Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: MOSQ on December 10, 2004, 01:40:40 PM
-
Interesting reading:
In 1944 trials were made with the new Tempest Mk. V. The Tempest was fully compared with the nearest companion, the Typhoon IB. Tactical comparisons were also made with the Mustang III (P-51B), Spitfire XIV, Bf 109G and Fw 190. This is the report from the Air Fighting Development Unit at the R.A.F. station at Witter.
http://user.tninet.se/~ytm843e/versus.htm (http://user.tninet.se/~ytm843e/versus.htm)
-
Very nice.
Be prepared for the Luftwaffles to join the fray :D
-
That report has it out turning the Bf109G-6, but being matched in turning by the Fw190A. The Bf109 out turns the Fw190. I wonder what was wrong with the Bf109? Gun gondolas adding weight? Pilot inexperience with the slats? Something else?
-
It seems such tests are mostly pretty controversial.
-
Yeah it did really well against a de rated FW-190G they tried to reconvert to fighter status. Got a copy of the original.
Crumpp
-
Well, there were derated 190's in combat then?????
Anyway, Typhoon pilots sometimes states they did not worry about the German planes catcing up with them.
A P51 Pilot said that Typhoon, Spit XIV's and especially Tempests were really faster than his P51, which however was quick enough to catch 190's and 109's
Also, I have heard of rocket-carrying Typhoons with no guns at all, just for the sheer speed. They did not have to worry about bring intercepted en route, just to get bounced when getting away. With light load = uninterceptable.
Any more data ???
-
Based on that report, Tempest V would have a maximum climb rate below 3600 fpm, ours reaches 4500 fpm.
-
How do you get that conclusion Mando????
-
Originally posted by Angus
Well, there were derated 190's in combat then?????
Anyway, Typhoon pilots sometimes states they did not worry about the German planes catcing up with them.
A P51 Pilot said that Typhoon, Spit XIV's and especially Tempests were really faster than his P51, which however was quick enough to catch 190's and 109's
Also, I have heard of rocket-carrying Typhoons with no guns at all, just for the sheer speed. They did not have to worry about bring intercepted en route, just to get bounced when getting away. With light load = uninterceptable.
Any more data ???
No need for data , in AH no one will ever bother to be at cruise speed because of the stupid/cretinistic/incoherent/injustifiable/flawed/fubar fuel multiplier.
Who care of saving fuel in AH ?
We all cruise at MIL power going flank speed.
It negate the advantage the Typhoon had real : an high cruise speed.
-
Well, there were derated 190's in combat then?????
Yes there were derated 190's sent into combat.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by straffo
No need for data , in AH no one will ever bother to be at cruise speed because of the stupid/cretinistic/incoherent/injustifiable/flawed/fubar fuel multiplier.
Who care of saving fuel in AH ?
We all cruise at MIL power going flank speed.
It negate the advantage the Typhoon had real : an high cruise speed.
Straffo, it's not the fuel multiplier--it's the bases 25 miles apart. They are that close so that those with short attention spans can find a fight within five minutes.
shubie
-
Originally posted by Angus
How do you get that conclusion Mando????
That report describes the substained climb rate of the Tempest as 200-300 fpm advantage over Typhoon 1B. It is also indicated that Tempest substained climb rate is behind 109G(seems to be 2) at all heights.
Maximum allowed speed in a dive also seems pretty low: 540 mph at 10000 feet.
I would ask how credible is that report?
-
It's a first batch Tempest perhaps is it the reason the result look strange
-
The only 190s that were de-rated were the A-3s.
-
The only 190s that were de-rated were the A-3s.
No Milo. FW-190's were derated throughout the lifespan of the series. Most AF derated a few of their planes. Nothing special. It is a way to get rid of inferior grade avaition fuel.
Crumpp
-
So...as a sidenote, allied pilots would meet derated 190's in the air......
Anyway, from this:
"That report describes the substained climb rate of the Tempest as 200-300 fpm advantage over Typhoon 1B. It is also indicated that Tempest substained climb rate is behind 109G(seems to be 2) at all heights.
Maximum allowed speed in a dive also seems pretty low: 540 mph at 10000 feet.
I would ask how credible is that report?"
Well, this report is a comparison report to reports not posted on this thread.
So, if you rack this into the AH environment:
The Tiffy is no stellar climber, but a so-so
300 fpm more is fine.
The 109G is one of the best climbers. 109G2 in AH climbs closely to the Spit XIV, - 4000 fpm from 0-20K. So being behind that is no big embarresment.
And the dive, IAS or TAS? If it's IAS, it's quite high!!
-
That report describes the substained climb rate of the Tempest as 200-300 fpm advantage over Typhoon 1B. It is also indicated that Tempest substained climb rate is behind 109G(seems to be 2) at all heights.
The tests were almost certainly carried out at 9 lbs boost, 2700 rpm. Those were the ratings used in the performance trials conducted on another Tempest the month before.
In service the Tempest was raised to 11 lbs, 2850 rpm, then possibly to 13 lbs.
Maximum allowed speed in a dive also seems pretty low: 540 mph at 10000 feet.
That's actually the fastest I've seen for a prop fighter.
In comparison, the P-51B was limited to 505 mph at 10,000 ft, the P-51D to 480.
-
"In service the Tempest was raised to 11 lbs, 2850 rpm, then possibly to 13 lbs."
Sources and references ?
-
For the FW-190, the Tempest is a contemprary of the FW-190A9 or TS equipped FW-190A8, and the FW-190D9. They probably encountered BMW 801D2Q FW-190A8's early on.
Crumpp
-
IIRC the above trials against the Tempest were performed with a 'clean' 109G-2. The g-6 you mentioned was not captured yet and the part of the afdu report i have on it mentions that it crashed and earlier trials with another 109G (ie. the G-2) was put in amongst the other comparisions with Spits and Ponys.
This also gives an idea why the G-2 performed so well in the climbtest, even if no more than just 1.3ata was used instead of full power.
-
I like the "embarrased by it's slats opening up".
Crumpp
-
Yup, that line tells the whole story behind why they got so poor turn performance out of it. Kinda stopping at halfway from the real thing.
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
It seems such tests are mostly pretty controversial.
In particular if they don't support your own beliefs :)
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
No Milo. FW-190's were derated throughout the lifespan of the series. Most AF derated a few of their planes. Nothing special. It is a way to get rid of inferior grade avaition fuel.
Crumpp
Not officially.
What other AFs derated 'a few of their planes'?
-
Not officially.
Ahh yes, Officially Milo. How else would it be done.
What other AFs derated 'a few of their planes'?
According to Larry Wilson at the NASM, all the AF's in the world "de rated" motors. It was common practice and allowed the Force to use up inferior grade Aviation fuel without damaging rated engines.
Crumpp
-
"Reaching Newchurch airfield at 480 mph I held "RB" down to 20 ft from the runway and then pulled her up to a 60 ° climb holding it as the speed dropped slowly off and the altimeter needle spun round the dial as if it were mad. At 7000 ft the speed was dropping below 180 mph and I rolled the Tempest lazily inverted, then allowed the nose to drop until the horizon, at first above my head, disappeared below (or rather above) the now inverted nose, the fields and woods steadied into the centre of the windscreen and then whirled around as I put the stick hard over and rolled around the vertical dive. Steadying again I pulled out over the tree tops at 500 mph, throttled back and pulled hard over towards the airfield in an over-the-vertical climbing turn, lowering the wheels and flaps in a roll as the speed dropped. What a magnificent aeroplane! They could have all their Spitfires and Mustangs!"
