Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: 1K3 on August 10, 2005, 02:50:41 PM
-
INteresting article...
Messerschmitt 109 - myths, facts and the view from the cockpit
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/
On 1 to 5 scale, how would you rate this article?
(pls read the whole article 1st before rating and commenting)
-
If 1 means bad and 5 means excellent I rate it as 1. No doubt, authors started with good intentions, but they executed their idea badly. But perhaps, as a generel note, draft dodging and military history don´t make friends easily.
-
I agree
Edit: And I even like 109's
-
1.5 just because they tried. Not very hard, but they tried.
-
4
Write a better one if you can.
-C+
-
Obviously the experience and opinions of the fighter pilots who put their life on the line flying real 109's in combat pales in comparison with computer nerds who know it better...:rolleyes:
-
I'll never implied I know it better. The article is too fragmented and a bit biased.
-
"a bit biased"
I agree to some degree, but then again the writer probably tries to write a strong article which acts as a counter force to all the bad propaganda on 109 he has read from many forums during the years.
I think it's good that there is an article where all those things are listed so anyone interested can also see the opinions of people who actually flew them (109s) and not just of those who shot them down.
-C+
-
Before somebody jumps the gun about the draft dodging comment I´d recommend reading the article from Turun Sanomat posted on their (virtualpilots) site.
One serious problem with the article itself is that very great emphasis is laid on memories of very old pilots. If you read the transcripts of various interviews they have conducted, some of the crucial questions are very "leading the witness". Furthermore, apart from Karhila the pilots they interviewed (because the "big guns" are no longer with us) are mostly "also rans", folks that didn´t have really extensive combat experience.
Perhaps a more authoritative approach would have been examining wartime combat reports to see how the pilots them evaluated their kites. But that means work, work and work.
-
"Perhaps a more authoritative approach would have been examining wartime combat reports to see how the pilots them evaluated their kites. But that means work, work and work."
I'm sure everybody would be delighted to read more professional text as JK has been doing journalist work for only what? 15 years? I would like to see more articles written of this subject by anybody who has more time at his disposal and better abilities as a reporter/writer or access to combat records. (Considering how much work JK has ongoing I was surprised that he had bothered to do even that much. But some of the text may be written by Mikkolainen IIRC.)
I agree that some of the questions do put words in the mouths of interviewed but OTOH they could also have said simpy "no" if something didn't sound like the way they remembered things to be. The slats are a good example. Rall didn't like them. (200+ kills)
Many Finnish pilots liked them and thought they were very handy -and they too survived the war(!?).
Go figure...
-C+
PS. I tend to trust opinions of anybody who has been in combat in 109 whether they had 0 kills or 94. Of course it has to be kept in mind that they are mostly not aeroengineers but neither are we, even if we may have more detailed technical knowledge of the subject than they...
-
Originally posted by pasoleati
Before somebody jumps the gun about the draft dodging comment I´d recommend reading the article from Turun Sanomat posted on their (virtualpilots) site.
One serious problem with the article itself is that very great emphasis is laid on memories of very old pilots. If you read the transcripts of various interviews they have conducted, some of the crucial questions are very "leading the witness". Furthermore, apart from Karhila the pilots they interviewed (because the "big guns" are no longer with us) are mostly "also rans", folks that didn´t have really extensive combat experience.
Perhaps a more authoritative approach would have been examining wartime combat reports to see how the pilots them evaluated their kites. But that means work, work and work.
All very valid points; but then again this is the Internet; not a serious historical work.
Nonetheless; it is an historical document; and deserves praise merely for that alone.
-
They did excellent work.
But its obviously very 1 sided.
109's only interests me as target so i readed it very quick it was to much.
still their devoted efford is a good contribute.
but remember u can do this for any plane and make it look good.
Again AH2 109's are very capable fighters.
and some really fly it like a agile beast.
-
The article is trying to debunk the multitude of myths and falsities surrounding the 109 that has been perpetuated by authors since WWII, and it does a pretty good job of it. LW pilots in various interviews have already debunked most if not all of those myths, but this is so far the best attempt at gathering available info and presenting it in one document.
-
Originally posted by FalconSix
The article is trying to debunk the multitude of myths and falsities surrounding the 109 that has been perpetuated by authors since WWII, and it does a pretty good job of it. LW pilots in various interviews have already debunked most if not all of those myths, but this is so far the best attempt at gathering available info and presenting it in one document.
Well said :aok
-
The article was contradictory. It seemed to be comprised of a bunch of different quotes and left trying to figure out which was accurate to the reader.
-
Karnak,
is it not always the reader who will be responsible in what he will believe?
At least that page provides lots of compiled views on the topic. It is not a scientific work where every reference should be tracked to its origin and it does not claim telling the truth about everything. It does, however, prove the point that there have been and still are lots of myths about the 109, and it provides lots of food for discussion.
I have not earlier seen any earlier attempt of this scale on this topic. Definitely 5 points :)
-
I was explaining a shortcoming. The document is not an answer to the myths about the 109. It is just a bunch of opinions, many contradictory.
-
Example?
-
Ok, I guess I shouldnt so cavalierly just toss out a low score and not explain why.
Yes, they clollected alot of information. Ok. Much of that information is already on the internet. Cut and paste and add some comments. Wow. Not that it isnt a good thing to have it all collected in one place, dont get me wrong. I'm a 109 fan from way back, and I'm aware that there are myths about it's performance or skewed information from people who'd like to show their favorite plane as "better". But lets get one thing straight. If you are going to claim "facts" then you need to backup your statements with sources. In some cases this is a statement from a pilot. Fine I accept a pilot's feelings or memories about whether or not he could control a 109 at 500 mph to be more insightful than a paper report on a damaged plane done by people who didnt understand how it worked. When the same pilot's claims go against factory data, it's still not impossible but I have a harder time buying it without corroboration. We've had this discussion before. Pilots arent aeronautical engineers, or mechanics. In some things I take their word for it. In others I want more proof. No disrespect intended to those men, but they were worried about more important things when they were flying fighter planes. Most of their "memories" of flying fighters are memories of "feelings" or whatever you want to call it when it comes to performance. Many times what they tell you is what THEY read when they were given information on their ride. Scientific debunking of any Myth or False Fact requires more. Sorry. Those of you who remember the argument over the slats on the 109 not so long ago, will also remember there is information out there saying both sides of the argument. The author of this article says he cant find any information to corroborate any problems, and tends to disbelieve it, but acknowledges on certain fronts, with early (E series) 109s, the problems could have existed. So what is proven there? What is debunked? Nothing. He says he has no information other than a few pilot quotes. That tells me he didnt look far off the internet for his sources. In the credits, I count 14 interviews, 13 of which were only with Finnish pilots (not exactly a cross-section of 109 pilots, considering the many various theatres and conditions the 109 flew in), 1 with a German (Stigler), and copies of a lecture by Rall, a bio of Hartmann, and various test results by allied forces who didnt understand the plane or how it worked. There is one website with a (supposed) technical writeup on the 109F and one, I repeat ONE book listed "Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5. Quotes used with author's permission".
Even on the issue of the slats he contradicts his statements. He gives technical information on how they operate, and then later in the article talks about how pilots could "pop them out manually" on a landing approach without explanation. He even has quotes from pilots saying the slats could NOT be manually controlled. Small example, but there are more examples of contradiction that are not addressed. One that bothers me is where the author decides to contradict what he feels is a fallacy, in that elliptical wings are not the advantage that they are claimed (re: the Spitfire) and goes on to say that such advantages were only THEORETICAL. I see. I know several aerodynamic engineers and at least one company that builds pre-fab ultra-light and sport planes that would disagree wholeheartedly. He drops big words, but doesnt give one study or book or anything other than his opinion to back up his statements. How did he prove anything there? Then he goes on later to claim figures quoted by FLIGHT JOURNAL are either wrong or misinterpreted in regards to landing gear failures during takeoff or landing. They made no such claim. The article merely stated total numbers of accidents for takeoff and landing that resulted in a/c destruction. It says nothing about landing gear failure specifically. Also, he provides no facts of his own, or his source for claiming the article in the publication was wrong.
Bottom line, I appreciate what they were trying to do. I even support it. And no matter what I love reading the quotes from the pilots and anecdotes. But if you want to label your work as "Fact" or say that you are "Debunking" a myth, you need proof.
-
"pop them out manually" eh? It does not say so, word manually is not used. That is only your own interpretation. The text is talking about a higher speed approach. It simply means that the plane can be made to approach stall even in higher speed by increasing the angle of attack and therefore popping the slats out intentionally.
How should this direct quote from Flight Journal be interpreted in your opinion?
"it was manufactured right up to the end of the War and was a most promising fighter, but 11,000 of the 33,000 built were destroyed during takeoff and landing accidents-one third of its combat potential! I was amazed when my friend and 176-kills ace the late Gen. Johannes Steinhoff told me this. It seems incredible that the primary cause of this outrageous statistic-a splayed-out wheel landing gear known to have incorrect geometry-was not rectified immediately by the powers that be."
Does it not imply that the landing gear was the primary cause for these accidents? That is true, though, that Flight Journal does not claim that the gear failures caused the accidents, but the bad design. This 109 myth page page talks about "5% lost planes in takeoff/landing accidents", but also about "5% lost in gear failures". This seems to require further clarification.
Did you skip the introduction completely, because, IMHO, you are mostly criticizing that YOU are taking this compilation as a fact. What you say about pilots' opinions is written pretty much in a same way in the introduction. Did you even notice that the main author (or compiler actually) challenges the readers to point out week parts and wrong information. He is asking for everyone to help with that work, not stating that this here is fact. Maybe you have had a ready made decision of this compilation already before you looked at it :(
IMO, the main point of this page is to debunk various myths, not A myth like you put it. It also attempts to compile facts, but once again does not present itself as a finished work and A fact, like you want to interpret it.
-
If I missed some things, I'm sorry, but thats alot of info to go over and over again. I'll certainly look again if you point out something I missed and reread it.
My point was that while the author makes claims, he does not provide proof of his own to back them up. If you want to refute data, fine. Provide sources for your own data that shows its wrong. Where did HIS data on landing gear come from? What makes him assume he's right and the previous data is wrong? Or that the previous data was right but improperly presented, and show the breakdown where his figures come from? I'm sure he must have a source, so where is it? Perhaps an oversight. But a glaring one. Even he admits on his site, many times flawed data is repeated in several sources because the original source was wrong. Thats why its imperitive he LISTS all his sources. He gleaned over 90% of his data from websites and bulletin boards. Who checked the facts on those? Without any of that this is just another nice (although slightly wordy) site on the 109. It establishes NOTHING as a fact, debunks NO myths, so it doesnt live up to its stated purpose. And I did email the author, thank you. Hopefully he will make the changes to his source list, and provide the info in the appropriate places to backup his data. If you happen to know the guy, and can pass it along to him, even better.
Look I can go out on the internet and find someone that will say just about anything from any point of view on any subject. If I pick the ones that support the view I want to present, and point to them as "sources" for my argument, does that make it factual? Not that there havent been erroneous facts printed in books too, there have been hundreds of them. But at least a publisher printing a book tells me SOMEONE went through it, it has SOME kind of legitimacy.
Besides, the thread asked how I'd score the site. I gave my answer. I'm sorry if you dont like it. It's my opinion, and you obvioulsy have a different one. Neither one of us have anything vested in the site, so why are you getting so worked up over it? I guess you missed the last line of my last post.
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
If you happen to know the guy, and can pass it along to him, even better.
Grendel does read these boards (and plays AH), so I'm sure your feedback gets read at some point.
Back to the subject: 4. It's a bit fragmented (but still a nice way to spend a work day :)).
-
Definitely. I enjoyed reading it, and if I gave any other impression, I certainly didnt mean to. Its a great site to peruse when I'm bored and pick up useful tidbits of information.
I definitely give an for the effort expended and the material coverd. I just want to see it cover its stated purpose better so that it actually DOES prove wrong the bad things people have said about the 109 over the years. This plane has always captured my imagination.
-
Star,
I completely agree with you about the need of references. I hope more of them will be added. Just for example that landing(gear) accident stuff should be clarified and references published.
Stil it is a beginning and a huge compilation. IMO, it is better that it is already out for inspection and discussion, instead of keeping it private until everything was checked thoroughly.
Certainly we are grading it from different points of view :) me for the effort and you for its proven credibility. Great, that you contacted Grendel.
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Even on the issue of the slats he contradicts his statements. He gives technical information on how they operate, and then later in the article talks about how pilots could "pop them out manually" on a landing approach without explanation. He even has quotes from pilots saying the slats could NOT be manually controlled.
Remember that english is their second language. It was standard procedure to provoke the deployment of slats prior to landing, and make sure they were deployed.
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
One that bothers me is where the author decides to contradict what he feels is a fallacy, in that elliptical wings are not the advantage that they are claimed (re: the Spitfire) and goes on to say that such advantages were only THEORETICAL.
With regard for the Spitfire it was just theoretical. The Spit's wing twist negated the effect of the elliptical wing. Although the wing was physically elliptical, its lift was not (its footprint in the air if you will).
-
The email I sent bounced back. Has anyone else sent him email recently? If so, I'll try to resend it. Or if someone knows of an alternate email? Thanks.
-
You should be able to use the "send feedback" link or if not, check his contact info from http://www.virtualpilots.fi/info/ ..right side blueish box, find his name and add the @ in proper space. I am not posting it here just to reduce spam.
-
Thanks, I'll try again when I get home tonight.
-
IMHO virtualpilots here in Finland really do good work when they collect memories from old aviators. But that article is not what it is claimed to be ie "primarily a collection of pilot's anecdotes that relate to actual flying of the plane". Most of the text is actually authors opinions about pilots opinions or authors opinions about the data; everything which favors the Bf 109 is taken without doubt (like unknown internet sources) and everything which does not favor the Bf 109 is supposed to be doubtfull.
Shortly, the article creates more myths than breaks them.
gripen
-
Howdi,
Nice to the article provoking thought once again :)
Yup, it is not a scientific work, primarily a collection of pilot quotes from various sources. The analysis stuff is mostly written by others, since I am not interested on technical subjects.
Contradictions on the article? Definitely. Read the introduction. "It is not a serious study - mainly just bunch of pilot opinions that might be conflicting to each other. " People tend to have different opinions about same things. Get half a dozen witnesses of an accident, you get half a dozen different stories what happened.
And yes, reader is responsible on what he sees, especially on the quotes themselves.
I'm not putting much more effort on the article except adding pilot quotes from time to time, but anyone is welcome to add to it, correct errors and so on. Use the feedback system on the article for that. It took one year already just putting that damn article together and I do have multitude of other stuff to do as well.
Oh, btw. People tend to whine and ***** but when I've offered them the chance to add or edit the article, they've always turned their tails and ran off. Oh, they'd need to WORK and make a sensible contribution - oh noes. Whining is funnier and takes less time ;-) So there doesn't seem to be coming major changes to the article content, though I've done a small redesign changing its structure a bit. But yes, it is and will be "fragmented" as there is no other way to present the dozens of smaller subjects sensibly.
