Author Topic: It's official...  (Read 8234 times)

Offline zorstorer

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 950
It's official...
« Reply #255 on: December 21, 2005, 06:54:52 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
... I really gotta try to install a Wiki on my server over the holidays so we can start capturing all this data in one place ...


As a side note....nice site Dok

:aok

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
It's official...
« Reply #256 on: December 21, 2005, 08:42:57 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kurfürst
I thought we were discussing engine outputs and rated altitude, not top speeds, you should understand the difference.


Seems that who ever made the datasheet you posted has erroneouysly used ratings for the Merlin 66 but the max speed and 2nd FTH are logical for the Merlin 266, while a bit lower as expected from RR data sheet but still clearly higher than for the LF.IX. Note that at 1st FTH claimed speeds and FTHs are same for LF.IX and XVI.

Quote
Originally posted by Kurfürst
As I understand, your point to ignore/dismiss the engine ratings given for the Merlin 266 by the datasheet, and then speculate about the top speeds based on the same datasheet you dismissed two times already...?


The engine rating for the Merlin 266 at 2nd FTH is simply wrong in the datasheet you posted. Below is the data sheet for the 266 from "Rolls Royce Aero Engine Data handbook" from the Appedix of Harvey-Bailey's book (originally printed 1945 by RR). It is as primary source as a source can be.

http://img23.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc147&image=d06a8_266.jpg

I wonder why you did not post those parts of the sheet which show higher 2nd FTH and higher max speed?

gripen

Offline Kurfürst

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 921
      • http://www.kurfurst.org
It's official...
« Reply #257 on: December 21, 2005, 09:31:11 AM »
You claimed :

Spit IXLF, Merlin 66.
66's FTH = 16 000 feet
IXLF's rammed FTH = 404mph at 21 000 feet.

FTH difference to, ram .5000 feet.

Spit XVILF, Merlin 266.
266's FTH = 19 400 feet
IXLF's rammed FTH = 406mph at 22 500 feet.

FTH difference to, ram .3100 feet.

Explain me how can this be, if the two engines are different.
The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site
http://www.kurfurst.org

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
It's official...
« Reply #258 on: December 21, 2005, 09:31:20 AM »
Quote
2mph higher top speed if compared to the LF. IX values.


Does anybody else see the absolute absurdity and ignorance of this statement in terms of aircraft performance?

All the best,

Crumpp

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
It's official...
« Reply #259 on: December 21, 2005, 10:35:18 AM »
The 66 had a 0.477 gear ratio reduction for the prop.

The 266 had a 0.479 gear ratio reduction for the prop.

Offline Kev367th

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5290
It's official...
« Reply #260 on: December 21, 2005, 10:58:10 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kurfürst
But why narrow it down to France? There was nothing important happenning there, the RAF launched nuisancse raids for years with a handful of bombers as bait, but the LW didn't buy the trick as the JG2/26 kill ratios show. The Bf 109s were primarly used in the Med, and that's where Spitfires and 109s mostly met.  And there the ratio of MkVs was even higher vs. MkIX. The typical Spitfire vs. 109 engagement in 1943 was usually 109G-2, G-4 or G-6 facing old MkVs against which they were quite superior, or when a MkIX turned up once in a month, it put them on equal footing.
 


Exactly why narrow it to France.
Hmm, all these superior LW fighters couldn't even beat a handful of Hurricanes and 3 Gloster Gladiators in Malta.
Guess once the V's turned up they had definately lost thier chance.

Going back to the ORIGINAL point of the thread -

Spoke to Skuzzy yesterday - There are NO immediate plans to perk the XVI's, suck it up :) .
« Last Edit: December 21, 2005, 11:01:54 AM by Kev367th »
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T
Asus M3N-HT mobo
2 x 2Gb Corsair 1066 DDR2 memory

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
It's official...
« Reply #261 on: December 21, 2005, 11:02:04 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
Does anybody else see the absolute absurdity and ignorance of this statement in terms of aircraft performance?

