batz "wipe the rabid drool from your chin" and read what ive written.
The speed of 355mph as top speed for the 190A8 is stated in loads of books its also in those photocopied charts that are often posted by vermillion.In Ah you get 350 max. The speed of 338 without wep was given to me by him in that thread i linked to. I then went and flew it in AH and could only get 330mph. (Are you saying HTC believe it to be 350mph max speed and 330mph max speed without wep? Im not aware that they had said this anywhere although their web chart does seem to point to that being what it is.If this is the case why doesnt someone link us to where they have said it? sheesh is it so hard?)
(*This has nothing to do with the contested speed of the 190A5 at sea level btw. I never even mentioned it as its something i have no information for.)
back to the 109a8 if you cant accept 355mph as top sea level speed why dont you give me a reference that says different that YOU consider accurate.I dont think it has been contested even in these boards.The test can be done by anyone offline with 0mph wind. try it yourself.
Also why dont you take a look at some other writers works and see how many mistakes you can spot in their publication. It just happens to be convenient that william green is branded a complete liar for making mistakes on a few obscure marks of an aircraft. On a subject which even today is hotly debated on many a BBS.
Again you say something like dont trust anything William green says and yet you have not given me a way to prove once and for all he was wrong. Its probable he has made a mistake I'll agree but only because I agree it was unlikely they managed to fit the 103's in a 109 because of size but...
As for your other comment to distrust everything william green says as rubibish you need to step back a moment and maybe even PURCHASE the book? The error for the 109K is one of 2 errors in a book numbering some 600 pages and some half a million words.it is regarded as the most complete work on the entire LW aircraft collection. One error is he states the 109K had nose-mounted MK 103 30mms when in fact it seems there was only the MK103 wing-gondolas OR one that DID fit the MK103M which was a different type to the MK103 with much less preferable ballistics. The other mistake is he claimed the 15mm cowl guns were in production when it has since been found they were only used on a prototype. Its actually not that bad a mistake to make but it seems everyone who wants to go with the US tests rather than RAF or German uses to debunk what is a Twenty year research project of LW planes with an unprecedented access to German records and pilots.It was written BEFORE computers were invented so he wasnt trying to get a 109K with a MK103 30mm so he could shoot anyone down. What possible gain does William Green have for saying it was on the 109K. other than because he made a mistake there isnt a secret plot to make all the German planes sound better than what they were. They won the best aircraft race hands down with the Me262. why would he need to boast about a 109K with MK 103 30mm ?? who is he trying to impress? his bank manager? You see its pretty preposterous to claim he did this in a deliberate way to fool people. These authors get to know those old pilots and engineers who provide him with information. These sort of people are unlikely to add their own ideas without some sort of evidence that either proved it or led them to believe it. What do you know about william greens sources? How do you know he doesnt have some records that show they did indeed have nose mounted MK103s? If they lengthened the area between the rear of the engine and the cockpit or perhaps had somehow made some modificated MK103 we havent got records on today then our stance of 'its unlikely' would crumble to dust. The unlikelyness of its fitting the 109 is the ONLY basis ive seen for debunking williams's book.
As for your link which apparently proves the 190a8 didnt use MW50 have you read it ? and i quote:
"here is what i know.
Fw decided against MW50 for the BMW801 D and Q (TU)
because it was not worth the effort. (that what the FW engeener said anyway)
a 45 report mention that even for the Bmw801 E(TH) and S (TS) where installation of mw50 used in the D9 was possible gives the preference to the Erhonte notleistung.
the bMW801 D with mw 50 is about 2100 ps 2700 rpm ??ata
the bmw801 D with erhonte notlesitung is 2050-PS 2700 rpm 1.65 ata.
the erhonte notlestun was really simple and esy to install and did not need any special equipement (just a cable to bleed the airline.
It did not need any special tank nor special line.
It was use fullup to 5500 m
The output of the bmw801 is 1780 ps at see leval (1840 ps at 300-500 meters. 2700 rpm and 1.42 ata
All that a speed 0.
(this is from fw and bmw captured documents)
The erhonte notleistung is not really petrol injection as such (neither is the system used on the Jabo called C3 injection). the Bmw 801 used injectors and not carburator. the fuel was used exactly like the Mw50 to cool down the mixture so that you can increase the pressure in the cylinders.
I hope that helps"several points ...this captured document i take it has been verified somehow? or even seen?
If it is true it still mentions that the C3 system was almost had the same result as MW50. Does it matter that it was a MW50 or C3? the point is it still had increased power and performance. New evidence like this about the C3 if real is bound to turn up as people nowadays have better research capabilities and links all around the world while writting. It doesnt mean because we find new evidence that this somehow makes everything before it nonsense. It just means we REFINE the ideas or knowledge. Do you not think that theres been mistakes made of allied planes too that later are realised has been assumed incorrectly? Its why people re-research things. to try to find out more detail. Who knows maybe authors saw it and thought it wasnt relevant as it only made 50 hp difference? or maybe they didnt have access to this 'stolen report'
and even if this turns out to be correct, ie MW50 is found to have not been used, AT THIS MOMENT the accepted facts are it did have it at least in current litrature. There have been no books made with this claim and from your link theres no document to see. If that board you point to did have some byall means post them or a link to them. Im not about to trawl the boards trying to prove MW50 was on the 190a8. For one thing Captain eric Brown RAF test pilot for some 25 years during and after WW2 has a book which shows he flew a captured 190's with MW50 systems installed but they had no MW50 or GM1 fuel and so often had to test without it. For now until the evidence is shown to the contrary they did use it. Unless you are prepared to call the actual war veterans liars? why would an RAF test pilot make it all up, its hilarious how these bulletin boards work!
just the simple stuff now. the 190A8 does 355mph top speed with wep (the real one with or without the need to decide if it was MW50 GM1 C3 or cats urine
)the AH one 'appears' to max out at 350mph. Its not rocket science or in need of any special 'stolen document'. Its the accepted top speed and a test of AH offline. go test it and stop pointing me to discussions which arent even proven or at least in print in order that we can all decide if its correct.Dont use some obscure BB as a basis to deflect a simple testable question.
this is definately the last reply.well maybe one more if you start to talk nonsense again
and Btw Verm was the one who gave me the 338mph figure for top speed sea level at non-wep and the 355mph top sea level with wep speed in the post i made a year ago. Funked didnt quote me from any manual as far as i saw, in this thread you mean?
(p.s sorry mandoble this has detracted from what you asked about i just cant let it go hehe)