The article does indeed say in the beginning that "All help is appreciated. Quotes from 109 pilots from different sources are most welcome. Please remember to always give the source, name/author and ISBN, if it is from a book. The readers are also encouraged to send other material and write expnalations, dispell myths and add or correct the information in it, be it technical or anything." But well, the help from others has been practically zero so far - during the two years the article has been in making. So get your books and get the quotes coming, if you want to help. During all this time I'd only one guy to help with translating quotes from Hannu Valtonen's excellent Bf 109 resource book, and I know that most of the diehard enthusiasts in Finland got that book. "Oh, it is great you're doing this article but I got to feed my cat, I can't help you sorry". I got other priorities right now so I'm not translating / adding quotes just by myself on next half a year or so, but if you want to help I'm more than happy to add your stuff to the article.
Btw, Star,
Even on the issue of the slats he contradicts his statements. He gives technical information on how they operate, and then later in the article talks about how pilots could "pop them out manually" on a landing approach without explanation. He even has quotes from pilots saying the slats could NOT be manually controlled. Small example, but there are more examples of contradiction that are not addressed.
Um where does it say "pop them out manually", I couldnt find that bit and it is my article so... But I think I know what is said there. While pilot did not have any knob to operate the slats with, he could naturally cause condition when the slats come out. It was usual for the pilots, in landing, to approach the field, slow down and then nudge the stick to pop the slats out, then come down. Easy, if you know the trick. If you had long runway you could land in higher speed without slats, they would also come out on their own if you came down in slow enough speed and you could take the slats out yourself if you wanted. Same thing in combat. Pilot can pop the slats out when he wants, even if he does not have direct control on them.
Cheers,
Gren
-
Originally posted by gripen
Most of the text is actually authors opinions about pilots opinions or authors opinions about the data; everything which favors the Bf 109 is taken without doubt (like unknown internet sources) and everything which does not favor the Bf 109 is supposed to be doubtfull.
Shortly, the article creates more myths than breaks them.
gripen
Mmm lets see
Pilots quotes: 230 kb
"Mythbusting": 48 kb
Technical: 31 kb
So there are 230 kb of pilot quotes versus total of 81 kb of other content, so it seems there is about 2,8 times more of actual pilots commentary than anything else. Mmm?
-
Yes, they clollected alot of information. Ok. Much of that information is already on the internet. Cut and paste and add some comments. Wow.
Oh, btw. I'd like to clarify that most of the content in that article, the actual content - pilot quotes - are from my own interviews, that were not available on the internet before *I* put them there. And before that there was of course the interview process, transscribing, editing, checking, publishing the Finnish language article and then translating it to English. Why my own stuff? Because it was good place to start, I own the copyrights and I knew there is a lot of good stuff, from all angres, that people would be interested at.
Most of the other quotes are from books, and again first translated into English.
Actually only small part of those quotes are from other internet sources than my own. 10% or less.
That "cut and paste and add comments" took roughly one year before the first version of the article was published. If we add the original work I did with the interviews, it is result from some six years of work. So thanks a lot for your laudation.
-
That definitely makes it different. Still, I could have worded it better, you are right. The way I put it sounds very disparaging to the work you put out, regardless of whether it was yours or not. I apologize for that.
My observations still stand though. Of course, thats all they are. Observations. If you are happy with what you have, so be it. It's your work.
-
Originally posted by Grendel
So there are 230 kb of pilot quotes versus total of 81 kb of other content, so it seems there is about 2,8 times more of actual pilots commentary than anything else. Mmm?
Ah, my mistake, I was reading just technical part and did not realize amount of stuff in the first part. My apologies.
Originally posted by Grendel
And yes, reader is responsible on what he sees, especially on the quotes themselves.
Well, that might be true in the Savo and possibly in the finnish computer-magazines but in the rest of the Finland (and in rest of the world) the (signed) authors are responsible, specially on the parts they have created. I understand that you are not the writer of the tehcnical section but that's the part I am talking about. I have nothing to complain about the pilots comments.
Originally posted by Grendel
Oh, btw. People tend to whine and ***** but when I've offered them the chance to add or edit the article, they've always turned their tails and ran off. Oh, they'd need to WORK and make a sensible contribution - oh noes. Whining is funnier and takes less time ;-)
Eh... In the normal world it's up to authors (not readers) to check up the facts and prove the arguments, specially if the source is something like "unconfirmed internet source".
But let's check out couple parts, somewhere in the article is following text:
"**kaartotappelussa vedetään ekana vähän ylitiukkaan, jolloin solat aukeaa, sen jälkeen tuupataan kaasua lisää ja vedetään tiukkaan solat auki. Näin saadaan sairaan tiukka kaarto (Spitiä tiukempi). Enkelsmanni testipilotit ei osannu kikkoja ja päätyi oletukseen, että 109 on Spitiä kankeampi.
I wonder what is this; it's not marked as pilot's comment. Is it a fact or myth?
I'd like to ask if you (any of the authors) has actually seen the RAE report on the Bf 109E? It's easily available from British library.
Another part is the high speed handling, the article claims:
"The Me 109 on the other hand was completely re-designed with the Friedrich, with new wings, radically different radiators, and a completely new tail section. The 109K4 had numerous improvements over the G series. For example high speed handling was remarkably enhanced in the G models and the aeleron tabs of K models again greatly enhanced roll rate in high speeds."
I have studied Bf 109G and it's developement quite thoroughly and AFAIK the tall tail is the only commonly seen (a bit) handling related improvement from F to K, there is some variation in elevator movements but nothing "remarkable".
gripen
-
Gripen, you make it sound (from the article) that all K-4s had aileron Flettners when in fact only about 200 of the 1700 K-4s produced did so and it appears that these were locked.
Another part is the high speed handling, the article claims:
"The Me 109 on the other hand was completely re-designed with the Friedrich, with new wings, radically different radiators, and a completely new tail section. The 109K4 had numerous improvements over the G series. For example high speed handling was remarkably enhanced in the G models and the aeleron tabs of K models again greatly enhanced roll rate in high speeds."
It is also in conflict with what Beauvais said.
"One was designed by Blohm & Voss, adding a Flettner trim tab which resulted in a reduction of control forces: however, performance was not as smooth and effectiveness had not improved at all"
-
Originally posted by gripen
"**kaartotappelussa vedetään ekana vähän ylitiukkaan, jolloin solat aukeaa, sen jälkeen tuupataan kaasua lisää ja vedetään tiukkaan solat auki. Näin saadaan sairaan tiukka kaarto (Spitiä tiukempi). Enkelsmanni testipilotit ei osannu kikkoja ja päätyi oletukseen, että 109 on Spitiä kankeampi.
I wonder what is this; it's not marked as pilot's comment. Is it a fact or myth?
Because it is in Finnish it is my own note about a subject I had faint recollection, but haven't found a source yet. Hadn't actually noticed that it still remains, better remove it
"The Me 109 on the other hand was completely re-designed with the Friedrich, with new wings, radically different radiators, and a completely new tail section. The 109K4 had numerous improvements over the G series. For example high speed handling was remarkably enhanced in the G models and the aeleron tabs of K models again greatly enhanced roll rate in high speeds."
I have studied Bf 109G and it's developement quite thoroughly and AFAIK the tall tail is the only commonly seen (a bit) handling related improvement from F to K, there is some variation in elevator movements but nothing "remarkable".
Ops, I have actually edited K-4 related stuff in the article but had missed that one. That is in error I admit. (I'd searched with "K-4" not "K4" and missed that one)
-
"Is it a fact or myth?"
Gripen, you gave the impression that you know the technical stuff so tell us whether or not this is even possible, and why -as you have already distiguished yourself by participating in aerodynamical discussions?
The question is: Can 109 turn inside the Spitfire in any state of flight envelope?
We know the answer for sustained turn already. It can't. It was calculated and found inferior in sustained 3G turn.
-C+
-
Originally posted by Grendel
Because it is in Finnish it is my own note about a subject I had faint recollection, but haven't found a source yet.
I can help you a bit: Go to British library (http://www.bl.uk/):
-> Services for researchers
-> Search our catalogue
-> Integrated catalogue
-> Search integrated catalogue
-> Search for: messerschmitt handling
You will got one result, then just order it (-> Request) and when it arrives please check out if the test pilots in the RAE did use the slots in the turning tests. The report also gives details on RAE Clmax tests questioned elsewhere in your article.
Originally posted by Grendel
Ops, I have actually edited K-4 related stuff in the article but had missed that one. That is in error I admit. (I'd searched with "K-4" not "K4" and missed that one)
That's a good start, couple questions more:
What was redesigned in the K in addition to tailwheel, some fairings, cockpit arrangement and location of some equipment?
Why British tests on the Bf 109 are questioned throughout your article and the German tests are taken without doubt? As an example check performance claimed for Bf 109G by germans from latest SILH (Raunio's article serie).
Originally posted by Charge
Gripen, you gave the impression that you know the technical stuff so tell us whether or not this is even possible, and why
I have a RAE report on Bf 109E in front of me and it directly explains how the slots behaved during the tests and if those were out during the turning tests. But I'm just an "unconfirmed internet source" so it's better that Mr. Grendel & Co just obtains the doc and checks the facts out themselves.
Generally I wonder how someone can call a report "practically pure fantasy and filled with errors and disinformation" if he has actually not seen the report.
gripen
-
Originally posted by Charge
The question is: Can 109 turn inside the Spitfire in any state of flight envelope?
Of course. Both planes are close enough that the pilot is the determining factor.
Originally posted by Charge
We know the answer for sustained turn already. It can't. It was calculated and found inferior in sustained 3G turn.
Calculated, yes. I'd rather trust the pilots than somebody's numbers on a piece of paper. 109 pilots have stated they had little difficulty outturning the Spitfire, and pilots like Mark Hanna who flew both says they are remarkably similar in maneuverability.
-
gripen,
IMO, it is a real pity if you rather opt to dispise the attempt (that web page) than to be helpful, especially since you seem to have helpful resources and knowledge. :(
-
Originally posted by gripen
Why British tests on the Bf 109 are questioned throughout your article and the German tests are taken without doubt? As an example check performance claimed for Bf 109G by germans from latest SILH (Raunio's article serie).
Because the reasons explained in the article. The British tests are not accurate.
Of course, if someone can rewrite that techbit and show they are, then he can. I'm not touching it myself, since I lack the technical knowledge. But so far, nobody has claimed that those bits about the tests are incorrect, so they stand as they are.
If you read the introduction on the article you have seen how help and contributions/error correction is asked. If you have such good sources just boot your word processor and contribute to the article. Otherwise you're just steaming uselessly, instead actually contributing. But well, it is easier to whine in BBS than actually do something, I understand.
Eh... In the normal world it's up to authors (not readers) to check up the facts and prove the arguments, specially if the source is something like "unconfirmed internet source".
I don't intend to spend my free time day after day with workign on one article, looking for background material, writing it up, translating it etc on a subject that I'm personally not even that interested. The pilot quotes were the important thing, rest came as extra and that's it. It is not a serious publication, and I don't intend to waste more time on stuff I've already done once, except if I find some time and motivation during autumm I'll add more pilot quotes. Others are welcome to contribute if they want. Currently I'm doing little updating to it, thanks to this thread, but next I'll concentrate on finishign the interview of the 94 years old AF mechanic, who started his Air Force career on 1932. Getting it ready is right now more important than spending 20 hours adding to the myths article.
But if someone thinks there is something wrong, feel free to send corrections through the "Contribute" button on the article. Preferably rewrites of the whole incorrect bits than "that's not right, it's like this".
Preferably I'd like to get more pilot quotes from various air forces, though, thanks :)
-
Originally posted by BlauK
gripen,
IMO, it is a real pity if you rather opt to dispise the attempt (that web page) than to be helpful, especially since you seem to have helpful resources and knowledge. :(
Actually I really respect the attempt to collect pilot's memories and that is the best part of that web page. It is a real pity that the authors themselves dispise the attempt by adding disinformation and speculation refusing to to check the facts from the primary sources.
Originally posted by Grendel
Of course, if someone can rewrite that techbit and show they are, then he can. I'm not touching it myself, since I lack the technical knowledge. But so far, nobody has claimed that those bits about the tests are incorrect, so they stand as they are.
It's your own choice; the source is available, it's up to you to check it out and rewrite your own article.
Originally posted by Grendel
I don't intend to spend my free time day after day with workign on one article, looking for background material, writing it up, translating it etc on a subject that I'm personally not even that interested. The pilot quotes were the important thing, rest came as extra and that's it. It is not a serious publication, and I don't intend to waste more time on stuff I've already done once, except if I find some time and motivation during autumm I'll add more pilot quotes.
Have you ever consider a possibility to leave the "rest" out of article if you have no resources to check the facts? Basicly you create myths by refusing to check the background material.
gripen
-
"But I'm just an "unconfirmed internet source" so it's better that Mr. Grendel & Co just obtains the doc and checks the facts out themselves."
Grendel did U piss in his boot? Somebody did and it is not me...
"It is a real pity that the authors themselves dispise the attempt by adding disinformation and speculation refusing to check the facts from the primary sources."
What's that? PRO docs? Facts? Is NACA facts? Why they usually have different information then? Facts don't change. Eg. death is a fact, performance of an aircraft isn't.
"pilots like Mark Hanna who flew both says they are remarkably similar in maneuverability."
IIRC the RAE documents with their f a c t s in PRO docs disgree strongly with Mark Hanna.
:)
-C+
-
Originally posted by gripen
It is a real pity that the authors themselves dispise the attempt by adding disinformation and speculation refusing to to check the facts from the primary sources.
As said, so far nothing has been shown to be incorrect in the Parts II and III, except some minor errors that I've corrected. If someone knows better he can press that contribute button on the article to send corrections. As also said, I have right now higher priorities than going through "primary materials" on subject I am not even interested (technical, flight tests) on personal level. My interest lies at people, not machines and tech is responsibility of others.
As said, the tech bits on the article have been primarily written by others and I have no interest on going through countless technical papers or test flight reports. I prefer to use my limited available time to work on new materials, veteran interviews that bring completely new information available that has never been previously published. Some love tech papers though and they are welcome to contribute to the 109 article.
-
Originally posted by Charge
What's that? PRO docs? Facts? Is NACA facts? Why they usually have different information then? Facts don't change. Eg. death is a fact, performance of an aircraft isn't.
It's quite obivious that RAE report on their tests on the Bf 109E is the best source on these tests, there is no challenging source. If some one wants to claim something about these tests, he/she should at least read the report first.
Originally posted by Grendel
As said, so far nothing has been shown to be incorrect in the Parts II and III, except some minor errors that I've corrected.
As an example your claims and speculations on slots in RAE Bf 109E tests are incorrect and can be easily checked from the original document. There are plenty of other examples but again it's your responsibility to find and correct them.
Lack of disprove does not prove your arguments facts. You are claiming "facts" starting from the headlines so the content should be that; the standard for the material is your own choice. Basicly you should leave evrything else out except the facts.
Originally posted by Grendel
If someone knows better he can press that contribute button on the article to send corrections.
This is a very strange attitude specially from professional journalist; it's not up to reader prove or disprove your arguments. Basicly you are asking readers to do your work.
Originally posted by Grendel
As said, the tech bits on the article have been primarily written by others and I have no interest on going through countless technical papers or test flight reports. I prefer to use my limited available time to work on new materials, veteran interviews that bring completely new information available that has never been previously published.
