Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Kurfürst

LRRP2, you can fluff your baloon, go into longht depths about the 'poor' nature of ALL the aircraft used in ALL tests... you can add Hop`s own brainchild - kindly show a qoute from the report you claim states 45 mins... you can go into lenght about my person and my 'agenda'..and so on.

All this only shows you have no facts, just the desperation so that your hand-picked test will be the last and only world in the subject. And for the lack of factuality, you make up with talk, talk, talk.
I am sure the retarded ones will buy it all. More serious people will take their bet on the RESULTs.

LOL, another one of Barbi's rants. Must be off his medication again.

[LRRP22]

Well, there you go Isegrim.   The TK589 test performance numbers are definitely  the  slowest of the lot.  Thanks for proving my point.

As for the Hendon 'test', here's what RAF Hendon had to say about that in response to Neil Stirling's recent inquiry:

"Thank you for your enquiry, which we received on 21 July [2004]. I am rather puzzled by the paragraphs you quote. RAF Hendon's Operations Record Book makes no mention of such a trial in October 1944, and Hendon seems a slightly odd place to hold it - it would have been necessary to bring in all the instrumentation (theodolites, radar etc). and it would seem easier to use the facilities of the research establishments at Boscombe Down or Farnborough, especially the former as its role centred around evaluating aircraft."

In other words, these 'tests' are pure fantasy.  Only one of the quoted serial numbers was even anywere  near the UK in October of '44.  One of those numbers is for a UC-64 Norseman, another for an Allison Mustang that never left the U.S., and another for a P-51D that didn't leave the production line until February of '45.  But then you already knew all this since you were a party to the conversation over at the AAW board anyway.  BTW what would radar and theodilites prove other than ground speed anyway?


Isegrim, it would be nice if you could refrain from including any reference to indecent and unlikely anatomical acts, if you choose to respond...

[Karnak]

So Barbi knowingly used bad info on a board that had not yet had that info debunked?


Barbi, that is very, very, very poor form.  Doing that sort of thing is what gets scholars run out of their professions as laughing stock.  I would strongly urge you to never do so again, regardless of what you wish to be true.  Lying to prove your point does nothing to prove your point and merely makes you a liar.  It has nothing good to reccomend it.

[LRRP22]

Isegrim,

You have further proved your "selectiveness" (or carelessness) by posting this:

AVIA 6/10618

August 1944

Mustang III FB 377
Wing racks fitted. +25Lbs boost

383mph at 0ft 391mph at 3900ft.

This is the exact report that I posted scans from in this very thread.  Once again you have chosen to quote FB377's speed (383 mph) from when it was in the following condition:

The paintwork was in very poor condition.  The paint on the leading edge and inboard surface of the wings was badly chipped.  This is most serious in the case of the Mustang due to the thickness of the paint layer.  At least six seperate coats of paint had been applied.

Boy Isegrim, that really is representative of a factory finish, isn't it?  Did I mention that FB377 had been in service with 316 Squadron since April?  I can only imagine what you'd say if someone posted 109 performance numbers derived from an airframe in such condition.

further:

In the cleaning up tests, the leading 2 ft. of the wing surfaces had to be stripped of paint and repainted.  The rest of the aircraft was rubbed down only.

In other words, even cleaned up, FB377's surface condition was still in poorer-than-new condition.

More:

This gave a total increase of 21 m.p.h. and the effects of the seperate items are estimated as 8 m.p.h. due to the bomb racks 1 m.p.h. due to the aerial bracket and 12 m.p.h. due to the improved finish.

So, 383 mph + 12 mph = 395 mph for FB377 in an improved but still worse than factory surface finish.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Karnak
So Barbi knowingly used bad info on a board that had not yet had that info debunked?


Barbi, that is very, very, very poor form.  Doing that sort of thing is what gets scholars run out of their professions as laughing stock.  I would strongly urge you to never do so again, regardless of what you wish to be true.  Lying to prove your point does nothing to prove your point and merely makes you a liar.  It has nothing good to reccomend it.

Karnak, I don't think Barbi knowingly or willfully posts 'bad' info for he only sees info that will show anything Allied in the worst favourable way but...

when one mixes lies in with truths, the truths become questionable. Many have known about Barbi's exagerated 'truths' to further his Germany superiority agenda for a long time. When caught he goes on one of his patented rants and accuses other of flaming. Does he really know what a 'flame' is?

He does tell many lies especially when he attempts character assinations.

It will be interesting if he ever gets his 109 website up and running after accusing and slandering on many forums Mike Williams of bias on his website.

[LRRP22]

I said:

Remember, I wasn't contesting Oscar's account- I posted in response to your comment that an 801S-engined 190 would be slightly faster than an RAF Mustang III running +25 lbs boost. That is not at all true.

Crumpp said:

That is not what I claimed. Please read the post's.

