Author Topic: Me410 (Read 1721 times)

MiloMorai · « **Reply #30 on:** May 01, 2005, 05:26:20 PM »

Since Barbarrosa Isegrim (Kurfurst) so typically failed to quote the whole statement, here it is:

"As for Willy M, he was an idiot, a hack compared to Heinkel, Junkers, Dornier, Vogt, Tank, Chadwick, Mitchell. Of the most famous aircraft designers of the era, which other designer managed to design so many aircraft with serious structural design deficiencies?"

As for the rest of his post, the only one with an agenda is Barbarrosa Isegrim who can't accept that his beloved 109, and WW2 Germany, was not perfection personified.

As for spitting out hatred, this is by Barbarrosa Isegrim

Harris himself was very explicit in the Times once about what was he doing, what was his goal : "To kill the boche, to terrorize the Boche". There was no military goal there, just the British military tradition of sadistic cowardice, targeting civillians, women and children after failing on the battlefield. Thank god, that their empire of evil crumbled into the cost. His morals show us exactly why it is so great that WW2 made Britain an arrogant dwarf again in the scene of World politics. The Churchills are gone, the Harris are gone, all the rest of that sick company is gone. Some partisans remain, like JohnB or Hop, apologizing and relatizing this evil of mass murdering civillians."

I have the right to express my opinion about the British Empire, it`s leaders and/or war criminals like everybody else. As gmann said, I have the right of wrath for apologists and relativizers who try to belittle these crimes. And I am very happy this dark evil was flushed down the toilet along with it`s most characteristics goons."

And what a Mod told him after these venomous rants:

" Kurfurst, control yourself. We are having the first decent discussion about this subject that I can remember."

This has not been the first time a Mod on that board has told him to settle down before he "has a heart attack".

Draw your own conclusions about who is doing what.

Grendel · « **Reply #31 on:** May 01, 2005, 06:14:30 PM »

I find it really sad that some of you guys just have to drag your personal broken lovestories and inbed fighting into each and every thread that is posted here.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #32 on:** May 01, 2005, 06:56:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Grendel
I find it really sad that some of you guys just have to drag your personal broken lovestories and inbed fighting into each and every thread that is posted here.

Yes it really said that 'he who tries to portray himself as a sweet innocent person' has to spew venom towards all who rejected his advances > Hop, gmann, LRRP, Angus, Guppy, pasoleati, Naswan, Mike Williams, Crumpp, SkyChimp and many many more..............

This is a good description:

"Kurfurst, the only chest pounding around here is coming from you. For life of me, I simply cannot see why the discussion of 60+ year old airplanes brings out the worst in you. You really ought to reexamine the way you act."

JAWS2003 · « **Reply #33 on:** May 01, 2005, 08:08:16 PM »

They should have used those nice DB-603's for Fw-190C and Doras.

niklas · « **Reply #34 on:** May 02, 2005, 02:18:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tails
This is also why the germans experimented with negative-sweep (IE Foreward swept) wings on their planes. Very unstable, which means the aircraft WANTS to maneuver. .

Edit: Partially true (

). Rolldamping is probably worse. Hey the ultimative fighter wing desing.
The forward swept wing has a major advantage: the airflow is pushed inside and not outside like on a backward swept wing, so you don´t have sudden crossflow effects due to the fuselage which works like a boundary layer fence. The basic laws of swept wings apply to forward swept wing very much the same like on backward swept ones
The forward swept wing was given up because it was statically much less stable than a backwards swept wing, or let´s say it´s statically instable. Like a flag that turns with the wind and won´t hold it´s position into the wind

niklas

Angus · « **Reply #35 on:** May 02, 2005, 04:50:09 AM »

If you push the air inwards where it hits the fuselage, I would think it comes with some drag penalty, or?
Anyway, this:
"They should have used those nice DB-603's for Fw-190C and Doras."
How would the DB-603 have been for a 109?
Too heavy like the later Jumo?
(Wasn't that the one they used on the Avia?)