I honestly agree. Maybe you should separate pilots comments from the other stuff.
gripen
-
Ok... this is pretty much the last comment I want to bother with.
gripen,
you sound like you were a paying customer who is dissappointed with the content of his subscription.
No-one makes any profit for anything published at the association's site. So what if grendel is a journalist by profession. That page is not his work, it is part of his hobby. That is a co-effort of people interested in the issue. Certainly they are asking the readers to help make the page better. I hope some readers will find it interesting and offer their help. You certainly have made your own position clear, and your "savo" and "computer-magazine" comments also made your personal agenda pretty obvious.
Maybe it would be better if all the stuff collected by volunteer work on the site was made viewable for the paying members only...
-
The RAE tests of the 109 are worthless. The brits never dared push the captured 109s to get the most out of them. I trust British tests on the 109 as much as I trust German tests on the Spit, i.e. not at all.
-
It's quite obivious that RAE report on their tests on the Bf 109E is the best source on these tests
RAF Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Farnborough handling trials,Bf.109E Wn: 1304.
...
They're actually a 1941 report from tests conducted in September of 1940 from an aircraft that was captured by the French in 1939 (see next chapter). At the time the tests were conducted in 1940, they didn't have oxygen bottles for the 109, so test could only be done at low to medium altitude...
The 109 tested is claimed to be "Me 109E-3 Werk-Nr 1304" which is documented to have been captured. However, there is some discrepency as to WerkNr 1304 actually being an Me109E-1. So what have they tested? E-1? E-3? E-4? Did they test one of the crash landed, damaged planes? So we got major confusion with the tested plane. Also, Bf 109 E-3 WNr. 1304 (RAF AE 479) was at one point crash landed, among other things, and it received a new tail section from a Bf 109 E-4 WNr. 1980. ..
Another problem is with the test itself, when compared to a Spitfire. Overall the accuracy of the test suffers from the fact that it was flown with a crash landed plane wirh a worn, several years old engine producing less power than usual...
...
Etc. Doesn't sound that trustworhy to me.
This is a very strange attitude specially from professional journalist; it's not up to reader prove or disprove your arguments. Basicly you are asking readers to do your work.
Yup. Perfectly correct. That article is co-work from several persons and relies on others to grow better. I've said it several times in this thread.
I didn't put that article together at work or as as a professional historician or writer. And it wasn't published in a professional quality publication, and nobody has paid a single penny for it. Hence I can do it what way I want to and did it the way I did, with my own responsibility, that's it, I piss on the rest. If you have knowledge but aren't willing to share it, then I'm not interested, goodbye.
Btw I've written articles to websites, newsgroups etc, sometimes bloody drunk, I've done all kinds of things in my freetime without keeping my "professional author" coat on all the time. I can wear it when necessary, when I'm doing *serious* writing, but this 109 myths text sure ain't one of those. Case closed.
Btw2, I don't see it either like readers are forced to "do my work" since it is still a cooperative effort by many people and it is not a publication where *I* would gain any monetary benefits. If people interested on 109 history want to make the article better, they can contribute easily. A lot of the articles on the Virtualpilots' site are cooperative efforts by many people - so is this. Together with all those contributors we've been able to create and publish materials that wouldn't have seen the daylight otherwise, and with help from others I've been able to track errors and add new information to the published articles. That's the miracle of the internet. And that's my last say about this particular type of whine. No cheese, thanks.
-
Originally posted by BlauK
gripen,
you sound like you were a paying customer who is dissappointed with the content of his subscription.
No-one makes any profit for anything published at the association's site. So what if grendel is a journalist by profession. That page is not his work, it is part of his hobby. That is a co-effort of people interested in the issue. Certainly they are asking the readers to help make the page better.
Well, if the introduction of the page announces that:
"This article and its sub sections are put together to dispell some of the persistent myths about the Messerschmitt 109 fighter."
And:
"I've regularly seen same "reports", that are practically pure fantasy and filled with errors and disinformation, being quoted as facts in various bulletin boards and even articles."
Then it's quite clear that the authors should have quite strong evidence to back up their words. But apparently they have not even seen the reports they are critisizing.
Originally posted by BlauK
I hope some readers will find it interesting and offer their help.
Actually offered above a bit help to obtain the document the authors have not seen but for one reason or another Mr. Grendel refused.
Originally posted by BlauK
You certainly have made your own position clear, and your "savo"
That was a response to Mr. Grendel's claim that "reader is responsible on what he sees" and that claim is very "savoish" as you certainly know.
Originally posted by BlauK
and "computer-magazine" comments also made your personal agenda pretty obvious.
Actually it was Mr. Charge who did bring in Mr. Grendel's journalist background to this discussion as an argument.
Originally posted by Grendel
RAF Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Farnborough handling trials,Bf.109E Wn: 1304.
...
They're actually a 1941 report from tests conducted in September of 1940 from an aircraft that was captured by the French in 1939 (see next chapter). At the time the tests were conducted in 1940, they didn't have oxygen bottles for the 109, so test could only be done at low to medium altitude...
The 109 tested is claimed to be "Me 109E-3 Werk-Nr 1304" which is documented to have been captured. However, there is some discrepency as to WerkNr 1304 actually being an Me109E-1. So what have they tested? E-1? E-3? E-4? Did they test one of the crash landed, damaged planes? So we got major confusion with the tested plane. Also, Bf 109 E-3 WNr. 1304 (RAF AE 479) was at one point crash landed, among other things, and it received a new tail section from a Bf 109 E-4 WNr. 1980. ..
Another problem is with the test itself, when compared to a Spitfire. Overall the accuracy of the test suffers from the fact that it was flown with a crash landed plane wirh a worn, several years old engine producing less power than usual...
...
Etc. Doesn't sound that trustworhy to me.
Basicly pure speculation and by reading the report pretty much all these can be disproved and/or checked (testing dates, sub type... etc.).
BTW what's source of those arguments? Bulletin boards or maybe primary documents which you have actually seen?
Originally posted by Grendel
Btw I've written articles to websites, newsgroups etc, sometimes bloody drunk, I've done all kinds of things in my freetime without keeping my "professional author" coat on all the time. I can wear it when necessary, when I'm doing *serious* writing, but this 109 myths text sure ain't one of those. Case closed.
Maybe you could ad above text to the beginning of the article and no one will never again complain about the 109 Myths.
gripen
-
Gripen;
You sure (and I mean this well; I generaly read your posts avidly); you really sure you're not being a bit of a Barbi here?
Give the guy a break; and respect what the page is...
An historical document that is worthy of research in of it's self; it's not presented as the product of research.
These guys will soon be gone; and it's important we harvest thier recollections while we have them.
We can spend the next hundred years arguing over how we should interpret them......
( I'm just jealous I haven't found a similar collated collection of Spit drivers reminisences.)
-
Originally posted by Seeker
Give the guy a break; and respect what the page is...
I truly respect Mr. Grendel's effort on collecting pilot's memories.
gripen
-
Well I think the situation is quite clear about the article, there are some people with strong agenda against the Bf 109 and attempt to describe it as a worthless POS at every opportunity, the MiloMoron, gripen, paseolati, guppy, Mike Williams etc. They manipulate the evidence and primary sources to create new myths, while some others create new ones simply because they don`t know the design very well and rely on old books that ever since become obsolate references.
All Grendel did was some well-due mythbusting, which will probably enlighted those who just didn`t know enough yet, and enrage the guys who have the mentioned agenda, like gripen, so they will try to dispute and dismiss the sources gathered in place, that creates quite an overwhelming and convincing experience to the reader against all those myths.
Well done Grendel !
-
Originally posted by FalconSix
The RAE tests of the 109 are worthless. The brits never dared push the captured 109s to get the most out of them. I trust British tests on the 109 as much as I trust German tests on the Spit, i.e. not at all.
Quite true. Captured enemy planes are just that. They are flown damaged, worn-out, and by pilots who are inexperienced with the type... come on, 1944 british tests on the 109Gs still tell us they haven`t figured out what the slats are for, the only reason for some`s enthusiasm for these tests is that they show the hated plane in the worst possible light... same for almost all captured tests. They might give you some hint, but not much more than that.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Well I think the situation is quite clear about the article, there are some people with strong agenda against the Bf 109 and attempt to describe it as a worthless POS at every opportunity, the MiloMoron, gripen, paseolati, guppy, Mike Williams etc. They manipulate the evidence and primary sources to create new myths, while some others create new ones simply because they don`t know the design very well and rely on old books that ever since become obsolate references.
You are aware this sentence apply to you also ?
-
I don`t think so, straffo. I try my best to avoid myth-creating, but if you can give me specific examples, I am all open to re-examine the matter.
-
Hehe, this:
"Captured enemy planes are just that. They are flown damaged, worn-out, and by pilots who are inexperienced with the type... come on, 1944 british tests on the 109Gs still tell us they haven`t figured out what the slats are for"
So:
1: British did have slatted aircraft before the birth of the 109.
2: Damaged? Perhaps. Worn out?? Did they only capture worn out aircraft?
3: Pilots inexperieced with the type yes, but highly experienced aviators. Unlike the average LW aviator in 1944 which filled neither category.
-
1, Then why do they say in all their reports the pilots are emberassed by the opening of the slots? OBVIOUSLY they had no experience with slatted aircraft, dear Angus, because then they`d know how to fly it. And BTW, which British fighters had auitamtic slots ? I know of none during WW2, so how would the test pilot`s know how to use combat manouvers with it?
2, Worn out... hmmm.. the 109E they tested was belly landed from a year ago, tested also by the french. The 109F they tested also belly landed, and the report notes the engine is worn out. The 109G-2 they tested was captured with battle damaged, malfunctioning equipment, with a holed prop. The 109g-6 they tested was very worn, one just have to look at the painting condition on pictures... that`s the nature of captured planes.
3, Well an avarage LW newbie of 1944 had around 120-150 flying hours, of which he spent about 30 hours on the final type (ie. the 109) he was to fight in. In comparision, Eric Brown flew less than an hour in the Bf 109 in total... so even the the `44 Nachwuchs had infinietely more experience with the Bf 109 than the RAF pilots testing it`s caputred examples. Moreover, the latter ones had to be careful not to wreck the rare example while trying to finding out how to fly it with no trainer`s help. I am sorry but you can`t drive a Forula-1 car rightly just because you have a 15-year old driving license and had driven a Volvo ever since.
I am sorry, but to think that worn out dameged planes lacking spare parts (at best cannibalized from crashed similiar enemy types) flown by untrained pilots with only a few hours of experience in the plane will perform like brand new ones with proper maintaince and specific training for the type is a naive thing to do. Or if you wish to take German/Soviet Spitfire test over British ones, just say the world, you`d be disappointed.
-
Does Handley Page slots ring a bell?
Only the 109 and Lala amongst all the more common ww2 warbirds featured slots.
And getting more into them, Jeff Quill seems to have the same opinion as Rall.
Now on to tests, - I'd like to see those. I have a German test of a G series aircraft from 1944, and it would be nice to compare.
Off to tests again, - wonder what the situation of captured allied aircraft was. The Germans seemed to like them very much..
-
Can anybody tell me what kind of effect H-P slats have on how much AoA the 109 can pull according to its wing profile -with and without slats?
-C+
-
None, but this is Angus' typical line of discussion. Not only does it have nothing to do with the slats on a 109 but they have no bearing on whether or not those allied pilots, including Eric Brown, were willing to push to 109 to edge of stall.
The HP 17, HP 20 and HP 39 have nothing comparable to the 109...
-
It is quite obvious and reasonable to expect the allies to be gentle with captured german aircraft, same with captured allied aircraft in german hands. When you have an enemy machine, usually a one of a kind, you're not going to push the envelope while testing it. Only a fool would risk destroying such a valuable source of intelligence.
For German aircraft use German tests.
For British aircraft use British tests.
For American aircraft use American tests.
For Japanese aircraft use Japanese tests.
For Russian aircraft use Russian tests.
Is that really so unreasonable? Or are your preconceived notions and personal feuds so ingrained in these discussions that you render them and yourselves irrelevant?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Does Handley Page slots ring a bell?
[/B]
"Handley-PAge", Angus? Are you aware that Handley Page obtained the license from a WW1 German airman who developed them origina
Only the 109 and Lala amongst all the more common ww2 warbirds featured slots.]
... and the 110,210,410 262 and 163. ;) But roughly, yes. Now tell me, if the Brits did not have any warbird with slats, who could the pilots
When Tobak got his training for the 109 in 1944, the main thing he recalled decades later was 'Rudi' telling to 'ziehen, noch ziehen' in turns.. but the thing I can read in brit reports is that they are emberassed by the slat`s opening.. no Me 109 instructor for them I guess.
And getting more into them, Jeff Quill seems to have the same opinion as Rall.]
I though Quill was the no1 Spitdweeb factory testpilot of Supermarine, manfucaturer the greatest British rival of the 109, himself being quite a bit biased about the spit.. how much time he spent flying 109s? An hour? Two?
I think we should ask Quill about Spits, and Beuvais(sp?) or Williemsen or Schmidt (Me109 test pilots) about the Bf 109.
Now on to tests, - I'd like to see those. I have a German test of a G series aircraft from 1944, and it would be nice to compare.
Off to tests again, - wonder what the situation of captured allied aircraft was. The Germans seemed to like them very much.. [/B]
Hmm... I have a Spitfire test from Germany, and there are no sign of they being amazed - in fact they are quite objective, and note that the plane did not meet the performance the British press claims for it... familiar? As for Allied planes, the P-47 was, well, described as giving 'an extraordinarily sluggish impression'.. Do it`s just typical Angus stuff I guess, mixing up that German pilots were ready to admit the good traits of allied aircraft with believing them superior to their own.
If you want to have an exchange, I havenothing against it.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Does Handley Page slots ring a bell?
Only the 109 and Lala amongst all the more common ww2 warbirds featured slots.
Off to tests again, - wonder what the situation of captured allied aircraft was. The Germans seemed to like them very much..
Practically all Messerschmitt types had slats, as well as several other German designs. Russians were fond of slats and those can be found for example on their primary fighter line of LaGG/La, but in others as well. British had designs equipped with slats, though not in their famous fighters. On Japanese designs you'll find slats at Ki-43, Ki-84 and other types. I'm not sure about American designs, but the post war F-86 Sabre had identical slats system as the Bf 109 did.
German tests on Allied a/c would certainly be interesting, but unfortunately most seem to have been destroyed, lost or hidden in the final phases of the war. As far as I've heard, only a few test results have been found from Rechlin, which was the Luftwaffe primary testing ground and must have produced thousands of reports. A most unfortunate situation for us :-(
-
Originally posted by Grendel
German tests on Allied a/c would certainly be interesting, but unfortunately most seem to have been destroyed, lost or hidden in the final phases of the war. As far as I've heard, only a few test results have been found from Rechlin, which was the Luftwaffe primary testing ground and must have produced thousands of reports. A most unfortunate situation for us :-(
If somebody really is interested to read something about german tests on some allied planes, a good starting point would be for example reel 3571 frame 595 (Verglmichsfligen mit den Typen: Bf 109, FW 190, Mustang neueste Ausführung, Thunderbolt) in the NASM.
Generally if somebody wants to claim something about tests (on captured planes or what ever), it would be a good idea to read the report first. Right, Grendel?
gripen
-
Gripen AFAIK only first part of this report is readable, or do you have a better copy at hands ?
