109 it fly wrong

[MiloMorai]

I no longer wish to paticipate in the forum Barbi because the Mods do not have the cajones, one in particular who has a hate on for N. Americans and a luv for Eupies, to do to you what you say happened to me. Should we ask JW, Blutarski, Buzzsaw or Irrp about your conduct? Threads degenerated rather quickly after you posted, though those 4 mentioned did not degenerate to your low level. The only forum where one can get away calling someone a pedophile.


Well Barbi, if an engine has trouble cooling its oil, which the engine using the Fo870 did, it cannot maintain the power outputs you so dearly luv to state.

Not my math, but Prien and Rodeike who had ~1000 (G-14/AS) and ~5500(G-14) produced.

Just luv the way you pick and choose Barbi. The 6x series was not the HA series, the 7x series was.

Now what does the climb rate of American fighters matter. They were already at a high altitude.  They had a good zoom climb and kept the hordes of LW fighters, you claim the LW had, from the bombers.

When are you going to stop stating those 'dream world' atas? Now what is so great about 11.76 lb boost? That is less than half of what the Merlin was capable of.

So extra fuel cause a degeneration of Allied a/c. When these Allied a/c met the LW in combat the fuel had been burned off. Another attempt by Barbi at data disinformation/manipulation. The drop tank and rack caused handling problems for the 109.



gripen, for sure he does. Seen through rose colored glass with horse blinders giving tunnel vision, the Germans were uber.

[Crumpp]

Kweassa,

First of all you are right about the Schnieder Trophy planes being related to the Spitfire but only so far as the Bf-108 is related to the 109.  The Spitfire entered RAF service shortly after the first prototype flew in 1938.  The Bf-109 was already in service for 3 years with the LW and on the B varient.

The context of Gallands comment is in a Post-War debriefing to the USAAF on the Major Mistakes the Luftwaffe made in the conduct of the Air War.  In the previous paragraph he discusses the RLM's Research, Develpment, and Production.  The next paragraph is completely devoted to the mistake of keeping the 109 in service due to the fact the RLM had no replacement.   That effort should have been put into developing a replacement instead of constantly updating an aging design.

Crumpp

[HoHun]

Hi Butch,

>When i say that the supercharger was not up to the task it appears on boost higher than 1.8ata, as the critical alt is severely reduced when running on 1.98ata on the DB605DC.

Actually, this doesn't have to do anything with the quality of the supercharger or the engine, but is just an inevitable byproduct of increasing boost.

It's interesting in this context that the German term for US: critical altitude, GB:full throttle height is Volldruckhöhe, "full pressure height". This alludes to the ability to maintain the full nominal pressure.

(The P-47D when run at full emergency power would display the same reduction of critical altitude as the Me 109 despite having a totally different supercharger system. I never heard anyone calling it "not up to it", though :-)

If you look at it from an engine output perspective, the higher boost yields the same power you'd get from the engine at the lower boost above full throttle height for low boost, and more at all altitudes below that.

So the supercharger on the DB605 was perfectly fine. It was not specialized for high altitude, as the two-stage Merlin of the P-51D, but the Me 109G-10 still outperformed the Mustang up high, so I'd not use the words "not up to the task" here :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[butch2k]

HoHun i suggest you draw the curves for the DB/DC, you will see that the output drop is more pronounced than it should be which result in a no gain in output compared to 1.8ata from 1.5km to 3.0km.
The blower was definitely lacking some speed here else the increase in performance would have been much better. One would have expected a maximum output of 2075PS@2200m with a better blower while in real life 2050PS were achieved at 500m or so.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by butch2k
HoHun i suggest you draw the curves for the DB/DC, you will see that the output drop is more pronounced than it should be which result in a no gain in output compared to 1.8ata from 1.5km to 3.0km.
The blower was definitely lacking some speed here else the increase in performance would have been much better. One would have expected a maximum output of 2075PS@2200m with a better blower while in real life 2050PS were achieved at 500m or so.

I dont think it has to do with the 'quality' of the blower itself. Rather it seems DB and DC used different s/c speeds at the lower altitutudes, which is very evident if you look at not only the Sondernotleistung curves, but Kampfleistung as well at the same 1.45ata - for some reason, the DB puts out 60 PS more at SL up to an altitude where the two power outputs match at around 5000m IIRC. I wonder what the reason is...

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by gripen
Dear Isegrim,
I must wonder do you actually believe your own statements?

gripen [/B]

Yep I do, and with a good reason :

Is it only me who sees the single-stage 109G-4 w. gunpods happens to be a good 15 km/h faster at altitude than those super-duper two stage Merlin Spits of 1942/43...

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/fghterchart1.jpg

... or even better Allied Turbochargers of 1942..?

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/P47fghterchart.jpg

And we did not throw in /AS types, G-10, K-4 which had far better altitude performance than those old mid-level DB 605As.

For your statement which I disagreed with was "at high altitude the allies had clear advantage from spring 1942 onwards (when the two stage Merlins and American turbo engines reached service). " Well, it appears to be wrong. But hey forget it, Grippy, no chance of that be ever possible in your mindset.

[gripen]

Dear Isegrim,
That's exactly the problem; you believe anything which happens to support your agenda despte data might have obivious errors. Those Russian charts are a very good example; performance curves are wrong shaped for the DB605.

The reason for differences between (calculated) performance curves of the DB/DC is that DB used MW 50 which gives a small performance boost due to  induction cooling.

gripen

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by gripen
Dear Isegrim,
That's exactly the problem; you believe anything which happens to support your agenda despte data might have obivious errors. Those Russian charts are a very good example; performance curves are wrong shaped for the DB605.

