109 Flaps

[Bruno]

Try answering my post instead of dancing round it.

Why is it all LW docs are taken as 100% accurate and factual, yet allied ones are constantly blown off as wrong, inacurrate, or plain just not enough (if first two reasons don't work)?

Because that is a stupid question created in your mind. Where in this thread has anyone posted an 'Axis document' as proof of anything? Any WW2 prop plane that claims to have reached well beyond .8 mach is false. Axis, Allied, Nuetral etc...

The only conspiracy in that is what you created. As I said put that cross down and take a break for a while.

[Kev367th]

Bruno - if you had read my ORIGINAL post correctly I wasn't specifically referring to this thread.
I just said it was going the typical way that any of these type threads go.

You think I'm wrong about level of proof etc -
Take a look back through some random threads and do an unbiased assessment.

Can think of (off top of my head)

K4 - Flettners, one poster suggested even though they were never operational, they should be in AH as they were fitted anyway.
K4 - 1.98ata, well an order in late March 45 hardly constitutes proof, yet people insist our K4 should it.

Yet allied planes docs need all the t's crossed, i's dotted signed by god, countersigned by Jesus to even be considered as MAYBE being factual.

Like I asked, do a quick look back through some old threads and do an unbiased assessment, you'll find I'm not so far off the mark.

Of course this is coming from some people who are convinced the FM's are constantly changing every patch on LW planes, DESPITE HT saying they haven't changed since AH2 was introduced.
Who the conspiracy theorist now?

[Bruno]

I wasn't specifically referring to this thread.

Then why post anything at all?

You think I'm wrong about level of proof etc -
Take a look back through some random threads and do an unbiased assessment.

Can think of (off top of my head)

K4 - Flettners, one poster suggested even though they were never operational, they should be in AH as they were fitted anyway.
K4 - 1.98ata, well an order in late March 45 hardly constitutes proof, yet people insist our K4 should it.

You are talking about 1 guy, Kurfürst, who doesn't even post here any more.

et allied planes docs need all the t's crossed, i's dotted signed by god, countersigned by Jesus to even be considered as MAYBE being factual.

Well you're carrying his cross, ask for him a signature.

Seriously post a quote of anyone saying that...

Like I asked, do a quick look back through some old threads and do an unbiased assessment, you'll find I'm not so far off the mark.

Of course this is coming from some people who are convinced the FM's are constantly changing every patch on LW planes, DESPITE HT saying they haven't changed since AH2 was introduced.
Who the conspiracy theorist now?

Sure your off the mark. You over exaggerate and go into hysterics rather easily. From HT 'hating Spitfires' to the grand conspiracy to 'deny RAF fans a 25lb boost Spitfire'. All those threads are there do I need to quote from them?

The 109s in AH have changed in the way they handle, especially at higher AoA. It's been shown in Kweassa's turn time tests and confirmed by others who aren't necessarily LW aircraft fans. What hasn't changed is things like speed climb etc...

This is a thread about the 109 flaps that was hijacked into super diving Spitfires. Now, apparently, it's a thread about your self-created 'conspiracy'.

Your cry of 'conspiracy' and 'bias' followed the challenging of 'super diving' Spitfires. Had it been about 'super diving P-38s' you wouldn't have posted anything. So take your bias, your 'conspiracy' and lay them down next to that cross and relax a bit.

[Charge]

"We need to keep one Spit free so Kev has one to fly."

He flies one when it can fly Mach 0.891 as level speed. Untill then Tiffie has to do.



-C+

[Angus]

Well, at least some of you guys are claiming that the Farnborough test is wrong, because it MUST be, because a Spitty could never dive that far.

BTW, I'll tell you a little story of a Hurry pilot who dove full power from 30K
Here ya go: (oh, 17th squadron, aircraft number is either YB-S or YB-T, Hurricane Mk II, year 1941)
"I climbed up to 30.000 feet, rolled over and shoved the nose down into a dive with the throttle forward. I watched as the needle of the airspeed indicator moved clockwise, passing the numerals 300, 400 and 500, which was the highest value on the dial. By now the engine was roaring and the wind screaming as it passed the canopy, and I felt it was time to pull the throttle back and start slowing down, but just at that moment it seemed like an explosion occurred in the cockpit as one of the canopy panes blew out and my head got sucked into the hole it left behind. I managed to free my head and started pulling at the control column to come out of the dive.
To my surprise, and a little later to my horror, I discovered I could not move the stick. I pulled with all my might but nothing happened and the aircraft continued diving vertically towards the ground at high speed. The hands of the altimeter were unwinding fast and I saw I was already passing 10.000 feet. Now I was becoming seriously alarmed. I undid my safety straps, put both feet on the instrument panel in front of me, wound both hands around the control column and heaved with all the strength I could muster. And, thank god, the nose started slowly inching away from the vertical. Now the sweat was pouring off me as I continued to pull with all my might, and suddenly it seemed as if something gave in and the nose started to rise rapidly. I got pressed down into the seat with tremendous force and the blood drained from my head - all became black and I lost conciousness.When I came-to again the aircraft was climbig vertically and very close to stalling. Although I was giddy I managed to regain control and get the aircraft flying level again. I looked at the altimeter and it showed 5000 feet. I shall never know how close  to the mountains of Scotland I was when I passed out, but that cannot have been very far.
When I taxied to the parking stand people gathered around to stare at the aircraft. In addition to the pane in the canopy an access panel to the radio compartment had blown off, but what most caught people's attention were the wrinkles on the upper surface of the wings. Measurements later showed I had added three degrees of Dihedral to the wings!"

[Angus]

Oh, 500 mph+ at say 20K makes how much proportion of mach?
It's IAS BTW

Bet it is more than 0,7.....;)

[niklas]

Originally posted by Kev367th
Try answering my post instead of dancing round it.

