Spit 16

[MiloMorai]

This is in the sig  of a poster over at Ubi

Kurfurst logic: 'cleared' = 'used' for the LW = 'not used' for the Allies; 2 = quite a few ships

He used have, but was removed for some reason,

Kurfurst Motto: The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth >> NEVER

Kev, B2 fuel?? B4 fuel should it not be? Me109Ks also used C3 fuel(1.80ata).

[Benny Moore]

Don't even get me started on Kurfurst.  I have only one word to say about that individual - serial liar.  All right, that was two words.  Oh, well ...

[Benny Moore]

Originally posted by Kweassa
The 66" rating was never "cleared", nor was it in anyway "official".

Benny's argument that the 66"/75" P-38L should be introduced on grounds of 'officiality' is clearly wrong.

That's not true.  I don't have it, but I have seen the document officially approving 66" for the P-38L.  I believe Widewing will be along shortly to post it.  I've also seen documents approving 72" for the P-51D and 70" for the P-47D.  This is for operational service, not a test aircraft or two.

Originally posted by Kweassa
There's no such thing as a "Me109K at 1.98ata plus nitrous oxide". Nor is the boost system equipped on the 109s and 190s anything 'special'. The methanol-water injection system is a standard, mandatory piece of equipment that is standardized and equipped on all 109s after the G-14.

Right, I was wrong about the nitrous oxide; a quick search shows it was only used on early 109s.  I meant methanol injection.  But what about Knegel's claims that some Me-109Ks ran at 1.98 ata but did not have methanol injection?

Originally posted by Kweassa
There is a very, very excellent discussion concerning the existance of these "late P-38Ls" in the IL2 forums, with the participants of both sides coming up with equally interesting and convincing evidence:

P-38L 'late' - the new fantasy plane?

That discussion is good - and only good - because of the data posted by Big Kahuna and company.  Kurfurst is a liar, and he was lying then.  I've seen with my own two eyes a document clearing the P-38L for 66" Hg. MAP.  He's also wrong about the horsepower; 1725 hp. comes from a 64" rating, not 66 inches.

Kurfurst was also lying when he slandered Big Kahuna, accusing him entirely without evidence (or provocation) of fabricating those figures - figures which Big Kahuna had clearly stated in previous threads where he got them (Warren Bodie).

By the way, I have to retract some of the statements I made in that "fantasy plane" thread; it was several years ago and I hadn't seen some of the documents I have now.  I mentioned that the P-38L could run at 1725 hp. when using 150 fuel, but it actually could also run it on standard 100/130 quite handily.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Benny Moore
That's not true.  I don't have it, but I have seen the document officially approving 66" for the P-38L.  I believe Widewing will be along shortly to post it.  I've also seen documents approving 72" for the P-51D and 70" for the P-47D.  This is for operational service, not a test aircraft or two.

From http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org:

The 150 octane P-38 test report can be found here.

My regards,

Widewing

[Benny Moore]

Thanks.  I've also seen a picture of an actual document clearing 66" for operations; do you know where I can find that again?  I was an idiot not to save it at the time.  That 70" test and recommendation is good enough for me, since I already know from a myriad of sources that ratings well above that were used in combat, but some people are not happy unless they see an official document (and even that's not good enough for individuals like Kurfurst).

[dtango]

Sorry guys, I had posted a chart earlier that I asked HTC to remove on the 109K4.  It helps to first to get the permission of your source for data for posting before posting it!

At any rate:  most folks have recently quoted kurfurst's messcmt documents for performance on the 109K4.  At worst the AH 109K4 is the 1.98 ata C3 version (without MW50).  At best it's the 1.98 ata  C3+MW50.   The messcmt document that kurfurst's charts come from state that compressibility is not accounted for which means the quoted speeds would be lower than on the charts.  If I recall there's fw190 data out there that has oft been quoted that has the same issue of not being corrected for compressibility drag.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[Benny Moore]

Kweassa says that all Me-109K's had MW-50.  If that's true, then we have a 1.98 ata Me-109K with MW-50, and therefore should get higher boosts for other airplanes (since, after all, very few Me-109s used 1.98 ata, while lots of other ships used their higher ratings).

[Krusty]

Benny... you're assuming a lot.

You're ASSUMING that we have a 1.98 boosted K-4. You're putting too much emphasis on the MW50. It was like water injection on later US rides, quite common.

You can have MW50 on any level of boost, it just helps prevent detonation in the engine.

Having said that, even the 1.8ata K-4 (which we probably have) still has MW50, and always has.