Ummm...yes you did!;)

 

The FW-190A9 is just barely faster with MW-50 at sea level than the Mustang III using 80"hg. Backs up Oscar's experience over the Ardennes forest in Dec. 44.

Just to avoid confusion, remember that 80" Hg is +25 lbs boost.  I agree that an A-9 with MW-50 should be faster than a P-51B or D at 67" in Hg and maybe even 72" in Hg.

[Angus]

Well well.
Ok, My hat off for LRRP22, a delightful and most welcome new (?) member to our forum.

Speaking of character asassinations, this thread is actually devoted to my humble self, - Izzy's 109 vs Spit slugout.
Well, nobody is dead yet, but someone's reputation is in some trouble.

I have taken some time to study Izzy's speed graph, and sadly, it rather supports what we have seen above, - selective or even hyped data.

So, on it goes........109 outclimbed, outran, outdived, and outturned anything hostile in the skies. Turned better than a Spitty, outran the P51, dived better than a P47, climbed better than a homesick angel, had betterrange than a P51 and presented a smaller target than a Spitfire while being bigger on the inside.

[Crumpp]

Ummm...yes you did

You need to take what was said in context not out of it.  You have NOT been in this thread from the beginning.

I have claimed as a GENERAL statement from the beginning that:

Crumpp says on page 2
An FW-190A8 with the BMW801TS (BMW 801S) motor was equal in speed to the P51D at sea level and faster on boost.

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=136037&perpage=50&pagenumber=2

On page 3 Neil Stirling post's figures on a Mustang III with a MERLIN 100,  Lrrp.

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=136037&perpage=50&pagenumber=3

Crumpp says:

The FW-190A9 is just barely faster with MW-50 at sea level than the Mustang III using 80"hg. Backs up Oscar's experience over the Ardennes forest in Dec. 44.

Is in response to Neil's posted data on the Mustang III.   No other Mustang III data has been presented nor was I claiming that as a general statement.  It was specific to Neil's data vs. the FW-190A9 / FW-190A8 (801S).  According to Neil's post the Mustang III with a MERLIN 100 at +25:


 

Neil Stirling says:
Just for interest.
Report. Brief performance trials and position error measurement.
Mk III
FX.858.
Merlin 100 +25lbs.
April 44.
404mph at 2,000ft /419mph at 5,200ft./455mph at 17,800ft.
4,500ft/min at 1,600ft/4000ft/min at 13,000ft.

Please make sure you read the thread.  Thanks for posting though and you have some good information even if presented on an erroneous assumption!

Crumpp

[LRRP22]

Crumpp,

Actually, since yesterday, I have read every post in this thread.   Pathetic, I know...

I apologize if I read you out of context, I just wanted to clarify what an operational RAF Mustang III was capable of at 80" Hg.

[Crumpp]

I apologize if I read you out of context, I just wanted to clarify what an operational RAF Mustang III was capable of at 80" Hg.

Yes it was. And it appeared in far fewer numbers than the FW-190A9 much less 801TS FW-190A8's.  It seems to be the only Mustang varient that is faster than the FW-190A9 at sea level.

What is interesting IMO is the comparison tactical trials between a USAAF P51B and an FW-190A4/U8 (FW-190G2) create a very false perception of the relative performance of these two fighters when compared to flight tested performance data.

Once again showing that Air Force's testing an unfamiliar foreign design without the technical expertise to maintain the aircraft can produce deceptive results and create false conclusions.

Thank you for the apology.  It is very understandable in such a large thread to read such a small detail out of context.

Crumpp

[LRRP22]

Yes it was. And it appeared in far fewer numbers than the FW-190A9 much less 801TS FW-190A8's. It seems to be the only Mustang varient that is faster than the FW-190A9 at sea level.

I'm not sure I would go that far.  RAF Mustang IV's also operated at +25 lbs boost.  And I'm not at all convinced that a run of the mill USAAF P-51D running at the post-mid '44 standard 72" Hg wouldn't be at least as fast, or even faster than the A-9's 595 kph at SL.

[Kurfürst]

FACTS AGAIN, AS LARPY HAD MISSED IT :


P51B performance figures using 150 grade fuel and 75"hg.


Airplane P51B 43-24777, V-1650-7, 9680lbs Wing racks fitted.
Date 4,30,44.
Test results and again appprox as the figures come directly from the curve in front of me.

379mph at 0ft
410mph at 7,400ft
405mph at 13,100ft
431mph at 20,500ft
420mph at 28,000ft
416mph at 30,000ft


Avia 18/732.

AAEE Boscombe Down.
Mustang IV T.K 589 (Packard MerlinV.1650-7)
Posistion error of static vent and brief level speed trials.
July 1944.
Aircraft flown with faired bomb racks.

Speed at 0 ft using 67"hg 354mph
Speed at 10300ft using 67"hg 396mph
Speed at 0ft using 81"hg 379mph
Speed at 4300ft using 81"hg 398mph.