Why is it all LW docs are taken as 100% accurate and factual, yet allied ones are constantly blown off as wrong, inacurrate, or plain just not enough (if first two reasons don't work)?

Simple: LW ones look realistic, even from modern viewpoints. Allied ones quite often look extraordinary high.

Take P51 for example. According to the specs it should be able to catch FW-190A and D, let alone TA-152 below 20k

In reality the 190A could escape on tree level, Kurt Tank himself left some in the dust with his TA-152 (unpossible according to the specs), and i know from a guy where his grandfather also could leave some P-51 easily behind which were diving to him in his 190D.

So you can believe any number that fits in your dreams because you see all this more as a kind of dream,  or you can see it in a more realistic manner.
The dreamer gets excited with excellent numbers, the realist gets doubts, you know.

The germans had the world records for speed, had a mass build jet fighter, a fast rocket fighter, a supersonic rocket during the war and were leading in the swept back wing design what means they had a better understanding of effects near mach 1.0.  I think they were leading in transsonic speed knowledge at this time. And their measurment results look pretty realistic today, so i think they were also leading in transsonic measurment equipment and/or result analysis.

You still can compare the 3 tested allied airplanes, because the same method and analysis was used for all 3. But comparing the german and allied tests which were done with different measurment systems and analysis can´t be done.

It´s noteworthy that the P47 and Spit seem to perform well. Maybe the reason is oncemore the elliptical wingshape. The tube is mounted at the very outside. for elliptical shapes that means that the tube is far more backward mounted compared to the middle of the wing (to take a fixpoint) than on the  rectangular wing of a P-51. This means the tube was more influenced by the wing in case of the Spit and P47. Just an assumption but maybe...

niklas

[Angus]

Most aircraft would leave the Spitfire behind in the initial stages of the dive. Not disputed I belive.
But the dive ends when you have to abort it, so maybe that explained why the aircraft was allowed to so much velocity.
German aces like Rall claim that the 109 ended up like 1000 km/h, which is not unlikely if you can bend an old Hurricane into 800 km/h.
Yet the P47 was faster. According to Rall as well.
And, there is yet something that the old Spitty had, apart from an elliptical and very thin wing.....very good elevator authority.
Many of those guys buried into the ground. Nobody knows how fast they were. But touching the limit of mach with a WW2 fighter may have been close for many, - but actual tests were not that many, or we have no access to them
The Farnborough test was no dream, and there are, as pointed out, other measures possible than just pitout. Well, how did the LW measure.
Point A to point B is very well calibrated with a stopwatch, and bear in mind that Germany was not the only nation to build a racer.....

BTW, there are many anecdotes as well where P51's chased down 190's, be it up, down, or level. But the 190 type is usually not defined. Nor were those boosted up P51's, - mostly if not all.

[justin_g]

Originally posted by niklas
I´d like to know how germans did it. The german result looks way more reasonable when we compare it with our knowledge today.
I wonder why they did not test by cameras. If the pilot dives down and you film it with a highspeed camere, the same you use for speed records, you should be able to calculate by triangular formulas in a very simple way the max. speed.

In "Test Pilots" Lukas Schmid(109 dive trials pilot) mentions: force gauges, calibration flights for the airpseed indicator system and a robot camera to take pictures of the instruments. He states that the camera was a rarity in those days. Btw here is the actual dive trial report, which may have more specific data on instrumentation: http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/structures/tails/109.05e43_report/05e43-p1.htm (click right side for next page)

[gripen]

Hm... RAE dive tests continued several years (also after war), several different instrumentations were used and the values were recorded with automatic devices. In addition RAE did large amount of wind tunnel testing to support these studies. IMHO RAE dive studies are far more comprehensive than any other study I've seen so far (and I've seen quite many).

gripen

[Crumpp]

Thanks for the opinion, Gripen.

[Crumpp]

The Farnborough test was no dream, and there are, as pointed out, other measures possible than just pitout. Well, how did the LW measure.

Those NACA reports I posted include the other measurement techniques Angus.  Measuring speeds above mach .8 was just not that accurate and contained an inherently large percentage of error.  Just as the NACA states.

[Crumpp]

Point A to point B is very well calibrated with a stopwatch, and bear in mind that Germany was not the only nation to build a racer.....

And it is fairly accurate at very low altitudes on a plane flying close to level.

Add in angle and altitude and the margin of error increases dramatically.

[Angus]

So your point is that they could not measure speeds in excess of "X" so the measurements above "X" are rubbish.

That is strange indeed, for with a given alt angle and time (simple) it's all point a to b.
The triangle at worst, will go roughly 50% (pythagoras) in the case of a 45 deg dive being mixed with a dive straight to earth. That however means that a lot of ground is covered in the dive.

I do not know if this was used in that particular test but I find it likely that an establishment uses a bullet proof and ancient measurement method to calibrate their gear.

What I sense is actually that you guys think that the measurements are not only a bit off but VERY much so.
Yet, it's a 9th grade method that should calibrate this quite nicely.
(or 7th grade?)

[Crumpp]

So your point is that they could not measure speeds in excess of "X" so the measurements above "X" are rubbish.

Yes that is correct according to the science.  If the measurements were accurate Angus, engineers would not be debating today about such things as F86 or the Me262.

To claim anything above mach .8 measured during the war as an absolute is simply silly.

Going by the POH recommendations of the Spitfires series it seems highly unlikely the measured results are absolutely accurate.  The RAE know the limits of technology and it is funny the fans do not wish to recognize it.  Any problems which occur above those recommended speeds do not get better in the transonic realm, only worse.

 

Yet, it's a 9th grade method that should calibrate this quite nicely.

Then you don't understand the magnitude of the problem.  See above.

All the best,

Crumpp