Late Me 109 G & K engine settings

[Angus]

Oh, Milo, missed your post.
Anyway, the climbs I have correspond rather well to Rall's number. All boils down to 1.42 or 1.3 and the aircraft weight.
Still for its wingloading, the 109 is none the less a good climber.
I have calculations somewhere, xls format, where time to alt is done in Nm's. I was trying to figure out the actual work the wing could yeald. It pointed at the Spitfire wing lifting close to 10% more at the same power. But the Spitfire was also heavier most of the time. I can mail this if you like.
A bit of a pain with climb graphs is the difference, - some are minutes to alt, others are fpm or m/s at alt. I have no idea how to convert this. Well, it should be a function, but I'm not that good any more.
(Used to play with this when there were dinosaurs around)
So, eagerly waiting for Barbi's F-15 ROC for a 1.3 standard 109G

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Angus
Please make yourself clear. The 109's range ended---where it ended. Coventry was too far for 109 activity while Middle Belgium was not to far for Spitfire activity. Intelligence teams or not, the aircraft went where they went.

[/B]

I`d also like to see the source for droptankless Spit activity over Belgium. Every source I have seen Spit pilots already had troubles staying over Dunkerque for long.

As for your 109G climbing test from 1942, I'd really like to see the documented source. It conflicts completely with what I have. A lightened up aircraft perhaps????[/B]

No, a standard aircraft from Squadrons service and it`s seen some use already. The doc is on the same site.

Then to the Soviets. Pity they never got around handling the Spittys, for the LW lost more to the RAF in 1940 than to the Russian airforce in 1944....... [/B]

Yes it`s a pity the VVS wasn`t so worked up on the Spit. I think they saw it`s flaws as well as it`s good traits.

BTW, Rall engaged Spitfires and shot them down over Russia, as well as FLYING one as well. (As well as P51, P38, P47)[/B]

Which doesn`t change the fact Gunther Rall spent 99% of his time on the East and had negligable combat experience against Spitfires. Werner Moelders had a lot otoh, and considered them 'miserable' as fighters.

FYI, Johnny Johnsson jostled with a staffel of 109's from low alt to 19K where he left the party. That was in 1943 or 44........Now, he and Rall did have some time to compare this, they became firm friends post war. [/B]

 [/B][/QUOTE]

Interesting... And? Was his plane lightly loaded? Was the enemy flying at full power? Were they low on fuel/ammo? Etc.
Circumstances are unknown in such stories, that`s why objective data is preferable over subjective.

The climb rate in the above graph is less than that on a graph I have > 21m/s(4134f/m) vs 18.5m/s(3642f/m). Both are for the G-1.[/B]

I guess if you actually have such graph, it wouldn`t be a problem posting it to prove your claim.

[MiloMorai]

I guess if you actually have such graph, it wouldn`t be a problem posting it to prove your claim.

When are you going to post the graph for the 4900f/m G?

When are you going to post the flight test graphs for the k-4?

[Kurfürst]

Funny that now you mention, the URL to the 4900fpm G-2 at 1.3ata was already posted by yourself two or so posts above.

But as you failed to back up your claim, I guess you didn`t know what you were talking about again.

[Angus]

I'd be delighted to see some tests on the 109, details as well as on the MW site.
Seems that there are few, and far apart. I only have one rather detailed so far. And it's blurry.
As for Dunkirk, the Spits did not stay long over there, although a lot of the activity in the air was actually further inland. Mind you, some of the squadrons engaged may have taken off as far north as Cambridge. (Duxford wing).
Now, 109's over Cambridge were not sighted often, - if at all.
I suggest you look at a map for a change. Calais-London vs London-Bruxelles?

[Kurfürst]

There are some tests on that the gallery I gave the URL for.

But I suggest you back up your statements first, it doesn`t make sense to discuss in detail what is may be fiction after all.

[Angus]

So, droptankless Spitfires over the lowlands were a fiction?
Gimme a break will you....
Slipper tank or drop tank Spits would go up to 650 Nm BTW, and that was usually Merlin45 that powered them. Takeoff would be from a carrier or Gibraltar.
Knew a guy who flew Gibraltar-Algiers in one go. His squadron had to escort some Hudson's on the way, so the flight exceeded 4 hours. BTW, the Spitfires had been assembled on the spot, and not yet tested.
Now the Spit V has a bigger engine than the Mk I, so I expect a higher fuel consumption.
BTW, did the Mk I's have a drop tank option at all?

