Author Topic: 109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)  (Read 28164 times)

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #165 on: November 06, 2003, 07:30:01 PM »
1/3rd is more accurate. (EDIT: if the 197 gallons were Imperial)

US gallons yes.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #166 on: November 06, 2003, 07:32:38 PM »
Quote
Like as usual, you refer to butch with false qoutes from him, taking advantage that the forums are down, and nobody can check if you are lying. Expect of course, I have the page saved on my HDD. Bad luck, Nashwan.


Perhaps you could post Butch's quotes? Or better yet, send a copy of the page to GScholz, if he's willing?

Quote
My Merlin chart, which includes the V-1650-7, shows a shade over 2000hp at 4000ft, with ram.

And my one says :

V-1650-7

Combat conditions

3000 rpm, + 25 lbs/ sq. in. BHP at SL = 1940
Max power in "MS" gear = 1940 BHP at SL
Max power in "FS" gear = 1810 BHP at 12000 ft

It`s a written text, not an approx. chart.


Okay, did some diging, it's over at Mike William's Spit site:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html

scroll to bottom of page, click on "Merlin 66 HP Chart "

Just under 2000hp to just over 2000hp at 4,000ft.

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #167 on: November 06, 2003, 07:38:11 PM »
There was another interesting document there:



Look at the date.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8802
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #168 on: November 06, 2003, 07:41:59 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
A detailed loading plan would be most welcome to show this.


Sure thing.

Empty weight: 7,205
Trapped fluids:     61
.50 guns:            401
.50 cal ammo:     564
Pilot:                   200 includes parachute and personal equip.
Pyrotechnics:          6
Usable oil:            94 typically consumed 2-3 gallons/hour.
Internal fuel     1,080  calculated from 5.87 lb/gal.
                         ____
                        9,611
Less 1/2 fuel     -540
                         ____
                         9,071 lb.

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8802
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #169 on: November 06, 2003, 07:45:44 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Thanks. I believe these are US gallons, right ? That would give around 50 imp. gallons. Now, since we are asking for 150 grade and increased boost, we should also take increased consuption into account. The Merlin on these extreme boosts was a fuel hog, the SpitIX test show no less than 197 gall/hour consumetion at +25 lbs. That would mean that our low weight, high boost Mustang would actually consume half of it`s fuel capacity in about 5 minutes when running on maximum boost... how would it go home ? Gliding ?


That's not GALLONS per hour, it's POUNDS per hour! LOLOL

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #170 on: November 06, 2003, 07:47:20 PM »
"1,080 calculated from 5.87 lb/gal."

That's only 184 gallons. The 85 gallon fuselage tank is not accounted for.

Half that leaves the P-51D with just 92 gallons at 9071 lbs. That 8 gallons less than a 109, how was this P-51 going to get home?
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #171 on: November 06, 2003, 07:50:39 PM »
GScholz, that's for the 2nd TAF. RAF fighter squadrons based in Britain were in ADGB (air defence Great Britain), fighters based on the continent were 2nd TAF. US fighters were in 8th AF (based mostly (wholly?) in Britain, and 9th (?) AF based on the continent.

I don't think 9th AF ever converted to 150 octane, 2nd TAF did so in Jan 45, but as I said earlier, the home based units, ADGB and 8th AF converted in early summer 44.

Offline VO101_Isegrim

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 577
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #172 on: November 06, 2003, 07:51:58 PM »
Originally posted by Nashwan
A word of warning about Isegrim. If you disagree with him, he's apt to call you a paedophile.

Quite a typical reaction from Nashwan. Calling you a pedophile ? LOL, how low you get with your lies.


He has a rather strange relationship with the truth. I know this for a fact, because he attempted to prove I was a liar by posting "quotes" from me that I hadn't made, or had made in a different context.

OK, let`s say politely that`s Hop`s version.

My version is that I catched him how he twists his own words regarding his current needs, like in the present.

