Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: tikky on March 03, 2005, 04:58:13 PM
-
http://www.p47pilots.com/cfm_ThereIWas.cfm?pageMode=VIEW&storyid=27
We could easily out-turn the Jerry
unknown Ace Bombing Raid
Northgrove Squadron Germany -
An VIII Fighter Command Ace- I was leading Northgrove Squadron. During the trip over to R/V with the bombers our squadron was flying on the right side of the Group. As we approached the big friends from astern and slightly to the right, we sighted many condensation trails coming from a southerly direction at 90 degrees to the bombers. Upon investigation they turned out to be 9/10 ME 109s and about 15 FW 190s.
At this time the e/a were slightly above us, but they attempted to get up-sun on us. Naturally, since all of our aircraft and all the e/a were pulling very dense condensation trails, there was no element of surprise on either side. The minute we saw them try to get up-sun, we started to climb. The e/a were flying in a group of Vee''s with a tail end man weaving behind the unit. When we began our climb we rapidly climbed above them, and by the time we got into position to bounce we were all about 1,000 feet above them. One of our flights was acting as top cover, approximately 2,000 feet above the whole show at all times. By this time the e/a were in a turn to the left. We bounced and they began to split up. I fired several large deflection shots which were no good. Finally, one e/a straightened out and headed down for the clouds about 500 feet below us. This enabled me to work in a shot from dead astern. I hit this ME 109 in the cockpit. There were the usual flashes, coupled with a fairly large flash and a dense cloud of black smoke. The ship fell off, belching smoke, and headed for the cloud in an extremely erratic manner.
By this time the other two flights were in the scrap. I looked over the left side of my ship in time to see Lt. Reed shoot down an ME 109 which exploded. We were all in the same turning circle, but we found that we could easily out-turn and out-run the Jerry. In fact, the whole enemy force was definitely panicky and not aggressive. After a short while the e/a all disappeared into the clouds and we again set course to pick up the bombers. We spotted another ME 109, but were only able to make an ineffective pass at it because it rolled into the layer of clouds.
Shortly after the last engagement, we were given a recall sign by the Group CO. We turned and in the turn, my engine quit. I was forced to drop down. My wingman, Lt. Westfall, started down with me. By the time we reached 16,000 feet, I spotted a flight of six ME 109s above me and off to my left. They came from the rear, passed over in front of me, and then started a turn to the left. I called to Lt. Westfall to climb back into the clouds, but before he could get there, the e/a had passed over me again, and had started to attack him. Northgrove Red flight then came into play. This flight, led by Lt. Egan, bounced the e/a and, after a short turning engagement, forced the e/a to break off and hit the deck. At the conclusion of these engagements we all started out.
I found myself at 12,00 feet. However, I managed to pick up another P-47 from a different group. My return trip was uneventful insofar as enemy aircraft were concerned.
I would again like to stress the fact that, even though 50% of the squadron was having supercharger regulator trouble, we were still able to out-perform all the enemy aircraft which we encountered.
lol no wonder my 109s flip-flop even when i see p-47:rolleyes:
-
Tikky, at the altitudes required to engage Heavy Bombers in the ETO/MTO, the P-47s held significant performance advantages over the Luftwaffe fighters.
The P-47s typically didn't reach their best speed until 32,000 ft. Up there, they out-climbed, out-turned and easily out-ran the 190A and 109G-6 subtypes they generally encountered. Even later German fighters, such as the 190D-9 and 109G-10 fell short in performance up that high. Even after the P-51 appeared, it still lacked the high alt performance of the Jugs, especially the late model Jugs (P-47M and in the PTO, the P-47N). Mustangs performed better at medium altitudes (15k to 25k). Down here the Jugs were not nearly as effective and the 109s and 190s could and often did give them a very difficult time.
P-47s owned the thin, cold skies over Europe. And why not? It was designed and engineered specifically for that environment.
I read where one Luftwaffe pilot stated that no matter how high they climbed in their 109s, they always found P-47s higher. Some P-47s groups flew high cover up as high as 37,000 feet!! I'm not sure a combat loaded 190A could even get that high and 109s were surely out of breath (and horsepower).
My regards,
Widewing
-
Hmmm not sure if the ceiling of the P47 was higher than any 109 with 605D or AS engine.
-
Probably similarly in the low 40,000s
-
How about P-38? I've climbed to 52,000ft in our P-38 with bombs and rockets.
-
Originally posted by mora
How about P-38? I've climbed to 52,000ft in our P-38 with bombs and rockets.
I'm sure it's because of the super flaps..
Widewing is right abouyt the P47 though, I would not like to be in a 190A at 30k with P47s all about...
-
So we get to the conclusion that the P-47 is completely in the wrong enviroment on AH playfield.
Nobody ever fights at realistic altitudes in MA. Well except the t&b people.
I found it extremely hard to survive in the P47-d30 when I used to fly MA. Possible, yes, but hard. That's why it was also fun and challenging.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I'm sure it's because of the super flaps..
Might very well be since I forgot it on autoclimb.:)
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Tikky, at the altitudes required to engage Heavy Bombers in the ETO/MTO, the P-47s held significant performance advantages over the Luftwaffe fighters.
The P-47s typically didn't reach their best speed until 32,000 ft. Up there, they out-climbed, out-turned and easily out-ran the 190A and 109G-6 subtypes they generally encountered. Even later German fighters, such as the 190D-9 and 109G-10 fell short in performance up that high.
I think you would want to learn more about the specifics of these. ;) While the 190A was definitely, and the 109G-6 was less so outclassed in speed and altitude, this certainly isn`t true for later models. BTW, even the above statement is only true after the horsepower was increased on the P-47 and paddle blade props were added. afaik, and correct me if i am wrong, this didn`t happen until late `43. W/o those, the 109Gs performance was even superior at speed at all inc. high altitudes to the p47 - I shouldn`t even mention the dimensional difference in ROC.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
...While the 190A was definitely, and the 109G-6 was less so outclassed in speed and altitude, this certainly isn`t true for later models.
i dont know about real life, but in AH take a 190G10 clean with no gondolas, 20mm in the nose, 100% and a drop tank.
once you get to 32,000 try and level off, and try an turn on auto pilot level.
without constant WEP you will not maintain that alt, and with the WEP on it will flip the plane over with the engine torque. (this is after dropping the DT once it is empty)
if you manage to get to 35,000 you will not be able to do any manuever without losing at least 5k in alt.
the 190 D in AH is similar, though the eng togque does not flip the plane as bad. it can get to 38K+ but it can't do much up there, even a moderate turn you lose 2000/min in alt.
-
The funny thing in AH is that the P47 is incredibly manouverable and stable on the deck to high alt. It really doesnt seem to suffer from its heft at all.
-
We were all in the same turning circle, but we found that we could easily out-turn and out-run the Jerry. In fact, the whole enemy force was definitely panicky and not aggressive.
This is more a testament to pilot quality rather than aircraft ability. Had the 109 drivers not panicked and acted aggressively, the P-47's would likely have had a more difficult time during the fight.
MiG
-
The funny thing in AH is that the P47 is incredibly manouverable and stable on the deck to high alt. It really doesnt seem to suffer from its heft at all.
I don't find it funny at all how unrealistic the Jug turns and maneuvers on the deck... its a joke that you can knife fight in it that low.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
I think you would want to learn more about the specifics of these. ;) While the 190A was definitely, and the 109G-6 was less so outclassed in speed and altitude, this certainly isn`t true for later models. BTW, even the above statement is only true after the horsepower was increased on the P-47 and paddle blade props were added. afaik, and correct me if i am wrong, this didn`t happen until late `43. W/o those, the 109Gs performance was even superior at speed at all inc. high altitudes to the p47 - I shouldn`t even mention the dimensional difference in ROC.
P-47C-5-RE, circa April of 1943: 433 mph at 30,000 feet. It's a whole lot faster than what the Luftwaffe had to oppose it at the time. Toothpick prop too....
Check data chart 30 in Dean's America's Hundred Thousand, page 278.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
P-47C-5-RE, circa April of 1943: 433 mph at 30,000 feet. It's a whole lot faster than what the Luftwaffe had to oppose it at the time.
I think the 109's with GM1 could fly faster than that.
-
Hi Widewing,
>The P-47s typically didn't reach their best speed until 32,000 ft. Up there, they out-climbed, out-turned and easily out-ran the 190A and 109G-6 subtypes they generally encountered. Even later German fighters, such as the 190D-9 and 109G-10 fell short in performance up that high.
True. The Dora only got competetive with the Jumo 213E, and only a handful of these were actually installed. The Me 109 probably was in a better situation since it was very light and I'd expect it to be competitive in climb, but there's no doubt the P-47 was an excellent performer.
I'd love to see an actual wartime test report, though - I have seen only two data sets for the P-47 (F4U-4 comparison and AHT's chart), and I think both are simplified. The AHT chart actually looks a bit more convincing - maybe it's just that I haven't fully understood things.
>Mustangs performed better at medium altitudes (15k to 25k).
Yes, that's a direct result of replacing the V-1650-3 with a V-1650-7. It has been claimed that medium altitude performance was more useful than high altitude performance, but I'm still not sure whether I should believe that :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hehehe, Merlin 61 equipped Spitties cruising at 43K in late 42 probably beat the lot.