All the best,

Crumpp

What?  You mean that all aircraft of a given model don't perform exactly the same? :O :p

Yeah, 2mph is meaningless as you could just as likely find an LF.IX that did 405mph and an LF.XVI that topped at 397mph.  All well withing manufacturer's spec.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline DoKGonZo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1977
      • http://www.gonzoville.com
It's official...
« Reply #262 on: December 21, 2005, 11:09:28 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by zorstorer
As a side note....nice site Dok

:aok


Thanks ... its been a pile of work condensing stuff strewn across almost two decades into something quasi-concise.


I played around with Wiki's last night. MediaWiki (which WikiPedia runs on) was nice ... but slow and more effort to learn than I have time or patience for. I ended up installing DokuWiki - small footprint, very quick, decent plugins. It doesn't use mySQL to store data, but since it looks like 2/3 of the pages I expect to be written will have a file attachment or two embedded, performance probably won't be helped all that much by being in a database.

I'll work on getting namespaces defined and transcribe a few things to get started and then loose the hounds on it ... no idea if people will use it or not, but I know having such a resource just for sim-gaming has been discussed several times in the past.

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
It's official...
« Reply #263 on: December 21, 2005, 12:15:49 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kurfürst
You claimed :


I have not claimed much, mostly quoted sources presented here.

Quote
Originally posted by Kurfürst

Spit IXLF, Merlin 66.
66's FTH = 16 000 feet
IXLF's rammed FTH = 404mph at 21 000 feet.

FTH difference to, ram .5000 feet.

Spit XVILF, Merlin 266.
266's FTH = 19 400 feet
IXLF's rammed FTH = 406mph at 22 500 feet.


FTH difference to, ram .3100 feet.

Explain me how can this be, if the two engines are different.


There is allways some variation, anyway 22500ft at standard condition for the XIV is higher than any IX reached in the source you used above, the highest being the MA648 (22k) with SU injection and improved intake the rest being between 19-21k (the JL165 was lowest with tropical aquipment). The P-51B and D reached 2nd FTH typically around 23-24,5k with the similar V-1650-7, higher max speed and about same MAP ie the datasheet misses just 500ft which is well within normal variation.

Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp

Does anybody else see the absolute absurdity and ignorance of this statement in terms of aircraft performance?


That is "a bit higher" just like I originally said, if max speed and FTH had been measured with a better performing example, these would have been a bit higher than given in the spec sheet.

gripen

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
It's official...
« Reply #264 on: December 21, 2005, 12:22:42 PM »
Quote
Hmm, all these superior LW fighters couldn't even beat a handful of Hurricanes and 3 Gloster Gladiators in Malta.


Do you think that is even close to an accurate account of History?  Come on Kev, quit being silly and baiting.  You too Kurfurst.

There is a little bit of knowledge in this thread. We could have a great discussion or we can nit pick on each other’s nerves.

Quote
Yeah, 2mph is meaningless as you could just as likely find an LF.IX that did 405mph and an LF.XVI that topped at 397mph. All well withing manufacturer's spec.


Exactly.  Arguing or even presenting the "fact" my plane is 2 mph faster or slower is comical.  It would only have some relative bearing in a side-by-side performance trial.  Even the "2mph" is rather relative and would mean one plane was creeping away from the other very slowly.  The "2mph" would assume all corrections are absolutely perfect.

It's rather funny some of the "theories" that get pushed on these boards.  In the years of research I 've done now a few glaring points stand out.

1.  They really did know what they were doing, on all sides.  They were much smarter than we are on their own aircraft.

2.  No organization spends money on equipment without knowing exactly what that equipment can do.  Most important "specifications" are the manufacturers guaranteed performance.  These do change too.  I can actually trace a few technical developments in the FW-190 form the discovery of the problem, testing, and issuance of new specifications or instructions.  Graphs of individual plane performance are useful for gleaning trends or effects of aircraft set up/outfitting.  Not for claims of absolute performance of a type.

3.  Calculations are generally conservative not optimistic.  Simple things, like the mathematical modeling of the atmosphere can have huge effect though and lead to erroneous conclusions.  In other words, if you took a flight test vs. a calculation or even two calculations, if the atmosphere model was not the same performance absolute conclusions will not be correct.

In general 90 percent of the "my graph is better than your graph" is just ignorance.  I did it too when I was ignorant and now that I am better educated it does not have the same appeal.