("My part of the sky", Roland Beamont)
love that quote on the website, had it as sig for a while.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Ahh yes, Officially Milo. How else would it be done.
According to Larry Wilson at the NASM, all the AF's in the world "de rated" motors. It was common practice and allowed the Force to use up inferior grade Aviation fuel without damaging rated engines.
Crumpp
Produce a document, or two.
Nice useless statement. Now lets have some examples of specific Allied a/c that were derated do to inferior grade Avgas.
-
Nice useless statement. Now lets have some examples of specific Allied a/c that were derated do to inferior grade Avgas.
It is a fact that BMW 801's show up as de-rated throughout the war. Why?
1. Buy my book when it comes out (best approach):p
2. Don't want to wait, then....
I encourage you once again to join:
http://www.white1foundation.org
As this very subject will covered in our first newsletter in detail. Jose and Mike will be adding some input and you might very well get some of the documentation you are screaming for in this thread.
According to Larry at the NASM you can find:
P40's, P 51's, P38's, P39's, just to name a few. This would have involved spark plug changes, fuel setting adjustments, and possibly timing changes in the motor. All contributing to a decline in available power.
You made the claim:
Milo says:
The only 190s that were de-rated were the A-3s.
You produce document to back it up. I have already sent in the proof for this to Pyro.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
You produce a document to back it up. I have already sent in the proof for this to Pyro.
Crumpp
I am not the one making the claim that engines were dereated because of inferior Avgas.
quote: "It was common practice and allowed the Force to use up inferior grade Aviation fuel without damaging rated engines."
So you can't produce any document, or examples, showing any a/c was 'dereated' because of inferior grade Avgas. Why I am I not surprised that you cop out.
-
Why I am I not surprised that you cop out.
Why don't you go spend the money and the time and do the research?
Instead you would rather sponge off others and act like a spoiled child when things don't go your way.
Crumpp
-
That's a well known test, and it is easy to make flawed conclusions from it if you don't know its backgrounds. The thing is, this text omits the needed information about the planes.
When looking at the 109 test, one must take notice that the 109 in case is a NIGHT FIGHTER variant, with wing cannons, night fighter equpment, heavier tail etc. It is not representative of a standard Bf 109 G-6 model, but it is a 109 G-6/U2 if I remember correctly. Night fighter, guys. Its performance is decidedly sub-par when compared to normal daylight fighter versions.
-
When looking at the 109 test, one must take notice that the 109 in case is a NIGHT FIGHTER variant, with wing cannons, night fighter equpment, heavier tail etc. It is not representative of a standard Bf 109 G-6 model, but it is a 109 G-6/U2 if I remember correctly.
Izzy is correct AFAIK. I thought the same thing until I looked it up. The Bf-109G6/U2 was captured about a month later.
Nevertheless, comments like "embarrassed by it's slats opening" clearly points to the level of proficiency in the Bf-109 of the RAF pilot.
Crumpp
-
Derating: e.g. the Pilot Mnaul for the P-38H, J and L has an engine chart showing lower limits when operating with grade 91 fuel. So, derating did happen in the States too though in this case there were no mechanical changes, just lower MAP limits.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Why don't you go spend the money and the time and do the research?
Instead you would rather sponge off others and act like a spoiled child when things don't go your way.
Crumpp
Why am I not surprised by your answer. Typical Crumpp who gets all snotty and indignant after making a statement that he can't backup with examples.:rolleyes:
-
For some reason, pasoleati, the BMW 801 was a finicky engine. If your interested in learning more I encourage you to join the foundation. We have the largest collection of FW-190A translated documentation it the world, the largest collection of BMW 801 motors in the world, and probably the largest collection of original Luftwaffe tools, service carts, and field servicing equipment. The Foundation gets hired by folks all over the world to work on, evaluate, and locate all things FW-190. Our work flies on some of the biggest name Warbirds in the country as well.
Crumpp
-
Why am I not surprised by your answer. Typical Crumpp who gets all snotty and indignant after making a statement that he can't backup with examples.
Milo,
You constantly act like you have chip on your shoulder with anything I post. Simply do a search. You show up in any thread I post in and immediately dispute whatever I write!
Which would be fine, if you were correct. How many times have you posted something now and been wrong?
I simply suggested a way for you to "get back in the fight" if you so desire. Looking things up in "Warplanes of the Luftwaffe" or the latest "Barnes and Noble" selection is not going to cut it if you want to bring new information to the discussion.
Most of pulp reference books I have seen are wrong in many ways. Why? Either the information just was not available or they were lazy and referenced earlier works.
Crumpp
-
One thing that has always made me curious is the different impressions of "turning" ability.
I've obviously only got experience with AH, but I wouldn't agree with most of those findings based on my AH experience.
Specifically, in each category.
Climb rate vs 109 and 190.
vs 109"g"-
Report: "The Tempest is behind the Bf.109G at all heights, but being almost similar below 5,000 feet. The Tempest is only slightly better in a zoom climb if the two aircraft start at the same speed, but if the Tempest has an initial advantage, it will hold this advantage easily providing the speed is kept over 250 mph. "
AH: The Tempest is superior to the G-6 up to ~5k, in fact the description matches the AH G-10 (as far as climb rate goes).
vs 190-
Report: "Except below 5,000 feet the FW.190 (BMW.801D) has a slightly better maximum rate of climb. Because of the Tempest V's speed and clean lines however, the Tempest has a markedly better zoom climb, where the speed is kept high. Against the new FW.190 (DB.603) it is estimated that the Tempest will have a markedly superior climb below 5,000 feet, but a similar maximum climb above that height. "
AH: The Tempest is way superior to the A-5, about a 750 fpm advantage to 5k, where they become similar until about 7.5k, then the gap widens to ~750 fpm again to 14k, where it drops off rapidly and the 190A5 is marginally superior above 15k.
Turning circle doesn't make any sense either, given AH experience.
Report: "190-There is very little difference in turning circles between the two aircraft. If anything a very slight advantage lies with the Tempest. "
"109- The Tempest is slightly better, the Bf.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall. "
AH.. the 109 turns markedly better than the 190 does (any version of either). I'd say the Tempest probably out turns any 190 by a pretty significant margin too.
Also, according to that the Typhoon would out-turn the Tempest (slightly).. how? Did weight rise a lot more than the boost in engine power, or was the redesigned wing not good for turning?
-
Crumpp, it's your responsiblity to back up your arguements. To tell somebody else to prove it for you is intellectually dishonest and makes your arguements worthless.
-
Crumpp, it's your responsiblity to back up your arguements. To tell somebody else to prove it for you is intellectually dishonest and makes your arguements worthless.
I made no claims
You need to read the thread. I simply stated the FW-190 was de rated as it is in the tempest trial. The RAE only had one rated FW-190. An FW-190G3 which they sent to the US in 1943 and was undergoing testing.
The RAF got all of it's FW-190's after Fabers from ground attack units. Some from the SKG's which attacked England under Hitler's "Terror-bombing" campaign and a few from overran bases in Sicily.
Milo makes the claim only FW-190A3's were de-rated.
