Verm, I hate to do this but...

[Fishu]

 

Originally posted by R4M:
My answer to you was intended to make a point: if the soviets confused a F2 with an A5, then their whole studies can be completely wrong (maybe they confused the landing gear lever with the flaps one, and they did the test with the gear down     <J.K., but you get the idea?> )

Didn't that one genius use the 'red button' in a plane with ejection seat that shot him up to skyhigh from the cockpit?

[juzz]

Oleg:

"Where you got NII VVS speed for FW-190D-9?" - from the data posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-, which he says is from NII-VVS.

"And where you got that I posted speed of La-7 at sea level = 597km/h" - from the chart you posted the link to.  

[niklas]

Oleg, do you really want to tell us that a 1850hp fighter with radial engine (usually aerodynamically worse than a inline engine) averaged at 640km/h at sealevel?? With a usual naca230 airfoil?

Averaged, that means some aircraft did fly 650km/h or even a bit more?

niklas

[juzz]

That was manufacturer data - probably the best you would ever get.

[JG5_Jerry]

Hmm, methinks all these arguements wouldn't matter if this game didn't mix various WW2 aircraft from various stages of the war and have them all slogging it out against each other. Also, this perk stuff would be irrelevant if HTC had arenas with a proper RPS for each one - then you could take your pick from any period of the war and see what the planes from each period could do against each other. IMHO, there should be no complaints about any planes if they're all thrown together in the MA - I mean, what do you expect to happen?

[Wisk-=VF-101=-]

R4M, Fishu whoever else,

I can xerox and send you those data. THEY ARE NOT MINE. I got them from a TsAGI publication. And I gave you the full list of the people who claim those data. DO NOT SAY THAT I AM CLAIMING ANYTHING BUT THE FACT THE TSAGI FOLKS DID A SCIENTIFICALLY LITERATE WORK AS EVIDENCED FROM THE PROCESS THEY FOLLOWED. (I mentioned this already - you just are not listening).

You don't listen to any of my explanations about how you can't compare end results without knowing the process.


[This message has been edited by Wisk-=VF-101=- (edited 03-07-2001).]

[Fishu]

 

Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:
R4M, Fishu whoever else,

I can xerox and send you those data. THEY ARE NOT MINE. I got them from a TsAGI publication. And I gave you the full list of the people who claim those data. DO NOT SAY THAT I AM CLAIMING ANYTHING BUT THE FACT THE TSAGI FOLKS DID A SCIENTIFICALLY LITERATE WORK AS EVIDENCED FROM THE PROCESS THEY FOLLOWED. (I mentioned this already - you just are not listening).

You don't listen to any of my explanations about how you can't compare end results without knowing the process.

Only thing I am saying, is that I don't trust on those, no matter what results..

[MANDOBLE]

Wisk, your point is absolutely clear, and I agree with you 100%, in fact, I see no possible way to disagree with your statements.

But it seems that, in the case of 190s, the aircrafts tested where not very representative of the real (common) variants, that is, the 190A8 doesnt seem a common 190A8 and the 190A5 doesnt seem a common 190A5.

[R4M]

 

Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:
I can xerox and send you those data. THEY ARE NOT MINE. I got them from a TsAGI publication. And I gave you the full list of the people who claim those data. DO NOT SAY THAT I AM CLAIMING ANYTHING BUT THE FACT THE TSAGI FOLKS DID A SCIENTIFICALLY LITERATE WORK AS EVIDENCED FROM THE PROCESS THEY FOLLOWED. (I mentioned this already - you just are not listening).

A little clarification, when I talk about "your" data, and "your" numbers, I am talking about the source you are extracting those numbers and performances from. I dont try to say that YOU have calculated that.

Mandoble, el problema es saber que tipo de dora testearon esos   para decir que el BMW801 era mejor a alta altura que el Ju213A1 hace falta tener MUY poca idea.

[Wisk-=VF-101=-]

Let's abstract away from aircraft.

Now I will be repeating myself as I already mentioned all this in earlier posts.