AVIA 6/10618

August 1944

Mustang III FB 377
Wing racks fitted. +25Lbs boost

383mph at 0ft
391mph at 3900ft.


INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDOM.

Army Air Force
Material Command
ENG-57-531-306
13 May 1044.

Performance tests on P38J,P47D and P51B airplanes tested with 44-1 fuel (150 grade)

P51B 43-24777
Wing racks fitted.

61"hg 352mph at 0ft,
405mph at 13100ft, 422mph at 26600ft
67"hg 364mph at 0ft,
408mph at 10400ft, 426mph at 23800ft.
75"hg 380mph at 0ft,
 410mph at 7200ft, 431mph at 20500ft.



This is from another source :


CFE: Mustang III with V1650-7 engine, Military Power (61"/3000R)
Test Weight: 9200#
Vmax: 438 mph @ 27500'
412 moh @ 14000'


Eglin: P-51B with V1650-3 engine, Emergency Power (67"/3000R)
Test Weight: 9690# (Pylons attached)
Vmax: 435 mph @ 27000'
420 mph @ 13100'

EE 393: P-51B with V1650-3 engine, Emergency Power
Test Weight 9200#
Vmax: 450 mph @ 28200'
430 mph @ 15300'


Pax River: P-51C with V1650-3 engine, Emergency Power
Test Weight 9423#
Vmax: 450 mph @ 29200'
426 moh @ 15600'


In order to believe Larpy`s fantasy of 400mph SL speeds for the Mustang, one has to ignore all the above facts and test, cover the eye and only see a single cleaned up and treated P-51B test.

As for TK 589 the 'slowest' (sniff-sniff), of course, it`s a slower subtype P-51D, which larpy wants to ignore. Since TK 589`s are for a plane in very good condition according to the report, larpy makes a nice little trick, claiming it`s the 'poorest, slowest' of them - compared to the cleaner, faster P-51B/Cs, LOLOLOL. .

Of course larpy absolutely can`t show ANY other P-51D test results, which would show it to be slower than the avarage... typical larpy, just talk, talk, talk, I foretold it.

And, to qoute the opinion of Neil Stirling, who provided Larpy with the test results, and researched most of the above :


"The Americans limited their P51's fitted with the V-1650-7 to 72"hg when using 100/150 grade fuel the British 81"hg. Mustangs usually were fitted with wing racks, these reduced the maximum speed by 8mph to 12mph.
8th Mustangs typically would have been able to do about 370mph low down and RAF mustangs about 380mph."

Larpy, the 400mph figure is only your partisan figure.

[Angus]

From Izzy:
"13 May 1044"

That's before Hastings......

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Karnak
So Barbi knowingly used bad info on a board that had not yet had that info debunked?

Barbi, that is very, very, very poor form.  Doing that sort of thing is what gets scholars run out of their professions as laughing stock.  I would strongly urge you to never do so again, regardless of what you wish to be true.  Lying to prove your point does nothing to prove your point and merely makes you a liar.  It has nothing good to reccomend it.

This is indeed a very poor form of lying for Larpy, but him lying doesn`t make me a liar, now does it? Or does a claimed response claimed to be from Hendon make it?

I did not "knowingly used" bad info. I merely posted what is in my archieves. And I doubt it`s bad info. It`s quite usual for larpy to come up with such thing, he lies about this just as he lies about the TK 589 tests, and lies about the FB 377 tests. As I noted, HE HAS NO FACTS. If someone lacks facts, then he makes them up.

Besides I find his arrogance quite fitting for his post history, qouting a letter claimed to be from Neil one time, then ignoring that Neil also says he is wrong (ie. max. 370/380mph on the deck for the Mustang).

Let`s just make one thing clear : Larpy accepts only ONE and no other test for a Mustang. And that is, in it`s cleanest form the Mustang III, with the most powerfuel engine it had, the V-1650-7, running at maximum boost it`s main user the USAAF never run it, referring to a test that was explicitity aimed to find stripped hunters for V-1s.

Now does that say anything of his bias when claiming 400mph regualar speeds for each and every Mustang ?

[Angus]

There were many brands of P51's, as of other planes.
Some got weary, some were polished up and faster.
I am looking at a graph of a Mustang that did 405 mph on the deck after being cleaned up and modded.
Some brand new and boosted up Mustangs would have had their speed in that region also.
I got to know an old Mustang pilot. He was chasing V-1's in his P51C, - but AFAIK the aircraft was not optimized for that operation, i.e. supercharger settings, bomb racks etc. So, he was slower than the doodlebug at low alt, - only a bit. He used to bounce them, a shallow dive was enough.
He told me that the Griffon Spits were the fastest things down low along with the Tempest.
He never met a 109 or a 190 that could run with his Mustang though.
Well, if the Allied had aircraft in service in all sorts of condition, it's pretty obvious that the Germans had the same problem.
Anything else new?