I corrected him that all AF's de rated aircraft.
pasoleati says:
Derating: e.g. the Pilot Mnaul for the P-38H, J and L has an engine chart showing lower limits when operating with grade 91 fuel. So, derating did happen in the States too though in this case there were no mechanical changes, just lower MAP limits.
Was nice enough to chime in as well correcting Milo.
Crumpp
-
AH.. the 109 turns markedly better than the 190 does (any version of either). I'd say the Tempest probably out turns any 190 by a pretty significant margin too.
Was testing this very stuff out as reference material in addition for my 109 turn performance thread... when my stick decides to go loco and the root ripped off from the base. So the thread and testings are closed for the time being until I get a new stick.
However the impression I got with the AH Typhoon and Tempest was that both of them decisively outturn any 190 in any situation. Empirically, they'd be about on par with a Bf109G in their turn performance.
At any rate, one thing for certain would be that the referenced test report in this thread has some explanation to do, and either 109 or the 190 was not performing right.
-
At any rate, one thing for certain would be that the referenced test report in this thread has some explanation to do, and either 109 or the 190 was not performing right.
This same report used to be up on a noted Spitfire website. It was removed from that sight and I can't help but wonder if it was not done so because they realized this.
-
Someone asked:
"Did weight rise a lot more than the boost in engine power, or was the redesigned wing not good for turning?"
Well, the airfoil was different, the Tiffy having a thicker wing. Might be better once the speed dropped.
Anyway, curious about all those 109's and 190's that did not give sufficient performance in Allied hands.
Now there was politicsin the testing. I remember Jeffrey Quill mentioning that at a certain race between a Tiffy, 190 and a Spitty, the Spitty was definately expected to come in last.
However, Jeff picked a rather new model for the run and ate them both :D
-
Originally posted by Urchin
One thing that has always made me curious is the different impressions of "turning" ability.
I've obviously only got experience with AH, but I wouldn't agree with most of those findings based on my AH experience.
Specifically, in each category.
Climb rate vs 109 and 190.
vs 109"g"-
Report: "The Tempest is behind the Bf.109G at all heights, but being almost similar below 5,000 feet. The Tempest is only slightly better in a zoom climb if the two aircraft start at the same speed, but if the Tempest has an initial advantage, it will hold this advantage easily providing the speed is kept over 250 mph. "
AH: The Tempest is superior to the G-6 up to ~5k, in fact the description matches the AH G-10 (as far as climb rate goes).
vs 190-
Report: "Except below 5,000 feet the FW.190 (BMW.801D) has a slightly better maximum rate of climb. Because of the Tempest V's speed and clean lines however, the Tempest has a markedly better zoom climb, where the speed is kept high. Against the new FW.190 (DB.603) it is estimated that the Tempest will have a markedly superior climb below 5,000 feet, but a similar maximum climb above that height. "
AH: The Tempest is way superior to the A-5, about a 750 fpm advantage to 5k, where they become similar until about 7.5k, then the gap widens to ~750 fpm again to 14k, where it drops off rapidly and the 190A5 is marginally superior above 15k.
Turning circle doesn't make any sense either, given AH experience.
Report: "190-There is very little difference in turning circles between the two aircraft. If anything a very slight advantage lies with the Tempest. "
"109- The Tempest is slightly better, the Bf.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall. "
AH.. the 109 turns markedly better than the 190 does (any version of either). I'd say the Tempest probably out turns any 190 by a pretty significant margin too.
Also, according to that the Typhoon would out-turn the Tempest (slightly).. how? Did weight rise a lot more than the boost in engine power, or was the redesigned wing not good for turning?
i had agreat fight with sirloin in the MA, he was in a tempest and i in a 190a5.
we both agreed that the tempest turns just a tad batter then the a5.
so the test sounds pretty spot on.
-
Anyway, curious about all those 109's and 190's that did not give sufficient performance in Allied hands.
How does this not make sense? You would not expect a Chevy mechanic to get peak performance from a SAAB engine would you?
I have a very interesting report from the RAE wondering why their performance was different from the Rechlin curves on the FW-190.
A big mystery until I got a hold of EB-104's testing by the USAAF. They bench tested the engine and their power curve looks nothing like the RAE's or the Luftwaffe's.
Why? The RAE never actually put the 801 on a bench and measured the power output with their fuel. They simply calculated it. So their Bhp curves match the German curves but their performance in the sky does not. The RAE report directs further testing but none was conducted because the war was won.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Milo makes the claim only FW-190A3's were de-rated.
I corrected him that all AF's de rated aircraft.
Was nice enough to chime in as well correcting Milo.
Crumpp
Correcting Crumpp???? I asked for examples but to bad your overly inflated ego got in the way Crumpp. It took someone else to reply with one specific example. Now tell me what was inferior about the 91PN fuel.
Are you sure English is your primary language?
You have yet to to give any examples, only 'hot air', of "It was common practice and allowed the Force to use up inferior grade Aviation fuel without damaging rated engines."
We can now take it with a grain of salt all your claims for the high boost pressures on the 190.
: "How does this not make sense? You would not expect a Chevy mechanic to get peak performance from a SAAB engine would you?[/i]"
I can go to a dozen Chevy mechs and everyone would tune an engine differently than the others. All mechs are not equal, no matter what engine they specialize in. So considering your claim the 801 was a finicky engine, one can expect a variation in their state of 'tune'.
-
You were wrong Milo. You claimed only FW-190A3's were derated.
Now tell me what was inferior about the 91PN fuel.
What did the USAAF normally use? 100 octane right?
I asked for examples but to bad your overly inflated ego got in the way Crumpp.
BS lets call a spade a spade, Milo. You follow me around like a lapdog nipping at your heals. Every thread you contradict anything I say. And your wrong. Anyone can do a BBS search and see. Your tiresome Milo.
It was common practice and allowed the Force to use up inferior grade Aviation fuel without damaging rated engines."
Did you read the P38 POH? What does it say about damaging the engine when using 91N?
Derating: e.g. the Pilot Mnaul for the P-38H, J and L has an engine chart showing lower limits when operating with grade 91 fuel. So, derating did happen in the States too though in this case there were no mechanical changes, just lower MAP limits.
Take a wild guess why you have to use lower MAP? Because you will damage the motor if you used normal MAP, Maybe?
So considering your claim the 801 was a finicky engine, one can expect a variation in their state of 'tune'.
Yes you can expect some variation as with any engine. The best results come from a factory trained mechanic. Why do you think the engine came as a power egg? Cowling, prop, and motor bolted on as one piece. When it came time for rebuild it was simply swapped out by the Geschwader and the motor sent to depot level maintenance. Sort of like NASCAR.
EB-104 was a rated motor. It developed about 100 Hp less than a Luftwaffe motor simply due to USAVgas.
Additionally EB-104 was weighted wrong so it climbed much better than a service FW-190 but because of the Hp did not go as fast on the deck.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
This same report used to be up on a noted Spitfire website. It was removed from that sight and I can't help but wonder if it was not done so because they realized this.
`So many more good examples of such 'filtering' of information on that site, Crumpp. ;)
-
Ummm...which site?
Can you post URL?
Anyway, if they had something that was false or full of errors, I can not see why not to remove it.
Am explanation would be better though.
-
Mike Williams Spitfire site.
Crumpp
-
Ok.
What was removed?
I am in the dark here.