Must have been uncomfortable though....
-
I agree the Juggie out performed the LW fighters aboive 25k. Below 20k it was a different story, however I think AH is a bit too generous in the lo alt handling of the Jug, but whiskey tango foxtrot .
Hoepfully when the twittlers get the unfockring maybe we shall something better I don't expect it though.
BTW if you're going above 30k why the hell are you going in a G10 or D-9 what's the Ta152 for? :D
I remember back a couple of months ago or maybe a year can't remember I saw ammo and a wingman trying to bounce me and I was going about 300indicated and I out zoomed them.
everytime they repositioned themselves I out zoomed them again and again. Yet I got some hits I didn't kill either.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Hehehe, Merlin 61 equipped Spitties cruising at 43K in late 42 probably beat the lot.
Must have been uncomfortable though....
IIRC, WingCo (formerly S/L) Lyne Shute put something about that in his autobiography
-
Originally posted by Widewing
P-47C-5-RE, circa April of 1943: 433 mph at 30,000 feet. It's a whole lot faster than what the Luftwaffe had to oppose it at the time. Toothpick prop too....
Check data chart 30 in Dean's America's Hundred Thousand, page 278.
I`ll check out it, when I find those curves... :confused:
But I doubt the toothpick prop, if it`s already so fast, how could it be equally fast with the paddle paded one? No improvement at all? unlikely...
Meanwhile you check out this :
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1110042726_fghterchart3b.jpg)
No Gm-1 or such. That would give *some* (+120km/h) extra at high altitudes for the Gustav. :aok
-
P-51 IS THAT SLOW???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
NOW THAT TEST IS RIGGED!
-
Originally posted by tikky
P-51 IS THAT SLOW???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
NOW THAT TEST IS RIGGED!
It is an Allison Pony, not a Merlin one. But, even at that is probably about 30 km/hr to slow.
Greg Shaw
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
I`ll check out it, when I find those curves... :confused:
But I doubt the toothpick prop, if it`s already so fast, how could it be equally fast with the paddle paded one? No improvement at all? unlikely...
Listen, there's a wealth of data on the P-47, all of which establish it performance without question. Toothpick prop or paddle-blade, speed remained unchanged. Climb, however, was considerably improved with the high-activity prop. Meanwhile, I'll go with the data out of Langley and Eglin.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Hi Widewing,
>Listen, there's a wealth of data on the P-47, all of which establish it performance without question.
Do you have a set of data which lists speed, climb and power/critical altitude for one specific aircraft along with the weight? In analyzing P-47 performance, I have only found partial sets so far, which were partially contradictory.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi again,
I've found the following engines listed for the major P-47 variants:
R-2800-21 for P-47B/C
R-2800-21W for P-47D
R-2800-51W for P-47D
R-2800-59 for P-47C/D
R-2800-63 for P-47D
R-2800-57(C) for P-47M/N
R-2800-77 for P-47N
Power seems to have been either:
2000 HP
2300 HP
2535 HP (contradictory mentions)
2600 HP (only in F4U-4 report)
2800 HP "C" engines
The "C" engine is rated:
2600 HP @ 63" Hg at 2800 rpm, critical altitude 27000 ft (climbing)
2800 HP @ 68" Hg at 2800 rpm, critical altitude 24500 ft (climbing)
3000 HP @ 73" Hg at 2800 rpm, critical altitude 22000 ft (climbing)
Does anyone have a clue which engine produced which power rating in which subtype? It all seems very confusing from internet sources.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I know this is annecdotal, especially since I cannot remember
the book I read it in, but the Jugs were able to use a "trick" to
outturn 109s and 190s as well.
It was called the lag pursuit roll, basically you roll opposite
the bandit's turn 270 degrees, then pull in behind him using
your elevators. Because it allowed more seperation between
the aircraft, the P-47 was able to slow a bit and turn inside
the german aircraft.
-
Johnson claims his D-5 was boosted up to 72". I wonder how it translates into HP. If it's anything resembling the "C" figures posted here than it would be 2800-3000 HP !
That would give his jug some crazy preformance for a 1943 early 44 plane. I can almost hear the whines had the AH D-11 would have a paddle blade prop and 600HP to spare.
Bozon
-
475mph at over 35k, IIRC Johnson's last interview.
IIRC also Hohun's theory, it is highly likely a misreading due to pitot tube problems.
-
No,its most likely due to him being pushed WITH the wind flow.
-
Originally posted by gwshaw
It is an Allison Pony, not a Merlin one. But, even at that is probably about 30 km/hr to slow.
Greg Shaw
It`s an actual test afaik, and results are what they are. Certainly quite a few P-47s were received by the Red Air Force, and they tested them of course. I`d like to see some evidence to the contrary, because it`s seems to me very unlikely that despite the stronger engines, better propellors, etc., the speeds were the same in 1942 as in 1944. All sources I have seen so far shows the early P-47s at 663kph max.
-
Well, the 109 Speeds seem to have been closely the same in 1942 as in 1944 if we take 670 km/h for the 109F for instance...:D
-
Originally posted by bozon
Johnson claims his D-5 was boosted up to 72". I wonder how it translates into HP. If it's anything resembling the "C" figures posted here than it would be 2800-3000 HP !
Bozon
If he stayed at the 2700 rpm that the A series were cleared for, 72 in Hg would be 2760 hp, charge cooling from water injection would bump that up a bit too. I don't have enough info to calculate charge air temps to make a valid comparison. SWAG, 1.1 * 2760 = 3035 hp on the high end, 1.05 * 2760 = 2900 hp on the low end.
If Widewing or someone has diameters and rpm limits for the C series turbo-superchargers I could make a more accurate estimate. I'm inclined towards the high end, it matches the 3000 hp @ 2800 rpm & 73 in Hg listed earlier pretty closely.
(edit)
Brain fart, the low end is a better match. Didn't take into account the difference between 2800 rpm & 2700 rpm. HoHun's 2850 interpolation doesn't take into account the lower slightly lower power draw at 2700 rpm for the integral blower and other accessories. So somewhere in the 2875 hp range would probably be accurate enough.
(/edit)
On a clean D-5 w/o wingracks or belly rack that should make 475 mph @ 35k realistic, if the earlier model turbo-supercharger could manage that high an altitude.
Greg Shaw
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
It`s an actual test afaik, and results are what they are. Certainly quite a few P-47s were received by the Red Air Force, and they tested them of course. I`d like to see some evidence to the contrary, because it`s seems to me very unlikely that despite the stronger engines, better propellors, etc., the speeds were the same in 1942 as in 1944. All sources I have seen so far shows the early P-47s at 663kph max.
I was referring to the Pony's speed being about 30 km/h too low, not the P-47. The 410 mph range is probably about right for an early model Razorback running at 52 in Hg (2000 hp), when outfitted with the bulged belly and shackles. My read on the P-47 C/D history is that the WEP increases barely offset the increased drag from belly shackles, wing racks, new canopy and rocket rails, etc... Meaning practical speed stayed in the 420-435 mph range, despite significant increases in power. Difference being that the D-40 could manage 435 mph with all the crap hanging off it, while an original D-5 could only do about 420-425 clean.
Greg Shaw
-
Hi Bozon,
>Johnson claims his D-5 was boosted up to 72". I wonder how it translates into HP. If it's anything resembling the "C" figures posted here than it would be 2800-3000 HP !
Approximation for 2700 rpm/72" Hg:
3000 HP * 2700 rpm/2800 rpm * 72" Hg/73" Hg = ca. 2850 HP
>I can almost hear the whines had the AH D-11 would have a paddle blade prop and 600HP to spare.
Hm, I'd say the shorter blades should make the toothpick propeller superior at higher speeds due to smaller tip speed losses. On the other hand, it seems possible that the tootpick had not enough area to actually transfer all that power, in which case the tip speed question becomes academic.
The problem with the 72" Hg setting on the early R-2800 is that it would have a lower critical altitude. From the Power Plant Chart in AN 01-65BC-1A (for the "P-47D-25 through P-47D-35", engine model "R-2800 'B' Series"), critical altitude was 34000 ft for 52" Hg and 26000 ft for 64" Hg, so it should be 20700 ft for 72" Hg, using the same linear extrapolation as evident in the R-2800-56(C) data.
(It might not be perfectly accurate as the higher power should generate more exhaust gases to spin the turbosupercharger faster, unless it's already at its limit, which it might be. Take it as an approximation. Altitude is given in 2000 ft steps anyway, so it definitely has only limited accuracy.)
Unfortunately, I'm not certain whether the altitudes are given including ram effect or not. The layout of the engine chart coincedes exactly with that of the flight operation chart for level flight, so I'd guess ram is included, but that's only a guess so far.
To sum it up, the problem with Johnson's figures is that they are for rather high altitude while 72" Hg would be available only at a rather low altitude, even on the "C" engine which he (probably) didn't have available. That doesn't appear logical from the current state of my analysis.