[straffo]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
The Soviets received over a 1000 Mk IX Spits, but turned them down in favour of their domestic planes.

They used the spit as high altitude fighter.
they didn't turned it down.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
Funny that now you mention, the URL to the 4900fpm G-2 at 1.3ata was already posted by yourself two or so posts above.

But as you failed to back up your claim, I guess you didn`t know what you were talking about again.

URL to the G-1, not G-2, Barbarossa Isegrim. Missed that, the G-1, you did. Did I mention G-2? The document is dated 3.4.43 and is by Messesrchmitt Augsburg.

Since you failed to back up your claim, with regard to the K-4 FLIGHT TEST DATA[/b], I guess you didn`t know what you were talking about, again.

It is nice to see that MW puts both good and bad Spit data on his site unlike Barbarossa Isegrim who will only put the best 109 data up.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Angus
So, droptankless Spitfires over the lowlands were a fiction?

Very much appears so, as nothing seems to back this claim up.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
Since you failed to back up your claim, with regard to the K-4 FLIGHT TEST DATA, I guess you didn`t know what you were talking about, again.[/B]

I didn`t make any claim about the K-4, so what are you exactly barking about?

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
I didn`t make any claim about the K-4, so what are you exactly barking about?

 What a selective short memory you have Barbarossa Isegrim. The only data we see in your K-4 article is your questionable HOME MADE graphs.

[Angus]

Now, Barbi, you are in a corner I guess. The only option you seem to have is to ask for original data about the lowland flights, since you seem to belive they were not possible without droptanks.
And obviously you choose not to debate about the cross-med flights, because you caught the wind of me having the data behind my back.
Ok, let's see....
I wish Guppy was here, he would probably have this from memory alone. Mio might also. I will have to dive into a book to find the drop tank service dates, but if memory serves me, this sticks up:
1. Slipper tanks may have entered earlier. Those were used on the first long routes in the med. That was however in 1942.
2. The routes over the lowlands were short missions. They are definately not out of range for the Mk I, II and even Mk V regarding the official range documentation, - which probably collides with yours.
3, Rhubarb missions over the lowands started sometime in 1941, I belive before the total entry of the Mk V.

But calculate, Spit 5, with extra 90 gallons crossing 600 nm, taking off from an escort (that is - small) carrier....is that then possible according to your calculations? Or 4-5 hrs flight at NOT the best cruising speed? Is that  possible according to your calculations?

For if it isn't, you've got some homework to do

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
What a selective short memory you have Barbarossa Isegrim. The only data we see in your K-4 article is your questionable HOME MADE graphs.

You are right that the home made speed graphs in my critique are very questionable.

All of them were made by Mike Williams, and are strongly manipulated as you pointed out. It`s seems we have a common ground after all.

I have to mention it`s so much fun to observe you make a bigger fool out of yourself with every of your post.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Angus
Now, Barbi, you are in a corner I guess. The only option you seem to have is to ask for original data about the lowland flights, since you seem to belive they were not possible without droptanks.

[/B]

Why I am in the corner, dear Angus, because an allied fanboy from Iceland was repeatadly and utterly incapable of backing up his own dubious statements?

And obviously you choose not to debate about the cross-med flights, because you caught the wind of me having the data behind my back.

[/B]

Well, why would I debate Med flights when it was an original question about the range of the Spit I w/o droptank? After it become obvious that nothing supports your claims, you ran away and switched to another topic... as usual.

2. The routes over the lowlands were short missions. They are definately not out of range for the Mk I, II and even Mk V regarding the official range documentation, - which probably collides with yours.

[/B]

I hate to mention Angus that you utterly failed to provide any Mk I, II or V 'official range documentation' as you call it.

All you have produced so far is unsupported, unreferenced claims that rest on the shoulders of your other unsupported, unreferenced claims. Pile of BS in other words.

But calculate, Spit 5, with extra 90 gallons crossing 600 nm, taking off from an escort (that is - small) carrier....is that then possible according to your calculations? Or 4-5 hrs flight at NOT the best cruising speed? Is that  possible according to your calculations?.

[/B]

No, why would it be impossible? With the extra 90 gallons would give very roughly some 800-900 miles of range for the Spit V at econmic cruise, maybe more up to 1000, but I have yet to see the official documentation.
Bottom line, that 90 gallons droptank would be useless for anything else than such 1-way ferry missions, giving the internal capacity was only 85 gallons, not usual 2-way combat mission from which you need more fuel internally than externally carried.