Oh, the URL?
-
Roger the URL. This report was up on his website for a few weeks. It was suddenly removed.
Why, I don't know.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
"In service the Tempest was raised to 11 lbs, 2850 rpm, then possibly to 13 lbs."
Sources and references ?
Flying Officer Ronald Dennis, a NZer with 56 Sqd RAF.
"All our a/c were fitted with Rotol airscrews when the maximum rpm were increased from 3850 from 3700 and the boost to 13lb from 11lb."
This being mid 1944 during the V-1 terror bombings.
There is also Roland Beamont using 150PN fuel during this time and achieving 415mph IAS @ 500ft. His Wing then using 150PN fuel.
-
The P-38 was NOT derated as the 190A-3 was. The P-38 was restricted to what boost it could use with a lower, NOT inferior, PN fuel. The A-3 was derated because of reliability problems. When a higher PN fuel was available the Allisons could use it.
There is a definate difference in 'derated' and 'restricted'. You do have a real problem understanding the difference Crumpp.
quote: EB-104 was a rated motor. It developed about 100 Hp less than a Luftwaffe motor simply due to USAVgas.
So American 100PN fuel was not as good as German C3, 95PN, fuel. OK.
-
The P-38 was NOT derated as the 190A-3 was. The P-38 was restricted to what boost it could use with a lower, NOT inferior, PN fuel. The A-3 was derated because of reliability problems. When a higher PN fuel was available the Allisons could use it.
Nice bait and switch Milo. Show me where I claim the P 38F in that trial is derated?
The P 38 could be de rated to run 91N fuel.
So American 100PN fuel was not as good as German C3, 95PN, fuel. OK.
Ask Mr Goodwrench. It's not about better, it's about different. C3 had a very high lead, aromatic, and iso-parafin content. Go run unleaded gas in an engine designed for leaded gas and see what happens to your valves. Had that problem with my Harley in Europe because of their gasoline. Call a Harley dealer and ask for an unleaded conversion kit, they will sell you one. I needed additives to even run it and it did not perform as well. Guys a lot smarter than you on WWII aircraft engines have looked at that curve, the composition of C3, and agree on the cause why the Hp was off.
Crumpp
-
About derating
quote: Was nice enough to chime in as well correcting Milo.
quote: Take a wild guess why you have to use lower MAP? Because you will damage the motor if you used normal MAP, Maybe?
Here you are saying the P-38 was derated. Has nothing to do with the P-38 trial. :rolleyes:
You still are confused about derated and restricted. Why am I not surprised?
I don't need a conversion kit as me scoot came from the factory already setup to run on unleaded fuel.:) Hogs have been using unleaded fuel for years.
-
Why don't you two marry?
;)
-
I think they are :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
I think they are :D
That is not nice Angus.;) And here I was going to suggest that Crumpp go visit you, so that your fertilzer bill could be lowered.:D
-
Here you are saying the P-38 was derated. Has nothing to do with the P-38 trial.
Your Splitting hairs, Milo.
It was no longer rated to use higher manifold pressures. That is de-rating and de-rating is restricting.
All engines are different since you seem to have forgotten in your eagerness to find fault.
Sometimes it's as simple as don't move the throttle past this point. Others it requires some tinkering and work on the motor.
My Harley had to have the valves replaced to run unleaded gas without additives.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Your Splitting hairs, Milo.
You would think so.:rolleyes: You do have problems with your choice of words.
It was no longer rated to use higher manifold pressures. That is de-rating and de-rating is restricting.
It is an operational restriction since when a higher PN fuel was available it could use it, unlike the Fw which was derated due to reliability problems and could not increase its boost pressure. When the reliabilty problem had been fixed, the derating was lifted.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Flying Officer Ronald Dennis, a NZer with 56 Sqd RAF.
"All our a/c were fitted with Rotol airscrews when the maximum rpm were increased from 3850 from 3700 and the boost to 13lb from 11lb."
This being mid 1944 during the V-1 terror bombings.
There is also Roland Beamont using 150PN fuel during this time and achieving 415mph IAS @ 500ft. His Wing then using 150PN fuel.
So the proof being a pilot`s tale about increased boost during the V-1 retaliation strikes? It`s no proof in regards of regular squadron use. During that time, many aircraft were tested or experienced with (I hope you get the difference between this and operational clearance) at increased powers, but there`s no document I know of that would clear anything higher than +11 lbs boost. (And even that required 150 grade fuel, something the 2nd TAF didn`t have, and in fact, there`s no document that would tell Tempest squadrons are also to receive the new fuel, it only mentions Spitties and Mossies iirc.)
One Tempest flown by Eric Brown during those trials flamed up the engine at less than +11lbs iirc, the Spit XIVs were toyed with +25 lbs but couldn`t even complete the trials themselves, the engine had troubles with the main bearings and there`s no indication of the boost ever being cleared on those series of engines. In fact it can be said with certainity they were never cleared for that, even if the owner of the Spitfire site filters the available information on his site, putting the +25lbs trials on the site, 'forgetting' to mention the plane`s troubles at that boost, 'forgetting' to put up the document that bans the use of +25lbs. The same document gives the Sabre`s peak boost at 11lbs, and notes such boost requires 150 grade fuel.
So basically there`s strong evidence that the Tempests didn`t run operationally at more than +11 lbs. Due to the fuel supply, I doubt they ran any often at more than +9lbs before 1945.
-
Barbi, what do you not comprehend about ALL OUR A/C in a statement of a pilot of an operational RAF Squadron?
What did you not comprehend about Wing Commander Roland Beamont's statement that his Wing(#150 consisting of Sqds 3, 56 and 486) used 150PN fuel? Beamont had a considerable degree of authority and influence and was given a remarkably free hand in operational matters and automomy. So if you have trouble with the CO of an RAF wing and one of its pilots saying that 150PN fuel and 13lb boost was used, to bad.
With your logic that No 56 was not an operational squadron because it was part of ADGB, then all the JGs defending the Reich were not operational either.:rolleyes:
quote: During that time, many aircraft were tested or experienced with (I hope you get the difference between this and operational clearance)
I do have trouble with 'experienced'. Care to explain.
-
Fw which was derated due to reliability problems and could not increase its boost pressure. When the reliabilty problem had been fixed, the derating was lifted.
I encourage you to get a better education on the FW-190 if your going to be making claims based on half truths.
Yes the BMW801C's had reliability issues. The BMW 801D2's did not. You can purchase the Flugzeug-handbuchs from a number of places, do some research at several museums, or purchase some decent reference material which will show the boost pressures the BMW801D2 was cleared for from it's begining in a rated motor.
1.42ata @2700U/min for 2 minutes (later 3 minutes) from the FW-190A3 to the FW-190A7.
Crumpp
-
What engine did Faber's Fw190A-3 use? This a/c used a derated engine. :eek:
And you tell me to get a better Fw education.:rolleyes:
-
Well Milo, I guess an official clearance paper showing that no more than +11 lbs boost is allowed is better proof than a pilot`s story, especially if it comes from somebody with so doubtful credibility as you.
Such stories often emerge from nowhere in 'times of need'. See also Nashwan making up nonexistant Indian MkXIV squadrons when it come to light how few units equipping them existed.
Of course this is what draws the line between fan-stories and hard facts. The latter are supported by documentation as well.