Karnak · « **Reply #36 on:** May 02, 2005, 12:16:44 PM »

Kurfurst,

You know damn well that you're putting words in my mouth. In the very post that Krusty referenced I said the Me410 would have been very useful had they recieved it in numbers when they were on the ofensive.

You can look and look and look at my posts and find very little negative about the German aircraft as I don't focus on them. In all the "discussions" that I've participated in with you it has been you ranting about British aircraft and me defending the British aircraft, not attacking the German aircraft. That is your tactic, not mine.

I have stated on numerous occasions my opinion in brief on the Bf109 (great fighter), Fw190 (exceptional fighter) and others. You are the only one who claims otherwise because, apparently, in your world view if one does not worship on the alter of the Luftwaffe and spit upon their adversaries you are a Luftwaffe hater. That is bull**** and you really need to grow up.

Meyer · « **Reply #37 on:** May 02, 2005, 04:00:52 PM »

The Avia used Jumo 211 (ju87, 88, he111, etc) , which IIRC was very similar to the 213 (Dora, Ta, Ju88, etc..) so I guess it would be possible to mount one 213 in the 109... and if you can mount a 213, you can mount a Db603 (the two were prepared to be compatibles)

Scherf · « **Reply #38 on:** May 02, 2005, 08:17:46 PM »

Does anyone have a link to / reference for the IL-2 Forums discussion mentioned above? I've poked around myself but haven't succeeded in running it down - can't get search function to work.

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #39 on:** May 04, 2005, 05:31:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus

How would the DB-603 have been for a 109?
Too heavy like the later Jumo?
(Wasn't that the one they used on the Avia?)

Avia used Jumo 211s iirc, that was the main type of engine used in jerry bombers like the he111, ju87, 88 etc.

Now the DB 603, it would be pretty much like Merlin vs. Griffon Spits. Roughly the same weight and dimension differences, too. Mounting it would probably not a problem in place of the 605, the cowling would be a little longer and the plane heavier (given the 900kg odd dry weight of the 603 vs. 730 kg odd of the 605). I remember seeing some calculated performance for DB603 and Jumo 213 for the Bf 109 by Mtt, so they definietely considered it, but declined as at the time the 603s had little to offer about the more developed 605s.. but in the long term, the 603 had great performance reserves - see DB603N. And as Meyer said, the 603/213 were alternative powerplants.

Now as far as forward swept wing goes, somewhere I read that because of the way forces act on it, these can be 30% lighter as they need to be less strong. True or not - dunno.

Angus · « **Reply #40 on:** May 04, 2005, 05:39:14 AM »

Ok, pretty much what I though. Odd that they never tried it, and sad at the same time, - would have been really interesting to see some test results from it.
BTW, I've looked at a Griffon and a Merlin side by side, - not really much of a difference in size, but the Griffon was a tad wider on the top.
To the forward sweep, - well, baffling. The forces would be very strong on the inner section, so maybe the spars could be somewhat lighter? The skin makes the same weight anyway.

pasoleati · « **Reply #41 on:** May 04, 2005, 08:50:01 PM »

Well K, funnily enough, Butch keeps telling me a different story (I won´t go into details here).

As for Willy M, apparently we are reading different Mankau&Petrick book as in my interpretation the M&P has huge amount of coffin nails for both DB and Willy M. Especially the quotes from primary docs are pretty damning. But apparently e.g. the order to have a witness/stenographer present at any meeting with Willy M is just an example how greatly he was respected for integrity.

Tails · « **Reply #42 on:** May 04, 2005, 09:06:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
Ok, pretty much what I though. Odd that they never tried it, and sad at the same time, - would have been really interesting to see some test results from it.
BTW, I've looked at a Griffon and a Merlin side by side, - not really much of a difference in size, but the Griffon was a tad wider on the top.
To the forward sweep, - well, baffling. The forces would be very strong on the inner section, so maybe the spars could be somewhat lighter? The skin makes the same weight anyway.

Unfortunately, using conventional materials, a foreward swept wing would end up being heavier. This is due to having to reinforce the structure to compensate for the wingtips' desire to curl over on themselves.

It can be done with conventional materials, with the mentioned expense in weight, but is only really practical with modern composites, as it keeps the weight down.