[Knegel]

Originally posted by Benny Moore
Don't even get me started on Kurfurst.  I have only one word to say about that individual - serial liar.  All right, that was two words.  Oh, well ...

Isnt it a "bit" poor to sidekick to someone who isnt here to defend himself, specialy if we see that very similar systems of argumentation like Kurfi use get used??(im not only talking about you Benny!)

The way Kurfi rate the datas of different nations and planes often looks biased and iam sure he dont do a good job for his own preferences, cause often people tend to throw the helve after the hatchet.

Only cause Kurfi did offer documents, they are not bad and the 109K4 DB605DB/ASM datas we have show 590km/h at sea level and a climb of 1500m/min in its peak.

With a "Dünnbrettpropeller" we the K4 is shown a bit faster. Noone need to argue that this speeds could vary up and down, from plane to plane etc, we all know that, but realy, why a so smal, streamlined  and light plane with 1850PS shouldnt be so fast??
The 109F4 with only 1170PS did reach already 529km/h +-6km/h, almost 700PS more should help a lot.  

The more big La7 with same power is faster in AH and the much more big and heavy P51B and D with particular much less power are same fast.  And i wanna see the calculation that determine that a semi-laminar airfoil is able to even out the drag of 5m² wingarea and much more big fuselage and 100-300HP and 1000kg more weight.  

Just to say, i saw the P51 tests and they are a fact, to say the available K4 datas are "Kurfi propaganda" is where i have a problem.  That the K4 with 1850PS, but also the Spi14 are only as fast as the much more big, much more heavy and less powerfull P51 already is strange and show how advanced the P51 design was regarding speed.

btw, 600km/h @ sea level are still far away from compressibility problems.

Greetings,

Knegel

[Kweassa]

That discussion is good - and only good - because of the data posted by Big Kahuna and company. Kurfurst is a liar, and he was lying then. I've seen with my own two eyes a document clearing the P-38L for 66" Hg. MAP. He's also wrong about the horsepower; 1725 hp. comes from a 64" rating, not 66 inches.

 I've read the entire thread. No documents were presented that actually showed an official approval of the use 66" on the P-38L. The closest thing that was presented was a informal memo of a new engine configuration scheme that offset some of the aircraft manifold ratings to higher levels with the use of better grade fuel, and even in that memo the plane that is mentioned is the P-38J, not the L.  Nor is the info presented by Widewing an approval - it's a flight test data.

 Now, I'm not contending the P-38Ls never used higher boost settings in the latter days of the war. However, I am contending that it was a measure that was never sanctioned officially, used on a few remaining squadrons that actually retained the use of P-38s as all the other squadrons have long since converted to the P-51(Look at the dates on Widewing's flight test). That's exactly what Bodie himself is stating.

Kurfurst was also lying when he slandered Big Kahuna, accusing him entirely without evidence (or provocation) of fabricating those figures - figures which Big Kahuna had clearly stated in previous threads where he got them (Warren Bodie).

 In a sense of fairness viewed by a 3rd person with no direct interestes to either side, both parties were assuming a lot upon insufficient data. Kurfy is notorious for his biases and aggressive interpretations on data, but he does not conjure anonymous numbers up. He refuses to acknowledge that the numbers of evidence mounting on the use of higher manifold settings on the latter day P-38Ls are substantial, which in my view is clearly problematic.

 However, the same sort of overly enthusiastic interpretation also comes from the proponents of the P-38L themselves. An ironic example would be you yourself here, who is vouching fot Kahuna's interpretation on the subject based on Bodie, and yet you refuse to believe Bodie's own statement on how the 8thAF never officially sanctioned the use of 66" on the P-38L. That's selective reasoning.

By the way, I have to retract some of the statements I made in that "fantasy plane" thread; it was several years ago and I hadn't seen some of the documents I have now. I mentioned that the P-38L could run at 1725 hp. when using 150 fuel, but it actually could also run it on standard 100/130 quite handily.

 Not according to that thread. Kurfy's not the only one against the "P-38L late". From my point of view, running 1725hp on 100/130 is an assumption at best. It probably could run at that rating, but it didn't.

[Benny Moore]

I can only assume that Bodie is not aware of the memorandum which, I repeat, I have seen clearing 66" for operational use.  This is important; at the time of that "fantasy" thread I was relying mostly on the word of Big Kahuna, Gibbage, and a few other associates.  However, in the years since then I have done a lot of research and accumulated a lot of data.  I base my statement on the 66" operational use on an official document I've seen a full scan on.  It's a memorandum from a general authorizing 66" for operational use on the P-38L in Europe.  It's understandable that you disbelieve me until I provide evidence, so I shall search hard for this document.  You might want to check out Vees for Victory; it mentions Allison tests that 130 octane fuel was sufficient to run 66".

