Originally posted by gripen
That is simply because the test data shows if an engine delivers claimed performance. Note that even the lowest performing Merlin 70 you choosed gave closer to specs performance than the tested DBs.
The problem with that is the chronic tendency of the DBs to not live up to the specs. Therefore test data gives better picture.
You brought in calculated data (accounts no drag rise due to compressibility) which you claimed to be flight tested.
Besides even the lowest performing Merlin 70 test data you choosed delivers higher output at high altitude than the calcudated data for the DBs.
Hi,
actually i didnt claim the K4 is flight tested, i took the only availabe K4 (DB605D) datas i know.
Testdatas with RAM only show, if a engine in the particular airframe delivers claimed performance.
Actually i never saw a DB605D test and the tested ASM seems to delivers claimed performance.
DB605ASM
FTH static
Sondernot: 6400m
Start/Not: 8000m
Steig/Kampf: 7800m
FTH RAM
Sondernot: 6800m 400m above static fth
Start/Not: 8700m(roundabout) 700m above static fth
Steig/Kampf: 8600m 800m above static fth
Merlin 70/V-1650-3:
Static FTH
combat/climb: 1055HP at 8231m
max power: 1380HP at 7100m( found a other source with 7450m),
FTH RAM of the three HF Spitfires:
8475m (with a weight of 3218kg) 1025-1375m above static fth
8100m (with a weight of 3218kg) 650-1000m above static fth
7743m (with a weight of 3160kg) 300-650m above static fth
Dont look that bad for the AS.
Are there more datas to the GJ-FX test available?? Are this tested or calculated performences?
Are there any other tests available?
Even if we reduce the GJ-FX speed by 40km/h, in 9000m its still as fast as the slowest Spit in test, with 15km/h correction its still as fast as the fastest Spitfire, despite the smal weight of the Spits in test.
Once again i only see very similar performing engines.
All arguments against this currently base on assumtions, which are sooooo bad and wrong, if Kurfi use them.
Greetings,
Knegel