Applying the same rpm/boost comparison technique as above, I get the following data for the R-2800 B series, based on maximum output of the C series:
44" Hg/2700 rpm: 1570 HP (maximum continous)
52" Hg/2700 rpm: 2060 HP (MIL, 15 min)
64" Hg/2700 rpm: 2536 HP (WEP, 5 min)
72" Hg/2700 rpm: 2850 HP (Johnson)
(Wow! 2535 is mentioned in some books :-)
Since 2300 HP are quoted sometimes, it's interesting to see that they are achieved at a nice round 60" Hg:
60" Hg/2700 rpm: 2300 HP
So one might speculate:
- 52" Hg/2700 rpm was the standard MIL without water injection, and probably is equivalent to the well-known rated 2000 HP.
- 60" Hg/2700 rpm was introduced with the first water injection models
- 64" Hg/2700 rpm was introduced with the P-47D-25 (or earlier) and offered higher power, also at water injection.
With regard to 60" Hg/64" Hg: I have seen both 15 gallon and 30 gallon water tanks mentioned, maybe the larger size coincedes with the higher rating?
MIL obviously does not use water injection since it uses 4.67 gal/min while WEP uses only 4.16 gal/min (plus water/alcohol, of course). Specific fuel consumption usually drops with water consumption, so that's a telltale mark for its use.
Now if we could connect the different powers with different R-2800 dash numbers, we'd have made a good step forward in solving the Thunderbolt puzzle :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Well now to make a long story short, no matter how fast it's opponent is, the Thunderbolt could always 'end the fight' :)
-
Originally posted by Rino
I know this is annecdotal, especially since I cannot remember
the book I read it in, but the Jugs were able to use a "trick" to
outturn 109s and 190s as well.
It was called the lag pursuit roll, basically you roll opposite
the bandit's turn 270 degrees, then pull in behind him using
your elevators. Because it allowed more seperation between
the aircraft, the P-47 was able to slow a bit and turn inside
the german aircraft.
Lag roll is useful in any plane like that, i.e. one that doesnt turn as well as their opponent. FW's use it alot also. Say you are in a Jug or a FW and chasing a spit. He goes into a hard flat turn to the left. Instead of trying to follow him, you roll to the right and when you come around 270 degrees in your roll you pull out facing the spit (hopefully) at about 90 degrees from where he started his turn. It requires a plane with a good roll rate, proper timing, and not overdoing the g-forces in the roll or you'll spin out. The nice thing is, if you screw up the timing the spit is still committed to the turn and you can zoom out of the fight and get separation. It will take him a bit to get around where he can chase you and by then you are out of range. Get some space, get some alt, and try again.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Do you have a set of data which lists speed, climb and power/critical altitude for one specific aircraft along with the weight? In analyzing P-47 performance, I have only found partial sets so far, which were partially contradictory.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
This page doesnt list all the things you asked for, and I'm not saying its 100% correct either, as I dont know what their sources were. However, the information I have used from them in the past was verified by other sources, and I have always found them to be fairly reliable.
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/p47.html
This is the summary from their "Remarks" section on the P-47 in general.
Remarks: The Thunderbolt, designed by Alexander Kartveli, developed a reputation during World War II for extreme toughness and the ability to return it's pilot home even after suffering staggering damage. Nicknamed the "Jug", the Thunderbolt was produced in astonishing number and became the USAAF's premier ground attack fighter-bomber. The type was also used by Brazil, the Free French air force, Mexico, the RAF, and the Soviet Union.
An evolutionary development of the P-43 Lancer, the Thunderbolt entered service in June 1942 with the USAAF's 56th Fighter Group being the first unit to recieved the initial P-47B aircraft. This unit was attached to the 8th Air Force by January 1943 and joined by the 78th Fighter group became operational in April 1943.
Initial engagements with the Luftwaffe showed severe shortcoming at low and medium altitudes and a insufficient fuel load for the escort mission. Later variants overcame these shortcomings and greatly increased the types capabilities. By war's end the Jug had achieved some remarkable statistics. The Thunderbolt managed to destoy 4.6 aircraft for every one of there own number shot down. While flying of half a million combat sorties, accumulating nearly two million operational hours, the type shot down 3,752 enemy aircraft as well as destroying 3,315 aircraft on the ground. It is little wonder that the type achieved such a legendary and highly respected status.
The Jug remained in service with the Air National guard units until 1954 and in numerous air forces around the world for many years after.
-
I also thought this writeup was interesting, considering how poorly the P47 was supposed to perform "on the deck". Its a personal recollection of Edwin Heller.
QUOTE: Describes his second victory on May 8th 1944 with, "This was the hairiest combat I was ever in. On this day Cutler was probably smiling in anticipation as the two of us turned to attack 20 plus 109's, but I was scared ****less. Anyway, when I got that second 109 down on the deck it was hairy as he would turn around buildings so I couldn't pull lead on him. Finally we got into a just-above-stalling Lufbery and it was him or me just a few feet above the ground. I was very thankful when he broke out and I got the final burst in. As I dove in to take a picture of him, my coolant boiled over and came right back on the windscreen. I pulled up and in reflex automatically jammed the coolant door open. I climbed to 10,000 feet, heading home, and made a blind call on the radio that I would most likely bail out, but that I got two 109's. We had been way south of Berlin, and I chose 10,000 feet as it was too high for the light stuff and too low for the big guns. I was real concerned that my engine would quit over the Channel, but she kept going and I got home with it. The tech rep couldn't believe I'd flown for two hours after popping my coolant. He surmised that I'd saved a fraction of coolant and it turned to steam, providing the necessary cooling to keep the engine from seizing up."
Here is a link to the page (interesting look at the flight history of a Jug pilot).
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/heller.html
-
I add the following account from Roger A. Freeman’s Bible of 8th AF operations, “The Mighty Eighth,” at page 125. Note altitudes.
This occurred on the March 6, 1944 mission to Berlin. At the time Mahurin, of the 56th FG, had 16 victories:
Captain Walker Mahurin, leading Red Flight, said: "At the time of the attack, we were unaware of the actual presence of the E/A. We first noticed them when we began to see the flashes of the 20-mm shells bursting around the firsts division of bombers....by the time we got into the combat vicinity the concentrated attack had been dispersed leaving the E/A flying singly and in twos and threes down on the clouds at 7,000 feet.
"I noticed three of these E/A about 11 o'clock to me down low: after considerable manoeuvring, I was in a position to attack one of these E/A, a single Me109. As I came down on him he saw me, and after one turn to the left, he headed down for the clouds. I found myself closing on his tail. I fired several short bursts, none of which hit him. He finally disappeared into the clouds.
"When I pulled up from this attack, I sighted a single FW190 at about 9 o'clock to my flight, heading down for the deck. This Jerry also saw me. As soon as the element of surprise was gone I knew I would be forced to follow him before he straightened out, before I could make a proper attack. We milled around and around in a turning circle to the left, until suddenly the 190 straightened out and headed for one of the half-mile-in-diameter clouds which covered the area. As he did so, I closed in behind him and started to fire. By this time we were both in the cloud and it turned out to be considerably thinner than either one of us had anticipated. I could still see the Hun, and when I fired I saw many hits on both of his wings, as well as a few on his fuselage. I was close enough to him so that my hits did not converge to a point. I was then forced to break off the attack as the cloud obscured him. This 190 I claim as probably destroyed, because I hit him quite heavily.
"By this time the flight had worked itself down to about 3,000 feet and were darting in and out of the clouds trying to spot more Huns. The Huns were darting in and out of the clouds trying to evade Thunderbolts.
"As we climbed back towards the bombers, I looked over the side of my ship and spotted a Thunderbolt in a turning circle to the left with an FW190 on its tail. I immediately called on the R/T to tell the '47 to break left, however, I later discovered that it was a ship from the 78th Group and on a different frequency to ours. I led the flight into attack the 190, which was all silver and with a large black "V" painted on its side. He saw us coming, because he broke the attack and began to turn left to save his own hide. I throttled back and closed in behind him, but held my fire until he, too, would straighten out.
"In the turn itself I was only just able to stay with him, both of us would stall a bit and then recover. However, when I added water I was able to out-turn him and also able to go around the circle faster than he did. I got within 150 yards of him and stayed there. After we had both gone around the circle several times, he pulled up into a steep climb. I followed and was able to get in a few shots, as I closed on him in the climb. As he fell off, he rolled over in order to pull the old stand-by of the Luftwaffe - the split S. I followed this also, gaining on him in the dive. When he pulled out of the dive he headed straight for the clouds in the same manner as the other Jerry had. I was able to pepper him soundly, seeing many hits on both wings and fuselage. The Jerry appeared to be having difficulty in flying his ship. He made a 180 degree turn to the left, and as I pulled up I saw his canopy fly off and saw him jump over the side."
-
Hi Star,
>However, the information I have used from them in the past was verified by other sources, and I have always found them to be fairly reliable.