-
The RAE tests of the 109 are worthless.
(http://portfolio.iu.edu/mpfunden/files/Bf109/2700rpm.jpg)
hmm, 2700 rpm on a DB 601? and under fth at 2km? and all along I thought max rpm on a DB 601 was 2400 rpm. It's not possible that a DB 601 could run at 2500 rpm 1.45 ata is it? No, that's not possible, then it would be faster that a Spitfire, and that's just not possible.
I guess RAE tests aren't always totally worthless.
-
Originally posted by butch2k
Gripen AFAIK only first part of this report is readable, or do you have a better copy at hands ?
I have just the first part from that microfilm (one page) and AFAIK that's all they have of that document in NASM. Anyway, practically all captured German material they had (they did not microfilm all and some of the microfilmed are unreadable) was transferred sooner or later back to europe but scattered around different archives all around. It has been said that the Germans destroyded about 90% of the document material they had but luckily their bureaucratic system produced about 20 copies of each document so there is hope to find a lot more than that.
BTW the document (even incomplete) says lot more than "sluggish" about the Thunderbolt and it also says a lot about Mustang too.
gripen
-
while I'm at it . . .
(http://portfolio.iu.edu/mpfunden/files/Bf109/ISBN_0-7603-0803-9_p0065-2800.jpg)
3300 RPM!!! nein, das ist nicht richtig, das ist ja unglaublich! (http://babel.altavista.com/?urltext=nein, das ist nicht richtig, Das ist ja unglaublich!&lp=de_en)
-
Originally posted by gripen
I have just the first part from that microfilm (one page) and AFAIK that's all they have of that document in NASM. Anyway, practically all captured German material they had (they did not microfilm all and some of the microfilmed are unreadable) was transferred sooner or later back to europe but scattered around different archives all around. It has been said that the Germans destroyded about 90% of the document material they had but luckily their bureaucratic system produced about 20 copies of each document so there is hope to find a lot more than that.
BTW the document (even incomplete) says lot more than "sluggish" about the Thunderbolt and it also says a lot about Mustang too.
gripen
THat's the report indeed, there are several more pages bur they are totaly unreadable that's why they sent you just one page.
-
Originally posted by butch2k
THat's the report indeed, there are several more pages bur they are totaly unreadable that's why they sent you just one page.
That's good news. I believed NASM listing which claimed just one page and incomplete document. It's quite probable that original document still exists but where is a good question. I've seen Wright Field Microfilm stamps in documents coming from many archives. BAMA might be the most probable and also most difficult to search.
gripen
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Well I think the situation is quite clear about the article, there are some people with strong agenda against the Bf 109 and attempt to describe it as a worthless POS at every opportunity, the MiloMoron, gripen, paseolati, guppy, Mike Williams etc. They manipulate the evidence and primary sources to create new myths, while some others create new ones simply because they don`t know the design very well and rely on old books that ever since become obsolate references.
BarbI, we don't view your 'uber' 109 wearing horse blinkers and near sighted glasses as you do. We view it with open eyes and mind, unlike you who goes off on a beserker rant every time someone points out a fantasy you have of the 'uber' 109. We don't have trouble reading primary sources unlike you who only sees what he wants to see, and ignores all that does not, and manipulates the data to support his 'uber' 109 fantasy.
Naturally you see the British reports as slander against your 'uber' 109 but then you think all Brits are blithering frothing at the mouth idiots. They knew what they were testing and knew what a/c were being met in combat. It is only you, and a few others of your ilk, that can't see what the reports really are.
-
Garbage?
-
"Can anybody tell me what kind of effect H-P slats have on how much AoA the 109 can pull according to its wing profile -with and without slats?"
C'mon, lots of bright people here. Anybody? F a c t s, fiction? Anything?
-C+
-
Niklas has some maximum Cl values for the 109E on his site, unfurtunately I havent seen any specific for w./wo slats for the 109. Some general slats/flaps data yes, but these would be inconclusive, since the properties of each airplane can lead to very different results. So we are left with the common sense of LES increasing max. AoA and Cl above the avarage, unless someone comes up with something specific..
-
Hello Kuffie.
How do you do ?
Anyway, the slats and general performance on some 109's ROCK, and the same occurs on some 109's the other way around?
Does the 109 climb at max with slats open BTW?
Just me being curious.
Back to IWO
>Angus
-
Originally posted by Seeker
Gripen;
You sure (and I mean this well; I generaly read your posts avidly); you really sure you're not being a bit of a Barbi here?
Give the guy a break; and respect what the page is...
An historical document that is worthy of research in of it's self; it's not presented as the product of research.
These guys will soon be gone; and it's important we harvest thier recollections while we have them.
We can spend the next hundred years arguing over how we should interpret them......
( I'm just jealous I haven't found a similar collated collection of Spit drivers reminisences.)
As always (....well...as ALMOST always) Seeker speaks wisely.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Angus
Hello Kuffie.
How do you do ?
Thanks, fine. More festivals here in August than I can handle! :D
Anyway, the slats and general performance on some 109's ROCK, and the same occurs on some 109's the other way around?[/B]
Sorry? You mean production differences between individual planes - yes of course. I found some clue about production quality of Bf 109s as late as 1945, it has been said to be better than the 262s in an allied report, and acceptance tolerances are also mentioned.
Does the 109 climb at max with slats open BTW?[/B]
No, slats open at high loads/AoA, climb is performed at normal AoA. The slats can be open at landing otoh. The 109s climb is more laying its power-to-weight ratio and low drag.
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
As always (....well...as ALMOST always) Seeker speaks wisely.
My understanding is that it's wise to check primary sources for all kind of works (serious or not so serious).
gripen
-
What are the primary sources concerning 109s?
-C+
-
It is interesting to note that Handley Page bombers could not use the slats, as Bomber Command required all bombers to have leading edge cable cutters installed on the wing.
-
Originally posted by Charge
What are the primary sources concerning 109s?
As an example Kokko's report on MT-215 and RAE test report on AE479 are primary sources. At least my copy of the Kokko's report gives different top speed than the 109 Myths article, apparently the authors have not even checked the sources they allready have.
gripen
-
The RAE test report on AE479 is toilet paper, nothing more. It's funny that your idea of "primary sources" on a German aircraft is two non-German sources.
-
Looks like Kokko's speed result should say 636kmh at 6300m.. or should it say 640-690kmh at 6700m? What do you think grippen? ;)
In any case those two mentioned tests are just samples of 2 used planes in certain conditions. They may give some ideas, but certainly not a general truth or even an average. They are simply samples.
-
Originally posted by BlauK
Looks like Kokko's speed result should say 636kmh at 6300m.. or should it say 640-690kmh at 6700m?
What ever the authors can prove with documentation and quote correctly.
BTW Kokko's report gives the altitude also as CINA and that's the one to use.
Originally posted by BlauK
What do you think grippen? ;)
Nothing to think here, I'm merely saying that the authors should check the facts from primary documentation and quote them correctly.
Originally posted by BlauK
In any case those two mentioned tests are just samples of 2 used planes in certain conditions. They may give some ideas, but certainly not a general truth or even an average. They are simply samples.
The authors are most wellcome to bring in data if they are not happy with the mentioned tests.
Hint: Erla set contains about dozen samples.
gripen
-
It is funny that you claim to have copies of this and that source, but you never quote them... almost like they would be worn if you share the info. Or do you experience it as a financial loss if you have paid for it and you write the numbers ina public place ;)
You said that speed numbers were wrong, but did not say what would be correct in your opinion. That is why I asked what you think about Kokko's report and which one of those two figures should be used when quoting that particular report. Why is he giving two differing figures? ... 636kmh and 640-690kmh?
Simply being happy about the 2 tests does not make them the truth or make them the primary sources of 109:s :p That is like doing 2 interviews, beeing happy with them and claiming that they represent the opinions of the whole population of a country.
-
Originally posted by BlauK
Looks like Kokko's speed result should say 636kmh at 6300m.. or should it say 640-690kmh at 6700m? What do you think grippen? ;)
Keep in mind Kokko`s 109G-2 'MT-215' had locked down tailwheel - this would account for 12 kph speed loss at SL, and about 15 kp loss at 6km - and already saw quite some service, including in the Luftwaffe. IIRC Kokko`s test was done in March 1943, but the G-2 production already run between June - November 1942. It was alos run at only 1.3ata 30-min rating.
Adding 15kph to the Kokko figurs yields 651 kph, very much in line with what was measured in Rechlin with the same rating (649 kph), and subpar with Soviet test results on a captured G-2 with again 1.3ata, ie. 666 kph.
There are some other data from June 1942 at full 1.42ata power, these are calculations for 109G-2, extrapolated from 109F-4 figures, these tell 700 kph max speed. But I belive these are proably not compressibility corrected, and perhaps wheel well doors were also taken into account (+10 to 15kph) which was planned for the G series, but was only seen on a few airplanes with the Industriestaffel and with LW units guarding Ploesti/Rumania.
I`d say the correct speed rating of a G-2/4 was around 650 kph until 1.42ata was cleared in 1943.
-
Originally posted by BlauK
It is funny that you claim to have copies of this and that source, but you never quote them...
I'm saying that the authors should not trust "unconfirmed internet sources" like me but check the facts from primary sources. So there is no reason to claim anything.
Originally posted by BlauK
almost like they would be worn if you share the info. Or do you experience it as a financial loss if you have paid for it and you write the numbers ina public place ;)
Let's quote Mr. Kurfürst (one of the sources for the 109 myths article) from above:
"Well I think the situation is quite clear about the article, there are some people with strong agenda against the Bf 109 and attempt to describe it as a worthless POS at every opportunity, the MiloMoron, gripen, paseolati, guppy, Mike Williams etc. They manipulate the evidence and primary sources to create new myths, while some others create new ones simply because they don`t know the design very well and rely on old books that ever since become obsolate references."
So I'm not claiming the numbers nor offering the data because there is a possibility that I have manipulated it or something.
But if I tell where to find the data, it's certainly not manipulated by me, right?
Originally posted by BlauK
You said that speed numbers were wrong, but did not say what would be correct in your opinion.
Actually I said that:
"At least my copy of the Kokko's report gives different top speed than the 109 Myths article"
and the measured value can be read from Kokko's report. This has nothing to do with my opinions. IMHO Raunio's analysis in the SIHL is well founded and based on quite large amount of data if somebody wants to know my opinion.
Originally posted by BlauK
That is why I asked what you think about Kokko's report and which one of those two figures should be used when quoting that particular report. Why is he giving two differing figures? ... 636kmh and 640-690kmh?
They made one speed measurement flight and the results are in the report. Read it from there.
Originally posted by BlauK
Simply being happy about the 2 tests does not make them the truth or make them the primary sources of 109:s :p That is like doing 2 interviews, beeing happy with them and claiming that they represent the opinions of the whole population of a country.
AFAIK Raunio's analysis is based on roughly 30 samples.
gripen
-
Originally posted by gripen
IMHO Raunio's analysis in the SIHL is well founded and based on quite large amount of data if somebody wants to know my opinion.
AFAIK Raunio's analysis is based on roughly 30 samples.
Hi gripen,
Can you post a summary of Mr. Raunio's findings on Me 109 G performance, as well as the sources he used?
I've studied myself a lot of performance reports (from Mtt AG, Daimler-Benz and Rechlin) and I don't come close to such number of samples (performance tests of clean Me 109 Gs are rather scarce).
Porta
-
Porta,
have you not noticed yet, that gripen does not want to talk numbers, he only tells you to go somewhere to find the source ;)
gripen,
If it has not become clear to you yet, I do have the report. If you also have it, you can read it and also find how Kokko reports the 640-690kmh max. speed. That 363kmh can be read from charts.
So, are you saying that Raunio has an answer to that particular question of mine. If so, thank, I'll read it when I have time... since you would not give the answer anyway. I am starting to guess who you are...
-
Originally posted by Porta
Can you post a summary of Mr. Raunio's findings on Me 109 G performance, as well as the sources he used?
The article serie is published in the "Suomen Ilmailuhistoriallinen Lehti" (something like The Aviation history magazine of Finland) and it's written in finnish. To get it you can contact the magazine:
Suomen Ilmailuhistoriallinen Lehti
Mäkelänkatu 5 B 10
00550 Helsinki
FINLAND
I can only sum up the references I'm aware, I have merely collected data for Raunio, I don't know about other data. Anyway here is a rough summary of those I'm aware:
MT-215 test data
MTT test on G-6/Trop (several configurations)
MTT test on AS proto (contains also G-5 curve)
Erla set (13 samples)
Flugleistungen Me 109G-Baureihen (20 samples)
British tests on G-2 and G-6
Various curves from MTT
His own calculations based on Hörner, DB data and MTT data (and more)
Originally posted by BlauK
have you not noticed yet, that gripen does not want to talk numbers, he only tells you to go somewhere to find the source ;)
That's exactly what I have been promoting throughout this thread; the authors should check the (unaltered) primary sources instead believing "unconfirmed internet sources" like me, Mr. Kurfürst or Mr. BlauK.
Hopefully it's finaly clear to Mr. BlauK.
Originally posted by BlauK
If it has not become clear to you yet, I do have the report. If you also have it, you can read it and also find how Kokko reports the 640-690kmh max. speed. That 363kmh can be read from charts.
To me it's unclear if you actually have the report; there is an exact top speed reached in the speed test done in Malmi 5.4.1943 klo. 12.15-13.05 (the only one they made) and it is not "roughly 645 km/h" nor "640-690 km/h" nor "363kmh". Please read it correctly or get the report.
Originally posted by BlauK
So, are you saying that Raunio has an answer to that particular question of mine. If so, thank, I'll read it when I have time... since you would not give the answer anyway.
I highly recommed reading it, IMHO it's by far best study on the flying qualities of the Bf 109G so far and pretty much entirely based on primary sources.
Originally posted by BlauK
I am starting to guess who you are...
Thanks for making this personal. If my personality matters you so much, all you need to do is ask it from Mr. LLv34_Camouflage, I have shared some data with him.
gripen
-
Originally posted by gripen
That's exactly what I have been promoting throughout this thread; the authors should check the (unaltered) primary sources instead believing "unconfirmed internet sources" like me, Mr. Kurfürst or Mr. BlauK.
And I was not talking about publishing anything, simply talking about a constructive internet discussion, which naturally is only that... a discussion. If someone wants to use some of such info for some publication, of course they need to get the original sources. I was only refering to your decision of not talking about data in detail, which makes the discussion kind of difficult and just about pointless.
...and it is not "roughly 645 km/h" nor "640-690 km/h" nor "363kmh".
My bad.. if you did not get it, I made a typo. The speed marked in the chart on page 18 is naturally 636kmh, not 363.
I just realized that maybe you dont have Kokko's "summary" of the Malmi test, the "Tunnonmukainen ohjattavaisuusominaisuuksien arvostelu MT-koneesta." dated 9.4.43 at Tampere. I possibly failed in considering it as a part of this particular test. There on page 4 Kokko spells the top speed (todellinen nopeus) figures as 640-690kmh.
Thanks for making this personal.
Ok.. I apollogize for that remark. The way you treat knowledge in your possession simply reminds me from another person on some ww2 avation boards.