-
What engine did Faber's Fw190A-3 use? This a/c used a derated engine.
A BMW 801D2 derated to use stocks of fuel on hand.
Crumpp
-
What engine did Faber's Fw190A-3 use? This a/c used a derated engine.
And the wheel goes round and round , round and round....
According to Larry Wilson at the NASM, all the AF's in the world "de rated" motors. It was common practice and allowed the Force to use up inferior grade Aviation fuel without damaging rated engines.
It was also done for other reasons with fuel quality being the most common.
Since the White 1 Foundation has the largest collection of BMW 801's in the world, the largest collection of tools, literature, special equipment, and most experienced 801 mechanics in the world I highly suggest you join and get the facts.
Crumpp
-
I would not mention someone elses credibility Barbi, you the master at data maniplution and the teller of outright lies.
A typical denial post by you. Beamont's Wing's use of 150PN fuel is documented, as is his test. Do you think ALL documentation is available, to you? You are dilusional if you think so.
Beamont had nothing to gain, except better performance from the Tempest. So if you want to call Beamont a liar, a maker up of stories and lacks credibility, go right ahead.
What ever you say Crumpp. Post the question on why the A-3 was derated on the Focke Wulf Fw190 Board at White 1.
-
Forgive a stupid laypersons question.. but what is the difference between a "de-rated" and a engine "restricted" to run at a certain manifold?
Could the "restricted" engine be run at higher Manifold once the proper gas was aquired?
If so... then is the difference that the "de-rated" engine is forever doomed to run at lower Manifold no matter what kind of gas you put in?
-
Forgive a stupid laypersons question.. but what is the difference between a "de-rated" and a engine "restricted" to run at a certain manifold?
As it was explained to me, Milo.
A de-rated engine can be put back to rated status depending on reason it was de-rated.
For fuel, then yes. All that has to happen is the correct fuel is used and any mechanical adjustments are reversed.
As soon as the reason for derating is removed in most cases the engine can then become rated.
The RAF never made the mechanical adjustments and used very different fuels from the German Synthetic fuels. It was not that they did not have BMW 801's capable of reaching full potential. They had no idea it was off and no knowledge of how to adjust it back.
First the RAF only calculated Bhp and did not put the motor to an actual power output test like the USAAF did. Had they done this I am sure a big red flag would have gone up and the RAF would have immediately started looking for the reason. This is why RAF Bhp charts match the Luftwaffe charts in most cases but their performance curves are very different. And the reason for the 1944 RAF report showing this and demanding more testing.
Crumpp
-
quote: "Forgive a stupid laypersons question.. but what is the difference between a "de-rated" and a engine "restricted" to run at a certain manifold?"
Originally posted by Crumpp
As it was explained to me, Milo.
Crumpp
LOL Crumpp, you really do have problems. It was not my post you quoted.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Long day Milo. Should have thought something was up when the poster was civil and did not act like a spoiled child.
Crumpp
-
Remember once again, that the 190's tested were from combat operating level, from being in use, so they should reflect (untill their engines went POOF) some view of the 190's the RAF or USAAF would meet in the air.
Oh, and for Izzy.
Don't know of those XIV's in the far east, but they got VIII's by the bundles, and the performance is quite similar.
"Killer" Caldwell had no problems with engaging the Japanese from below if needed.
The Mk VIII also was used in G-Suit testing I belive.
I'd actually pick it over the XIV, especially in the far east. Why? Well, Equally fast, equal climber, better turner, worse diver.
It was a much better diver than the Zeke anyway.
But I bet it corkscrewed upwards better than anything in the world at the time, hehe.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Long day Milo. Should have thought something was up when the poster was civil and did not act like a spoiled child.
Crumpp
What ever you say, but as usual, you don't think.:rolleyes: At least I am not so full of myself.:p It is always interesting when a 'little person' tries to be a 'big person'.
-
It is always interesting when a 'little person' tries to be a 'big person'.
That's why you are fun to watch.
So what is your next stupid claim after your latest mistakes on derated engines?
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
That's why you are fun to watch.
So what is your next stupid claim after your latest mistakes on derated engines?
Crumpp
Me, I am not trying to be the big man, unlike you Crumpp. Never came across such a pompous so full of himself blowhard expert on everything as you before. :rofl
Mistakes, only in your confused mind. Still waiting for other examples of Allied a/c that you claim were 'derated'.
Looked for the post with the question on why the A-3 was derated on the Focke Wulf Fw190 Board at White 1. Afraid to post it?
Can't wait for your pulp reference book. My copy will come from the photocopier at the library.
Now go visit Angus so he can lower his fertilizer bill.
-
Looked for the post with the question on why the A-3 was derated on the Focke Wulf Fw190 Board at White 1. Afraid to post it?
It's not on the board, Milo.
Newsletter......
The one which will be posted in the members only section. The one I am finishing up.
I really wish you would join the foundation. If you are truly interested in the history of the airwar, Focke-Wulf, and the technical details of the design you would really enjoy it.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Angus
Oh, and for Izzy.
Don't know of those XIV's in the far east, but they got VIII's by the bundles, and the performance is quite similar.
This goes right into my 'Best of Angie' folder. Next to "the london firefighters emptied the Thames in 1940'. (do you have a picture of that event?) :D
FYI, the MkVIII was a no more than 400mph plane, in fact not any better than the MkIX, expect it`s quite a bit heavier and less manouverable. Same engine. The only real advantage over other Spits was it`s larger fuel capacity and range, making it more useful in the far east than the other short legged spits. But some 50 mph slower than the XIV.
As for examples of derated allied a/c, I know the Mk I, Mk V, Mk IX, Mk XVI and XIV Spitfires were derated at some time during their carreer, also the Typhoon, Tempest, P-51 etc.
Derated a/c are not rare in military service.
-
Oh, I'll find the source for Izzy.
Time-Life publishing of "The Battle of Britain"
And for the Mk VIII look up Quill's comparison with the IX and then the Performance Specs.
Better still, I'll do it
Brb.
Angus
-
Ok, here you go. I found the source, and put the base info together, since the text I have in Icelandic. Author is Leonard Mosley and the editor of Time-Life books. The book series go under the name World War II. First print in the US 1977.
Raid on London on the 29th of December 1940. At night of course.
Aircraft participating: 244. Incendiaries as main load.
Sunday night, Christmas season.
Many of the fireguards were with their families.
The roofing of many buildings in the City were from wood, - it was after all an old city part, - the heart of London. It had burned before, - in 1666.
The Fire brigades were remarkably quick to the scene, but the fires were quickly raging and an incredible amount of water was needed to fight the fires.
The autumn had been dry, so there litttle water in the Thames.
The pumps quickly emptied the river down to the mud, so just a little bit of muddy water came out of the firehoses.
Hundreds of historical buildings burned down that night, but St.Paul's was however saved."
Then the next one:
The notorious Spitfire Mk VIII :D
My speed specs go as 361 mph on the deck and 404 mph at 20200 feet. Climb to that alt is roughly 5 minutes.
It is very much in the same ballpark as the best of the IX's and the 109G2 basically. It climbs very well for the wight, however I do not have the load there, could be normal load.
What Quill sais:
Fuel capacity: 124 gallons internal, a four cannon wing (!)