>http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/p47.html
Roger, exactly that page was quite helpful in preparing a general overview :-) That's my data compilation from 3 sites (I checked out a dozen sites or more that didn't have any useful information):
P-47B
powerplant: Pratt & Whitney R-2800-21 2000hp*
12-foot 2-inch diameter Curtiss Electric C542S-A6 propeller***
weight, loaded: 12,245 lbs*
max speed: 429 mph at 27,000 ft*
P-47C
powerplant: Pratt & Whitney R-2800-21 2000hp WEP*
powerplant: Pratt & Whitney R-2800-59 2535hp WEP*
powerplant: Pratt & Whitney R-2800-59 2300hp**
Curtiss Electric C542S propeller, 12 ft 2 in diameter***
weight, loaded: 13,500 lbs*
max speed: 433 mph at 30,000 ft*
P-47D/G
powerplant: Pratt & Whitney R-2800-59/-63 2535hp WEP*
P&W R-2800-21W or -51W Double Wasp, 2,300 hp or 2,535 hp**
weight, loaded: 14,600 lbs*
max speed: 429 mph at 30,000 ft*
D-1, D-2, D-3: water injection retrofittable***
D-4-RA, D-5-RE, D-6-RE: R-2800-21, water injection, 15 gal, 2300 HP***
D-10-RE and D-11-RA: R-2800-63***
P-47D-20-RE: R-2800-59*** power same as -63, 2300 HP WEP***
P-47D-25-RE and P-47D-26-RA: First bubble top, paddle blade***
P-47D-27-RE: Dorsal fin***
P-47D-30-RA: Rockets***
P-47D-25-RE: R-2800-59 of 2535 hp. 429 mph at 30,000 feet, 406 mph at 20,000 feet, 375 mph at 10,000 feet, 350 mph at sea level. Initial climb rate was 2780 feet per minute. Climb rate at 30,000 feet was 1575 feet per minute. 14,600 pounds normal loaded***
P-47M
powerplant: Pratt & Whitney R-2800-57(C) 2800hp /w water injection*
weight, loaded: 13,275 lbs*
max speed: 400 mph at 10,000 ft, 453 mph at at 25,000 ft, and 470 mph at 30,000 ft*
rate of climb: 3500 ft per minute at 5000 ft and 2650 ft per minute at 20,000 ft*
P-47M-1-RE: 400 mph at 10,000 feet, 453 mph at at 25,000 feet, and 470 mph at 30,000 feet. Initial climb rate 3500 feet per minute at 5000 feet and 2650 feet per minute at 20,000 feet.***
P-47N
wing area: 322 sq ft*
powerplant: Pratt & Whitney R-2800-57(C)/-77 2800hp /w water injection*
weight, loaded: 16,300 lbs*
max speed: 397 mph at 10,000 ft, 448 mph at 25,000 ft, and 460 mph at 30,000 ft*
rate of climb: 2770 ft per minute at 5000 ft and 2550 ft per minute at 20,000 ft*
P-47N-5-RE: 397 mph at 10,000 feet, 448 mph at at 25,000 feet, and 460 mph at 30,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 2770 feet per minute at 5000 feet and 2550 feet per minute at 20,000 feet. 16,300 pounds normal loaded***
* http://www.ww2guide.com/p47.shtml
** http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/p47.html
***http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p47.html
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Star,
>I also thought this writeup was interesting, considering how poorly the P47 was supposed to perform "on the deck". Its a personal recollection of Edwin Heller.
Hm, with coolant lines being hit and coolant boiling, wouldn't that description probably stem from a P-51 mission?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
I also thought this writeup was interesting, considering how poorly the P47 was supposed to perform "on the deck". Its a personal recollection of Edwin Heller.
Here is a link to the page (interesting look at the flight history of a Jug pilot).
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/heller.html
Something's wrong here. THe jug had an AIR cooled engine. No coolant. None.
Maybe this guy changed over to ponies?
-
He did. My fault lol. :o
-
Hi again,
Based on the data above, I have tried to figure out P-47 performance.
Here's one set of data based on the "Baugher" P-47D-25 (429 mph @ 30000 ft):
1570 HP: 613 km/h @ 12.0 km, initial climb 08.0 m/s*
2000 HP: 663 km/h @ 10.3 km, initial climb 11.6 m/s
2300 HP: 690 km/h @ 09.2 km, initial climb 14.0 m/s**
2535 HP: 703 km/h @ 08.3 km, initial climb 15.8 m/s
2850 HP: 716 km/h @ 07.3 km, initial climb 18.3 m/s***
*maximum continous
** Baugher's data point
***Johnson's settings, but D-25 airframe
The performance of the 2535 HP P-47D-25 is about the same as that of the P-51D with V-1650-7 at 67" Hg. The P-47D has a 10 km/h speed advantage from 8.5 km up, the P-51D has a speed advantage of 0 - 20 km/h below that.
Of course, results depend on the specific condition and equipment of each plane so only take this as a general impression :-)
The P-51B with a V-1650-3 should handily outperform the P-47D-25 at high altitude with a top speed of 724 km/h @ 8.9 km - 30 km/h faster than the Thunderbolt.
Of course, the Jug had twice the firepower :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
The P-51B with a V-1650-3 should handily outperform the P-47D-25 at high altitude with a top speed of 724 km/h @ 8.9 km - 30 km/h faster than the Thunderbolt.
Indeed, I think the statements on the P-47`s relative high alt performance are quite a bit overstated, or at least they are based on the late 1943, when they saw the most combat and Axis/Allied contemporaries were truly not as fast as it - something that changed in `44 with Spit XIVs, P-51Bs, late 109Gs/Ks.. ie. the high(er) manouveribility can be only true if the plane was considerably faster than the others, as regardless of the turbocharger, the thunderbolt had extremely high wingloading, making it unlikely to be as goodwilled as a spit when manouvering well above the clouds.
The numbers you posted on perfomance seem exactly right to me, btw.
-
A few days ago I encountered a Ta-152H in a P-51B at about 25k. To my amazement I had no trouble at all overtaking him and when I got on his tail he could not shake me off no matter what he did. Easy kill if there ever was one.
-
One can not only look at the wing loading, the 'power to weight' also has to be considered.
Also, to be considered is the weight of the a/c when in combat. The P-47 had burned off ~1000lb of fuel by that time.
From the Russian graphs, it can be seen that Allied fighters, even the P-47D-25, were much faster than the K-4 above 8-9km.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
... the thunderbolt had extremely high wingloading, making it unlikely to be as goodwilled as a spit when manouvering well above the clouds.
True that the jug had a high wingloading, but not as high as some people think. One must remember that the jug is a flying tanker with 370 gallons of internal fuel (3 times the 109 fuel load). The N model had even more internal fuel in the wings.
This means that the fuel load you use for calculating the wingloading is critical. A fuel empty jug has a better wingloading than a 190A8 if I remember correctly. For actual battle condition the result is somewhere in between since you are neither empty nor full. It's the same with all planes, but if you have a beer can sized fuel tank like a 109, it's less of an issue.
I belive this is the case with some P38 figures as well.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Lag roll is useful in any plane like that, i.e. one that doesnt turn as well as their opponent. FW's use it alot also. Say you are in a Jug or a FW and chasing a spit. He goes into a hard flat turn to the left. Instead of trying to follow him, you roll to the right and when you come around 270 degrees in your roll you pull out facing the spit (hopefully) at about 90 degrees from where he started his turn. It requires a plane with a good roll rate, proper timing, and not overdoing the g-forces in the roll or you'll spin out. The nice thing is, if you screw up the timing the spit is still committed to the turn and you can zoom out of the fight and get separation. It will take him a bit to get around where he can chase you and by then you are out of range. Get some space, get some alt, and try again.
Care to describe that better? I must be missing something.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
One can not only look at the wing loading, the 'power to weight' also has to be considered.
[/B]
This is very unlikely to favour the P-47, the heavies s-e fighter of ww2...
From the Russian graphs, it can be seen that Allied fighters, even the P-47D-25, were much faster than the K-4 above 8-9km. [/B]
The only allied fighter that was faster above 8km than the K-4 to my knowladge was the Spit XIV. All the rest were slower, some even as fast, particularly the P-47D and P-51D, neither of which can even hit the top speed of the K-4. You are welcome to show some data - the K-4`s top speed was 705 kph/8km, 595 kph/9km, 681kph/10km, 660 kph at 11km. The data I have seen show the P-47D slower than this.
One thing to consider about these altitudes that neither of these fighters had pressurized cocpits, making flights at this heights very tiresome - and rare.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
The only allied fighter that was faster above 8km than the K-4 to my knowladge was the Spit XIV. All the rest were slower, some even as fast, particularly the P-47D and P-51D, neither of which can even hit the top speed of the K-4. You are welcome to show some data - the K-4`s top speed was 705 kph/8km, 595 kph/9km, 681kph/10km, 660 kph at 11km. The data I have seen show the P-47D slower than this.
One thing to consider about these altitudes that neither of these fighters had pressurized cocpits, making flights at this heights very tiresome - and rare.
Why don't you post the Russian graphs you are so fond of. There is one with the K-4, Spit and P-51.
from data supplied in this thread
P-47
690 km/h @ 09.2 km
K-4
595 kph/9km
The Russian graph shows ~690kph@ 8km, ~675kph @ 9km and ~660kph @ 10km, so it its understandable why don't care to post it.
Flying at such heights was not rare for American pilots - read some combat reports.
Then there is statements by 109 pilots that flying at such heights was like walking a tightrope.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
This is very unlikely to favour the P-47, the heavies s-e fighter of ww2...
[/i]
This is against my better judgement, but here goes.