You say that Kurfurst refuses to accept the numbers.  That's an understatement.  In the thread, he flatly states that 1600 was the P-38's horsepower and that there was no 1725 hp. P-38.  This is a lie, and he provided no evidence supporting his bold statement.  He also failed to completely to counter the evidence of others.  But that's not the biggest problem.  As I said, Kurfurst accused Big Kahuna and others of fabricating data.  That's pretty big.  Again, he never provided an ounce of evidence to back up his outrageous claims.

Even if there were no evidence to indicate that 1780 or 1725 hp. were used operationally (which is not at all the case), it's still very wrong to state that 1600 was absolutely the maximum horsepower on the P-38.  The implication is that 1600 was the hard and fast limit, that the engines were not capable of putting out more power.  It's one thing to claim that only 1600 saw service (which is wrong it itself), but it's quite audacious to say that 1600 was the maximum power of the P-38 (especially when you already know about higher ratings).

Kurfurst is a liar, and probably always will be.  Don't you believe a word he says; I've seen him say two opposite statements about his precious 109 in two different threads on the same day, depending on the person he was talking to.  As for the mild suggestion that I am acting similarly to Kurfurst - that would be me stating flatly that there was no such thing as an Me-109 running 1.98 ata.  It is a fantasy plane.  Kweassa and Knegel made up those numbers or got them from the internet.  1850 was it's maximum horsepower, and the 2000 horsepower figure is poppycock.  And the 109 never ran on C3 fuel.

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
This is in the sig  of a poster over at Ubi

Kurfurst logic: 'cleared' = 'used' for the LW = 'not used' for the Allies; 2 = quite a few ships

He used have, but was removed for some reason,

Kurfurst Motto: The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth >> NEVER

Kev, B2 fuel?? B4 fuel should it not be? Me109Ks also used C3 fuel(1.80ata).

CC, B4 my bad.

Yes, but they could use C3 or B4.
The only change being if any were converted to 1.98ata they could ONLY use C3 fuel, according to Butch.

That has been one of the arguments against it happening.
With the falling fuel production that they would limit an aircraft to one specific fuel, when previously it could use either.

The only way the LW were able to almost maintain a steady sortie rate from Jan 1945 onwards, was to cut fuel supplies to everything non-essential and divert it to frontline units.

Lets have the XVI at 25lbs boost.
It was used on the LF IXe from May 1944.

The XIV at 21lbs - July 1944.

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Knegel


The more big La7 with same power is faster in AH and the much more big and heavy P51B and D with particular much less power are same fast.  And i wanna see the calculation that determine that a semi-laminar airfoil is able to even out the drag of 5m² wingarea and much more big fuselage and 100-300HP and 1000kg more weight.  
l

In game on runway full fuel no drop tanks. Using the E6B

La7         7390 lbs    21 min of fuel
109K4     7563 lbs    27 min of fuel
XIV          8574 lbs    26 min of fuel
P51D       10089 lbs  50 min of fft
P51d @ 50% fuel 9363 lbs 26 min of fuel.

So the difference for the 51 vs k4 is down to 816 kilo

Can prop design and aerodynamics compensate for top speeds?

Now using Gonzo's  web calculator. Found here
http://gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php


Off wep in game the 51d is faster than the k4 up to 16.5K.
On wep on the deck speed almost identical, after that the 109 is faster at all alts.

Now as far as climb and acceleration the k4 stomps the 51d in both.

So I have no idea how you can say the the 51 is just as fast because its not.

Now the La7 has makes 2000 hp at 2600 rpm at sea lvl. Per this thread http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=198148

Now plug in the la7 and the K4 in gonzo's calc.

On wep the 109 accels almost as fast but out climbs the La7.
Then once to about 5k feet the k4 is faster on wep and really starts to out climb.
At 13k it becomes faster off wep.

The complaint that the k4 is not up to snuff in game is silly.



Bronk
Edit: Whats the HP difference off wep with the d and k4 at low alts?

[TimRas]

Originally posted by dtango
Well, the 109K-4 we have is the 1.98 ata version.

How do you know that ?

E6B data below:

[Squire]

He's alleging that it flys with the 1.98 ata flight data, at 1.80 ata. At least I beleive thats the accusation.

Im doubtfull myself, as the FMs in AH are modeled with weight, drag, and h.p. inputted, rather than older FMs that had flight data set in alt "bands" with set #s.