Author Topic: 190A/F boosts (Read 3348 times)

Crumpp · « **Reply #75 on:** October 11, 2004, 11:33:38 PM »

Quote

Some quick back of the envelope calculations.

Thanks Greg. Got a great report you might be interested in. Already sent it into HTC.

Has some very interesting data in it. It's the drag polars. The FW-190A had less parasitic drag than the Spitfire Mk IX. It's Oswald efficiency factor was an average of .87. The Spitfires is .88 according to it's drag polars. Got the Spitfire Mk IX's drag polars as well.

Crumpp

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #76 on:** October 11, 2004, 11:42:52 PM »

Holy cow!

Your slow bellybutton Bf109K4 is without MW50.. The supposed test is done with GM1, something that was dead weight at low alt and a booster system the operational K-4 did not mount.

Not to mention all that crap is dated April 1944. At best those Bf109K4 if they existed at the time at all were rough development prototypes as were their engines...

Really man that was a dirty trick crummp, at best an early hack april 44 prototype, no MW50, god knows the sates of the engine at that time, and possibly an estimate.. Yet you arrogantly proclaim this deeply flawed data as gospel for actual service Bf109K4 performance..

And to think you got all indignant when I brought up those tests of slow prototype Doras with no MW50 as an example of why I felt your claim about the Bf109K was suspect.. Unbelivable!

No wonder you took the graphs down...

There goes your credibility buddy... Poof, gone...

And I guess you will prolly say you dont care, which is excatly the problem and it is what lead you to lie like that...

Thanks for the sources meyer! If you havent given me that source I would still be fooled Crumpp's deceptive posts.

Angus · « **Reply #77 on:** October 12, 2004, 06:05:27 AM »

Wow, did that catch fire.
Here is an error:
"Look at the Spit IX/XIV. The XIV gained 5 lbs sq ft over the Mk IX and little to no power. The XIV had the same turning circle as the IX according to the RAF. "

Little to no power? WOOOT? The gain was close to 400 hp.
The Performance gain also was considerable.

However the Performance in speed and climb are quite similar between the Spit XIV and the Spit VIII, the VIII falling short with 300 hp less, but a lot less weigh.

Hehe, look at that Spit VIII on the deck, as fast as the fastest 190.....Well, 3 kph slower is slow walking speed.
And rough 5 minutes to 20K I belive.

[TEASING MODE OFF]

Crumpp · « **Reply #78 on:** October 12, 2004, 06:20:28 AM »

Grun,

No dirty trick involved so quit acting like a child and throwing out accusation's of deception. I posted the best data I have.

Please find a Bf-109K production varient with the DB605L.

Here are the best graphs I could find for the 109K. They are some prototypes compared with in service models AFAIK.

Angus your absolutely correct for a post war Spit XIV at (+25 boost). However the wartime version's developed the same 2050 hp as the Merlin 66 (+25). Got a copy of the message limiting the boost AND the tactical trials were not done at (+25).

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14afdu.html

The original claim was that the Bf-109 was always faster than the FW-190 throughout the war and at all altitudes. Below 6 Km the FW-190 is faster. The two fighters complemented each other much like the Tempest and the Spitfire. At high altitudes the 109 was the better performer. Down low the FW-190 took the lead.

In fact the Bf-109K is the only variant to match the FW-190A's low-level speed. Of course it's contemporary, the Dora, is much faster on the deck especially when using MW50.

Crumpp

Angus · « **Reply #79 on:** October 12, 2004, 08:33:22 AM »

WOOOT? A Merlin with 2000 hp+!!!!!!!!
Always thought they topped at 1700 hp's or so.
Anyway, the Griffon torques more,- hard to explain though.

TimRas · « **Reply #80 on:** October 12, 2004, 11:06:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
You need to read the first sheet of the report.
Crumpp

The first sheet of the report is dated 16th August 1943. On the other hand, couple of sheets are from April 1944. It is also mentioned, that some simplifications (Rechnungsvereinfachung) in the climb calculations have been made. So the document really looks like performance estimation of Me109 (G5,G6,K4), Me209 and Me262.

Meyer · « **Reply #81 on:** October 12, 2004, 11:43:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp

The original claim was that the Bf-109 was always faster than the FW-190 throughout the war and at all altitudes.

Who said that? Actually, was you who said "109K - One of the Fastest 109 varients. Below 6Km it is slower than the FW-190A8." which is wrong, and "Facts are that at low altitude the FW-190 was faster.", wrong too.

And btw, if you don't know it, the DB 605 DC was more powerful at SL than the 605L (2000ps vs 1700ps).

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #82 on:** October 12, 2004, 11:56:51 AM »

Crump you are lying again.

Here are some facts for you.

There were NO in service Bf109K-4 in Aprill 1944 which is that date of that data. None! The plane was not even in production then.

So all those are at best rough prototypes with unfinished engines.

None of those charts show a Bf190K4 with MW50 - which is whta an in srvice Bf109K had.

NONE OF THOSE CHARTS ARE EVEN REMOTELY REPRESENTATIVE OF AN IN SERVICE BF109K4..