All the best,

Crumpp

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20385
It's official...
« Reply #265 on: December 21, 2005, 01:08:07 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
Do you think that is even close to an accurate account of History?  Come on Kev, quit being silly and baiting.  You too Kurfurst.

There is a little bit of knowledge in this thread. We could have a great discussion or we can nit pick on each other’s nerves.

 

Exactly.  Arguing or even presenting the "fact" my plane is 2 mph faster or slower is comical.  It would only have some relative bearing in a side-by-side performance trial.  Even the "2mph" is rather relative and would mean one plane was creeping away from the other very slowly.  The "2mph" would assume all corrections are absolutely perfect.

It's rather funny some of the "theories" that get pushed on these boards.  In the years of research I 've done now a few glaring points stand out.

1.  They really did know what they were doing, on all sides.  They were much smarter than we are on their own aircraft.

2.  No organization spends money on equipment without knowing exactly what that equipment can do.  Most important "specifications" are the manufacturers guaranteed performance.  These do change too.  I can actually trace a few technical developments in the FW-190 form the discovery of the problem, testing, and issuance of new specifications or instructions.  Graphs of individual plane performance are useful for gleaning trends or effects of aircraft set up/outfitting.  Not for claims of absolute performance of a type.

3.  Calculations are generally conservative not optimistic.  Simple things, like the mathematical modeling of the atmosphere can have huge effect though and lead to erroneous conclusions.  In other words, if you took a flight test vs. a calculation or even two calculations, if the atmosphere model was not the same performance absolute conclusions will not be correct.

In general 90 percent of the "my graph is better than your graph" is just ignorance.  I did it too when I was ignorant and now that I am better educated it does not have the same appeal.

All the best,

Crumpp



Amen to that Crumpp.
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
It's official...
« Reply #266 on: December 21, 2005, 02:38:58 PM »
Hi Dokgonzo,

>I played around with Wiki's last night. MediaWiki (which WikiPedia runs on) was nice ... but slow and more effort to learn than I have time or patience for. I ended up installing DokuWiki - small footprint, very quick, decent plugins. It doesn't use mySQL to store data, but since it looks like 2/3 of the pages I expect to be written will have a file attachment or two embedded, performance probably won't be helped all that much by being in a database.

I can also recommend PmWiki. PHP-based, file-system storage/no database required, easy to install, loads of useful features and add-ons. Password protection and user management, too (though I only tried the former, not the latter). I'm running PmWiki as a corporate intranet system, and consider it a major success. Something like 1700 pages with 4000 files online, and growing at an alarming rate. More than a million page hits in a bit over a year, and everything was quite fun and almost effortless. (Highly efficient would be more accurate.) People mistake me for a wizard though in fact I'm just a dweeb and the wiki does all the wizardry ;-)

(There's an add-on called WikiForms which makes it possible to create form-based, structured pages to combine the advantages of a wiki with those of a database. I imagine that could be a useful feature for applications like squadron lists etc., too.)

If your decision on DokuWiki is not final yet, please have a look at http://www.pmwiki.org and consider my favourite wiki engine, too :-)

And way to go for starting such a cool project! :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline DoKGonZo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1977
      • http://www.gonzoville.com
It's official...
« Reply #267 on: December 21, 2005, 03:10:56 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Dokgonzo,

I can also recommend PmWiki.  


Cool ... I'll try it out ...

Offline DoKGonZo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1977
      • http://www.gonzoville.com
It's official...
« Reply #268 on: December 30, 2005, 03:33:38 PM »
OK ... I think I have things set up on the Wiki and all the cool plug-ins loaded (incl. one for entering all these fizzicks equations you guys love).

http://wiki.gonzoville.com/

Set up an account and I'll grant access to the "warbirds" namespace and you can start posting stuff. There's also a namespace for Aces High and flight sims in general.

Offline Eagle Eye

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 145
It's official...
« Reply #269 on: December 31, 2005, 05:06:03 PM »
Why does it seem everyone can out turn me no matter what im in or what they r in STALL STALL STALLL DEATH!!!!!!

If WW2 planes were really this crappy it"s a wonder any pilots survived.