Combat weight about 50-60% higher than a Fw 190A, say 8500 lbs vs 13000 lbs. Wing area about 53% greater than a Fw 190A. Not a whole lot to pick and choose between them.
Power loading, the Fw 190A has a large advantage in low gear up to about 1km at 1.42 ata, even over a D-25+ with 2535 hp available. Although at the 72 in Hg figure of 2875 hp or so the P-47D is nearly equal to the Fw 190A @ 1.65 ata. As soon as the Fw 190A has to shift into high gear the P-47D is about equal at 60 in Hg 2300 hp and better at 64 in Hg 2535 hp.
Above about 1 km the P-47 has a power loading advantage, and at bomber escort altitudes it has a huge advantage in PsubS.
The only allied fighter that was faster above 8km than the K-4 to my knowladge was the Spit XIV. All the rest were slower, some even as fast, particularly the P-47D and P-51D, neither of which can even hit the top speed of the K-4. You are welcome to show some data - the K-4`s top speed was 705 kph/8km, 595 kph/9km, 681kph/10km, 660 kph at 11km. The data I have seen show the P-47D slower than this.
One thing to consider about these altitudes that neither of these fighters had pressurized cocpits, making flights at this heights very tiresome - and rare. [/i]
In 1944 testing of the P-47N prototype a P-47D-35 (IIRC) clocked in at 450 mph @ approx 30,000 ft. Which fits right in line with calculated figures for a D-25+ w/o wing pylons.
As for P-51 figures, here is a cut and paste of some P-51 testing:
U.S. Navy Patuxent River Comparison Tests V1650-3 engine at 67" MAP/3000R
Test Weight 9423#
Max Speed 450 mph @ 29200'
426 mph @ 12600'
Eglin Field tests V1650-3, 67"/3000RPM
Test Weight 9640#
Max Speed 435 mph @ 27000'
420 mph @ 13100'
(with wing pylons attached)
Wright Field EE 393 tests V1650-3 67"/3000RPM
Test Weight 9200#
Max Speed 450 mph @ 28200'
420 mph @ 15300'
So, with wing pylons attached the -3 engined was definitely a bit faster above 8km then the K-4. And without pylons both -3 and -7 engined models could manage 450 mph or so, about the same peak speed as the K-4, but about 10 kft higher. Leaving aside the question of whether or not the K-4 ever had the fuel to make those figures.
Greg Shaw
-
Hi Hogenbor,
>A few days ago I encountered a Ta-152H in a P-51B at about 25k. To my amazement I had no trouble at all overtaking him and when I got on his tail he could not shake me off no matter what he did.
It's certainly true that the P-51B makes a great high-altitude fighter :-)
But with MW50 injection, the Ta 152H-0 should actually outrun the P-51B above 7 km. If it doesn't, I'd suspect it lacks this injection.
The Ta 152H-1 with MW50 injection would outpace the P-51B by about 20 - 30 km/h above 6 km. At 11.5 km, the Ta 152H-1 can also use GM-1, which gives ridiculously good performance.
Still, considering that the P-51B is 1943's standard fighter which uses a normally-boosted Merlin while the Ta 152H-1 is 1945's specialized high-altitude aircraft with two types of special injection, I'd say the P-51B gives a very good account of itself :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Greg,
>Combat weight about 50-60% higher than a Fw 190A, say 8500 lbs vs 13000 lbs. Wing area about 53% greater than a Fw 190A. Not a whole lot to pick and choose between them.
I'd say it's close enough that wing loading alone will not allow any realiable conclusion :-) Do you have any idea of what the Clmax of the P-47 wing might have been? That might allow more accurate estimates.
(I agree that the better power loading up high would obviously have favoured the P-47D over the Fw 190A.)
>In 1944 testing of the P-47N prototype a P-47D-35 (IIRC) clocked in at 450 mph @ approx 30,000 ft.
Hm, that was with a R-2800 "C" engine, but the old D-type wings? Do you know the weight of the prototype? That looks like another useful data point :-)
>As for P-51 figures, here is a cut and paste of some P-51 testing:
>Max Speed 450 mph @ 29200'
That's the one I'm using in my above comparisons :-)
>So, with wing pylons attached the -3 engined was definitely a bit faster above 8km then the K-4. And without pylons both -3 and -7 engined models could manage 450 mph or so
Agreed on the -3, but in my opinion the -7 would be a bit slower in terms of absolute speed due to its lower full throttle height. (I'd say the Patuxent River data shows the speed dropping off unrealistically quickly for the -3 engined P-51, by the way.)
That the -7 engine was preferred over the -3 still is puzzling me!
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Widewing,
>Listen, there's a wealth of data on the P-47, all of which establish it performance without question.
Do you have a set of data which lists speed, climb and power/critical altitude for one specific aircraft along with the weight? In analyzing P-47 performance, I have only found partial sets so far, which were partially contradictory.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Found this at Rare Aviation while doing a search for another project of mine I'm doing for a friend. Perhaps it would help?
http://rareaviation.com/ppandpaieran.html
It says the book is "P47B, P47C, and P47D Airplanes - Erection and maintenance instructions."
They also have pilot's manuals for many WWII aircraft.
-
P47 creation of a Soviet guy working for another Soviet guy in USA:)
And they say Soviets cant bilt crap:)
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Why don't you post the Russian graphs you are so fond of. There is one with the K-4, Spit and P-51.
[/B]
I am not fond of the Soviet graph on the K-4, as I have better source, detailed and accurate specifications - directly from Messerschmitt.
from data supplied in this thread
P-47 - 690 km/h @ 09.2 km
K-4 - 695 kph/9km
Which proves your earlier statement, "Allied fighters, even the P-47D-25, were much faster than the K-4 above 8-9km." is absolutely incorrect. It was not faster, and esp. not MUCH faster. Looking at those figures, a 6 ton monster w. a turbocharger, and a 3 ton fighter with a simple single staged mechanical supercharger, it is appearant why they found installing huge turbochargers into fighter airframes simply an inefficient method in Germany.
The Russian graph shows ~690kph@ 8km, ~675kph @ 9km and ~660kph @ 10km, so it its understandable why don't care to post it.
Yes it`s understandable. I put my reliable primary sources above secondary sources, if the former are available.
Flying at such heights was not rare for American pilots - read some combat reports.
Then there is statements by 109 pilots that flying at such heights was like walking a tightrope.
Sure-sure. I can pick as many qoutes of 109s flying at such heights as you wish, including how P-38s gave up to follow old G-6s to such altitudes, but what for. Ceiling of the K-4 was 42 325 ft, this tells it all.
-
Originally posted by gwshaw
Combat weight about 50-60% higher than a Fw 190A, say 8500 lbs vs 13000 lbs. Wing area about 53% greater than a Fw 190A. Not a whole lot to pick and choose between them.
Power loading, the Fw 190A has a large advantage in low gear up to about 1km at 1.42 ata, even over a D-25+ with 2535 hp available. Although at the 72 in Hg figure of 2875 hp or so the P-47D is nearly equal to the Fw 190A @ 1.65 ata. As soon as the Fw 190A has to shift into high gear the P-47D is about equal at 60 in Hg 2300 hp and better at 64 in Hg 2535 hp.
I didn`t check the numbers, such would be more interesting shown graphically. The turbocharged Jug had constant output up to high altitudes, whereas the FW 190`s dropped off - the BMW 801 was a rather poor performer at high alts, hence the natural division of jobs between 109s and 190s on the Western front.
Above about 1 km the P-47 has a power loading advantage, and at bomber escort altitudes it has a huge advantage in PsubS.
There`s no question about the P-47D being greatly superior to the FW 190A at such altitudes. Not so much compared to the A-9 or D-9, though. Real life testing between P-47d and 190A w/o boost however revealed pronounced superiority of the 190 in manouvers requiring 'hanging on the propellor'.
In 1944 testing of the P-47N prototype a P-47D-35 (IIRC) clocked in at 450 mph @ approx 30,000 ft. Which fits right in line with calculated figures for a D-25+ w/o wing pylons.
The P-47M/N was indeed very fast, very late, and very rare. I though we are talking about the D version, which was in question. Certainly the N was by no means represenative of D performance.
As for P-51 figures, here is a cut and paste of some P-51 testing:
U.S. Navy Patuxent River Comparison Tests V1650-3 engine at 67" MAP/3000R
Test Weight 9423#
Max Speed 450 mph @ 29200' - 724km/h at 8900m.
426 mph @ 12600'
Yes, results for P-51B with the high altitude engine, without bombracks, which were standard fitting on them for droptanks.. Even at SL, these chopped down 8-12mph, and at such heighst -20mph is rather probable - minimum. IIRC the report even mentions special handling of the surface as well..
Eglin Field tests V1650-3, 67"/3000RPM
Test Weight 9640#
Max Speed 435 mph @ 27000' - 700kph 8230m
420 mph @ 13100'
(with wing pylons attached)
Suppose another P-51B/C, lowest drag variant, best altitude engine, now with the standard pylons. A tad bit slower than K-4 at 705kph at the same altitude.
Wright Field EE 393 tests V1650-3 67"/3000RPM
Test Weight 9200#
Max Speed 450 mph @ 28200'
420 mph @ 15300'
Again without standard wingracks.
