Bf109 vs Fw190 speed at low level

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Crumpp


The FW-190A8 was faster than the Bf-109K4 within it's time frame for development.  
Crumpp

No it wasnt, you just showed us with yiour chart that a worst case Bf109k4 figter variant of only 1800HP was as fast as your best case ligthened Fw190A8...

But I'm basically happy now, even you admit and post data that a 1800hp Bf109k4 standard fighter does in the range of 360-365 mph at sea level.  Which is much better than the ridicous figues of 320mph or whatever yiu were suggesting yesterday.

So with that in mind I am willing to consider the matter more or less closed if you are as well..

OK?

[Crumpp]

only way a K4 woyld do 580km/h

Dust your glasses off and look at the bottom.

Bewaffnung (weapons)

As per G-6/U4.......

Crumpp

[GRUNHERZ]

Now as far as the Fw190D9 goes at sea level I have seen figures for it as high as 642km/h or 399mph under some special modeification and boost package. I want this plane in AH badly as a perk counterpart to the  Tempest.

This is of course much better than even a 2000hp Bf109K4 at 378mph.  Curiously though your brst figure for Dora so far was 612km/h which is only 381mph.

Have you not heard of this 399mph version?

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Dust your glasses off and look at the bottom.

Bewaffnung (weapons)

As per G-6/U4.......

Crumpp

Do you even know what a G6/U4 is? Its a standard Bf109G6 with a 30mm MK108 engine cannon and 2 MG131, gee just like the Bewaffnung of a Bf109K4...

What on earth were you trying to prove by that?

[Meyer]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Yes for this flight test which shows 575kph for the FW-190A8 with full wing cannon and the 115 liter aux tank.  Remember the other tested flight data I have on the FW-190A8 says 585kph at sea level.  Unfortunately the 109K does not begin to touch the FW-190D9 which was it's contemporary.
 

Guess you missed, Gregs other calculations in the other thread.  Selective with our facts huh?

Crumpp

Crumpp, you better read again that calculations: an A8 without the outer MG151s, with MG17 replacing MG131, it's not an A8. (and with only 60% of fuel btw)

[GRUNHERZ]

Crumpp please end this now, even you are posting information that shows an 1800hp worst case Bf109K4 doing in the range of 360-365mph on the deck..

Are you now trying to discredit your own documents?

Or is this just pure anger and arrogance taking over your sense now?

You were wrong yestartday in claiming that Bf109K did only 320 or 340mph on the deck. Just get over it and move on, no big deal.

Please let it go man..

Have you found any new stuff on Fw190A8 that you wanna share?

[Crumpp]

Do you even know what a G6/U4 is?

Yes, I was thinking G-6/R4 in AS Rustsatz.  109's can be extremely confusing.

Have you found any new stuff on Fw190A8 that you wanna share?

Not any original docs that I will post.  Saving them for my book.  I am sharing information with Pyro under a gentleman's agreement.

Here a summary of some of the flight tested data available a friend of mine made up.

Grunhertz says:
BTW why are you changing your tune now? That chart shows a Bf109K Jager, a fighter.

There was never any "tune" Grunhertz.

Grunhertz says:
Yea get your crap and lies off this board!

Grunhertz says:
Especially considerng how ademant and arrognat he was concerninmg that chart.

Ever consider the fact that I post things as I find them.  I am not researching the Bf-109 but occasionally tuck away interesting documents I come across on other aircraft.  Especially allied fighters which opposed the FW-190.  When Angus made the assumption the 109 was always faster than the 190, he was wrong.  That is proven.

Ever consider the fact that some of us enjoy discussing these fighters and sharing what we have learned about them?

I posted the data I had available and tapped into some other resources to find out what else is out there.  No tune or agenda except to find out the truth.

So really appreciate the character assassination attempt when you could find any actual data to back up you claims.  Hope you learned something about your favorite plane.  I certainly learned something about you.  You should get up with Milo.  



You should contact Bill Gates.  Your ability to judge character and emotional states across a BBS is uncanny.  You could make millions and revolutionize Internet communications.



So the Bf-109K4 is the first 109 to equal or surpass it's FW-190A contemporary and was surpassed handily by the FW-190D9.  No other model of the Bf-109F or G equaled or outperformed the BMW-801D2 equipped 190 below approximately 6 Km.

This is probably one of the reason's most Luftwaffe and Allied pilots considered it the better fighter.  The other was it's maneuverability.

Crumpp, you better read again that calculations: an A8 without the outer MG151s, with MG17 replacing MG131, it's not an A8. (and with only 60% of fuel btw)

Did not catch that, Thanks for pointing it out.  I think you have the Cdo of the FW-190 set a little too high.  The report I offered you has the actual polar plots.  The FW-190A was surprising aerodynamic, especially considering it was a radial.  

Crumpp

[GRUNHERZ]

So I should just accept it when you try to pass off info from a an early prototype as represebtative of the real 2000hp model?

Because Crumpp that what you did yesterday.

I asked you if you thought that a 2000hp 109k would only do 340mph and you said yes and pointed me to the chart.

I asked you if yoiu thoyght an MW50 109K would be that slow, yoiu again pointed rto that chart as evidence - but yoiu knew the chart had no MW for the 109.  And of course I couldnt see the chart.

When I suggested I thought something was off about that chart with that low speed considering the 2000hp and that airframe you simply brushed my concerns aside.