Sometimes in any science discipline a team of researchers comes up with some data that are drastically different from those in a certain community. Now, as that team is usually composed of well-educated individuals "visible" in the community (i.e. they published somethign before and did some other work; plus most importantly they got their degrees from accredited universities which means they are qualified). That's the reason why in such a case scientists or engineers do not reject data outright - it is simply unreasonabel and impolite (of course on-line forum is not an international conference by any means). End data are not enough by itself for rejecting the whole research process. Instead other scientists start looking at the assumtions and process given by other people. Sometimes they can see a difference in the process/methods that can account for consistent difference in results - then the results can be corrected and compared. Or sometimes they find a fault in the process.
BTW, the term "fault" has very precise meaning in emprirical studies - it doesn't mean just "wrong" - it is a certain kind of error brought by certain well-defined kinds of mistakes. In any case, one has to look at what the researchers did from scratch so that to be able to claim that they went wrong.

Now my original desire was to find a description of such a process followed by those german testpilots who came up with the manufacturer's results. That's the reference I was asking for. What's so offending in that ? It is normal scientific method. I do not attack anyone's personal beliefs - I do not want to make someone believe in the data - I do not care what you guys believe. I do though have experience in proving things in sciences to my peers in my field, but that does not relate to this thread in any way.

I do believe in scientific method of research and I'm trying to follow it. I don't claim anything drastic as I do not have enough information.

As for these specific 190s - I am sure that it's possible to investigate and get all the Werknummers of all the 190s they obtained - including the ways they were obtained by and units they originally belonged, flight hours they logged, detailed description of their states down to a scratch.

Another note, in general, there is a great difference between beliefs and convictions of the nations of fSU and US. Either side has strong confidence in those convictions. Sometimes I find myself on this kind of "frontline". Say once (long time ago - back in 1990) I was trying to describe advantages of the F-15 in certain aspects with a group of russian engineering students - you can't imagine how much I got flamed - there is a very strong belif among them that the Su-27 is better in all aspects (now please don't start here; this is just an example). So at times I get it from both sides. And God forbid you say something like flakbait said when, say, you are traveling on a train somewhere in fSU (Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia, whatever - they all still speaking russian and have largely the same sentiments about WWII) - you may get beaten for real.

So convictions of that TsAGI team is drastically different from your personal convictions. Your convictions are based on a piece of paper that represents manufacturer's test data. Their convictions are based on the copies of ACs they got and tested to the best of their skills and ability.
You believe that the german data are correct as they manufactured the thing and you have a great distrust for any russian claims or any russians for that matter.
They believe they are right as they tested it and they think they are good scientists and engineers and they don't particularly trust anything until they try it etc. ad nauseum



[This message has been edited by Wisk-=VF-101=- (edited 03-07-2001).]

[MANDOBLE]

 

Originally posted by R4M:
Mandoble, el problema es saber que tipo de dora testearon esos   para decir que el BMW801 era mejor a alta altura que el Ju213A1 hace falta tener MUY poca idea.

Fuel type used, climatology, engine state, knoledge of the plane and its limits, etc, etc are all of them factors than can affect negativaly any test on any plane.

[Sorrow[S=A]]

Ram:
I wish to make one point concerning the 190 A5 vs A8 response here.

As you may recall my great-grandfather was a mechanic on the eastern front from early war until mid 1944 and I have spent many hours translating his diaries and scanning his photos for future reference and for my family records.

The following things jumped out to me immediatly: The 190's servicing on the Eastern front that would have fallen into soviet hands would have been 99% F or G models. Most 190's (I think there was only 1 interceptor squadron over army group A that had A5's) were the 2 cannon ground attack planes. These planes quite correctly had massive amounts of steel attached to the bottoms to protect against ground fire and were generally described by him as a "pain in the ass". A Soviet picking apart a "190" would not likely pick up on FG or A designations- all they would see was a 190 since almost all the lighter A5's were in north africa or france as interceptors. Thus the results given are probably quite correct for what they were fighting.

The A8 mentioned: I completely believe the test results given by the Soviets that the 190 8 revision was a far better plane- I mentioned previously almost a year ago that when they arrived pilots had fistfights over who flew them and who remained in the earlier planes. The planes they reviewed were far more likely once more to be F versions than A ones, not many interceptors over Eastern front conflicts. As such they would be in a plane that had the armor integrated instead of dead weight, had overboost for more power at SL where they fought, and had more powerfull machine guns instead of rifle caliber popguns.