On ubi forums, I catched him doing that. On one occasion, he vehemently denied that he ever posted these infamous +25klbs Spit XIV tests, or claimed that +25lbs was standard for the plane.

About 2 weeks later, when his actual needs required to boost Spit performance, he suddenly said the very opposite, as can be seen below. He writes there as "Hop2002".


Author:  hop2002  
Rank:  Over 200 Postings  
Date:  06/28/03 12:49AM  

"Firstly, I've never claimed that test shows normal Spit figures."

"Secondly, it doesn't show a stripped Spitfire. "

"It probably shows a Spit with the wingtips removed, but that was done on 5000+ Spits in total, so was a pretty common configuration."

"It shows a Spit with the mirror removed, but that wasn't exactly uncommon either."

"Show me one instance hwere I have claimed that was representative of Spits in squadron service."

"Oh, I forgot, I posted the picture to the OnWar forums, which are dead, so you can't prove it. How I managed to post the picture to a text only forum I still haven't been able to work out, let alone how I posted it before I'd even seen it, because I left OnWar before that was posted on the web."


Author:  hop2002  
Rank:  Lonely Postman  
Date:  07/15/03 09:06PM  

-- Those "true figures" refer to a single prototype in
-- a crash programme agaisnt V-1 raids; it never saw
-- service.

" It did, as you can see the ministry of supply are  quoting it as the speed of a Spitfire XIV. "

"No, sorry, 389mph at sea level was the speed of the Spitfire XIV, in standard operational conditions."

"Speed of Spitfire F XIV 389 mph at sea level. It's there in black and white."

"It's based on a Spitfire XIV cleaned up to normal standards."


Speaks for itself.


BTW, it`s very funny compare the two versions, and what he says about these test right here. You actually got 3 conflicting versions from the same man. :D


You could look up the career of "Ginger" Lacey, who commanded a squadron re-equipped with Spit XIVs in India during the war. If the story goes into enough detail, you will see that he was originally allocated Spit XIVs with bublle canopies, which he rejected, and were passed to another squadron in India.


The background of this story : Nashwan is contiously embrassed by the fact that the 109 K-4 not only was faster, climbed better etc. than his pet MkXIV, but also vastly outnumbered it in service. As usual, he cannot accept this reality.

I took some time and dug up the number of  K-4s in service and MkXIVs in service, and what I found was 314 K-4s at a time and about 50-60 Mk XIVs.

Quite clear to see, there were about 5-6 times as many K-4s than Spit XIVs in service (not surprising, as there were a lot more produced of those).

Hop`s reaction was that he started to make up Spitfire squadrons from nothing that supposed to have equipped with MkXIVs, operating in exotic areas like India (as he could not prove more squadrons operating in Europe, he choosed a distant location).

However, he could support it with nothing, and when I asked for such simple thing like the Squadron`s number, he couldn`t even provide that, and neither can now, because he knows that then it could be checked.



The "funny theory" about the Mrmansk convoys is that they were also used as bait to lure out the Tirpitz. The dispute with Isegrim started over PQ17, which I said was being used as bait.

That`s Naswhan`s version.

My version is he started arguing that the German navy was some kind of a coward and was too scared of those super-duper British ships. This was his reaction to a qoute from the latter of a British sailor whaich said he was "thankful to god he never caught up with the Tirpitz" on the King George V he was serving.

 In order to prove that, he started inventing a colourful tale that the Murmansk convoys were set up to lure the Tirpitz out from where it was "hiding from the Royal Navy". It was neccesary, otherwise the they would never come out etc. So, according to Nashwan, the Brits came up with that smart plan, using merchant ships as a decoy to lure Tirpitz out. A poor part in the story, that Tirpitz only transitioned to Norway after the convoys were already on route.



Isegrim maintains the covering force for PQ17, which included 1 British an 1 US battleship, a carrier, and many cruiser, ran away as soon as they heard Tirpitz was out.

Not much to comment on that, it`s an outright lie. I said the merchantman run away ASAP.