Then, page 220:
"The Mk VIII, however, was by far the better aeroplane and because of it's tropicalisation, improved range, and other refinements it was allocated to the overseas commands while fighter command soldiered on with the Mk IX's in the tempered conditions at home.
P. 221
"I considered the extended wingtips of the early Mk VIIs (Typo?) entirely unnecessary. The aeroplane was not, in my view, a specialised high-altitude machine; it was an air-combat fighter of excellent all-round performance and destined of theaters of war where it would have to operate in a wide variety of cirkumstances. The extended wing tips did nothing for it except increase the lateral damping and spoil the aileron control. I complained incessantly to Joe Smith about them and did my best to get rid of them Eventually - thank the Lord - when the Merlin 66 engine was brought in on the Mk VIII, we reverted to the standard wing-tip configuration. We then had an excellent aeroplane which was very pleasant to handle and with perormance as good as the Mk IX with many other advantages added on"
Now, I remember an Izzy performance quotation, where as the Mk IX, just the infamous "JL" was used, so the Mk VIII is of course miles ahead.
Other Mk IX's have similar performance to the VIII.
Then I remember a roll rate quotation from Izzy as well.
Of course he used the wing-tip-extended Mk VIII to prove his point that the Spitfire's roll rate decreased through the war.
Well, enough of that, My Izzy-folder does not yet exist, - it would quickly become too big for my HD :D
-
Angus, Barbi has a dual 80Gb drive 'pute for the data collected about his friends. :D
I see you have caught on to Barbi's selective use of data.
Come Barbi, lets have some specific examples for speciific a/c of derating.
-
From Milo:
"I see you have caught on to Barbi's selective use of data."
Hehe, yes. This was actually from an answer to Barbi, where I turned a bit into his selection (JL Spit vs Tsagi's 109 from him, how nice).
None the less, in the other thread I promoted the suggestion of bringing data rather than just debating. There are huge gaps to be filled with climb, speed etc.
-
Angie, FYI the MKVIII could do about 400mph, the XIV something like 450.. far far away!!
I`d like to see a picture of the 'emptied thames', though. I always though it was some more serious river, not just a fishpond.
Most likely either you or the author of that text didn`t really considered a broken water line a possibility for muddy water... which afaik happened on that night, as german bombs damaged some main piping somewhere. ;) I`d sooner believe the tales of Thor drinking the oceans for the giants. :D
-
Hello Izzy
Now I have to call you an Idiot, and I am very insulted indeed by the way you promote these things of your's.
BTW, did you ever see the Thames? Bet not.
Better still, when it goes to rivers, it comes to cubic metres in a second. The Thames flows quite slowly, but it has a god volume though.
It must really piss you off when again and again my memory from reading proves right, and I pop up with the sourse.
THIS IS A SOURCE, and I bloody well stated it, so for once lift yer arse and read in print for yourself. You'll not have a good time though, for it provides ample sources for the LW's night terror bombings in the winter of 1940, - when there was yet no remedy for it.
Speaking of waterlines, they broke all the time. The City is along the Thames, and the fire brigade used hoses and pumps to pump the water straight out of the river, - easy and effective.
I wonder if you ever did some plumming, well I bloody well did.!!!
I hope Furball for one could drop in with some stuff about this, anyway this is ample stuff for a new thread.
But I am very disappointed in you Izzy, and yet, from so many posts from you I should have expected something like this.
IMBE-CILE :D
-
Then on to the Spit XIV.
Are you saying it topped out at 454 mph?????
Well, that's 50 mph faster than 404......
If so, source?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Hello Izzy
Now I have to call you an Idiot, and I am very insulted indeed by the way you promote these things of your's.
[/B]
Your on MW 50 ? :D
Originally posted by Angus
BTW, did you ever see the Thames? Bet not..
Better still, when it goes to rivers, it comes to cubic metres in a second. The Thames flows quite slowly, but it has a god volume though.
[/B]
I did not see the Thames directly, but of course naturally I have seen how big it is, and it raised some doubts in me (to put it mildly). It`s at least half the size of the Danube, with which I have some experience with, and frankly, whoever claims they can empty a river of such size is definietely out of his mind, not even the doctor needs to see him. any photos of this supernatural sight?
It must really piss you off when again and again my memory from reading proves right, and I pop up with the sourse.
[/B]
Subjective idealism. "sourse" is spelled with 'c' btw.
THIS IS A SOURCE, and I bloody well stated it, so for once lift yer arse and read in print for yourself.
You'll not have a good time though, for it provides ample sources for the LW's night terror bombings in the winter of 1940, - when there was yet no remedy for it..
[/B]
"LW's night terror bombings in the winter of 1940" ?
That`s something new. British(!!) accounts I have read were actually amazed by the tightness of their bomb pattern around strategic targets.
I wonder if you ever did some plumming, well I bloody well did.!!!
[/B]
You live in a sewer perhaps? :lol
Based on your style, I have no doubts about your experience. :D
Then on to the Spit XIV.
Are you saying it topped out at 454 mph?????
Well, that's 50 mph faster than 404......
[/B]
I have seen it topped out at 448mph.
That`s 54mph + than 394mph the far east MkVIIIs were capable of.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14speedchart.jpg
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit8adsaussie.jpg
-
Hello Izzy
Well my experience includes plumming, AND crossing the Thames.
Would you belive that firefighters have been able to stop flowing lava with intense pumping of sea water? Please say no.....
BTW, I've seen and mostly crossed Danube, Rhein, Moldau, The Seine etc etc.
Here is a link to photos of a very nice river and a Waterfall, - the canyon under the waterfall is belived to be 70 m. deep.
To pump this one dry, you'd need 109 cm/sec
http://www.geysircenter.com/islenska/gullfoss_photos.html
I have a Slurry tank at home. With it's vaccum pump, running on some hp (it's quite light, a 20 hp tractor engine is ample) I would need about 700 pumps to suck this river dry.
I have no doubts that the fire Brigades that night had hundred(s) of pumps, and that the flowing volume of the Thames may have been quite a bit less.
Oh, and for the rest, Thank you so much for pointing out the high Speed of the Spitfire Mk XIV :D
-
Crumpet,
I have read that report about the Thames being run dry before, and believe it. There are areas of the Thames that acan be very shallow at low tide, under certain circumstances. I also have heard your arguments about the "terror" bombing of London in 1940, and I have to ask:
What cave have you been hiding in for the last several years?
The night bombing of London and other British targets is an established fact. It is also an established fact that London's east end was bombed back to the stone age during those raids. There were thousands of casualties, I have seen pictures of the indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets, and films made by both sides.
Now, unless you can tell me how the luftwaffe magically picked out pinpoint targets at night, you must admit that night bombing was area bombing. Area bombing does not provide target selection capability.
It happened. Get over it. Move on.
-
Crumpet,
Poobert....
You need to check your glasses or maybe pick up a copy of "Hooked on Phonics" because I don't mention the Thames nor I am involved in that discussion.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Poobert....
You need to check your glasses or maybe pick up a copy of "Hooked on Phonics" because I don't mention the Thames nor I am involved in that discussion.
Crumpp
Oh, so sorry, I was thinking of the other idjit.
-
Ahemm.
Crumpp and Izzy/Barbi/Kurfurst are DEFINATELY not the same cup of tea....
-
Originally posted by Angus
Ahemm.
Crumpp and Izzy/Barbi/Kurfurst are DEFINATELY not the same cup of tea....