 'Obvious errors'? Like - as opposed to as Gripen thought, Bf 109G has as good and even better performance at high altitude vs. tubocharged/two staged Allied designs in `42? Yep, cant be anything but an error.

So typical Grippy, you come up with some sweeping generalisations w/o taking time to inspect the subject in depth, then you were corrected, and your reaction is to deny/ignore anything(=everything) that does not agree with you. You have the worst case of tunnel vision I have ever seen.

Maybe you should comment on the facts I pointed out in regards of the speeds of /AS and D equipped 109s of 1944, ie. they could cruise faster than the Spit IX could attain at full WEP at 8km.

Does not seem to support your (so far unsupported) claim of 'clear Allied superiority' at HAs.

The reason for differences between (calculated) performance curves of the DB/DC is that DB used MW 50 which gives a small performance boost due to  induction cooling.

Nope. The effect of longer MW injection on the DB, and the resulting performance boost between 6-7.5km for the DB,  alone does not gives answer to the difference in performance curves also displays at Kampfleistung, 1,45ata, and at low-medium altitudes.

At 1,45ata, MW 50 was not injected into the supercharger on DB 605D. Well, I would bet you know this but..

[gripen]

Dear Isegrim,
Well, generally I believe just well documented real test data. Such data is easily available for the Spitfire IX and if one cares to dug a bit, such data  is also available for the Bf 109G (including AS). So far I have not seen a test data which supports your agenda. Actually the tested  AS plane failed to reach it's claimed critical altitude.

Regarding DB/DC, at least microfilms I have do not contain similar differences in  1,45 ata  as in 1,98ata.

gripen

[VO101_Isegrim]

Dear Isegrim,
Well, generally I believe just well documented real test data. Such data is easily available for the Spitfire IX and if one cares to dug a bit, such data is also available for the Bf 109G (including AS). So far I have not seen a test data which supports your agenda. Actually the tested AS plane failed to reach it's claimed critical altitude.

Very nice text. Only text though, a couple of generalisations, 'supported' by other generalisations.

We are left to believe the facts presented though, ie. maximum speed of, for example,

G-14/AS of 680 km/h at 7500m

is still higher speed developed at higher altitude, than the performance of

Spitfire IXLF (BS 310), ie. 650 km/h at 5950m.

It appears that there`s no sign of Allied superiority with two staged engines.

[gripen]

Dear Isegrim,
Well, at least my copy of the G-14/AS datasheet says "Rechnung" as well as G-6/AS datasheet (tested AS failed to reach these "Rechnungs").

gripen

[VO101_Isegrim]

My dear Gripen,

You have claimed many things in the past, never backed them up, just like in the current case. As in your original claim, your own imagination is mixed with some facts of reality, but your imagination provides the backbone.

Soviet testing? "All lies!"
Officially given Germans specs of G-10 and G-14/AS? "Lies as well!".
I am sure you will continue to make up things in the future as well. From your post history, the anti-109 bias is evident.

But until then, we are left with the facts:

G-14/AS : 680 km/h at 7500m
G-10 : 690 km/h at 7500m
K-4 : 715 km/h at 7500m

Spitfire IXLF (BS 310), ie. 650 km/h at 5950m, 642 km/h at 7500m..

The 'clearly superior', two-stage Merlin power MkIX LF is 40-60 km/h slower than single-stage high altitude Bf 109Gs.

PS : And I was being generous to Spit IXLF.
Tested Soviet IXLF failed to meet it`s techspecs, and the tested British IXLF could not go faster than 389 mph, or 626 km/h at 5900m...

I other words, test records show that the 'clearly superior' two staged Merlin 66 Spit XI LF was left behind even by the earlier Bf 109F-4.

And not even the infamous Gripnoodleh "I am all right, you are all totally wrong, in everything" mantra will help that.

[gripen]

Dear Isegrim,
The funny thing is that you call calculations facts. There is real tested data on the AS model around, you just have to dug it out but the the data might be something you don't want to believe.

As usual, you try to put words to my mouth. It's not my problem if the data you use is calculations and/or contains clear errors. Generally a bit of source critics and logical thinking might  make your living in these boards much easier.

gripen

[VO101_Isegrim]

Dear Gripen,

Yes of course we all understand now, the 109s with /AS engines couldn`t even hope to cross 400mph. Clear as sunlight.

In fact, unlike all other planes, 109s worked the exact opposite way as a man of common sense would believe: the more powerful, higher rated  altitude engines actually made them slower, and their altitude performance decreased. The use of an engine with 50% higer rated altitude, the use of broad blade propellors specially designed to perform the best in thin air all just decreased altitude performance, no doubt. In fact, there`s a secret, seen-by-no-one 1945 real life test on microfilm, recently found in Eskimo archieves, comparing the Emil and the K-4. The Emil outperforms the K at all altitudes, and is 234 km/h faster above 9000m. Also, there`s a huge 'Approved by Gripen Himself' stamp on it, so no doubt of it`s validity, as opposed to those idiots in Tsagi who dare to miscalculate things, and show the Bf 109G being doing well over 400mph even with a much weaker engine than the AS types.

Overwhelming evidence was shown that proves every single point of this story. It`s briefly summerized below:

...
...

Oh, silly of me, how could I forget all that ? Why is the scepticism? The Devil must be playing his tricks on my mind.

[gripen]

Dear Isegrim,
Well, let me put it this way: You can spend your time many ways; you can generate thousands of lines nonsense in various boards (as you currently do) or you can go out and actually dug out some real data.

Choice is your own.

gripen