Author Topic: Bf109 vs Fw190 speed at low level (Read 4453 times)

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #45 on:** October 12, 2004, 07:14:27 PM »

OK Crummp, I see you still wanna throw out insults...

I questyioned your intent and motives because of the way you misrepresented the data, not the fcat that you put up some charts..

Crummp if you just came here and said, look here some data I have of a prototype 109k4 with no MW50 and left it at that then everyting would have been fine Crummp.

But no. You had to make this obviously flawed data the basis of your whole theory for having 2000hp MW50 Bf109K4 make only 340mph on the deck..

And you stuck to that story for some time even after those charts were shown to be flawed...

Thats what I was aginst... You can spin it any way you want Crump but it was inceredibly irresponsible use of clearly flawed data...

None of this would have been an issue if had discolsed that the data you were basinng yiur arguments on was from a test of early undeveloped prototypes lacking MW50.

Crumpp · « **Reply #46 on:** October 12, 2004, 07:34:32 PM »

Quote

But noo. You had to make this obviously flawed data the basis of your whole case for havbng 2000hp MW50 make only 340mph on the deck..

Quote

And you stuck to that story for some time even after those charts were shown to be flawed...

No Grunhertz,

1. I asked you to present some data several times. Hoping you would present something contrary and add to the discussion.

2. I disputed the contention the test was not a flight test.

3. I tapped into other sources to see if more data was available on the Bf-109K4 performance and presented it when I received some.

4. My case was exactly what Angus summarized.

It's not okay to assassinate someone's character and then brush it off with an excuse. That's just weak.

Crumpp

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #47 on:** October 12, 2004, 07:42:13 PM »

An excuse?

What excuse?

Are you saying I should be quiet when I find out that you be have been using early prototyupe tests data without MW50, and doing so without disclosing that little detail of the test, to argue that a 2000hp MW50 Bf109K4 only made the low speeds in that test?

Go back to that other thread and see where I began to challenge your character. We argued just fine and rspectfully before I found out that yoiu used this prototype no MW50 data without telling us...

That was the whole propblem, did you not think it was a relevant fact to share with us? Heck I dont write avaiation books professionall as yiou do but even I know its important to note when data comes from an early prototype thats still in develipment..

Angus · « **Reply #48 on:** October 12, 2004, 08:11:02 PM »

Arghhhh...this is how little wars start.

And....Meyer brought a useful link now didn't he?

I didn't bring anything but conclusions, but I guess we agree those are mostly correct.

So we have some boiled up misunderstanding or mistakes flying around...ok

Well, that's life on HTC's BB in a nutshell.....

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #49 on:** October 12, 2004, 08:17:27 PM »

Angus do you think it was responsible of Crumpp to use this early prototype data that did not even have MW50 in making a direct conclusiuon about an in service K4 with MW50 and 2000hp without acknowleding that the data was from such an early prototype?

You've been a neutral observber and commentator here so far, what do yiou think?

Crumpp · « **Reply #50 on:** October 12, 2004, 08:29:07 PM »

Quote

And....Meyer brought a useful link now didn't he?

Yes he did. Sorry I missed him.

Your conclusions were correct and as always Angus I enjoy the discussions!

~~Crumpp~~

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #51 on:** October 12, 2004, 08:34:23 PM »

Yes meyer did bring in a very useful link...

Now only if you were honest about the satus of that test none of this would have happened Crumpp...

Why couldnt you just come out and say it was early test with no MW50?

I just dont get that Crumpp.. Why?

Crumpp · « **Reply #52 on:** October 12, 2004, 08:42:00 PM »

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.

1. I asked you to present some data several times. Hoping you would present something contrary and add to the discussion.

2. I disputed the contention the test was not a flight test.

3. I tapped into other sources to see if more data was available on the Bf-109K4 performance and presented it when I received some.

4. My case was exactly what Angus summarized.

It's not okay to assassinate someone's character and then brush it off with an excuse. That's just weak.

Crumpp

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #53 on:** October 12, 2004, 08:57:06 PM »

Yes Crump i consered many of those things.

However I was taken aback at your insistance that those flawed charts were definitive and your refusal to accept the posibity that I knew something about Bf109K performance and knew enough to clearly see that the stats you posted were suspect.

Now I dont have a collection of charts from museums like you do, but that shouldnt mean that yiou can disrespectufly dismiss any input of mine. Other people know stuff too even if they dont spend all their free time at museums...

Because you know what, it turms out I was right and that the K4 was much faster in service than you actively argued and that those charts were indeed inaccurate and unrepresentaive of real service 109K4.