So, with wing pylons attached the -3 engined was definitely a bit faster above 8km then the K-4.
P-51B/-3 w. pylons : 700kph 8230m
K-4 : 705 kph at 8000m
So certainly not.
And without pylons both -3 and -7 engined models could manage 450 mph or so, about the same peak speed as the K-4, but about 10 kft higher. Leaving aside the question of whether or not the K-4 ever had the fuel to make those figures.
Point is they never flown without pylons in USAAF service. Standard fitting, required for long range sorties.
We have already concluded the -3 engines made the sleeker P-51B as good as the K-4, not much difference to speak of.
The V-1650-7 had poorer power output than the -3 at altitude, which would make it slower, plus if we speak of the most common config (draggier P-51D w. V-1650-7, wingracks), it is definieately at speed disadvantage to the K-4 at altitude.
What graphs Neil Stirling posted show the D version to achieve some 663 kph at 10000m - that`s 20 km/h slower than the K-4 at 681 kph at the same altitude, and about as fast as a G-10 or /AS types. Two staged versions of the DB 605 D would rule out the even playing fields for the comparisons, though. ;)
I don`t get your fuel comment. Without fuel either the P-51 was some 700 km/h slower than the 109K and vica versa. Otherwise the type of fuel or the use of MW did not effect the altitude performance above 7000m or so at all, just as 150 grade fuel couldn`t.
All this said, the -3 performances were a bit useless - the bombers flew at much lower altitudes, having poorer superchargers themselves, fuel economy and bombing accuracy also being important. The USAAF realized just as the RAF did that the Merlin 61 and the V-1650-3 offered advantages that are of little use during the typical heights of combat sorties, and switch to the 66/-7, which had less power at altitude, but offered their performance at a much more practical altitude range - up to about 16 000 ft.
If you can provide the graphs, I can put them all in an excell curve vs. altitude, if u r interested.
-
So, you only use the Russian graphs when it suits your agenda. :( Post your more reliable data, if you really have any.
Nice editing job of my post,btw. :cool:
it is appearant why they found installing huge turbochargers into fighter airframes simply an inefficient method in Germany.
:rolleyes: Sure, then why was a German company developing the Bv155 high altitude fighter late in the war? The Bv155 was originally the Me155, a 1943 design, that was to have a turbo-supercharger connected to its DB engine. Messerschmitt gave up because they could not get past the engineering problems.
I never said that the Germans did not fly at 30kft +. :(
-
Why would me or anybody post actual data for you, hmm? :lol
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
In 1944 testing of the P-47N prototype a P-47D-35 (IIRC) clocked in at 450 mph @ approx 30,000 ft. Which fits right in line with calculated figures for a D-25+ w/o wing pylons.
The P-47M/N was indeed very fast, very late, and very rare. I though we are talking about the D version, which was in question. Certainly the N was by no means represenative of D performance.
I am NOT referring to the N prototype that did hit 450 mph with the "C" series engine. There was a D-35 that flew mock combat and comparisons to the N prototype. It hit 450 mph with the standard -63 "A" series R-2800.
snip
So, with wing pylons attached the -3 engined was definitely a bit faster above 8km then the K-4.
P-51B/-3 w. pylons : 700kph 8230m
K-4 : 705 kph at 8000m
So certainly not.
2 mph slower than the peak of the K-4, but at 800+ ft greater alttitude. IE the K-4 would be falling off about 1-2 mph in that difference. I'll restate, there wouldn't be any significant difference between them at 27,000 ft and the Pony's speed should drop off a bit slower with altitude.
And without pylons both -3 and -7 engined models could manage 450 mph or so, about the same peak speed as the K-4, but about 10 kft higher. Leaving aside the question of whether or not the K-4 ever had the fuel to make those figures.
Point is they never flown without pylons in USAAF service. Standard fitting, required for long range sorties.
Correct, but my point is that a CLEAN P-51 is faster peak than a CLEAN K-4, even the -7 models. Although the K-4 certainly has a pronounced speed edge in the 18-22,000 ft range over either engined Pony running on 100/130 and limited to 67 in Hg.
And a standard B w/-3 engine (circa late '43) is just as fast as a K-4 (circa late '44/early '45) above that 8 km altitude.
We have already concluded the -3 engines made the sleeker P-51B as good as the K-4, not much difference to speak of.
The V-1650-7 had poorer power output than the -3 at altitude, which would make it slower, plus if we speak of the most common config (draggier P-51D w. V-1650-7, wingracks), it is definieately at speed disadvantage to the K-4 at altitude.
I agree completely, but the B is about a year earlier than the K-4. The USAAF made a conscious decision to reduce high altitude performance in order to increase carrying capacity and medium altitude performance. The K-4 would be slightly faster above 8 km than a stock D running at 67 in Hg, but faster in the 22-25 kft range than a -3 engined Pony. Again there wouldn't be much to pick and choose between a stock D and a K-4 in that altitude range, both would be in the high 430/low 440 mph range. The D probably a bit better at the high end of the range, the K a bit better at the low end. With the K starting to regain some edge above that since it had a couple thousand foot edge in rated altitude.
What graphs Neil Stirling posted show the D version to achieve some 663 kph at 10000m - that`s 20 km/h slower than the K-4 at 681 kph at the same altitude, and about as fast as a G-10 or /AS types. Two staged versions of the DB 605 D would rule out the even playing fields for the comparisons, though. ;)
And the -9/-11 coming out would have greatly improved performance at high and medium altitudes over the -7.
I don`t get your fuel comment. Without fuel either the P-51 was some 700 km/h slower than the 109K and vica versa. Otherwise the type of fuel or the use of MW did not effect the altitude performance above 7000m or so at all, just as 150 grade fuel couldn`t.
I was referring to this earlier statement of yours, "All the rest were slower, some even as fast, particularly the P-47D and P-51D, neither of which can even hit the top speed of the K-4"
I assumed it was the 452 mph / 730 km/h @ 6 km / 18,700 ft figure for the K-4's peak speed you were alluding to. IIRC that was with C3+MW50, B4+MW50 peaking somewhere in the 435-440 mph range at a bit higher altitude. So with B4+MW50 the peak speed wasn't any higher than a pylon equipped B/C/D could manage. I might be mistaken on that since I don't have my references handy, so that 452/730 figure may be with B4+MW50, but I don't believe so.
If I have some time I'll work up some 72 in Hg, 75 in Hg and 80 in Hg figures for the -3 and -7, then plug them into my P-51B and P-51D models and see what comes out.
My engine and plane models are both in a bit of disarray right now, but I'll see what I can come up with. I'm still working on a brand new engine model, and improving the exhaust thrust part of my plane model.
Greg Shaw
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Why would me or anybody post actual data for you, hmm? :lol
:rolleyes:
Because you are the one one making claims that you can't back up with any proof.
It is not just me you have prove to what your claim is fact. Therefore, NO ONE will believe your bogus claims.
Conclusion, you don't have any data (actaul flight tests, not factory calculations) on the K-4 and you are afraid all will see the real truth on the K-4s performance. :)
-
Originally posted by gwshaw
I am NOT referring to the N prototype that did hit 450 mph with the "C" series engine. There was a D-35 that flew mock combat and comparisons to the N prototype. It hit 450 mph with the standard -63 "A" series R-2800.
Probably so, but I have never seen any D series being that fast - I see 690 kph for them all the time. But, I dont know all those P-47 variants in details, but if the s/c or prop wasnt improved, there is little chance the altitude performance would get better - perhaps the plane you refer to didn`t have the racks, unlike operational ones.
Point is they never flown without pylons in USAAF service. Standard fitting, required for long range sorties.
Correct, but my point is that a CLEAN P-51 is faster peak than a CLEAN K-4, even the -7 models. Although the K-4 certainly has a pronounced speed edge in the 18-22,000 ft range over either engined Pony running on 100/130 and limited to 67 in Hg.
And a standard B w/-3 engine (circa late '43) is just as fast as a K-4 (circa late '44/early '45) above that 8 km altitude.
Yep. Though I feel the B Mustang was more like early 1944, they flew only a handful of sorties in december `43 w. the 8th AF. Speaking of intro dates, I`d willing to bet a 109G-1 from mid-42 is at least as fast as K-4 at altitude with GM-1, it had even more power with that (somewhere around 1000 HP at 10km), very easily above 700 kph in any case. F-4/Z would be also in their heels. ;) These were specialiyed altitude fighters, though.
I agree completely, but the B is about a year earlier than the K-4. The USAAF made a conscious decision to reduce high altitude performance in order to increase carrying capacity and medium altitude performance. The K-4 would be slightly faster above 8 km than a stock D running at 67 in Hg, but faster in the 22-25 kft range than a -3 engined Pony. Again there wouldn't be much to pick and choose between a stock D and a K-4 in that altitude range, both would be in the high 430/low 440 mph range. The D probably a bit better at the high end of the range, the K a bit better at the low end. With the K starting to regain some edge above that since it had a couple thousand foot edge in rated altitude.
Pretty much agree!
And the -9/-11 coming out would have greatly improved performance at high and medium altitudes over the -7.
If you mean the p-51h, that thing was definetely a monster speedy plane, no doubt. Do you have some graphs on those engines?
