perlon tire for the main landing gear without significant damage to the tire surface.
The increase lies within the expected permissible limits. The trials are continued. |
| 4. | The straight deflector, which was delivered without a description, ahead of the photo equipment plate at the fairing for the oblique camera installation has a strong contamination of the plate due to exhaust gases and in particular water spray can not be prevented.
It is suggested to use a sliding cover. |
Langenhagen, 1 March 1945
Gt/Schw. |
| Addendum: A closer examination of the engine resulted in strong supercharger damage, which is to be regarded as a primary cause for the loss.
Whether this damage was caused by foreign objects or material defects, can not be decided from here. |
|
