« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 ... 30   Go Down

Author Topic: 109 it fly wrong  (Read 16002 times)

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #255 on: May 20, 2004, 07:54:55 PM »
Wow, that page reeks of bias. Wing breakage? I've never heard of 109's losing wings, and neither has Franz Stigler as he said in an interview. That page is pure fantasy!
Logged
"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 mw

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 160
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #256 on: May 20, 2004, 08:04:37 PM »
^ hehe, you wish ;)  I have the doc :)
Logged

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #257 on: May 20, 2004, 08:10:03 PM »
Then perhaps you would be so kind as to share them.
Logged
"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 Batz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3470
      • http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/4JG53/
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #258 on: May 20, 2004, 08:12:31 PM »
I thought he pulled his site down afetr the folks on agw/wbs ignored his "data"...
Logged

Offline mw

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 160
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #259 on: May 20, 2004, 08:15:39 PM »
Hi Gripen:  I accept your position here.  I find the Russian curves somewhat more realistic than the Kennblatt, but they leave a lot to be desired.  The engine limits and aircraft condition are often unknown.  I agree the Finn test looks pretty good on the face of it and figured that was likely the closest to the truth before I analyzed the German trials.  There are a few bad data points on the Finn data but they can be worked around.  My question though is did they correct as follows: "Das Ergebnis ist auf Normaltemperatur und richtige Einstellung des Ladedruckreglers umgerechnet."?   Radiator config?  (Take it offline?)  That German trials data is in such good agreement though, with realistic curves and coming from 2 different testing groups...  very plausible.  Were the Finn correction methods similar to the German?   I have good reason to believe the British and German used similar reduction methods.

p.s. Send me an email will ya?  I've been wanting to get in touch with you on occasion.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2004, 08:54:43 PM by mw »
Logged

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #260 on: May 21, 2004, 02:50:17 AM »
Hi Angus,

>The Spitfire Mk IX HF came FIRST, in 1942 actually.

My impression was that the first of all was the Merlin 61 Spitfire IX.

>It seems to show nicely also what one gets from historical accounts, - and mind you, you can spend thousands of lines here, but you cannot haggle down history.....

Well, but it may take quite a few lines here or elsewhere to determine which data is truly representative for which situation.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
Logged

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #261 on: May 21, 2004, 03:20:19 AM »
Hi Mw,

>That German trials data is in such good agreement though, with realistic curves and coming from 2 different testing groups...  very plausible.  

One thing about the German curves in your diagram that is not quite plausible are the climb rate graphs.

They are most probably for a lower power setting than 2600 rpm/1.3 ata, both in rpm and in boost.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
Logged

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #262 on: May 21, 2004, 05:00:03 AM »
I did see an account of 109's loosing wings, but that was the 109E, after levelling out from a very fast dive.
Now there was a reason why they removed the wing mounted cannons, I think it was actually a strength issue.
But later model 109's,- never heard they had a problem with that.

Oh, and HoHun, you're right. Spitfire IX with a Merlin 61, my mistake calling it a HF.
It is good at high altitude none the less.....
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #263 on: May 21, 2004, 05:06:49 AM »
Some charts to argue over :p

Logged

Offline mw

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 160
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #264 on: May 21, 2004, 07:19:21 AM »
Hohun:  All 3 german climb charts show the ladedruck curves below FTH at 1.3 with the report text confirming Steiglesitung n=2600 U/min, Pl = 1,3 ata.
Logged

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #265 on: May 21, 2004, 07:23:10 AM »
In the Spring of 1943 the RAF was also deploying the MK VIII Spitty, which is superior to the Mk IX in performance as well as having more range. I think that around the same time they started boosting up the other ones, all the way up to high heaven. Those 2 would look cute on the chart from Mike.
Does anyone have a quick info on the boostings. Didn't they go all the way up to 25 on the Mk IX? When?
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #266 on: May 21, 2004, 08:17:20 AM »
Angus, Herr Brown Shirt will show up and say there was ~6500t of 150 fuel produced in '44. (from a thread at Ubi)

It was in this thread (an interesting read:)) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=953109383 that a document was posted



Note, that the April amount is 1,533,000 Imp gal.