I assumed it was the 452 mph / 730 km/h @ 6 km / 18,700 ft figure for the K-4's peak speed you were alluding to. IIRC that was with C3+MW50, B4+MW50 peaking somewhere in the 435-440 mph range at a bit higher altitude. So with B4+MW50 the peak speed wasn't any higher than a pylon equipped B/C/D could manage. I might be mistaken on that since I don't have my references handy, so that 452/730 figure may be with B4+MW50, but I don't believe so.
The 452mph figure is actually coming from the same doc I am using, for a 4bladed prop they toyed with /both fuels/, w. reference to the perf w 3bladed prop. It made it some 10kph faster at altitude, but was not serialized.
Top speed w the normal prop was 712-15 kph, regardless of fuel, but with c3/2000ps it was reached at a wider alt. range, ie. see below :
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1104924968_spd_109gkvsixvs190ad.jpg
You can compare your p51 data points to this w. the 109K.
-
You'd be surprized where a 1943 Spit VIII (long range) racks up in that speed chart.
Say alone at 25 boost.
-
You can compare your p51 data points to this w. the 109K.
You going to add the Dora using C3 and MW 50 to that graph. It was in use weeks before the 1.98ata 109K rating. The 109K was cleared for 1.98ata in the last two or three weeks of the war. :D
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1110499629_d9speed.gif)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1110499728_d9climb.jpg)
It was substantially faster than the 109K at low altitudes.
Your graph shows the truth but not in the context of service date, leading to some seriously flawed conclusions.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
There was a comment made about certain P-47 models being rare. So was the K-4 @ 1.98ata.
Olivier Lefebvre, noted authority on the BF 109, has stated:
The DB605DM was cleared up to 1.75ata, the DB605DB pushed the limit up to 1.8ata, both could be sustained with use of either B4+MW-50 (as mentionned in various documents, even if it was an afterthought in the DM case) or C3-MW-50. However the DB605DC max boost at 1.98ata could be achieved with use of C3+MW-50 only.
As for the fuel supply, I own copies showing detailed stockpile status for February-April 1945... But yes the C3 was definitely scarce.
As of March 1945 only a handful of 109 gruppen were using C3 for their mounts, one of the few being the II/JG11 which were responsible for testing the 605DB/DC over January-March 1945. According to a document dated late January 1945 coming from DB the 1.80 had just been cleared following serious troubles (pre-ignition) reported by the unit testing the 1.80 ata boost. It is also noted that following the clearance of the 1.8ata boost the 1.98ata operational tests could now begin but with concern about the sparkplugs thermal resistance IIRC. C3 was not used by 109 units until the 1.98ata boost was cleared, they relied on B4+MW-50 so that C3 could go to the 190 units. And even after the clearance only few gruppen got it because of shortages due not only to C3 production but also to C3 delivery to the units.
AFAIK 1.98ata boost was cleared late February but it seems to have been slowly introduced into service, I suspect the adjustments needed on the engine and the change of sparkplugs type (supply problems ???) took longer than expected. From other documents I know that C3 and B4 had severe quality problems beginning in late 1944. While it was not much of a problem with low boost, it had some serious effect on higher boost, so it might also have slowed down the introduction of 1.98ata boost. At least DB documents underlined the need for cleaner fuels than those in use at that time. You can safely assume that by March 1945 1.98 ata boost was being introduced, unfortunately I do not have much details for April 1945, but I doubt it would have changed much, given the situation.
-
Since homemade graphs, of questionable authenticiity and not backed up by factory flight test data graphs, are being presented some more by Mike Williams.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
You going to add the Dora using C3 and MW 50 to that graph.
It was in use weeks before the 1.98ata 109K rating.
[/B]
Never seen any evidence of any use of C-3 by D-9 units, perhaps you can show some. Also I don`t get why would the D-9 be any faster using 96 octane fuel than 87 octane fuel, if it`s running at the same 1.8ata boost.
The 109K was cleared for 1.98ata in the last two or three weeks of the war. :D
Also wrong, it was cleared in the last 5-6 months, and by March `45, at 100-150 K-4s were running at it already.
It was substantially faster than the 109K at low altitudes.
Your graph shows that not. At ca. 2000m altitude, the D9 w. C3 fuel achieves some 653 kph, same as the K-4.
Appearantly, your well known zeal the 190 was best in everything distorts your ability to read the facts from the charts.
I know the little graph will get some reactions from the usual crowd, even if it was posted only to help out greg w. K-4 performance.
-
Appearantly butch somehow missed orders from the OKL, Lw.-Führüngstab, Nr. 937/45 gKdos.(op) 20.03.45.
This order, apart from ordering 95% of the existing 109 units to convert to the Bf 109 K-4 as soon as deliveries permit, also notes in relation of I./JG 27, III./JG 27, III./JG 53, IV./JG 53 to increase their maximum boost pressures to 1,98 ata manifold pressure.
II./JG 11 was already using it.
This means apprx. 150 aircraft that converted to 1.98ata, not counting previous units that may have done it before that order came out.
-
Originally posted by Angus
You'd be surprized where a 1943 Spit VIII (long range) racks up in that speed chart.
Say alone at 25 boost.
I tell you, simply f. poorly. :D
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Since homemade graphs, of questionable authenticiity and not backed up by factory flight test data graphs, are being presented some more by Mike Williams.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html
Indeed you are rigth, Mike as usual manipulated that chart heavily. He picked a 109K for climbs that was 200kg heavier, he shows a K-6 but lies and labeled it K-4, he shows the DB engine without MW 50 and so.
Poor Mike, if he would know what I am cooking for him right now. :D
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Appearantly butch somehow missed orders from the OKL, Lw.-Führüngstab, Nr. 937/45 gKdos.(op) 20.03.45.
He did? I think someone has reading problems.
" AFAIK 1.98ata boost was cleared late February but it seems to have been slowly introduced into service,"
And has trouble with numbers. Feburary (02) is the month before March (03) on the calender.
This order, apart from ordering 95% of the existing 109 units to convert to the Bf 109 K-4 as soon as deliveries permit, also notes in relation of I./JG 27, III./JG 27, III./JG 53, IV./JG 53 to increase their maximum boost pressures to 1,98 ata manifold pressure.
II./JG 11 was already using it.
This means apprx. 150 aircraft that converted to 1.98ata, not counting previous units that may have done it before that order came out.
Oh yes those miniscule deliveries. And, where did they get the fuel from? II./JG 11 had disappeared by April (04) 9 1945 for it does not appear on any OoB that I have seen.
A couple of weeks after the order came down,
I/JG 27 had 13 flight capable 109s
III/JG 27 had 15 flight capable 109s
III/JG 53 had 24 flight capable 109s
IV/JG 53 had 27 flight capable 109s
Also wrong, it was cleared in the last 5-6 months, and by March `45, at 100-150 K-4s were running at it already.
Another wishful thinking dream by Barbi.
Your problem is you have zilch credibility while Butch has tonnes of credibility because he does not manipulate for a biased agenda.
-
Well the DB 605 DB/DC manual issued 1st December 1944 notes the 1.8 and 1.98ata boost being cleared, the 20th January doc butch himself posted says the boost was already issued to the troops, Galland himself and engines were set for it (' 'diese Leistungen direkt der Truppe angeboten wurden und die Motoren umgestellt werden'), but some further testing is required, then we have the direct order of OKL on the 20th March issuing orders to the mentioned units, save those that already switched to it in February as butch noted.
Overview of unit strenghts for the units that used 1,98ata.
As per 9th April 1945.
unit - 109s w unit
I./JG 27 - 29
III./JG 27 - 19
III./JG 53 - 40
IV./JG 53 - 54
Total : 142
Some zealots like Mike can go partisan and piss into the wind if they like, but there is overwhelming amount of evidence and makes their entire behaviour look like futile clown action.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Indeed you are rigth, Mike as usual manipulated that chart heavily. He picked a 109K for climbs that was 200kg heavier, he shows a K-6 but lies and labeled it K-4, he shows the DB engine without MW 50 and so.
Poor Mike, if he would know what I am cooking for him right now. :D
Your biased hatred has you not seeing clearly as there are 3 109K graphs with mit/with noted.
At least Mike put on his graph contemperary a/c unlike in yours which gives a false impression to further your UBER German agenda.
A K-6 was flight tested at Rechlin and some 3700 or so were to be built.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Your biased hatred has you not seeing clearly as there are 3 109K graphs with mit/with noted.
[/B]
No, my darling, what Mike Williams does is taking the DC graph which notes 'ohne MW', and then puts its data on his own chart, and claims it`s maximum performance on 1.8ata, when it`s not. Of course if he`d choose the right chart, he would have to show with much better performance both low and high.
Then he tooks the data for the slower K-6, but lists it as a K-4 on his own. Let`s not even mention the really lowly trick of putting the 109K with thin yellow line on white background, so that everyone will have difficulty seeing how badly the K-4 outpaced the SpitXIV - even compared to Mike`s own imaginative performance curve on +21 lbs.
