Originally posted by Angus
Or being clumsy?
Maybe. But i'm guessing that Crummp is extremly familiar with reading charts so i dont accaept that simple mistake. Especially considerng how ademant and arrognat he was concerninmg that chart.
Furthermore he should know that there were no in service Bf109K4 in aprill 44 or late 43 whenb these supposed "tests" were conducted... So at best those were early rough development prototypes with early rough undeveloped engines... Especially so considering the way he jumped all over me when I refernced some early dora protopype data which showed it to be extremly slow. He immediately denounced it as worthless because it was an undeveloped prototype, but curiously he would not allow the thought that the 109K data from late 1943 might be an early undeveoped prototype with unrepresentave performance...
Also its clear none of those curves show an MW50 Bf109K4. So that being an in developent engine, with no MW 50 lord knows how little power it produced.
Also the charts shoedca K4 with GM1, something the rea; inservice K4 did not mount. GM1 is a high alt sysyem thats pretty useless down low.. The eal 109K4 mounted MW50 for low to medium alt boost.
So that data, that crap prototype data is nowhere near representave of a real fully developed MW50 109K4..
Finally I asked him the other day if he tjought that a 2000HP Bf109K4 should be that slow and he showed thae charts to me as evidence of in service 109k performance.
And of course he was adamrnt about it...
There are just too many decietful things to make me think it was a simple unbiased mistake... Especially coming from a guy who fancies himself ecxpert enough on the subject of LW planes to consider writing a book on it...
Of course I would forgive the incident if Crummp admits the data is worthless and highly unrepresentave of a fully developed in service Bf109K4...