In July 1944, Tempests of 150 Wing were using 150 fuel and obtaining speeds of 415mph at 500ft.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2004, 08:53:12 AM by MiloMorai »
Logged

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #267 on: May 21, 2004, 09:16:50 AM »
Well, I guess so.
I did notice a tendency to try to compare the Spitties to newer version 109's, and try to glue the Spit IX LF high alt performance as a comparison to the 109's.
From this chart, it seems that the boosted up Spitties were almost a standard already in jan. 1944, - I just wonder when they first appeared. My guess is early 1943.
So it seems that from 1942 to 1944 in regard of high alt performance, and 1943 to 1944 in regard of low alt performance, the Spitties held their edge nicely.
Or, to put it differently, a 109 pilot mixing it with a Spitty would not know if he could run away from it, nor climb away from it, and certainly not turn with it, - getting into a tough spot the only alternative would be to dive, - which is pretty much what they did, - they would always be able to make some space that way......
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #268 on: May 21, 2004, 10:36:37 AM »
Must be nice rewriting history.
Logged
"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 it fly wrong
« Reply #269 on: May 21, 2004, 10:42:03 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by GScholz
mw, why is the 109G limited to only 385 mph (619 km/h) in that chart? I find it highly questionable considering the other charts posted in this thread.


Its quite simply why, because MW is just so cheap. He selected the best performing Spits, and compared them to the lowest performing 109Gs. The usual primitive BS from Mike, just look at his site, its a *****ing joke how he picks the data and presents it.

Among them the mentioned 109G-1 trial, which was about swapping the 601E and 605A engines in the same airframe. The results are selected because they are the lowest that can be found for any 109G.


Quite clear from the rated altitudes of the same plane and the speed attained vs. engine power outputs :

At critical altitude (VDH)

601 E : 622 km/h at 6000m
605 A : 627 km/h at 6100m

Now considering that the power outputs of 601E vs. 605A at 1.3ata:

601 E : 1200 PS at 0m, 1050 PS at 6000m. FTH : 4900m
605 A : 1310 PS at 0m, 1225 PS at 6000m. FTH : 5800m

Notice that the 601E powered 109G-1 gained 1100m due to the ram effect. By the time it was powered by the 605A, it only gained 300m .


Oh yeah, as per Miky, the difference 175 extra HP that the 605A has, with a propellor designed for higher altitudes, will give a whole 5 km/h (3mph) difference and an increase of 100m (300ft) altogether.

And who will buy this BS, Miky? A small circle of mindless Spit fanatics, that being you yourself and Nashwan-the-fantatic-Brit? :rofl


And as for in 1942-43? Who do you think you are fooling Mike, yourself maybe ? Want an 1942 comparison? Okey-dokey, compare the Mk IX F at +15 lbs, or even better, the pathetic MkV vs. the G-2s at 1.3ata, `cos the Brits mostly didn`t have anything better than those Mk V cannon fodders, as their combat record also show! :D

Want 1943 comparison? Fine, but why not include 1.42ata data results? Oh, NOW THAT would be unfair, isn`t it, LOL, only the prototype Spitties,...

As for the trials, I can send them to you Gscholz. Mike probably doesnt know, or maybe he knows (who cares) but he received those trials from me via Neil, along with information on 109 introduction dates. Unlike Neil Stirling, who does a fair job in comparing these fighters under equal conditions, Mike`s only agenda is to make the Spitty look like as it is in his nighltly wet dreams. :D

So just drop me a mail, Scholz, and the trials will follow. Information is the best way to fight this stupid BS. Carson already got what he deserves from Niklas, now it`s time to put Mr. Willy in his place as well.

Similiar joke comparisions can be made, let`s compare

Mk IXLF JL 165 at +18lbs
vs.
Tsagi`s  109 G-2, shall we:

SL speed :

109G-2 : 530 km/h
Mk IX LF : 515 km/h

at altitude :

109 G-2 : 665 km/h at 7000 m.
Mk IX LF : 624 km/h 5900 m.

Gee, aint that Spitfire Mk IX LF a good deal slower ? Let`s look at the really high altitude:

at 9100m :

109G-2 : 650 km/h
Mk IX LF : 611 km/h

Spit gets the low end of stick, as usual. :D

Here are the speed curves themselves :

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165speed.gif
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/fghterchart.jpg

Both are real life test, Miky. How `bout comparing these, these are real life test.

Well don`t hold your breath. :D


Now the difference between me, and Miky is that I won`t select JL 165 as a basis of comparison, because it`s not the best they have out there. I will compare like with the like, not worst from the other side, best of my side.

But of course, good planes don`t need cheat to shine. Only the suckers require that. :rofl


Mike`s comparsion is a joke, just like Mike himself. An revision of it is already under way, it will be posted everywhere. Eventually his own crap will turn against him and will make him even less credible if that`s still possible.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 ... 30   Go Up
« previous next »