Really classy from Mike, lowest performance on low boost and wrongly labeled, hardly visible curves for high boost. :rolleyes:
The he gets data for a 3550 kg projected K-4 graphs from May 1944, 200 kg heavier than the normal K-4 - yeah, 'fair' representation of climb performance! And of course a little more tricks for Sondernotleistung, Mike`s chart says it 'experimental propellor'. The original doc says the serial and experimental prop produces the same climb performance, but nice trick to dismiss the numbers.
At least Mike put on his graph contemperary a/c unlike in yours which gives a false impression to further your UBER German agenda.
He doesn`t even do that, he doesn`t listen ASM equipped 109s at all, just two extreme ends - AS ones that are only fast at low altitude, and AM ones that are only fast at low altitude. Not the variant that was fast both low and high.
And as for contemperary a/c, I cannot imagine any more contemperary a/c to the G-14s, G-10, K-4s than IXLFs. Mike hides those like ugly sisters, even if there were 20 IXLFs for every XIVs that managed to show up in the skies once in a month.
Well he will get that summerized in an article soon enough. I told him to re-think it a bit before his manipulated articles will leave an long lasting impression in many regarding the credibility of his site, he choosed not to...
-
From me and Izzy:
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Angus
You'd be surprized where a 1943 Spit VIII (long range) racks up in that speed chart.
Say alone at 25 boost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I tell you, simply f. poorly. "
Not really Izzy.
Firstly, the Mk VIII racks up way better than the Spitfire you chose to promote on your chart.
It is in level speed a 400 mph + fighter.
Secondly, it has a limb rate to 20K in 5 minutes. That is on par with the XIV roughly.
Thirdly, this performance is achieved with full tanks, you'll need to hang drop tanks on the 109 to reach the same level. So where do you think the level speed will be then?
Fourthly, this is a fully tropicalized aircraft. Clean it up a bit and???
That 1943 Spit VIII seems to compare nicely with your selected 1944 109's on overboost. And that's just sheer speed, which IMHO was not the strongest point of the Spitty.
I have graphed some 1942/43 Spits and a 109 from a similar period. Just need to host it and you can see. Will try to find a host later on. Anyway, the one you picked was for most of the way the slowest one.
I've gotta rush (Vet's coming, - i.e. the veterinary surgeon, - cow's business again)
Will return with some hurting stuff :D
-
Poor Mike, if he would know what I am cooking for him right now.
goulash ??
-
... with so much paprika it will make him caugh ! :lol
-
I knew it :D
-
And as for contemperary a/c, I cannot imagine any more contemperary a/c to the G-14s, G-10, K-4s than IXLFs.
The Spit XIV was the contemperary of the G-10/K-4 just as the Spit I/II was for the 109E, as the Spit V was for the 109F and the Spit IX for the 109G6s.
Your feeble attempt at deception to prove how superior Germany was suppose to be is so transparent a blind person can see it.
Now post some real flight test graphs of the K-4 so all can draw their own conclusions.
-
Nice and simply true.
In the speed race I'd put my money on the 109, in lift on the Spit, on the horizontal on the Spit.
But they are very closely matched all the way through, especially if one tries to compare aircraft that operate in the same timeframe in the same area :)
Or should we graph a Spit IX against a 109E?
That's basically the Barbi-tech way of promotion.
-
Barbi says:
While the 190A was definitely, and the 109G-6 was less so outclassed in speed and altitude, this certainly isn`t true for later models.
Let's see what a recovered crash landed FW-190G3 does against the P47C and P47D-4:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1110723875_p47-fw190.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1110723926_p47-fw190-2.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1110723982_p47-fw190-3.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1110724051_p47-fw190-4.jpg)
Now compare a properly maintained FW-190G3 to a properly maintained FW-190A5:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1109451277_fw190_g3_s.gif)
So we can conclude from this report that the FW-190A5 was "at least" capable of the performance concluded in the P 47 trials.
The 109 vs. 190 performances have been done ad nauseaum. Only the BMW 801C powered FW-190's equaled their Bf-109 counterparts in low-level speed. The BMW 801D2, BMW 801TS, BMW 801TU, BMW 801TH, and Jumo 213 powered FW-190's were much faster than their 109 counterparts.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Angus
But they are very closely matched all the way through, especially if one tries to compare aircraft that operate in the same timeframe in the same area :)
If you wish compare aircraft that operate in the same timeframe in the same area, then you should compare the Hurri/Spit I to the 109E, the Mk V to the 109F and early G, the Mk IX to the late 109G and K. These were the types that commonly faced each other on the battlefield, the RAF had some rare types like the XII and XIV, but so did the LW, ie. Me 262, GM-1 equipped 109s. Spitfire fanatics usually do the same, because in a historical comparision reveals how much disadvantage Spit pilots were, flying the common types and not the exception. And they usually cry how extremely unfair it is in any other way than comparing the rarest, highest performance Spits to the most ordinary and common 109s. I see this as a sign of being unable to handle the facts. But they don`t even know what that word means. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The 109 vs. 190 performances have been done ad nauseaum. Only the BMW 801C powered FW-190's equaled their Bf-109 counterparts in low-level speed. The BMW 801D2, BMW 801TS, BMW 801TU, BMW 801TH, and Jumo 213 powered FW-190's were much faster than their 109 counterparts.
Sources and references ? Your partisan attitude won`t make up for the lack of them.
Indeed this horse was beaten to death, and repeating the same thing that was already proven wrong a dozen times is just silly. The only timeframe the FW 190 appears to be faster at low levels is in 1943, when the A-5 is matched against the G-6.
-
The only timeframe the FW 190 appears to be faster at low levels is in 1943, when the A-5 is matched against the G-6.
Only in your mind Izzy.
Sources have been posted over and over again. This issue has been worked out at least 3 times. Your the only one who seems to ignore the facts. My charts are not power point presentations I made myself. They are original documentation.
Completely different from your fantasy charts.
Speaking of ignore. You have me on your list. Seems silly to post it your signature and constantly reply? Unless it is just an attention getting tantrum.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
The funny thing is that you couldn`t even realize your own charts prove you wrong, simply because the low level speed performance stated by them are lower or only as fast as the official 109 figures.
Examples can be taken, ie. YOUR A-9 and D-9 curves showing a max. SL speed of 595, and 605-612 kph, vs. 109K-4 curves showing 595/607 kph, or your A-8 graphs which show 565 kph vs. official G-14 curves that show 568 kph etc.
In other words, even the sources cited by you don`t support your own claims, making this silly partisanship displayed by you achieving anything but a laugh coming from the audiance.
-
There is nothin more beautiful than 2 axis fans not getting along in their opinions.
:aok
FW is uber !!
Nein 109 ist dem geilesten uber !!
Kurt Tank war demm ubermensch !!
Nein Willy !!
Arsloch !!
schwein !
-
Correction, I only stated that 109 was just as fast, a few version a bit faster and that crumpp`s 'all 190A were much faster' is simply wrong. he`s the *uber* guy.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Sources and references ? Your partisan attitude won`t make up for the lack of them.
Indeed this horse was beaten to death, and repeating the same thing that was already proven wrong a dozen times is just silly. The only timeframe the FW 190 appears to be faster at low levels is in 1943, when the A-5 is matched against the G-6.
Why should anyone provide proof and references when you won't even produce proof and references of your 109 claims?:rolleyes: What are you trying to hide?
Crumpp, Barbi is most likely using 109K-4 data that is for the DB605G/L engine from factory calculations. :eek: As can be seen in this pdf file, http://www.mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/lw/109_projekt.pdf, Barbi is living in a fantasy world. The 109K in Start - u Notleistung could barely do 540kph @ SL. (Start - u Notleistung -- Take off/Emergency)
The Dora 9 was good for 640kph @ SL. http://jagdhund.homestead.com/files/DoraData/horizontalgeschwindigkeiten.htm
Same with the 1.98ata boost which has been done numerous times, yet he still won't admit that is was NOT usable til ~March 1945.
-
Milly you can try whatever tricks, I won`t publish the 109K data until I contacted some person for who it may be disadvantageous. No, it`s not with the DB 605L, and of course you are wrong about the K`s SL speed as well.
The K-4 figures are from 'Leistungen 8-109 K4 und K-6'. which notes the following.
'Die angegabenen Leistungen werden mit gut gebauten Serienmachinen sicher erreicht.' or
'The above given performances are certainly going to be reached with well-built serial production machines.'
Quite clear.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Milly you can try whatever tricks, I won`t publish the 109K data until I contacted some person for who it may be disadvantageous. No, it`s not with the DB 605L, and of course you are wrong about the K`s SL speed as well.
The K-4 figures are from 'Leistungen 8-109 K4 und K-6'. which notes the following.
'Die angegabenen Leistungen werden mit gut gebauten Serienmachinen sicher erreicht.' or
'The above given performances are certainly going to be reached with well-built serial production machines.'
Quite clear.
Sure Barbi. Just another cop out by you.:( :(
The pdf file says otherwise. Gondolas only cost about 5kph to the speed.
Your quote is theoretical speed and there certainly were not any 'well built' a/c at that stage of the war.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
There is nothin more beautiful than 2 axis fans not getting along in their opinions.
:aok
FW is uber !!
Nein 109 ist dem geilesten uber !!
Kurt Tank war demm ubermensch !!
Nein Willy !!
Arsloch !!
schwein !
Heh heh. his is good, bug.
- oldman