So these are two things I really got upset about and the things that made me question your motives and attitudes. First what I saw as your, arrogance in dismissing my concerns over those charts. And second you not disclosing that the tests you posted were from early prototypes with no MW50...

Crumpp · « **Reply #54 on:** October 12, 2004, 09:34:18 PM »

Quote

Yes Crump i consered many of those things. However I was taken aback at your insistance that those flawed charts were definitive and your refusal to accept the posibity that I knew something about Bf109K performance and knew enough to clearly see that the stats you posted were suspect.

Now I dont have a collection of charts from museums like you do, but that shouldnt mean that yiou can disrespectufly dismiss any input of mine. Other people know stuff too even if they dont spend all their free time at museums...

Because you know what, it turms out I was right and that the K4 was much faster in service than you actively argued and that those charts were indeed inaccurate and unrepresentaive of real service 109K4.

So these are two things I really got upset about and the things that made me question your motives and attitudes. First what I saw as your, arrogance in dismissing my concerns over those charts. And second you not disclosing that the tests you posted were from early prototypes with no MW50...

1. The only insistence on anything and for that matter "arrogance" is in your own mind.

2. You're just making excuses and attempting to justify your wrong behavior.

3. Not only did I not "dismiss" your concerns I took actions to address them by tracking down additional documents. What did I get for my efforts from you to find and share this information??

4. Mistakes happen. I did not catch the graph was for "climb and combat power" and not "Take off and Emergency" rating. On the other hand NIETHER did you until a third party pointed it out.

You keep trying to make this into something it is not in an attempt to justify your own actions.

It still does not change the fact:

Quote

Angus says:
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.

Is correct for the Bf-109K4.

Quote

Angus says:
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.

Is correct for all the other 109 varients.

That is pretty much all that needs to be said on this matter.

Crumpp

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #55 on:** October 12, 2004, 09:41:21 PM »

aside from immediately knowing that figuers were suuspect, what else could I see in them, you took the graph down very quickly. Plus I'm curious how could you not see that there was no MW50 in those charts.. You referenced the gaph as evidence when I asked if you thought an MW50 powered 109k could be as slow as you stated.

And as for my actions I already said I overreacted so I am accepting responsibity for my mistakes..

Are you willing to do the same for yours?

Crumpp · « **Reply #56 on:** October 12, 2004, 10:02:22 PM »

Quote

And as for my actions I already said I overreacted so I am accepting responsibity for my mistakes..

Well that is the first step. You've recognized the problem. The dots indicate you know what the rest of the steps are in the process but are obviously not man enough to take them.

Quote

How could I see it, yoiu took the graph down very quickly. Plus how could you not see that there was no GM1..

The graph stayed up for a full 24 hours. I only took it down because of web space limitations.

Quote

Are you willing to do the same for yours?

For what? Becoming upset when called a liar? NO

Apologize because you act insecure and think I am being arrogant? NO

I will apologize for not being more Internet savvy. It would have been better to have more clearly communicated the fact I was looking for other documentation. That in no way makes me arrogant, or a liar. Nor was there any obligation to inform anyone of my activities.

Lastly, for making the mistake of not catching the "climb and combat power"? Sure I will apologize for it. I made it. You should too since you did not catch it either. It was a third party who caught it not you or me. I think you would rather succumb to "Conspiracy Theory" though.

Crumpp

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #57 on:** October 12, 2004, 10:11:55 PM »

The bigger issue for me is that you did not acknowlege that was an early prototype test without MW50 but then used the test data in an effort to argue MW50 109K4 speed. I felt that was disengenous and I really havent seen you adress that point so far.

And as for your arrtogance I still see a bunch of smug insults in yoiur last post....

BTW What do 4 dots mean?

You know crummp screw this, here I am trying patch stuff up in this mutal mess and you are still throwing insults...

Change your attitude and we will continue...

Crumpp · « **Reply #58 on:** October 12, 2004, 10:25:36 PM »

Quote

You know crummp screw this, here I am trying patch stuff up in this mutal mess and you are still throwing insults...

No your not. Your trying to justify your actions.

Patching it up is:

I lost it. I was wrong. Sorry I called you a liar.

It's NOT:

I realize I was wrong BUT let me justify it with

I was upset Blah blah blah...

and it's your fault because blah blah blah blah..

Crumpp

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #59 on:** October 12, 2004, 10:40:20 PM »

It's both our fault but you are not ready to accept the responsibity you share for the way you handled that data by not discolosing the condions of the test..

I allready owned up to my mistakes here...

You havent..

Like I said Crummp, no more of this crap till you change your attitude. I have owned up to my mistakes but you refuse to do the same with yiur mistakes and just throw insults...