-
Originally posted by gripen
The article serie is published in the "Suomen Ilmailuhistoriallinen Lehti" (something like The Aviation history magazine of Finland) and it's written in finnish. To get it you can contact the magazine:
Suomen Ilmailuhistoriallinen Lehti
Mäkelänkatu 5 B 10
00550 Helsinki
FINLAND
I can only sum up the references I'm aware, I have merely collected data for Raunio, I don't know about other data. Anyway here is a rough summary of those I'm aware:
MT-215 test data
MTT test on G-6/Trop (several configurations)
MTT test on AS proto (contains also G-5 curve)
Erla set (13 samples)
Flugleistungen Me 109G-Baureihen (20 samples)
British tests on G-2 and G-6
Various curves from MTT
His own calculations based on Hörner, DB data and MTT data (and more)
Thank you gripen, unfortunately I don't understand a bit of Suomi.
So what does he compare (calculated stuff vs. fligh tests, flight tests of different sources,...). What are his conclusions?.
Thanks for your time, gripen.
Porta
-
Originally posted by BlauK
And I was not talking about publishing anything, simply talking about a constructive internet discussion, which naturally is only that... a discussion. If someone wants to use some of such info for some publication, of course they need to get the original sources.
I was only refering to your decision of not talking about data in detail, which makes the discussion kind of difficult and just about pointless.
Why don't you read the topic of this thread; this thread is about an article and I'm not selling them (Mr. Grendel & Co) my opinions or manipulated data (according to Mr. Kurfürst). I'm merely logical with my argument.
Originally posted by BlauK
I just realized that maybe you dont have Kokko's "summary" of the Malmi test, the "Tunnonmukainen ohjattavaisuusominaisuuksien arvostelu MT-koneesta." dated 9.4.43 at Tampere. I possibly failed in considering it as a part of this particular test. There on page 4 Kokko spells the top speed (todellinen nopeus) figures as 640-690kmh.
Maybe you should realize that report says actually:
"Suurimman nopeutensa kone saavuttaa n. 6700 m:n korkeudessa ja mittarinäyttämä tällöin 450-475km/t..."
Now just look the speed test page and read IAS value at highest speed. Generally the speed estimates are very rough if the conditions are not known, specially at winter time as in this case.
gripen
-
Originally posted by Porta
So what does he compare (calculated stuff vs. fligh tests, flight tests of different sources,...). What are his conclusions?.
He actually made his calculations on the G-6 before he got the MTT G-6 test result and the agreement between the calculations and the test data seem to be suprisingly good, the difference is just few km/h. Notable thing is that propeller efficiency charts from the MTT give lower efficiency values than efficiency charts calculated by Raunio from flight data.
He notes that there never is complete agreement between the various test data, differences between planes and conditions cause lot of variation, sometimes the data might be corrected differently etc. Factory claims seem to be in optimistic side (couple examples are claimed).
Overall nothing revolutionary but a well made article serie. In the coming parts there will be tested data on roll rates and other interesting stuff.
gripen
-
Originally posted by gripen
I can only sum up the references I'm aware, I have merely collected data for Raunio, I don't know about other data. Anyway here is a rough summary of those I'm aware:
MT-215 test data
MTT test on G-6/Trop (several configurations)
MTT test on AS proto (contains also G-5 curve)
Erla set (13 samples)
Flugleistungen Me 109G-Baureihen (20 samples)
British tests on G-2 and G-6
Various curves from MTT
His own calculations based on Hörner, DB data and MTT data (and more)
gripen
Hmmm.... quite an interesting dataset, I can`t comment on the multi-plane test for I haven`t seen those. As for the others, it appears to be picked from the most poor performing examples, a similiar attitude what M Williams is using for his agenda.
Ie. the MT-215 was a well used plane with the tailwheel fixed down. Then, G-6/trop, a funny choosing, considering it`s the most draggy 109 one can find, not only fixed tailwheel, MG bulges are present, but it was topped with the tropical filter for additional -10 kph loss. Using the British tests is also funny, ie. the G-2 was a /trop version again, and from the details of the report, the plane was captured damaged and malfunctioning, the propeller being holed by schrapnel and the radiotors sticking in open position. Other British tests, G-6 with gondolas, nice pick again.
As for Horner`s article, I`ve read it, it`s about completely useless for the 109, for which he couldn`t get the weight, speed, or power data correct, using 100% (!!!!!!!) powerplant/thrust effiency in all cases overestimating the power requirements thus arriving at a surreal drag coefficient of .036, LOL. Mtt docs I have state, err .023.. Horner also assumes some things that are strictly fiction, ie. drag from 'rivet heads', whereas the Bf 109 had used flush rivets, that`s quite commonly known.
Using such dataset to start with, I`d be not surprised if Raunio`s claimed performance are WAY below for what was actually achieved on test examples he simply doesn`t know of or ignores... err, reminds me of a notorious spit-fan site.. :D
But I`d rather not put Raunio in such bad company without seeing his article first. It might as well be an honest research, and perhaps some are just qouting the parts they like from it. This happens far too often, so it`s nothing new or a reason to be blamed on the Finnish gent.
-
Originally posted by gripen
He actually made his calculations on the G-6 before he got the MTT G-6 test result and the agreement between the calculations and the test data seem to be suprisingly good, the difference is just few km/h. Notable thing is that propeller efficiency charts from the MTT give lower efficiency values than efficiency charts calculated by Raunio from flight data.
He notes that there never is complete agreement between the various test data, differences between planes and conditions cause lot of variation, sometimes the data might be corrected differently etc. Factory claims seem to be in optimistic side (couple examples are claimed).
Overall nothing revolutionary but a well made article serie. In the coming parts there will be tested data on roll rates and other interesting stuff.
gripen
Thank you again, gripen.
Usually Mtt calculated prop efficiency charts from physical data of propellers supplied by VDM, instead doing flight tests.
In general, I find Mtt claims on production planes to be OK (you have to take in account the tolerances too, e.g. ± 3% in horizontal speed).
Does the article contain any calculations or graphs?. If yes, it might be interesting to get even if I don't speak finnish.
Porta
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Hmmm.... quite an interesting dataset, I can`t comment on the multi-plane test for I haven`t seen those. As for the others, it appears to be picked from the most poor performing examples, a similiar attitude what M Williams is using for his agenda.
Ie. the MT-215 was a well used plane with the tailwheel fixed down. Then, G-6/trop, a funny choosing, considering it`s the most draggy 109 one can find, not only fixed tailwheel, MG bulges are present, but it was topped with the tropical filter for additional -10 kph loss. Using the British tests is also funny, ie. the G-2 was a /trop version again, and from the details of the report, the plane was captured damaged and malfunctioning, the propeller being holed by schrapnel and the radiotors sticking in open position. Other British tests, G-6 with gondolas, nice pick again.
LOL Kurfie. It would have been nice if the Germans had suppled factory fresh a/c straight from the assembly line for the British to test. :rolleyes:
-
"Niklas has some maximum Cl values for the 109E on his site, unfurtunately I havent seen any specific for w./wo slats for the 109. Some general slats/flaps data yes, but these would be inconclusive, since the properties of each airplane can lead to very different results. So we are left with the common sense of LES increasing max. AoA and Cl above the avarage, unless someone comes up with something specific.."
TY for your answer Kurfürst.
I'm a bit disturbed by general lack of interest from people when it comes to aerodynamical performance of 109. The 190 got a thorough treatment in thread where Crumpp and Gripen measured their manhood against eachother (No offence guys..t'was interesting read :-))) and I am wondering why such a debated airframe as 109 has not received the same interest.
What I understand from different sources is that 109's max AoA is somewhere around 16 degrees for its wing profile at certain speed (if it is even near the same as that of 190). However Crumpp(?) posted a NACA flap/slat comparison chart where HP slat is presented as having a rather small Cl capability itself but it enables a theoretical max of 28 degrees of AoA. What that does to wing performance in terms of maximum attainable lift I don't know. In comparison Fowler flap has a greated Cl potential but its limits the AoA lower than would be otherwise possible for certain wing profiles (thinking about the P38 here). I find this rather interesting and it would be nice to see this matter debated, too.
:)
-C+
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
the MT-215 was a well used plane with the tailwheel fixed down.
The MT-215 was a factory overhauled airframe (like most FAF G-2s) ie condition was like a new.
The tail wheel was fixed down sooner or later in all FAF G-2s once these got bigger tail wheel (like in pretty much all G-1s and G-2s in LW service too). BTW most FAF G-2s had bigger tail wheel allready when delivered.
Shortly the MT-215 was a very typical FAF Bf 109G-2.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Then, G-6/trop, a funny choosing, considering it`s the most draggy 109 one can find, not only fixed tailwheel, MG bulges are present, but it was topped with the tropical filter for additional -10 kph loss.
The MTT tested this plane in 7 different configurations and of these 4 were without tropical filter and I have been talking about values without filter. Besides filter was very commonly used by FAF due to sandy airfields.
The G-6 was by far most important Bf 109 variant produced; there were more G-6s (and practically same G-14s) produced than entire production of F and K models together. And it was also main variant in FAF service.
The G-6 is a very rational choosing infact.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Using the British tests is also funny, ie. the G-2 was a /trop version again, and from the details of the report, the plane was captured damaged and malfunctioning, the propeller being holed by schrapnel and the radiotors sticking in open position. Other British tests, G-6 with gondolas, nice pick again.
Raunio notes condition of the tested G-2/trop and also notes the estimated speed for the plane in normal condition (which is actually well within MTT 3% tolerances).
The G-6 tested by the brits seem to be actually faster than G-6 tested by MTT in the same condition.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
As for Horner`s article, I`ve read it, it`s about completely useless for the 109, for which he couldn`t get the weight, speed, or power data correct, using 100% (!!!!!!!) powerplant/thrust effiency in all cases overestimating the power requirements thus arriving at a surreal drag coefficient of .036, LOL. Mtt docs I have state, err .023.. Horner also assumes some things that are strictly fiction, ie. drag from 'rivet heads', whereas the Bf 109 had used flush rivets, that`s quite commonly known.
Apparently Mr. Kurfürst has not even seen the Hörner's study or understood it.
It's somewhat simplified and more like theoretical example but all values are realistic. As an example propeller efficiency is estimated to be 85% unlike Mr. Kurfürst announces above. Besides used values result suprisingly good agreement with flight tested data. Hörner did work in MTT and he actually studied the drag of the Bf 109. After war he (really) wrote the book on fluid dynamics.
Originally posted by Porta
Usually Mtt calculated prop efficiency charts from physical data of propellers supplied by VDM, instead doing flight tests.
I don't know how Mtt created their prop charts but the efficiency at FTH seem to be too low for flight tested values (according to my own calculations, not Raunio's), at low altitude there is not much difference.
Originally posted by Porta
In general, I find Mtt claims on production planes to be OK (you have to take in account the tolerances too, e.g. ± 3% in horizontal speed).
Generally yes, as an example in the Erla set (12 Erla built planes 1 Mtt built), 8 planes (all Erla built) are within claimed ± 3% tolerances (3 above and 5 below base line). The rest 5 (4 Erla 1 Mtt) are below claimed tolerences.
Originally posted by Porta
Does the article contain any calculations or graphs?. If yes, it might be interesting to get even if I don't speak finnish.
Yes, the serie contains plenty of graphs. SILH 2/2005 contained part 5 of the serie and there should be at least 2 parts more in the future.
gripen
-
Originally posted by gripen
The MT-215 was a factory overhauled airframe (like most FAF G-2s) ie condition was like a new.
[/B]
Don`t be shy to post the Werknummer, it would be nice to realize the plane was manufactured 3/4 years ago.
Originally posted by gripen The tail wheel was fixed down sooner or later in all FAF G-2s once these got bigger tail wheel (like in pretty much all G-1s and G-2s in LW service too). BTW most FAF G-2s had bigger tail wheel allready when delivered. Shortly the MT-215 was a very typical FAF Bf 109G-2.
[/B]
I can show you dozens of LW 109G-2s with retractable tailwheel, and it boggles my mind how can a more draggy, worn airframe representative of the new ones with retractable tailwheel.
It`s a nice way for Gripen to chop down another 15 kph airspeed from the 109G`s true max. speed and show it as garbage.
Originally posted by gripen
The MTT tested this plane in 7 different configurations and of these 4 were without tropical filter and I have been talking about values without filter. Besides filter was very commonly used by FAF due to sandy airfields.
The G-6 was by far most important Bf 109 variant produced; there were more G-6s (and practically same G-14s) produced than entire production of F and K models together. And it was also main variant in FAF service.
The G-6 is a very rational choosing infact.
[/B]
It is 'very rational' if one wants to arrive at the lowest possible values. As mentioned the G-6/trop is by far the slowest variant of all Bf 109Gs, despite the G-6/trop was produced in small quantities along G-6s, given that by the time the G-6 prod started, Africa was lost, no need for it.
Originally posted by gripen
Raunio notes condition of the tested G-2/trop and also notes the estimated speed for the plane in normal condition (which is actually well within MTT 3% tolerances).
[/B]
The Brits estimate for the damaged plane if in normal condition 395 mph at 1475 HP.
Fact is the Germans and Soviets measured 403 to 416 mph at 1310 HP.
Can I ask why Raunio ignores good tests results from Germany and the USSR, and relies on estimates on caputred, damaged plane?
It`s certainly a good way to arrive at the lowest possible values and to understate the aircraft`s performance.
Originally posted by gripen
The G-6 tested by the brits seem to be actually faster than G-6 tested by MTT in the same condition.
[/B]
Blanket statment, no facts, irrelevant.
Originally posted by gripen
Apparently Mr. Kurfürst has not even seen the Hörner's study or understood it.
Appearantly Mr. Gripen worked up himself that I pointed out that Mr. Kurfürst saw Hörner's study and knows well it is full of very serious like a completely wrong dataset to start with.
I guess that makes selective use of sources for Mr. Gripen far more difficult than usually.
Originally posted by gripen
It's somewhat simplified and more like theoretical example but all values are realistic.
[/B]
BS.
Hörner claims 3040 kg takeoff weight, which is a takeoff weight of a G-2 or G-4, though the Fig2 shows the G-6 with gun blisters. Without exception, the official t-o weight of the G-6 varied between 3150 and 3196 kg.
Thus H understimates the weight of the plane greatly, and a result underestimates the effiency.
Hörner claims a mere 610 kph top speed for the plane at 1200 HP/22k ft. This translates to 1.3ata.
The GLC charts show the official speed at this speed as 630 kph. Mtt documents show 621 kph with gunpods attached. Even Erich Brown noted 619 kph for the G-6 with gunpods, at 3400 kg vs. 3040kg in Horner`s tests. G-2 tested by Russians achieved 666 kph, another G-2 in Rechlin achieved 650 kph. A DB document gives for a 3070 kg 109G 620 kph speed, by far the lowest value seen.
Yet, Horner manage to claim an even lower figure, 610 kph.
But no matter than Horner got speed, weight and power wrong, Gripen still got the guts to call them 'realistic' in public.
Besides, I`d love to see any test of any 109G that would run at a mere 610 kph. Not that it couldn`t exist, especially bad planes show up on occasion, but then it`s a cherry picked worst case.
As an example propeller efficiency is estimated to be 85% unlike Mr. Kurfürst announces above.
