P-47: We could easily out-turn the Jerry

[Angus]

From me and Izzy:
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Angus
You'd be surprized where a 1943 Spit VIII (long range) racks up in that speed chart.
Say alone at 25 boost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I tell you, simply f. poorly. "

Not really Izzy.
Firstly, the Mk VIII racks up way better than the Spitfire you chose to promote on your chart.
It is in level speed a 400 mph + fighter.

Secondly, it has a limb rate to 20K in 5 minutes. That is on par with the XIV roughly.

Thirdly, this performance is achieved with full tanks, you'll need to hang drop tanks on the 109 to reach the same level. So where do you think the level speed will be then?

Fourthly, this is a fully tropicalized aircraft. Clean it up a bit and???

That 1943 Spit VIII seems to compare nicely with your selected 1944 109's on overboost. And that's just sheer speed, which IMHO was not the strongest point of the Spitty.

I have graphed some 1942/43 Spits and a 109 from a similar period. Just need to host it and you can see. Will try to find a host later on. Anyway, the one you picked was for most of the way the slowest one.

I've gotta rush (Vet's coming, - i.e. the veterinary surgeon, - cow's business again)
Will return with some hurting stuff

[BUG_EAF322]

   Poor Mike, if he would know what I am cooking for him right now.  

goulash ??

[Kurfürst]

... with so much paprika it will make him caugh !

[BUG_EAF322]

I knew it

[MiloMorai]

And as for contemperary a/c, I cannot imagine any more contemperary a/c to the G-14s, G-10, K-4s than IXLFs.

The Spit XIV was the contemperary of the G-10/K-4 just as the Spit I/II was for the 109E, as the Spit V was for the 109F and the Spit IX for the 109G6s.

Your feeble attempt at deception to prove how superior Germany was suppose to be is so transparent a blind person can see it.

Now post some real flight test graphs of the K-4 so all can draw their own conclusions.

[Angus]

Nice and simply true.
In the speed race I'd put my money on the 109, in lift on the Spit, on  the horizontal on the Spit.
But they are very closely matched all the way through, especially if one tries to compare aircraft that operate in the same timeframe in the same area
Or should we graph a Spit IX against a 109E?
That's basically the Barbi-tech way of promotion.

[Crumpp]

Barbi says:

While the 190A was definitely, and the 109G-6 was less so outclassed in speed and altitude, this certainly isn`t true for later models.

Let's see what a recovered crash landed FW-190G3 does against the P47C and P47D-4:









Now compare a properly maintained FW-190G3 to a properly maintained FW-190A5:



So we can conclude from this report that the FW-190A5 was "at least" capable of the performance concluded in the P 47 trials.

The 109 vs. 190 performances have been done ad nauseaum.  Only the BMW 801C powered FW-190's equaled their Bf-109 counterparts in low-level speed.  The BMW 801D2, BMW 801TS, BMW 801TU, BMW 801TH, and Jumo 213 powered FW-190's were much faster than their 109 counterparts.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Angus

But they are very closely matched all the way through, especially if one tries to compare aircraft that operate in the same timeframe in the same area  

If you wish compare aircraft that operate in the same timeframe in the same area, then you should compare the Hurri/Spit I to the 109E, the Mk V to the 109F and early G, the Mk IX to the late 109G and K. These were the types that commonly faced each other on the battlefield, the RAF had some rare types like the XII and XIV, but so did the LW, ie. Me 262, GM-1 equipped 109s. Spitfire fanatics usually do the same, because in a historical comparision reveals how much disadvantage Spit pilots were, flying the common types and not the exception. And they usually cry how extremely unfair it is in any other way than comparing  the rarest, highest performance Spits to the most ordinary and common 109s. I see this as a sign of being unable to handle the facts. But they don`t even know what that word means.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Crumpp
The 109 vs. 190 performances have been done ad nauseaum.  Only the BMW 801C powered FW-190's equaled their Bf-109 counterparts in low-level speed.  The BMW 801D2, BMW 801TS, BMW 801TU, BMW 801TH, and Jumo 213 powered FW-190's were much faster than their 109 counterparts.
 

Sources and references ? Your partisan attitude won`t make up for the lack of them.

Indeed this horse was beaten to death, and repeating the same thing that was already proven wrong a dozen times is just silly. The only timeframe the FW 190 appears to be faster at low levels is in 1943, when the A-5 is matched against the G-6.

[Crumpp]

The only timeframe the FW 190 appears to be faster at low levels is in 1943, when the A-5 is matched against the G-6.

Only in your mind Izzy.  

Sources have been posted over and over again.  This issue has been worked out at least 3 times.  Your the only one who seems to ignore the facts.  My charts are not power point presentations I made myself.  They are  original documentation.  

Completely different from your fantasy charts.

Speaking of ignore.  You have me on your list.  Seems silly to post it your signature and constantly reply?  Unless it is just an attention getting tantrum.  

All the best,

Crumpp

[Kurfürst]

The funny thing is that you couldn`t even realize your own charts prove you wrong, simply because the low level speed performance stated by them are lower or only as fast as the official 109 figures.

Examples can be taken, ie. YOUR A-9 and D-9 curves showing a max. SL speed of 595, and 605-612 kph, vs. 109K-4 curves showing 595/607 kph, or your A-8 graphs which show 565 kph vs. official G-14 curves that show 568 kph etc.

In other words, even the sources cited by you don`t support your own claims, making this silly partisanship displayed by you  achieving anything but a laugh coming from the audiance.

[BUG_EAF322]

There is nothin more beautiful than 2 axis fans not getting along in their opinions.



FW is uber !!

Nein 109 ist dem geilesten uber  !!

Kurt Tank war demm ubermensch !!

Nein Willy !!

Arsloch !!

schwein !

[Kurfürst]

Correction, I only stated that 109 was just as fast, a few version a bit faster and that crumpp`s 'all 190A were much faster' is simply wrong. he`s the *uber* guy.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
Sources and references ? Your partisan attitude won`t make up for the lack of them.

Indeed this horse was beaten to death, and repeating the same thing that was already proven wrong a dozen times is just silly. The only timeframe the FW 190 appears to be faster at low levels is in 1943, when the A-5 is matched against the G-6.

Why should anyone provide proof and references when you won't even produce proof and references of your 109 claims? What are you trying to hide?

Crumpp, Barbi is most likely using 109K-4 data that is for the DB605G/L engine from factory calculations. As can be seen in this pdf file, http://www.mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/lw/109_projekt.pdf, Barbi is living in a fantasy world. The 109K in Start - u Notleistung could barely do 540kph @ SL. (Start - u Notleistung -- Take off/Emergency)

The Dora 9 was good for 640kph @ SL. http://jagdhund.homestead.com/files/DoraData/horizontalgeschwindigkeiten.htm

Same with the 1.98ata boost which has been done numerous times, yet he still won't admit that is was NOT usable til ~March 1945.

[Kurfürst]

Milly you can try whatever tricks, I won`t publish the 109K data until I contacted some person for who it may be disadvantageous. No, it`s not with the DB 605L, and of course you are wrong about the K`s SL speed as well.

The K-4 figures are from  'Leistungen 8-109 K4 und K-6'. which  notes the following.

'Die angegabenen Leistungen werden mit gut gebauten Serienmachinen sicher erreicht.' or

'The above given performances are certainly going to be reached with well-built serial production machines.'

Quite clear.