When I suggested something might be wrong and suggested an analoghy with the early Dora tets which showed the same low speed, yiu dissmissed it out hand arrogantly..

And then I found out that whole chart was some early 1944 or even 1943 test then I did get pissed off at you for not disclosing that I got even more pissed when you arrogantly stuck to that even knowing it was some early prototype data..

So thats when I began to question your ethics and you motives, and rightfully so...  I learned a lot about you too, if you wanna play that game... If you learned anything about me is that I will not tolerate being lied to and being decieved by irrelevant data, nobody should Crummp... And when I perceve that somebody is deceving me like that, and especially when they contune to be adement abiut it even when the fcats come out, I will call you on it and question your intent. Wouldnt everyone?

But either way I'm happy, I learned nothing new about the 109K that I did not know before. Basically that its SL speed was in the 365-380 pmh range depending on engine output between 1800 and 2000hp.  I am happy now that you no longer think that a 2000hp Bf109K4 does only 320mph or whatever you thought yesterday...

BTW when is your book coming out?

[Pongo]

GH.
is this a hate thing? Want to call the UN in?

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Pongo
GH.
is this a hate thing? Want to call the UN in?

No but I am angry that he tried to pass of 1943 unfinished prototype plane and engine tests without MW50 as being representative of a full out developed in service Bf109K4 of 2000hp..

Plese feel free to look at the other thread where this started 0 the 190 A/F boost threads. I never got angry or got a attitide until I found out that the data Crump was using to make his statements about a 2000hp Bf109K4 being so slow was based on on some test from 1943 using unfinished and underdeveloped prototpes without MW50...

Sure we disagreed on our points but it was nice enough.

But when I found the real data he was working off then yes I got very mad because i felt he was deleberttaly deceiving me in using that irrelevant chart to support his arguments about a slow in service 2000hp Bf109K...

None of this is personal, none of this is about charcater assaintion, none of is hateful it simply has to do with the fcat that I am very upset and dissapointed with the way Crummp presented that data yesterday.

[Angus]

Holy cow, what temperature is there in here?
I thought only 109-Spit threads would boil up like this


Ok, I'll throw my pennies in the pot.
With apologies if I'm wrong,  in advance.

I belive that GH is right, the very late series of the 109 were definately faster than the 190 A series at low alt, or if you choose, at most alts.
But it's oranges and apples anyway, by the time you had the 109K, you also had the Dora, and as those two were operating toghether, the Ta 152 appeared, swooping around with incredible high alt performance.

The point remains however, that by the appearance of the 190A series untill the 109 went boosted up heavily, the 190 held the speed at low alt. It also held the roll, and the zoom, and the firepower, so no wonder the allied power dreaded the thing.

Right remains right however, and on these boards, one has seen many bluff attempts just as well as many mistakes, overseing or plainly lack of data to support a statement.

Now you two guys, PLEASE snuff your steam away a bit.
Or is steam necessary to provide a good stream of data?
I sometimes wonder.

Regards to you all

Angus

[GRUNHERZ]

Lets move on..  You were very wrong yesterday in yoiur handling of the data and I got too mad in response...

Moving forward...

On that last Bf109 chart  Crummp posted the data for the Bf109G14 AM, this a model with the big ugly G6 MG bumps and not a faired in cowl,  shows a top speed on the deck of 353mph (568km/h)and a top speed of  413mph (665 km/h) at  16,400 feet (5km).   Thats sounds like a useful performance boost over our current Bf109G6 and considering that a Bf109G14 is basically a G6 with MW50 it could be a great intermediate Bf109 we could use in scenarios.

[Guppy35]

Give me a low level Spit XII and we'll call it even

Dan/Slack

[Angus]

And the Mk VIII

[Crumpp]

Or is steam necessary to provide a good stream of data?

If someone else provided data besides myself (documents) and Greg (calculations) please let me know!!

Always looking for good data to add to the collection....

Angus, lol, dropped in with the occasional comment and to collect documents...  Sort of reaping the harvest, huh?  

Speaking of that.  I will check out the scene, Angus, but I found a discussion board you might be interested in.  I will email you.

Good insight though, bro!

The rest stood off to the side and cried big tears.

This whole thing came about and finished with data I provided and Greg backed up with calculations.  Not being arrogant, it is just the truth.

   

But it's oranges and apples anyway, by the time you had the 109K, you also had the Dora, and as those two were operating toghether, the Ta 152 appeared, swooping around with incredible high alt performance.

Absolutely correct.

The point remains however, that by the appearance of the 190A series untill the 109 went boosted up heavily, the 190 held the speed at low alt. It also held the roll, and the zoom, and the firepower, so no wonder the allied power dreaded the thing.

Yep

Right remains right however, and on these boards, one has seen many bluff attempts just as well as many mistakes, overseeing or plainly lack of data to support a statement.

I think the vast majority are simply mistakes.  Or guys just hoping to have their favorite ride become the invincible plane they always dreamed it was as a kid...who knows.  I do think that actual attempts to deceive are very rare.  Attacking a person's character simply because you do not like the data is, frankly, weak and pathetic.  

Give me a low level Spit XII and we'll call it even

Honestly Dan,  The Luftwaffe is lucky the RAF did not concentrate on that Spit your buddy flew.  That thing is a stellar performer.  Much better than the Mk IX, IMO.

Crumpp