Mr. Gripen makes a twist as usual, since Mr. Kurfürst was talking of powerplant effiency, for which Horner arrives at a very high figure of 100% effiency. Mr Horner arrived at this using very high prop effiency of 85%, and adding an assumed thrust value of 11 to 13%, arriving at a ridiculus '98% of the power output is converted to thrust' statement.
Besides used values result suprisingly good agreement with flight tested data.
Blanket statmenent again, but we got used to that from you.
Show me a SINGLE flight test of a 109G achieving only 610 kph with 1200HP in clean condition.
I am all ears.
Hörner did work in MTT and he actually studied the drag of the Bf 109. After war he (really) wrote the book on fluid dynamics.
Nice and all, fact still remains that Horners starting data is bad in almost every way, and based on that he arrives at a ridiculus drag coefficient of .036 whereas Mtt official documents clearly state 0.023.
Considering Horner wrote that article in 1965, 20 years after he worked at Mtt....
Well sadly I am right again, it`s another nice show of the selective source choosing agenda from Gripen.
-
What are the primary sources concerning 109s?
Simply ask any professional Historian what is more credible. A document or an eyewitness.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Don`t be shy to post the Werknummer, it would be nice to realize the plane was manufactured 3/4 years ago.
Everyone understands that factory overhauled plane is an used one, everyone also understands that factory overhauled is like a new condition. There is nothing to argue.
If you are interested about werkenummers and other info on FAF G-2s, get Valtonen's book or SIHL (several articles on these planes).
Originally posted by Kurfürst
I can show you dozens of LW 109G-2s with retractable tailwheel, and it boggles my mind how can a more draggy, worn airframe representative of the new ones with retractable tailwheel.
I can show you FAF G-2s with retractable tailwheel, but these were minority and got sooner or later bigger tailwheel. Situation was exactly same in the LW.
The MT-215 was not a worn airframe, it was in good condition. Overall it was a typical FAF G-2 (about 2/3 of FAF G-2s were factory overhauled when delivered).
Originally posted by Kurfürst
It is 'very rational' if one wants to arrive at the lowest possible values. As mentioned the G-6/trop is by far the slowest variant of all Bf 109Gs, despite the G-6/trop was produced in small quantities along G-6s, given that by the time the G-6 prod started, Africa was lost, no need for it.
As noted above, I'm refering values tested without filter.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
The Brits estimate for the damaged plane if in normal condition 395 mph at 1475 HP.
I quess you mean at 1,42ata/2800rpm setting? Yep, that's within 3% tolerance using values from SIHL article. BTW the report does not actually say for which setting the estimate is calculated.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Fact is the Germans and Soviets measured 403 to 416 mph at 1310 HP.
Fact is that for example in the Erla set the lowest value for a factory new Bf 109G (seem to be a G-1) is 612 km/h using 1,3ata/2600rpm setting.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Can I ask why Raunio ignores good tests results from Germany and the USSR, and relies on estimates on caputred, damaged plane?
AFAIK you can post your questions to SIHL, they use to publish readers questions and also answer them. Just post your question to:
Suomen Ilmailuhistoriallinen Lehti
Mäkelänkatu 5 B 10
00550 Helsinki
FINLAND
Based on the article and data I'm aware, Raunio has used huge amount of good test data from Germany for the article and has never ignored well documented test data regardless the source. The data on captured planes is mentioned in the end of the performance part and nothing on the article seem to rely on this data.
Certainly you can send them data if you have good and well documented test results from Germany or Russia. Note that I have nothing directly to do with the magazine, I'm just a reader who has given them some data.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Blanket statment, no facts, irrelevant.
I can read the values from the article and compare them and the G-6 tested by the Brits seem to be faster than the one tested by Mtt (without filter etc.).
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Hörner claims 3040 kg takeoff weight,
No, Hörner claims that weight as gross weight and that seem to be realistic for a G-6 flying at FTH.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Hörner claims a mere 610 kph top speed for the plane at 1200 HP/22k ft. This translates to 1.3ata.
That's well within normal tolerances for the G-6 (as an example see the Erla set).
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Mr. Gripen makes a twist as usual, since Mr. Kurfürst was talking of powerplant effiency, for which Horner arrives at a very high figure of 100% effiency. Mr Horner arrived at this using very high prop effiency of 85%, and adding an assumed thrust value of 11 to 13%, arriving at a ridiculus '98% of the power output is converted to thrust' statement.
Mr. Kurfürst makes himself laughable. Given power (1200hp) is available from the shaft and the exhaust thrust is additional.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Blanket statmenent again, but we got used to that from you.
Again I can read the values from article and compare them to flight tested and the agreement is good.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Show me a SINGLE flight test of a 109G achieving only 610 kph with 1200HP in clean condition.
Well, there is a example above and if you want more just go to FAF museum archives and ask for check flight cards from the VL and you can find even much lower values (plenty of them).
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Well sadly I am right again, it`s another nice show of the selective source choosing agenda from Gripen.
Feel free to waste energy to personal attacks. No one cares.
gripen
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Considering Horner wrote that article in 1965, 20 years after he worked at Mtt....
Actually the first version of his book was written 1945-1946. In addition some of his wartime works are still available from the archives if someone is willing to dig a bit.
gripen
-
I did study history of the MT-215 a bit and it was actually a brand new plane WNr. 14783 built by WNF. For the ferry flight to Finland it got naturally LW paintings and Stkz. GJ+QA.
gripen
-
I've seen Wright Field Microfilm stamps in documents coming from many archives. BAMA might be the most probable and also most difficult to search.
That is because the entire technical documents collection of the NASM came from Wright Patterson. It was moved to the NASM in the 1970's IIRC.
Wright Patterson no longer keeps a collection of technical documents. They do have some copies of certain documents donated since the move.
Getting to the subject of foreign testing. It defies common sense to think that a foreign government in time of war would be the "experts" in any equipment other than there own. Simply look at the BMW801D2 the RAE tested out of Faber's FW190A3. The RAE conducted trials running a motor that could not develop full power due to the anti-knock characteristics of natural petroleum fuels.
After the trials they bench tested the motor and discovered that by using different plugs and timing they could run the motor smoothly. Unfortunately they never flight tested that motor. If they had then numbers would have probably been much closer to the German flight test numbers.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1125869163_raebenchtest.jpg)
That very same month the RAE got their hands on Faber's aircraft, the Germans changed the composition of C3 fuel further compounding the RAE's difficulties. The fuel changes usually accompany both timing and spark plug changes in general. Additionally different varients of the FW190 had different motor set ups requiring different adjustments, plugs, and fittings.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1125869069_alkaneratio.jpg)
Fuel improvements continued up until the end of the war. It was not until June 1944 that the allies were even aware of the early 1940 to 1943 changes! Even then they could not be sure as they just did not have enough samples to make a conclusive determination.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1119658405_c3testtitleanddate.jpg)
The variants also had multiple design changes. 6 Different cowlings were in service, Multiple internal and external intakes, 5 different props in service, 2 different Lufterrads, 3 different exhaust set ups.
Frankly the design changes are just too numerous to list in a thread.
Many of these changes had an effect on performance. In fact it is much easier to find "flight tested data" that performs nothing like Focke Wulf or Rechlin test's of a frontline air superiority fighter version than to find flight test's of in service aircraft set ups. For every set up that makes it into service, there are a multitude which do not.
For example, in this report different propellers set ups are tested. Only one hub made it into service and NONE of the blades:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1125870038_props.jpg)
You can see by the wide range of performance exhibited, it is very easy to present "tested" data that presents a completely false picture of actual performance.
Add in the normal maintenance quirks of the design and it becomes laughable to think any test of an aircraft presents "the best" performance a design can achieve other than one conducted by the manufacturer or the end user. At best, such tests only reveal the "at least" performance. During the war, the allies could say this enemy design was capable of "at least" doing this well.
Pushing these tests only revels agendas.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
And people with an agenda rarely listens to reason. No matter how eloquently debated or documented.
-
Originally posted by gripen
I did study history of the MT-215 a bit and it was actually a brand new plane WNr. 14783 built by WNF. For the ferry flight to Finland it got naturally LW paintings and Stkz. GJ+QA.
gripen
Fact : The 14 783 serie (14 501 - 14 850 range )was built between October - December 1942.
Fact : Tests with Kokko`s plane were done in MARCH 1943.
Fact : Gripen first said it was freshly overhauled. Now he says it was brand new.
Fact : Gripen is full of cr@p. But that`s already known by most of us.
-
Please guys, this thread would be interesting if it stayed civil. The data and arguments for and/or against it is great, but the personalities will only stop the discussion or get the thread locked.
-
I have a 109 test report from the manufacturer, - speed and climb.
It's a 109G, running on 1.3/1,42 ata being tested as such in JANUARY 1944. Wonder why. If you're interested in performance numbers and Wnr, I can throw it in for you ;)
(The print is very dark, it's a pain to read it)
-
It's a 109G, running on 1.3/1,42 ata being tested as such in JANUARY 1944. Wonder why.
Depending on what is being tested, there was probably no need to run the motor at its limits.
There are dozens of FW190 test flights where the motor was not run at emergency power.
Running a motor at full manifold pressure is stressful on the engine. Even though all airforces conducted endurance trials on their engines all of them also required the motor to be inspected by maintenance personnel as well as the number of minutes run noted in the log.
From the August 1945 P51D/K POH:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1122413737_p51wep.jpg)
Even though the BMW801D2 ran at 1.65ata for 22 hours and 40 minutes with C3 Einspritzung it was limited to 3 10 minutes runs with a cool down period between each run. It was to be inspected by the crew chief as well.
Even the vaunted R-2800 was limited to 5 minutes and had to be inspected.
So running a motor at emergency power without an emergency was only done when absolutely necessary.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
I have seen some report of a Spitfire pilot who panicked and wepped for some 30 minutes. The engine was opened up, - no damage.
I even posted it, now where is it....
It was somewhere in N-Africa.
-
Hmm, yesterday I was briefly reading into a LW pilot memoir in the bookstore which was just published, and it had a similiar story noted, on some training 190s the throttle was limited to 90%, so that the engine would not be unneccesarily worn in trainings.. forgot the guy, he was JG 54 though.
-
Sounds logical.
After all, 90% is a LOT of power, and this is only trainings.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
That is because the entire technical documents collection of the NASM came from Wright Patterson. It was moved to the NASM in the 1970's IIRC.
As far as I know, the original documents (Captured German and Japanese material) were transfered bit by bit back to Germany and Japan starting from as early as sixties. NASM has just microfilmed copies of these. Problem is that there appear to be no logic how the original documents were scattered to different archives; BAMA, DM... you name the archive, actually some have been found from UK.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Getting to the subject of foreign testing. It defies common sense to think that a foreign government in time of war would be the "experts" in any equipment other than there own. Simply look at the BMW801D2 the RAE tested out of Faber's FW190A3. The RAE conducted trials running a motor that could not develop full power due to the anti-knock characteristics of natural petroleum fuels.
After the trials they bench tested the motor and discovered that by using different plugs and timing they could run the motor smoothly. Unfortunately they never flight tested that motor. If they had then numbers would have probably been much closer to the German flight test numbers.
Actually RAE found out in the bench tests that with original plugs engine did run roughly with both fuels (British 100 octane and 1943 version of C3). With Siemens plugs the engine did run well with both fuels and output was found to be normal. AFAIK the only other change they made to engine was to adjust injection pump to roughly compensate different specific gravity of the fuels (I have posted summary here (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=156584)).
Originally posted by Crumpp
That very same month the RAE got their hands on Faber's aircraft, the Germans changed the composition of C3 fuel further compounding the RAE's difficulties. The fuel changes usually accompany both timing and spark plug changes in general. Additionally different varients of the FW190 had different motor set ups requiring different adjustments, plugs, and fittings.
The C3 version used in the RAE tests had specific gravity 0,772 so it was improved version of the C3. There were no complaints about rough running during tests of the PE882, PN999 and PM679 (also earwitnesses, like Brown, confirm good running). I don't know which fuels were used in the American tests in Italy or by Navy but the Wright Field tests were done with grade 140 fuel, in all these tests there was some complaints about rough running. Early US fuels had lower aromatic content than British and that might explain the difference.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Fuel improvements continued up until the end of the war. It was not until June 1944 that the allies were even aware of the early 1940 to 1943 changes! Even then they could not be sure as they just did not have enough samples to make a conclusive determination.
If you read the report you will find out that allies knew about the improvement quite soon and they had enough samples even for bench tests as pointed out above.
Originally posted by Crumpp
The variants also had multiple design changes. 6 Different cowlings were in service, Multiple internal and external intakes, 5 different props in service, 2 different Lufterrads, 3 different exhaust set ups.
BTW do you have some proof on 14 blade cooler fans on the 801D2? All documentation I have seen indicate that it was a 801TS specific feature (like FW spec sheets).
Originally posted by Crumpp
Add in the normal maintenance quirks of the design and it becomes laughable to think any test of an aircraft presents "the best" performance a design can achieve other than one conducted by the manufacturer or the end user. At best, such tests only reveal the "at least" performance. During the war, the allies could say this enemy design was capable of "at least" doing this well.
AFAIK no one is looking for the best performance but performance of a standard service plane. Besides only Mr. Kurfürst have been promoting here idea to base Bf 109G performance estimates to allied tests (Russian data). As an example Raunio's analysis are pretty much completely based on Finnish and German data (allied tests are claimed just in the end of the article among other various values collected from various sources).
Originally posted by FalconSix
And people with an agenda rarely listens to reason. No matter how eloquently debated or documented.
If you have really read the RAE test report on AE479, then just point out the errors and prove it's toilet paper. Otherwise I don't see a reason to take your comments seriouysly.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Fact : The 14 783 serie (14 501 - 14 850 range )was built between October - December 1942.
FAF serials MT 201-216 were bought as new and were delivered directly from WNF in the beginning March, see story and pictures here (http://www.sci.fi/~fta/me-fin-1.htm).
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Fact : Tests with Kokko`s plane were done in MARCH 1943.
In the beginning of April, about 3 weeks after arrival, note that there were LW mechanics helping and teaching the Fins.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Fact : Gripen first said it was freshly overhauled. Now he says it was brand new.
Yep, my apologies. I should never ever believe what others say in these boards. Everything must be checked from the primary sources.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Fact : Gripen is full of cr@p. But that`s already known by most of us.
Maybe you should take things a bit less personally.
gripen
-
Hehe, - now, that was a very proper reply.
WTG.
-
Gripen says:
As far as I know, the original documents (Captured German and Japanese material) were transfered bit by bit back to Germany and Japan starting from as early as sixties. NASM has just microfilmed copies of these. Problem is that there appear to be no logic how the original documents were scattered to different archives; BAMA, DM... you name the archive, actually some have been found from UK.
They were returned to their original owners if they still existed. If not the documents where given to the German or Japanese Government.
Gripen says:
Actually RAE found out in the bench tests that with original plugs engine did run roughly with both fuels (British 100 octane and 1943 version of C3). With Siemens plugs the engine did run well with both fuels and output was found to be normal. AFAIK the only other change they made to engine was to adjust injection pump to roughly compensate different specific gravity of the fuels (I have posted summary here).
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1125869486_raebenchtest.jpg)
Which is exactly what I said. Unfortunately the Germans changed to composition of C3. Simply research the results of allies changing fuel composition:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1125958524_leadincrease.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1121193841_leadincrease2.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1125958713_leadincrease3.jpg)
Of course everyone knows that C3 ended up with so much lead in it that the Germans began to experience seperation issues.