For sure. One is of the Chinese variety and the other is of the African variety. :p
-
Nononono...really.
I mean a 109 or a 190 or a Spitty bias, that's ok.
But with Izzy it is definately floating on a brown cloud, where as Crumpp on the other hand has IMHO most things spot on, or is searching/reflecting.
-
searching/reflecting.
Researching. :)
With the best reference material you can get!
Crumpp
-
Amen to that!
-
Originally posted by rshubert
Crumpet,
I have read that report about the Thames being run dry before, and believe it.
[/B]
You are free to believe in whatever you wish, you can believe in Buddha, Santa Claus, the Martians, that the our world is flat or that the Thames run dry...
There are areas of the Thames that acan be very shallow at low tide, under certain circumstances.
[/B]
The fun thing is, the 'thames run dry' arguement was orignally brought up by the apologist poster to exaggrevate the ferocity of the 1940 LW bombings of which he already described in a false manner. The arguement was that the bombings were so severe, that even the thames run dry, an event which would be seen as extreme by most able minded persons.
Now the same poster actually claims emptying the thames would be a simply thing, as 'proof' he brough up some minor waterfall which he claims he could even empty with his garden lawnmover. He now contradicts with his original statements. You also seem to contradict him, as you seem to be on a more logical approach, connecting the alleged emptying of the thames rathe more to the natural low tide rather than the alleged extremeity of the alleged 'terror bombings'.
The night bombing of London and other British targets is an established fact. It is also an established fact that London's east end was bombed back to the stone age during those raids. There were thousands of casualties, I have seen pictures of the indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets, and films made by both sides.[/B]
Yes its and established fact, as well as it was not meant to be terror bombing. The goal of terror bombing is to systematically exterminating the population of the area with massive bombings of residental areas. The specific goal is mass murder itself, it`s not just a side effect due to technical limiations. Something very different than strategic bombing of pre-definied targets that are of great importance to the enemy`s war economy, which was what the Luftwaffe was doing over Englad in 1940.
Strategic bombing aimed at the enemy`s industrial potential, and accepted high civillian casulties as a side effect. Most if not all countries that were capable of it employed this kind of warfare in WW2.
Terror bombing on the other hand is aimed at the enemy`s population, damage done to the enemy`s industrial potential was only a side effect.
Since the only country employing such long-term 'strategy' of mass murder in the air war over europe was Britain, many modern day british apologists/revisionst, the like of Angus try to make up excuses for it. Hence the extremely distorted stories on certain events, with which they seek to relativize these crimes. The idea is to find, or better, since no they don`t exist, make up a (or many) precedent.
Yet the fact is that the historical LW orders given to units task them with attacking specific targets of industrial or economical nature. I find it hard to believe that the nazis would have destroyed such orders for 'terror bombing', had they existed (typicial apologist theory due to the lack of their existence), if they didn`t bother to destroy all those careful documentation on the destruction of 6 million european jews.
Now, unless you can tell me how the luftwaffe magically picked out pinpoint targets at night, you must admit that night bombing was area bombing. Area bombing does not provide target selection capability. [/B]
There was no magic involved, it was advanced radio guidance employed on all LW bombers in 1940 to navigate and find their targets during the night with a few hundred meters of accuracy. Three such radnav blind bombing systems existed, the Knickebein was employed on all LW bombers and could guide the bomber within several meters of it`s target. Specialized target-marker units like the KG 100 employed more sophisticated systems like the 'X' and 'Y' systems, which could allow for a 90m accuracy under good conditions, such as hitting the Spitfire factory hard in the automn. They preceeded the main bomber force and marked the targets for the rest with fires. There are several papers from British leaders, and observers from the US who were very impressed with the results. They planned the reported bomb pattern on large city maps, and found that the bomb pattern was in the near vicinity of the targets of strategic importance. The RAF even copied these systems for their own bombers later on, I guess they were impressed with the accuracy they provided over the old methods.
The description of these systems are below :
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2833/general/tactics/knickebein/knickebein.html
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2833/general/tactics/xgeraet/xgeraet.html
The site notes :
"The actual accuracy of the system was roughly 100 yards at 200 miles, which was near enough to hit a large individual factory when the ballistics of individual bombs and the different wind gradients were factored in. It was certainly the most accurate method of night bombing yet devised by any air force up to that time."
Certainly the LW was not bombing blindly during 1940, they had choosed their targets, and made their best to hit them. Of course their aiming systems were not perfect (they are not perfect even today, ie. modern 'blue on blue' incidents), and many bombers missed their targets, because of their own mistakes or because of the british countermeasures like radio jamming or 'false' fire markers. (Some of these had rather 'interesting' results, like guiding german bombers over irish cities where they jettisoned their bombload... an 'honest mistake', according to the official british historywriting...hmm.)
-
The bombing continued into the winter of 1940. One of the heaviest attacks came on 8/9 December when a raid by 400 bombers killed 250 and injured more than 600.
Over 3000 incendiaries were dropped and 1700 fires started. There was damage to Westminster Abbey, the Port of London Authority Building and the Royal Naval College.
On 29 December 1940, 275 years after the Great Fire of London, a two-hour German attack started 1500 fires throughout London.
Only 136 bombers were involved, but it was a windy night, and the raid's focus on the small area of the City made it dangerous.
The Fire Brigade and the Auxiliary Fire Services worked around the clock during what became known as the Second Fire of London.
As many as 450 million litres (100 million gallons) of water were used in a period of just 24 hours in the attempt to put out the fires. More than 1000 fires were started in the centre of the city itself.
..............
Fire was spreading easily in the City danger zone-where the buildings were old and particularly open to fire risk, where narrow alleys and crooked streets ran between warehouses crowded with inflammable stocks, where space was so valuable that courtyards were roofed over with glass to house more and ever more sacks and crates packed with easily-fired goods. An adequate organisation of roof spotters would have saved many buildings and much stock from the peril of sparkstorms. As it was, there were few roof spotters and the fire spread. In addition, to this, the owners of many buildings had padlocked and bolted their doors, thus seriously hampering the firemen.
There is normally no shortage of water for the fire services in London, but on this occasion immediate calls were sent for the supply of emergency water. A time-lag necessarily occurs before this water can come through. Pumps must be positioned on the Thames, dockside, canals, lines of hose laid to the fire area, canvas dams erected. These matters are put in hand at high speed; but the water cannot come through in a minute. As soon as possible those tough river boats with their heavy pumps were in position, hose had been flung across the mudflats, powerful hose-laying lorries were setting out their twin lines in the direction of the City danger zone a mile away. At the same time, mobile land pumps were seeking strategic positions by the-riverside where there might be water within reach of their suction pipes. These pumps eventually operated at bridges and dock. basins situated some distance from the fires.
Before nine o'clock a message from the Guildhall reported that the spire of a neighbouring church was in imminent danger of collapse and might spread fire to the historic hall itself. Reinforcements were required here-and in a hundred other places too. By that time over three hundred fire engines had been sent to the City. More had been diverted to fight fires in other parts of London.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
As many as 450 million litres (100 million gallons) of water were used in a period of just 24 hours in the attempt to put out the fires.
Interesting factual data.
450 million litres translates to 450 000 cubic metres for 24 hour period.
Translates to a water flow of 18 750 m3/hour, or 312 m3/minutes, or 5.2 m3/sec.
