Nashwan, how come that you suddenly forget your own mother language in such times? Have you forgotten how to read?
JL 165`s report notes :
"New tropical pattern air intake without gauze, but blanking plate installed.
No ice guard fitted in air intake. "
My mistake, I haven't read the full test for some time.
By the time A&AEE tested it, JL 165 was 12 mph slower at sea level, and had lost hundreds of ft/min in climb rate
-------------------------------
Typical Naswhan crap vs. facts type engagement.
Facts :
In october, with R-R`s tests, on +25lbs 362mph was measured on JL 165 at 2000ft.
A few months later, with A&AEEreached 360 mph at 2000ft with JL 165 on +25lbs.
I was talking about
18 lbs performance
at sea level, but nice switch there.
So we are supposed to believe JF 934 with low altitude Merlin 66 could outlcimb the 300 lbs lighter Mk IX with high altitude Merlin 70?
At low altitude, yes, at high altitude no.
JF 934 climbed at 2200ft/min at 30,000ft. BS 551 did 2600 ft/min at 30,000ft, Bs 310 2240 ft/min, EN 524 2275 ft/min.
At 25,000ft, JF 934 did 2880 ft/min, BS 551 did 3440 ft/min, EN 524 did 3050 ft/min, BS 310 did just over 3000 ft/min.
In other words, all 3 HF IXs outclimbed JF 934 at high alt.
What you are trying to do, Isegrim, is discredit the test of the serial production JF 934 by comparing it with the worst tests you can find. Therefore, if JF 934 did better than the worst Spit HF IX at high level, the test of JF 934 must be wrong.
It doesn't follow, of course, because an average Spit LF could certainly outcllimb a poor HF, even at high altitude.
Bark as desperately you want Nash1. Bull**** 543 and Bull**** 551 were experimental planes, rigged in a fashion no serial Spits were.
Here we go with the circular logic. Rather than look at the fact that the test of JF 934 fits nicely with BS 543 and 551, BS 543 and 551 are rejected. JF 934 is then compared with a different Spitfire, which it outperforms, so JF 934 is also rejected.
In fact, whilst most people would look at a series of tests and assume the one in the middle is closest to average, Isegrim rejects every test better than the worst, on the logic that it must be wrong because it's better than the worst.
Unless it's for the 109, or any other German aircraft, in which case any tests worst than the best is rejected, purely because it's worse than the best.
Isegrim, you have for some years claimed JL 165 was the most representitive Merlin 66 Spit you could find. You have now claimed that it's not representitive at all, and the estimates are based on faulty calculation.
What are you going to put on your little graph now?
Luckily now new and accurate data, actually tested is available for the JL 165 at +18. It matches well other testing at +18lbs, and can be viewed as representative for serially produced Spits.
This is going to be good.
JL 165, as tested by RR, using estimated climb figures, with a guesstimate knocked off to provide a reduction due to the radiators being partly closed, rather than actual tested data.
Hmm, I would, provided the new and better JL 165 data was for Open radiators, which unfurtanately isn`t, and closed rads are hardly conform testing with the RAF, or any other airforce.
What was the German testing procedure? I thought, and you have claimed, standard German climb tests were carried out with half open radiators.
Spit IX radiators had an exit area of 1.47 sq/ft port, 1.67 sq ft starboard, when fully open, 0.83 port and 0.83 starboard when "closed".
That makes "closed" radiators on the Spit slightly more than half open, and very comparable to 109 tests.
So under the new figures you want to use from RR, Spit IX climb rate, in a comparable condition to the 109, was 4960 ft/min at sea level, 4970 at 5,000ft, dropping to 4280 ft/min by 10,000ft, 4280 ft/min at 15,000ft.
I look forward to seeing it on the 109 climb chart
Hmm, I would, provided the new and better JL 165 data was for Open radiators, which unfurtanately isn`t, and closed rads are hardly conform testing with the RAF, or any other airforce.
Half open do though, don't they? They conform to the Luftwaffe standard, don't they? At least that's what you've always claimed in the past.
BTW, is that climb graph so irritating?
Not at all. I just don't like seeing someone going around claiming to be an authority and posting what he knows are at best flawed comparisons, and closer to outright deceptions.
Your graph is about as irritating as Luft 46, sadly it's neither as informative or as believable.