Butch was adamant that 1.8 ata wasn't authorised until Feb45, 1.98 ata until March 45.

Cut the long story short, he is lying.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2003, 07:56:55 PM by VO101_Isegrim »

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #173 on: November 06, 2003, 07:52:12 PM »
What was the 18lbs fuel consumption rate of the Merlin? At 25lbs there was an increase of 24% in fuel consumption.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #174 on: November 06, 2003, 07:53:51 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Nashwan
GScholz, that's for the 2nd TAF. RAF fighter squadrons based in Britain were in ADGB (air defence Great Britain), fighters based on the continent were 2nd TAF. US fighters were in 8th AF (based mostly (wholly?) in Britain, and 9th (?) AF based on the continent.

I don't think 9th AF ever converted to 150 octane, 2nd TAF did so in Jan 45, but as I said earlier, the home based units, ADGB and 8th AF converted in early summer 44.


So 150 octane was not commonly used by all until late 44 early 45?
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline VO101_Isegrim

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 577
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #175 on: November 06, 2003, 07:55:35 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Widewing
That's not GALLONS per hour, it's POUNDS per hour! LOLOL

My regards,

Widewing



LOLOL, it was stated it is imp. gallons/hour. Or 895 liters consumed / hour at +25 lbs.

"Maximum fuel flow obtained near FT height in FS gear was about 197 gallons / hour."

Offline VO101_Isegrim

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 577
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #176 on: November 06, 2003, 07:57:45 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by GScholz
What was the 18lbs fuel consumption rate of the Merlin? At 25lbs there was an increase of 24% in fuel consumption.


150 gallons. See Parag. 4.5 Fuel flows.

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #177 on: November 06, 2003, 08:06:16 PM »
See §4.5 of what?


Some nasty tales there Nashwan. Not good at all.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8802
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #178 on: November 06, 2003, 08:09:47 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by GScholz
"1,080 calculated from 5.87 lb/gal."

That's only 184 gallons. The 85 gallon fuselage tank is not accounted for.

Half that leaves the P-51D with just 92 gallons at 9071 lbs. That 8 gallons less than a 109, how was this P-51 going to get home?


By August of 1944, P-51s of the 9th tactical AF were operating from France. Eventually, by November, they were based in Belgium, just 20 minutes from the German border. They NEVER used the fuselage tank. Furthermore, when the 8th AF Mustangs flew from Britain, they used the fuselage tank for climbout, switching to the drop tanks only after the fuselage tank was empty. The Luftwaffe never fought against a Mustang with fuel in the fuselage tank, unless they intercepting the Mustangs over the channel, and that never happened.

The basic air superiority fuel load for the P-51D left the fuselage tank empty. A P-51D in autolean cruise configuration burns much less than 40 gallons of fuel an hour. With 540 pounds of fuel, it has more than 2 hours of range. Even at military power for 5 minutes, it has more than 1 hour of fuel. But, no one flies for more than 10 minutes at power settings above cruise.

Even the P-38L, with two engines at military power (3,000 rpm, 56 in/Hg) burns only 334 gallons/hour.

Those big Daimler engines powering the late 109s burned fuel at a ravenous rate. On the other hand, the P-51D had a combat radius of 750 miles, with 15 minutes at military power, and a one hour reserve.

My regards,

Widewing
« Last Edit: November 06, 2003, 08:17:57 PM by Widewing »
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline VO101_Isegrim

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 577
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #179 on: November 06, 2003, 08:15:22 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Widewing


Those big Daimler engines powering the late 109s burned fuel at a ravenous rate. On the other hand, the P-51D had a combat radius of 750 miles, with 15 minutes at military power, and a one hour reserve.
 


I am sorry, but those big Daimlers were the most fuel effiecient engines of the war.. plenty of displacement, high compression ratios, direct fuel injection and advanced automatic mixture control did the trick.

If you want actual numbers, it was rather throughly discussed in a thread on these boards.