Angus noted that the following cubic volume in m3 would be required to empty that nice - and compared to the Thames, incredibly tiny - waterfall :
"To pump this one dry, you'd need 109 cm/sec
So appearantly the valiant london firefighters couldn`t even try to pump dry that tiny little waterfall in Iceland.
Which leaves two possible conclusions :
1, The Thames is tiny pod of water compared to, eh, what`s it`s name river in iceland
2, Angie was on crack as usual.
-
Izzy, you putz, I bet you never even saw a waterfall that big.
I think there aren't any that powerful on the European continent anyway, - hence, it is a tourist attraction from travellers all around the world.
Anyway, you're cought in a refusal state. Your brown veil may have robbed you of your senses when you read my original data, but it definately stated that the Thames was very low and slow.
The thing is, and not debateable, since it is an established fact, that on that burning night in London, the Thames did not have enough water to stop those fires.
But why am I wasting my time. The LW never attacked civilian targets, say alone with incendiaries.......
The Germans never knew how to terror-bomb.....
:D
-
Milo says:
Now lets have some examples of specific Allied a/c that were derated do to inferior grade Avgas.
http://www.enginehistory.org/
We have a post-war copy of TO 02-1-38 “Specified and Alternate Grade Fuels”, but it is a summary document, and the earlier issues would be helpful. What is needed are the specifics of how different engine models were modified and operated with lower grade fuels, and the specific operating limits and criteria. These are contained in some of the specific aircraft model Operating Handbooks, as well as the other documents such as TO 02-5A-55 "Retarding Ignition Timing for Flight on 91 Octane."
Crumpp
-
The aircraft in the continental US either for ferry flight or training had to be modified for use with the 91 octane fuel, the later being used to prevent a wastage of the badly needed higher octane fuels.
-
Has anyone conducted testing of the AHII versions of the Typhoon and Tempest? Especially the Tiffy. I've been flying it for the last couple weeks, mainly because its one I usually pass over. While the handling isnt bad, it has some very strange stall characteristics compared to any other I've encountered, and it seems oddly slow. What I have read on it so far indicate that in 1942 and early 43 at least, the Tiffy had no problem overhauling FW 190's at low altitudes (so I should at least be able to catch A5's and A8's shouldnt I?- or is the A8 significantly faster than the A5?). Yet I am having trouble even catching other planes, let alone chasing them down. Tonight I pegged the IAS needle chasing an F4U in a dive, veeeeeery slowly caught up to him, and was shot down by an A6M5 zero that followed me in the dive apparently.
So far I havent been able to get the Typhoon much over 360mph in level flight (I maxxed out at 369mph). Thats according to the E6B. The IAS needle isnt reading anywhere near that fast. I'd appreciate some pointers if anyone knows what I'm doing wrong? Thanks.
-
If you remember the 109 turn performance thread I upped some weeks ago... I've recently aquired a new stick and began flying again.
So I'm planning to do a series of flight tests for most of the fighter types, in the method approved by Hitech to be an accurate way to test out maximum sustained turns. (by using adjusted stall limiter settings to minimize human error).
Surely I'll test out the Typh and the Temp, too. Might have to wait a few weeks, but it will be done.
-
(so I should at least be able to catch A5's and A8's shouldnt I?- or is the A8 significantly faster than the A5?).
The FW-190A8 is faster than the FW-190A5.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Has anyone conducted testing of the AHII versions of the Typhoon and Tempest? Especially the Tiffy. I've been flying it for the last couple weeks, mainly because its one I usually pass over. While the handling isnt bad, it has some very strange stall characteristics compared to any other I've encountered, and it seems oddly slow. What I have read on it so far indicate that in 1942 and early 43 at least, the Tiffy had no problem overhauling FW 190's at low altitudes (so I should at least be able to catch A5's and A8's shouldnt I?- or is the A8 significantly faster than the A5?). Yet I am having trouble even catching other planes, let alone chasing them down. Tonight I pegged the IAS needle chasing an F4U in a dive, veeeeeery slowly caught up to him, and was shot down by an A6M5 zero that followed me in the dive apparently.
So far I havent been able to get the Typhoon much over 360mph in level flight (I maxxed out at 369mph). Thats according to the E6B. The IAS needle isnt reading anywhere near that fast. I'd appreciate some pointers if anyone knows what I'm doing wrong? Thanks.
It's right IRL but not in AH , in Ah none fly at cruise speed.
The advantage the Typhoon had IRL was a higher cruise speed than the FW.
-
SoA2,
I flew the Tiffy a heck of a lot in December, 147 Kills / 19 Deaths in Tiffy, most of which were JABO missions. My Tiffy is fast as heck. It easily runs down F4Us, A5s and A8s. In fact the only non-perk planes that are faster at sea level are the D-9 and La-7. Your faster than even a G-10 or P-51 at sea level.
It does have a few quirks:
The engine rotates in the opposite direction from all other planes except the Tempest. This is probably why you feel weird stall behavior.
The engine loses power from 6.5k to 11K. The worst non wep speed at mid- altitude is at 11K. Conversely, it uses the least fuel at 9.9K. That is where you want to cruise. It's best low alt speed is 6.5K, so if you cruise at 9.9K it's an easy drop down to 6.5 and full speed.
The Tiffy has a high sink rate under 180 mph. It almost feels like you're in an elevator. And it's struggling to keep the nose up at under 165. Worse, the flaps don't deploy until 160, so if you are slow enough for flaps, you're dead.
There is only one way to describe the roll rate, abysmal. But I come from flying the Mossie, which is even worse, so the Tiffy is like a great performance leap to me.
It has incedible drag. Lose your engine to a radiator ping and you have a glide rate like a brick thrown off the top of a barn.
However you can use that drag for offensive purposes too.
The key to the Tiffy is keep her fast. The only time you should be under 250 is at the top of a zoom climb.
As to why yours is slow, I don't know. Are you burning up all your wep on the climb out?
Look for me in the MA, we'll wing a mission and see what the problem is. Or we can go to the TA and work on it.
-
Thanks! Part of the problem seemed at first to be a bug, after losing drop tanks the plane seemed to fly like they were still there. But now that I try to repeat it with film on, I cant do so. Maybe it was my imagination. The zone from 6.5k to 11k you describe could be part of my problem, as I usually level out at 10k, and I try to stay above 5k whenever possible to give myself room to dive out if things get hairy. It may also be that I'm used to flying planes that accelerate a little faster. The strange stall behavior I notice is when I get way too slow for my own good with the nose pointed up. It feels like the plane is mired in gooey mud and doesnt want to respond to control input. Rudder, stick, its like everything happens in slow motion. I know the Typhoon is a big plane, and I also know it has a powerful engine. Maybe its "hanging from the prop" like I've seen F4U's do, but lacks the finer controls of the Hog so has a harder time bringing the nose down out of a stall? Maybe this too is all my imaination, or the result of some ........... well never mind. :)
-
The Tempest should begin to 'run out of steam' over 20,000ft.
If you are at 33,000ft(10km) it is well past its best altitude.
-
MOSQ,
The Spitfire Mk XIV and the Yaks also have their props rotating in the same direction as the Tiffie and Tempest.
I'll also disagree with you on the roll rate. The Tiffie is one of the few fighters the Mossie will out roll. Not by much, but still faster.