Gripen says:
The C3 version used in the RAE tests had specific gravity 0,772 so it was improved version of the C3.
I am sure it did. The density of the fuel did not change until 1943 when the Germans began hydrogenation of their fuels.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1125957761_c3octane.jpg)
Unless of course you wish us to believe that in the 4 days from when the report was typed (19 June 1942) and Fabers plane fell into British hands (23 June 1942), the Germans were able to refine and transport sufficient quantities of improved alkane ratio fuel to the frontline Geschwaders.
Rather silly if you think about it.
Gripen says:
There were no complaints about rough running during tests of the PE882, PN999 and PM679 (also earwitnesses, like Brown, confirm good running).
Maybe so however none of those aircraft are fighter varients. They were crashed or landed by mistake during the "Terrorflieger" Campaign. IIRC, they are FW190G's. Completely different aircraft and motor set up from an FW190A fighter.
I get the feeling though that since the RAE just chalked up “rough running” as a characteristic of the BMW801 that they simply did not point out what in their conclusions is the obvious.
Gripen says:
If you read the report you will find out that allies knew about the improvement quite soon and they had enough samples even for bench tests as pointed out above.
Sure they may have used some of their very small stock to try and figure out how the motor could best work with allied fuels. Makes perfect sense to me especially if you want the motor to perform to standard.
However they did not have enough C3 fuel for flight-testing. They did not even have enough to get a decent survey of the fuel composition as noted in the last section of the first page:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1120872933_c3fuelspeculations.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1125960986_c3fuelsamples.jpg)
Gripen says:
Early US fuels had lower aromatic content than British and that might explain the difference.
It is interesting that in the Post War era when extremely high-octane fuels were developed the former Western Allies adopted many of the practices used by the Germans in fuel blending. Higher aromatics, paraffin content, Lead increase and using alkanes for antiknock protection were adopted to overcome problems.
However during the war the allies had no idea as to why the Germans formulated fuel as such.
Not surprising as the Germans were leaders in fuel technology in the 1920's and invented the hydrogenation process. Does not make much sense that they would suddenly lose their wits does it?
Fuel is actually a big issue in our restoration of "White 1". None of the restored German engines are able to run at full boost on natural petroleum Avgas. Ours will most likely not run at full boost either. At lower manifold pressure it should run fine. We are discussing having a petrochemical analysis done of late war C3 and the possibility of custom additives.
Gripen says:
BTW do you have some proof on 14 blade cooler fans on the 801D2? All documentation I have seen indicate that it was a 801TS specific feature (like FW spec sheets).
Yes. You can find it at the NASM archives. It is in multiple documents actually. How much sense does it make to keep a piece of equipment that lowers your planes performance dramatically?
Gripen says:
AFAIK no one is looking for the best performance but performance of a standard service plane.
That is actually a wide range of performance as well Gripen.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1121024395_raftestflightstandards.jpg)
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Ahemmm,,,Crumpp, my dear friend:
"Not surprising as the Germans were leaders in fuel technology in the 1920's "
Are you sure that holds water completely, and into the 30's as well? As well as 1940, - there speaking of actual capacity of fuel quality in big use?
Remember that the 20's/30's is the period where the Italians and the Brits are swapping raceplane trophies, and again, already before 1940 the Brits are playing with a production line Spitfire who's engine they squeeze above 2000 hp on quite a distance.
They don't look like greenhorns to me.
And on the flip side, - how is one then to estimate German reports on captured allied aircraft versus German ones???
Did they master the allied engines to put out max power?
-
Remember that the 20's/30's is the period where the Italians and the Brits are swapping raceplane trophies, and again, already before 1940 the Brits are playing with a production line Spitfire who's engine they squeeze above 2000 hp on quite a distance.
Yes they did hold records as did the Germans.
When I said "industry leader" it does not mean that other countries contributions are insignificant.
Both Toyota and Ford are industry leaders for example.
Simply means that the Germans had first rate fuel technology and even pioneered some developments. Hydrogenation was one of them.
The hydrogenation process for making this fuel had been developed in the 1920s by Friedrich Bergius (1884-1949), a German chemist who later fled his native country. A similar process developed in 1923 is called Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, which produces gasoline and other liquids from coal-derived synthesis gas (hydrogen and carbon monoxide). Gasoline can be made from just about any substance containing hydrogen and carbon.
http://www.bookrags.com/sciences/sciencehistory/gasoline-woi.html
http://nobelprize.org/chemistry/laureates/1931/bergius-bio.html
Are you sure that holds water completely, and into the 30's as well? As well as 1940, - there speaking of actual capacity of fuel quality in big use?
Yes. As shown by the allied reports, C3 fuel was equal to allied fuels. It was however, very different in composition.
And on the flip side, - how is one then to estimate German reports on captured allied aircraft versus German ones???
The same as the reports from the allies on German aircraft. It represents the "at least" performance of the type tested.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
And yet, During the BoB, the LW runs on 87 oct, - and a good bit longer, while the RAF FC is on 100 oct.
All about the stock they had and not whether it was technically possible then?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Ahemmm,,,Crumpp, my dear friend:
"Not surprising as the Germans were leaders in fuel technology in the 1920's "
Are you sure that holds water completely, and into the 30's as well? As well as 1940, - there speaking of actual capacity of fuel quality in big use?
Remember that the 20's/30's is the period where the Italians and the Brits are swapping raceplane trophies, and again, already before 1940 the Brits are playing with a production line Spitfire who's engine they squeeze above 2000 hp on quite a distance.
They don't look like greenhorns to me.
(http://www.ddavid.com/formula1/images/cara16a.jpg)
(http://www.ddavid.com/formula1/images/swiss.jpg)
(http://www.ddavid.com/formula1/images/rose11a.jpg)
(http://www.ddavid.com/formula1/images/neub7.jpg)
Mercedes and Autounion dominated the Grand Prix of the 1930s. Even the best British racing driver drove for Germany.
(http://users.belgacom.net/airimg1/avion1/17905.jpe)
Bf-108A, set a number of records and was entered in many air races during the late 1930s winning several including the International Air Meets at Hoggar in January 1938, the Konigin-Astrid-Rennen, Belgium in July 1938 and Dinard in August 1938.
(http://www.sturmfalke.info/images/209v4.jpg)
The impressive Me209. Set the world speed record in 1939 (469.22 mph). A record it was to hold for 30 years!
Originally posted by Angus
And yet, During the BoB, the LW runs on 87 oct, - and a good bit longer, while the RAF FC is on 100 oct.
All about the stock they had and not whether it was technically possible then?
The Germans were using C3 during the battle of Britain.
-
And yet, During the BoB, the LW runs on 87 oct, - and a good bit longer, while the RAF FC is on 100 oct.
As the allied report points out Angus, allied fuel ratings and German fuel ratings do not equate.
Read paragraph two under the circled portion:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1120872933_c3fuelspeculations.jpg)
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Ok. Supermarine, armed with a RR engine are doing 340 mph on the deck on long duration as an average in 1931. I think the engine was running on some funny juices, and pumped out power in excess 2000 hp+
Same was done with a production line Spitfire with a production line engine in the late 30's. London-Paris and back it was.
So, I think the Brits pretty much knew about all sorts of fiddling with fuels by the start of WW2.
The Germans, as far as I see, have 2 scores quite important. One is the 209, - the Speed it achieved is phenomenal, - but it is a custom aircraft and not a production line fighter, - it's a RACER.
Second is their technique of synthetic fuel production, - but out of ill necessity perhaps? Well, it worked.
Oh, btw, I've seen an airborne 108 Taifun, - nice little birdie ;)
(http://plane.passion-pilots.com/images/obj/281.jpg)
BTW, never heard that C3 was used in the BoB.
-
The Heinkel He100 was a fighter, and it set the record (before being usurped by the Me209) of 463.92 mph in 1939.
(http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/he100-3.jpg)
-
So, I think the Brits pretty much knew about all sorts of fiddling with fuels by the start of WW2.
Hey Angus!
Sure they did. No claims are being made about British fuel AFAIK.
Same was done with a production line Spitfire with a production line engine in the late 30's. London-Paris and back it was.
Are you refering to this aircraft on display at the 1939 Brussel's Aero Show?
It's the factory's "Speed" Spitfire production machine:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126013193_speedspitfire1.jpg)
Here it is on the runway, nice prop!:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126013261_speedspitfire2.jpg)
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Yup, that's the one.
Blue I belive.
TY for the info, didn't know what happened to it.
Anyway, that German fuel availability is enough to keep ones head spinning.
Some notes of interest though is that they should have been pretty well stocked in 1940, - getting vast amounts from the USSR and Roumania. It would have became worse as soon as they invaded the USSR.
Then, oil is needed for more than just the airforce.
To save oil, quite much of the Wehrmacht's stuff was actually horse-drawn.
BTW, our old vet is an ex horse-vet from the German cavalry on the eastern front! Almost 90, quite alive and kicking!
-
Hey Angus!
You are correct about the color so this must be the aircraft.
While a 2000hp "production" motor using a special fuel blend was considered the plane flew with a 2100hp modified engine.
Both motors used special fuel containing 20 % methonal.
I think it was "production" in so far as a NASCAR racer is "stock".
To save oil, quite much of the Wehrmacht's stuff was actually horse-drawn.
I think most armies were horsedrawn in the late 1930's.
The last US Army Calvary charge was on December 1941 by the 26th Cavalry of the Philippine Scouts.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Hey Crumpp :)
Horsedrawn actually applies well into WW2 from the German side, and a lot by the Russians. (Source, Len Deighton's "Blood, Tears and Folly" and some more)
In the latest parts of WW2, the LW also used oxen to pull aircraft around the ramps. This was AFAIK already in 1944.
Now, a wee more on that blue Spitty...
At 3200 rpm and boost +28.5 running on some schneider juice, this Merlin II crossed 2000hp. The juice was gasoline, benzol and methanol (20-60-20) and leaded too. The aircraft was no. 48 of the line. This was flying in November 1938.
The juices restricted engine life of course, which is rather logical, right? This one ran on 2000 hp+ at "some minutes at a time".
-
Hmm, Angus, it may well be the Brits were toying with 2000HP engines before WW2. Obviously it was not ready for production, otherwise it would be stupid not to use it... toying and ready for industrial tolerances are two VERY different things.
As for racers, you might want to take a look into the stuff. The thing that pumped the 109R/209V1 ahead was doing 2700 HP in 1939 - just to mock, the Speed Spitfire project were cancelled as seen futile to continoue after that. :p The previous Mtt racer was a true stock 109E with improvements, did iirc 655kph? or about 400mph.But that was not the only record, 109s set a number of - long trip - records b4 that, crossing the alps etc.
And your statements re100 octane, err, there`s less than convincing evidence that the FC would only run on that during the BoB, and the LW used the C-2/C-3 at exactly the same time, from June/July. Developments started much earlier though... the 601N was started well before the war. Moreover, if we can believe the Fischer-Tropsch arhives, 100oct/C-3 made up 2/3s of their avgas prod.
Wehrmacht horses, true, and the simple reason the whole army was too vast for the industry`s capacity. The BEF may have been fully mechanized, but it was just 300 000 odd men. The Wehrmacht was 6 million+... ditto for Russians, even after they got shiploads of L-L trucks, Ivan was still advancing on foot. Too many Ivans I guess.
PS : Bad points for Horrido! for not posting pics of the Mercedes SSK. :D
-
Hehe:
"Hmm, Angus, it may well be the Brits were toying with 2000HP engines before WW2. Obviously it was not ready for production, otherwise it would be stupid not to use it... toying and ready for industrial tolerances are two VERY different things.
As for racers, you might want to take a look into the stuff. The thing that pumped the 109R/209V1 ahead was doing 2700 HP in 1939 - just to mock, the Speed Spitfire project were cancelled as seen futile to continoue after that. The previous Mtt racer was a true stock 109E with improvements, did iirc 655kph? or about 400mph.But that was not the only record, 109s set a number of - long trip - records b4 that, crossing the alps etc."
The Engine, once again was a production line Merlin II being modded. But you are right, for field use this was not practical.
I know about the power of the 209, heard figures close to 3000 hp's actually, - but I have never heard that it was in any way a production line aircraft, and therefor never seen anything to support that. It was however published in that way originally for propoganda reasons.
The Speed Spitfire was basically cancelled because it was seen that it would not break the absolute speed record (Wonder what it would have done with 2700 hp though), - anyway IMHO it would have needed a different wing for the job. It was however noticed that the aircraft designed around a much smaller engine still handled very well with that amount of speed and power.
Oh, and BTW, this is really the first time I ever hear of C3 being used by the LW in the BoB and I have never seen any documents about it. About the use of 100 octs however there seems to be enough data. So, data?
Then for the rest, what happened to that 209? Is it still in one piece? did it cover many flights? It's a looker anyway ;)
-
Speaking of performance vs. power: The Bf108A did 320 mph on only 250 hp. That's pretty nice I think.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
As for racers, you might want to take a look into the stuff. The thing that pumped the 109R/209V1 ahead was doing 2700 HP in 1939 - just to mock, the Speed Spitfire project were cancelled as seen futile to continoue after that. :p The previous Mtt racer was a true stock 109E with improvements, did iirc 655kph? or about 400mph.But that was not the only record, 109s set a number of - long trip - records b4 that, crossing the alps etc.
Moreover, if we can believe the Fischer-Tropsch arhives, 100oct/C-3 made up 2/3s of their avgas prod.
The 109E racer(Bf109V13) was as stock as the Spitfire High Speed a/c. The wings and fuselage were puttied and polished. A racer canopy was fitted. No guns fitted. The V13 topped out at 610.950kph.
Sure you don't mean the Bf108 for the distance records?
2700hp was test stand hp. In record trim, the DB601ARJ only put out 2300hp and could only run for 30 minutes before self destructing because of over heating of the coolant and oil. It could only stay in the air for ~35 minutes while the R-R 'R' engine had to float at a bouy, in the S6B for 6 hours, before flying for ~250 miles. The R-R 'R' engine, based on the Buzzard, in the S6B in 1931 put out 2783hp on the test stand (70" Hg, 60% methonal, 30% benzole, 10% acetone plus lead).
Here we go again with a general statement. :rolleyes: How many litres is 2/3rds?
Horrido, 320mph is 514kph.
-
And?
-
Originally posted by Horrido!
And?
That is ~100kph slower than the V13's record speed, set with ~6 times the hp. :eek:
The Bf108A did ~320kph on 250hp.
-
Ok, I guess that makes more sense. Thanks.
Still 200 mph on 250 hp is pretty good.
-
well, isn't the thumb rule that you need 4x the powe to double the speed for the same object, that is. ??
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Which is exactly what I said. Unfortunately the Germans changed to composition of C3. Simply research the results of allies changing fuel composition:
....
Unless of course you wish us to believe that in the 4 days from when the report was typed (19 June 1942) and Fabers plane fell into British hands (23 June 1942), the Germans were able to refine and transport sufficient quantities of improved alkane ratio fuel to the frontline Geschwaders.
Rather silly if you think about it.
I don't see your point, the RAE tests were done with improved version of the C3 (1943 version). There was no difference in rich mixture running between C3 and british 100 octane and slight difference was found in weak mixture.