So I'm telling you that data is worthless and unrepresentative of an in service Bf109K4 because its dated from 1943 when no Bf109K4 existed and the plane and itse engine were still in development.

And you are basically lying if you are so adamant insaying that this data is representative of an in srvice Bf109K.

And you know it... You wouldnt accept Dora figures from rough prototypes as gospel for its speed why do you expect anyone to accept these 109K fiogures from at best rough early prototypes..

Crumpp · « **Reply #83 on:** October 12, 2004, 12:01:18 PM »

Quote

It is also mentioned, that some simplifications (Rechnungsvereinfachung) in the climb calculations have been made. So the document really looks like performance estimation of Me109 (G5,G6,K4), Me209 and Me262.

The first sheet details the cooling fin settings for the climb and explains the general set up of the A/C used in the test flights. I understand it to say that to simplify the climb test all A/C climbed with cooling (klappen) closed. This avoids the variations experienced by the drag and provides the most optimistic climb data. It is also a deviation from standard Rechlin test procedures to climb with cooling fins half open. This would be very important when Rechlin flew the A/C for acceptance trials.

Quote

WOOOT? A Merlin with 2000 hp+!!!!!!!!

Absolutely. The Merlin 66 @ (+25) at FTH developed 2050hp and equaled the Griffon 65.

Griffon @ (+18)

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/griffonhp_b.jpg

Merlin 66 @ (+25)

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/merlin66hpchart.jpg

Both developed very similar power equal or exceeding one another by a small margin depending on altitude.

Crumpp

Crumpp · « **Reply #84 on:** October 12, 2004, 12:15:49 PM »

Quote

Who said that?

Angus

Quote

There were NO in service Bf109K-4 in Aprill 1944 which is that date of that data. None! The plane was not even in production then.

No they just went from the drawing board to production in one day. Maybe you should be more familiar with some of the technical aspects of you favorite plane.

The first Bf-109K4's were signed over to the Luftwaffe in October of 1944 according to Rodeike.

Quote

And you are basically lying if you are so adamant insaying that this data is representative of an in srvice Bf109K.

1. I am not lying NOR have I claimed ANYTHING. I simply posted the data I have. I have some stuff at home I will post tonight which will lay this matter to rest.

2. If you have different, better, or more representative data PLEASE put up or shut up. POST IT!

3. I took the other charts down because the web space is limited and can only use a limited amount for posting pictures. Thanks for attempting to imply some sort of deceit, jerk.

Are you incapable of having a discussion about your favorite plane without accusations of dishonesty and being a jerk about it, Grunhertz? I seriously question your maturity and judgment when you post such crap.

First, read the post

Second, If you can't figure out number one then ASK a question.

Third, use facts to dispute NOT accusations and innuendo. You will go a lot farther and probably enjoy it.

FYI I am a big fan of the 109 and fly it often.

Crumpp

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #85 on:** October 12, 2004, 12:22:41 PM »

You are trying to pass of data of a rough prototype Bf109K with no MW50 as being representative of an in service Bf109K.

Thats simply wrong, and you know it. Especially considering how you whined when I brpought uip the piss poor performance of those dora prototypes to demonstrate the problem of posting developent data as gospel for in service planes... And dont even try this stuff about the gap between april and october, we all know how slow the inital PRODUCTION Doras were, they were just as slow as these prototype K4 - both without MW50... Yet you have us accept as gospel the prototype in develpement data for K4 perfpormace... A rpugh unfionished prototype is nothing like a refined in service machine, yoiu of all people should know that!

If you are unwilling to accept that for this 109 data then thats a big hit to your credibility...

And I was being perfectly reasonable and nicev in our disagreement until Meyer pointed me to the source data and I saw what a sham you were trying to pull with that unrepresentative prototype developet data...

But if you want a positive solution to this then I will accept a simple.

"Grun this is the best darta I have but I realize its worthless and unrepresentative data of an unfinshed rough in developent Bf109K4 with an unfinshed rough engine with no MW50 and is wholly unrepresntative oif the performance of a real in service Bf109K4"

That would be far more honest than saying what you have been so far...

moot · « **Reply #86 on:** October 12, 2004, 12:37:11 PM »

cat fight hyperbole

Crumpp · « **Reply #87 on:** October 12, 2004, 02:15:39 PM »

Quote

cat fight hyperbole

You said it.

Crumpp

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #88 on:** October 12, 2004, 03:12:35 PM »

Yaaay Crummp!

From now on i will do just like you, try to pass of development prototype data as gospel for real in service planes with MW50!!

Hey Crump did you know propduction FW190D9 only does 520km/h at sea level!!

Dang, thst real slow but its true because its a chart from an early tst plane with now MW50 and an unifinsed engine.. So its fully representative of real in service fully developed planes!!!!

Angus · « **Reply #89 on:** October 12, 2004, 06:50:46 PM »

Oh, come on.
So: post under here in numbers the type, date and model of your fav 109/109 and it's SL speed :
Makes it easier