« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 ... 49   Go Down

Author Topic: Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design  (Read 31958 times)

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #480 on: January 07, 2005, 10:23:08 AM »
Quote
A bit different story than told in the Izzy graph......


I think Mike's site is extremely good for information on the Spitfire.  He seems to be making an honest attempt to present data on the aircraft.

However, any countries test of a foreign high performance aircraft from another country is highly suspect. Axis or Allied test.

Simply put they do not know how to maintain the aircraft to achieve peak performance.  Nor do they have the training to fly it to the edge of the envelope.

That is my two cents from detailed studies of the FW-190 trials both Axis and Allied.  The "biased" Izzy screams about is built into the test and not a conspiracy by Mike or the RAF to present misleading data.

The results are what they got during the war.  I don't think though they are representative, however.

As for the "flight graphs" I leave that judgment to Naudet who has a wealth of experience analyzing these graphs.

Crumpp
« Last Edit: January 07, 2005, 05:24:40 PM by Crumpp »
Logged

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #481 on: January 07, 2005, 03:41:44 PM »
Hehe, Spot on Crumpp.
That's why I'm making my own, and I will call on you all to provide data, and mail the xls to you as well ;)
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline rshubert

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1462
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #482 on: January 07, 2005, 04:32:35 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
Hehe, Spot on Crumpp.
That's why I'm making my own, and I will call on you all to provide data, and mail the xls to you as well ;)


Hey, you still owe me that data on british fighter squadron deployment and equipment.  Well, "owe" is a strong word.  I guess I will just beg some more...



shubie
Logged

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #483 on: January 07, 2005, 05:14:49 PM »
NP Shubie.
Guess some graph will emerge before though.
Is your email the one I get if I click on your name or do you prefer another one?
If so, then post.
Got some nice pics to go as well if you like ;)
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #484 on: January 07, 2005, 05:23:04 PM »
Be glad to help, Angus!  And get that data .
;)

Crumpp
Logged

Offline rshubert

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1462
my preferred email is...
« Reply #485 on: January 07, 2005, 05:27:44 PM »
rshubert@excite.com.

If you just send the raw data, I could put it into a spreadsheet or perhaps a database, so sorts, graphs, and comparisons can be done.  Then, if we were lucky or good, we could come up with comparable data for the other allied powers, the axis countries, production, etc.  If that could be reconciled into a database format, we could get a LOT of statistics and information pulled together.

And yes, I know how to do that...



shubie
Logged

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #486 on: January 07, 2005, 06:04:09 PM »
Well, maybe Shubie will do it better than me.
If so, I'd be happy.
The picking of the data is the main thing.
My idea was to compare something typical within some timeframe.
Say, August 1940, November 1941, December 1942, etc etc, if you see what I mean.
Another Idea is to make a graph with the top and bottom candidates of a certain model or type, and shade the gap.
Can have that done w. Photoshop or such in relatively short time.
Right now I am making the 1st graph.
It will be 3 Spitfires from the same era.
Izzy's girl (JL), a Mk VIII, and another Mk IX...

So drool    :D
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #487 on: January 07, 2005, 06:41:00 PM »
Hello again
My XLS thingie is no good for anything except 1 plane at a time.
Expect a delay untill tomorrow.
Regards

Angus
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #488 on: January 08, 2005, 11:57:13 AM »
Hello
Excel can be a pain!
What I could easily do in 1980's basic, I cannot do in Excel!!!!
AFAIK, it actually cannot either.
I have mailed the ideas to shubie, if they are of any use.
I am continuing with Excel, but since there are gaps to fill in for full accuracy, it will take a lot of calculation.
(Calculating speed or climb for every 100 feet of alt from deck ti ceiling, having calculated climb rate (as an average between available points) or speed available in every one)
So, the quickest way seems to be to use a sheet of millimeter paper, a ruler and a pencil, even today.
Unless you know of some really simple and good graph application.
However, as an end effect, the XLS thing will be mammothly huge, and should provide every data of climb and speed from start to end, IN NUMBERS ;)
So, will check in later
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline rshubert

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1462
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #489 on: January 09, 2005, 09:50:20 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
Hello
Excel can be a pain!
What I could easily do in 1980's basic, I cannot do in Excel!!!!
AFAIK, it actually cannot either.
I have mailed the ideas to shubie, if they are of any use.
I am continuing with Excel, but since there are gaps to fill in for full accuracy, it will take a lot of calculation.
(Calculating speed or climb for every 100 feet of alt from deck ti ceiling, having calculated climb rate (as an average between available points) or speed available in every one)
So, the quickest way seems to be to use a sheet of millimeter paper, a ruler and a pencil, even today.
Unless you know of some really simple and good graph application.
However, as an end effect, the XLS thing will be mammothly huge, and should provide every data of climb and speed from start to end, IN NUMBERS ;)
So, will check in later


I have received nothing.  Send it again, please, and put "AH" in the subject line.  That way I'll be able to pick it out from the spam.



shubie
Logged

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #490 on: January 10, 2005, 06:49:03 AM »
Rgr.
Will do.
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #491 on: January 17, 2005, 12:08:48 PM »
Ok, wake up thread.
I need a lot more data on the 109. I have quite some for the Spitfire, with several alt points, and I will be breaking the graph into some 28-30 entries, where every measured point makes an entry.
So far I only have 109 data with only 2 entries, while I prefer some 6 or so if possible.
So, come forth with the 109 data if possible.
Some spice of 190 would be good as well.
I can also be emailed if this is something not to be published on the board.
The only base thing I have so far is Izzy's data of the 109F and then the G. I need more, much more for variety, as well as the 109 E, and G6, without and with gonds etc.

Graphs will arrive as promised, as soon as I can digest the food. :D
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #492 on: January 17, 2005, 12:11:08 PM »
Oh, Izzy's 109F is actually equally fast as the 109G on the deck, and considerably faster at best alt.  :confused: :confused: :confused:
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #493 on: January 17, 2005, 02:36:10 PM »
woo-hoo???

No useable 109 data?????


well, in case of emergency, I'll check my HD
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #494 on: January 18, 2005, 07:01:01 AM »
If no 109 data, I will have to use RAF's data for the Emil, and will throw in RAF's data for the 109G.

But I need something proper really, for the E and F.

After all, the Spit data I have is based on actual tests, and regarding the 109, that's what I am looking for.

Izzy's graph can be used by reading out from the lines, of course, but bear in mind that that graph input should be from numbers. Change graph to numbers, numbers to graph many times enough and one is bound to get some error.
Anyway, all the 109's there are really late war, the most boosted ones and the fastest.
I put a 1943 Spit VIII in there as well as a 1943 Spit IX , although both were only 18 lbs boost.
The VIII came out really nicely, the IX also, - both were comparable at the altitude they were designed for to later LW aircraft. The slow arse was Izzy's JL 165.
BTW, that Mk IX I was looking at went to 20K in 4 minutes 51 secs. On 18 boost!
Anyway, anyone, have a look at this goodie:
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 ... 49   Go Up
« previous next »