Instead of disbelieving this information I would advise instead to just consider more of what it describes. The process of accumulating it was intensive and exacting and I really find it hard to believe it is inaccurate. However upon examination it often proves that things you found completely wrong or unbelievable were actually quite explainable when put into context.

Sorrow

[Jochen]

 

FIrst this is not true:

1-A5 had light MGs, A8 had heavy MGs
2-A8 had worse areodinamics because the MG bulges
3-A8 had more powerful engine at certain altitudes because the petrol injection system
4-A8 had a slightly different wing than A5; the wing was redesigned in the A6.

I was talking about weight of those planes and bulges and additional fuel injection does not affect weight of plane, at least significantly. Wing was indeed modified in A-6 to hold MG 151/20 instead of MG FF but I doubt it will make great difference in weight. And I already said that guns were different, no need to repeat the obvious.

 

Comparative tests on different planes should be done in comparative loadouts and relative weights. So this is yet another reason for me to say that wisk's data is faulty.

Maybe the soviets didn't know real A-5 was actually lighter than A-8 and they tested F-3 as A-5 and listed the results as A-5? I bet germans didn't bother to tell them that they had actually tested F-3 which was heavier than A-5? Test results can be right afterall but for the F-3, not A-5.

 

My answer to you was intended to make a point: if the soviets confused a F2 with an A5, then their whole studies can be completely wrong (maybe they confused the landing gear lever with the flaps one, and they did the test with the gear down <J.K., but you get the idea?>

I agree it could be wrong info but to say it is all bad info is bit of a stretch. For example you have quoted many charts from RLM and FW companies but do you know wether they are calculated or estimated speeds or got from actual flight tests?

 

I gave you what intended to be a civil answer, and you had to answer in a harsh way with no motive and cussing words...well, sorry but this is my last answer to you in this thread.

Well, I don't feel sorry at all if you dont answer my posts in this thread or any other  

------------------
jochen Gefechtsverband Kowalewski

Units: I. and II./KG 51, II. and III./KG 76, NSGr 1, NSGr 2, NSGr 20.
Planes: Do 17Z, Ju 87D, Ju 88A, He 111H, Ar 234A, Me 410A, Me 262A, Fw 190A, Fw 190F, Fw 190G.

Sieg oder bolsevismus!

[Oleg Maddox]

 

Originally posted by niklas:
Oleg, do you really want to tell us that a 1850hp fighter with radial engine (usually aerodynamically worse than a inline engine) averaged at 640km/h at sealevel?? With a usual naca230 airfoil?

Averaged, that means some aircraft did fly 650km/h or even a bit more?

niklas

Ok...

look here:

 http://www.blackcross-redstar.com/koz.html

Especially bellow the list. Americans p-51s attacked his plane were both shot down .... He flew only Las.... His opinion - the best WWII plane - he describe after many years of the war, and after the war in Korea, where he also was.

There on the site is not present the full type of shot down him planes.  In real log book the last months - fixed that most was D-9.

And about airfoil.  Common Performance of planes which has laminar airfoil is worse at low altitudes. Advantages shown only at highest speeds at high altitude.
Laminar airfoil has as many good advantages as many disadvantages.

I don't think that you like to teach me because I'm real aviation engineer.  
For sure, La-9 and La-11 had both vearians of wings...

I'm out.  

Each best plane of WWII had some advantages and disadvantages. Depends for the purpose they were designed.

La-7 was one the best if not the best for low altitudes, especially if there was good pilot.

And last... Of course, it is important which plane is, but alo VERY IMPORTANT, who is inside the plane.
EXPERIENCE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT TO SURVIVE THE WAR.

[Cobra]

Is it just me or does anyone else notice that the LuftWaffles hijack each and every thread?!?!?!

Next they will be hijacking the Happy Birthday Ice thread and saying that it is really Kurt Tanks birthday and that no flight sim has got it modeled right yet, because he is immortal.

Cobra