The changes in allied fuels have nothing to with this.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Maybe so however none of those aircraft are fighter varients. They were crashed or landed by mistake during the "Terrorflieger" Campaign. IIRC, they are FW190G's. Completely different aircraft and motor set up from an FW190A fighter.
All three planes mentioned (PE882, PN999 and PM679) were captured intact, all landed to British airfields by error. After removing the racks these were basicly same as fighter variants. Same engine, same airframe etc. coming from same production lines.
Originally posted by Crumpp
However they did not have enough C3 fuel for flight-testing. They did not even have enough to get a decent survey of the fuel composition as noted in the last section of the first page:
Actually the report says that the Germans did not utilize the potential of the C3 in their engines ie the BMEP of the engines did not reach the BMEP potential of the fuel. Basicly it means that fuel was not the limiting factor of the German engines (at least 1943) but more probably something else like cooling (internal and/or charge) or mechanical issues.
Notable thing is that the report notes difference in the weak mixture rating just like found out by RAE in above mentioned tests.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Yes. You can find it at the NASM archives. It is in multiple documents actually.
Could you be a bit more specific? So far 14 blade cooler has been used as a certain way to regonice the 801TS. There were 801TS engines also with 12 blade cooler but there should be no other versions with 14 blade cooler (at least not in production planes).
IMHO photo evidence is the best way prove this kind of things.
Originally posted by Crumpp
How much sense does it make to keep a piece of equipment that lowers your planes performance dramatically?
The BMW 801D2 was originally fitted with 12 blade cooler so there was no reason to keep some kind of equipment which was not fitted (like 14 blade cooler).
gripen
-
From Horrido:
"Still 200 mph on 250 hp is pretty good."
Hehe, yes indeed. Very good even for todays standards.
I was at the stick of a Socata the other day. With 4 persons on board and ample fuel, we flew at 140 kts with a 200 hp engine and a CS.
-
I don't see your point, the RAE tests were done with improved version of the C3 (1943 version). There was no difference in rich mixture running between C3 and british 100 octane and slight difference was found in weak mixture.
I seriously doubt it Gripen. Why don't you post the entire report or just the date and we can just completely clear the issue up.
The timeline is completely off for Faber's engine. That engine went to the Americans AFAIK. Specifically the Wright Aero engine Company for detailed analysis in 1942.
After removing the racks these were basicly same as fighter variants. Same engine, same airframe etc. coming from same production lines.
Wrong on many levels. Quite a few differences in the design and they did not come off the same production lines. The G series was built exclusively by Focke Wulf and had it's own production runs. While many parts are interchangeable some key components are not. The G series required the F 602 (G1), F 69 (G2, 3), or F613 (G8) power egg. While the F series in an emergency, could exchange power eggs for the F600 or F66 of the A series, the G series was expressly forbidden to use any other set up.
You cannot put a G series back to Air Superiority fighter performance without major changes to the engine and aircraft.
Besides the wing racks, the most significant differences in the G series are the engine set up. First the internal intakes are larger and the cooling gills were not adjustable. The engine itself was equipped with different plugs and Kommandgerat settings. A different ignition harness was used and the G lacked the pressurized ignition harness of the A series.
It also lacked a synthetic rubber seal around the engine in the cowling found in the A series. This seal in all likelihood reduced cooling drag significantly as well. Rubber was strategic material that was in short supply in Germany. Although the German rubber was synthetic, it still required latex in the formula.
The G series performance was so dismal that Focke Wulf removed the cowling armament in an attempt to reduce drag. This helped but the aircraft was still significantly slower than the Anton. The G series did climb at a steeper angle and slower speed than the Anton as well.
Focke Wulf also continued to experiment with various wing rack designs to further reduce drag. In the FW-190G8 we see the ETC 503 racks introduced just as the FW-190F8. Cowling MG's reappear early in production until finally all FW-190G8's are redesignated FW-190F8.
The G series was an air tractor, set up to haul loads long distances and not a pure performance set up like the air superiority fighter variants. No amount of ballasting or removal of wing racks will make it a fighter.
There were 801TS engines also with 12 blade cooler but there should be no other versions with 14 blade cooler (at least not in production planes).
"White 1" was not equipped with the rubber seal and mounted a 14 bladed Lufterrad using a BMW801D2 in the F66 power egg. "Black 3" has the seal and so don't some of our other FW-190A8's.
Actually the report says that the Germans did not utilize the potential of the C3 in their engines ie the BMEP of the engines did not reach the BMEP potential of the fuel.
Yes it does say that in the rich settings.
It also says that C 3 fuel was equal to the allied fuels and that the allies did not understand the method the Germans were rating their fuels.
It also says that allied ratings were not direct equivalents.
After the war, the NACA did quite a bit of research into the properties of high contents of aromatics, paraffin’s, and alkanes for high antiknock resistant fuels. These became standard in post war high performance aviation fuels.
The allies knew very little about them during the war. In fact they could not even identify the antiknock agents used in C3:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1120872887_alliedantiknockagents.jpg)
And they solely relied on the octane number, which as stated by the allied petrochemist, does not give a true reading of the fuel rating.
Again, fuel is an issue with our engine rebuild we will have to overcome.
The changes in allied fuels have nothing to with this.
If you were not so blinded you would see that they have everything to do with the issue.
They simply show how a small change in fuel composition can have far-reaching and unforeseen negative performance consequences.
It is absurd to think the allies could stay abreast of every change the Germans made to their fuel or be able to run captured aircraft at the same level of performance the trained user's could.
Foreign tests of captured equipment simply reveal the "at least" performance of a design.
I don't see your point, the RAE tests were done with improved version of the C3 (1943 version).
Prove it. Your making the claim and frankly the timeline does not match up at all with the history of Faber’s aircraft.
Additionally you seem to be claiming that the Germans stopped attempting to improve their fuel in 1943? That these were the last changes made and all efforts to increase performance stopped.
Not only is it not true, it does not pass the common sense test.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
I'll bet though that the Germans had problems providing enough of their delicate juice during the late war. Same goes with many sorely needed materials, such as the rubber and many alloys.
Still the desigh and technique are impressive.
-
I'll bet though that the Germans had problems providing enough of their delicate juice during the late war.
Not really until December of 1944 did things become critical for them.
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm#taoo
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I seriously doubt it Gripen. Why don't you post the entire report or just the date and we can just completely clear the issue up.
The report is dated April 1943 and entire report can be found from the PRO among BMW 801 papers (I don't know the exact reference). Below is one image to verify the specific gravity of the used C3 fuel.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/852_1126208325_07-09-2005-kv.jpg)
BTW RAE did test run several BMW 801s in test stand.
Originally posted by Crumpp
You cannot put a G series back to Air Superiority fighter performance without major changes to the engine and aircraft.
The PE882 and PM679 were Fw 190A-4/U8 and both featured cowling mgs (according to report and pictures) ie the power egg was Fw 190A version.
Direct quote from the RAE report on the PE882:
"Generally speaking, this is the same aircraft as previously tested"
The PN999 was a Fw 190A-5/U8 but I have not seen good enough pictures to check if it had cowling guns.
Originally posted by Crumpp
First the internal intakes are larger and the cooling gills were not adjustable.
Actually all three mentioned planes had the adjustable cooling gills (can be verified from pictures as well as from the report) in addition the EB-104 tested in Wright Field featured the adjustable cooling gills as well (mentioned several times in the report). It should be noted that Armin Faber's plane had no adjustable cooling gills.
Originally posted by Crumpp
"White 1" was not equipped with the rubber seal and mounted a 14 bladed Lufterrad using a BMW801D2 in the F66 power egg. "Black 3" has the seal and so don't some of our other FW-190A8's.
There is a picture in the White 1 site featuring a 14 blade cooler but what is the engine? Text claims 801G but that's unlikely, seem to be not the original engine of the White 1?
Originally posted by Crumpp
If you were not so blinded you would see that they have everything to do with the issue.
All I see is questionable quoting from your side.
gripen
-
The PE882 and PM679 were Fw 190A-4/U8 and both featured cowling mgs (according to report and pictures) ie the power egg was Fw 190A version.
FW-190A4/U8 is the FW-190G1:
http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/variants.htm
So your assumption is wrong. Common mistake made by those who do not know the design.
The report is dated April 1943
Given that the density does not change in the fuel inspite of major changes in the composition:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1125957761_c3octane.jpg)
And the last change the allies were aware of occurred in summer 1943:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126211999_c3changes.jpg)
I would put my chances of winning the lottery higher than the allies chances of stubbling on the correct fuel settings for the BMW801 based on this bench test.
If we look at the USN test conducted in Feb '44 we can see rough running is noted:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126213533_page1.jpg)
Last sentence on the page:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126213890_page5.jpg)
Facts are the RAE characterized the BMW801 as a "rough running" motor and felt it was normal for the type.
The RAE kept close tabs on the USN trials and greatly assited the United States in the analysis of the data.
In fact they corrected the report offering their experience. Here is what they had to say about the roll rate vs the Corsair:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126213717_fw190rollratevscorsair.gif)
On a side note - Further proof the USN trials were conducted with an FW-190 with out of adjustment ailerons.
The RAE had nothing to say about the "rough running".
Your assumption that the RAE permantely solved the "rough running" problem and were able to develop full power out of the BMW801 series simply does not make sense given the facts.
They solved it for a brief moment in time. However circumstances did not allow them to take full advantage. They never flight-tested the one motor that they appear to have gotten to run properly. By their next opportunity both allied and germans fuels had changed again putting them back to square one.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
So your assumption is wrong.
Hm... I'm not making assumptions, all I have said about these planes can be verified from the reports and pictures. As an example a quote on cooling gills:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/852_1126218003_09-09-2005-ia.jpg)
It proves that you are wrong.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Given that the density does not change in the fuel....
All I have said above is that the documents prove that at least in the RAE tests the BMW 801s did run well once the problems were solved; there is documented proof as well as couple pilots comments. The documents also prove that the fuels were right for the timeframe, spring 1943.
The US tests are other tests and were done with different fuels (only the Wright Field report claims used fuel, grade 140) and they had much less experience with the 801 than RAE.
gripen
-
Text claims 801G but that's unlikely, seem to be not the original engine of the White 1?
Of course we are not rebuilding the original motor.
BMW801's in flight worthy rebuildable condition are some what rare, you think?
Very, very little of any restored flying WWII Warbird is original. Most parts simply are not airworthy after 60 years.
In fact our biggest problem is reproducing 1940's tool marks with modern machine tools. Modern tooling is simply too accurate. 18 out of 19 wing spars were recently rejected because of this!
A BMW801G was the engine for a Ju88 bomber. Crankcase is the same but the internals are different. We are rebuilding it as a BMW801D2.
The motor is only laying right here:
http://www.white1foundation.org/photos/recovery4.jpg
We have it at the shop.
You can clearly see it is a BMW801D2 if you know what to look for in motor ID.
Actually all three mentioned planes had the adjustable cooling gills (can be verified from pictures as well as from the report) in addition the EB-104 tested in Wright Field featured the adjustable cooling gills as well (mentioned several times in the report). It should be noted that Armin Faber's plane had no adjustable cooling gills.
This is really getting tiresome Gripen.
The G series had cowl flaps:
http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/cowlflaps12.jpg
It lacked the cowl flap drive:
http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/umlenkgetriebe.jpg
The gills are not adjustable from the cockpit. Check out were the cowl flap drive control is in the cockpit of an FW190A. Then look in a G series cockpit and look were the two drop tank release leavers are located.
To spell it out, the cowl flap drive was removed to make room in the G series.
Later G's, depending on the trager, got a cowl flap drive back.
It pushes and pulls on the rod linkage opening and closing the flaps.
All I have said above is that the documents prove that at least in the RAE tests the BMW 801s did run well once the problems were solved; there is documented proof as well as couple pilots comments. The documents also prove that the fuels were right for the timeframe, spring 1943.
They prove the RAE ran a BMW801 smoothly on a bench once and never test flew it. Due to fuel changes and the continued "rough running" found in allied test flights it has no bearing on future tests except to you Gripen.
And that correctly set up the BMW801 was not a rough running engine which is what the FW190 veterans claim.
Nothing else.
If the RAE says they had adjustable cowl flap drives on an FW190G1, they misidentified the 190 I suspect.
Adjustable cowl flaps did not come out until the FW190A5 so it is unlikely the RAE was testing FW190A4/U1's.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Should read FW-190A4/U8's not FW-190A4/U1's.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
This is really getting tiresome Gripen.
The adjustable cooling gills were present in the Fw 190 starting from late production A-4. While Fw 190G series was developed from the Fw 190A with U8 kit, these versions are not identical.
Regarding the rest, not much reason to continue, you just can't never admit that you are wrong.
gripen
-
He's not wrong Gripen. You obviously are.
-
I have no doubt what the 190 could do on a good day (full engine performance and perfect trimming/aileron setting).
But as with other types and other airforces and different situations, you could expect some variety in combat.
Crumpp summed this up nicely when he said that foreign testing would usually show what the aircraft was AT LEAST capable of doing.
Just my 2 cents....;)
-
While Fw 190G series was developed from the Fw 190A with U8 kit, these versions are not identical.
The U8 was blanket redesignated as the G series.
http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/variants.htm
The prototype was the FW-190A5/U13.
The FW-190A4/U8 was not a prototype. It was the production FW190G1.
However if the RAE were adjusting cooling flaps on an FW190A4/U8 or an FW190G1, they must have ordered them from the manufacturer since they obviously know more about the design than the builders.
My question is simple. What part number did they use? :
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126269458_gcoolingflaps.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126269501_gseriescoolingflaps.jpg)
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Horrido!
He's not wrong Gripen. You obviously are.
Hm... As noted above the RAE report on the PE882 directly says that the cooling gills are adjustable from cockpit. The Wright Field report on the EB-104 (FTR-1102-ND) says also directly that the cooling gills on that plane are adjustable (also the performance graphs in the report claim cooling flap position, closed for speed test, 1/2 open for climb test).
So please tell me what should I believe?
It's pretty much irrelevant what should the configuration of the supposed standard Fw 190G or what ever if we know with 100% certainty that these tested planes (EB-104 and PE882, planes used for speed testing) had adjustable cooling gills.
gripen
-
It's just a sheet of metal anyway ;)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Crumpp summed this up nicely when he said that foreign testing would usually show what the aircraft was AT LEAST capable of doing.
Just my 2 cents....;)
And this what our dear old Kurfie can't grasp.:eek: :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The FW-190A4/U8 was not a prototype. It was the production FW190G1.
According to Baugher (http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2004/11/stuff_eng_fw190_01.htm) it was a prototype:
"Fw 190A-4/U8 - long range fighter-bomber with two drop tanks of 300 litre capacity each, mounted under the wings (on the VTr-Ju 87 racks produced by Weserflug company, with duralumin fairings); bombs were placed on the under-fuselage ETC 501 rack. In an attempt to reduce weight, only two MG 151/20 E cannons were retained. This modification was a prototype of a new fighter-bomber Fw 190G version and its first variant (G-1) simultaneously. There also existed a transitional variant similar to the U8 (probably in one copy) with modernized V. Mtt-Schlos type racks for underwing fuel tanks; armament: 2x1 MG 17 and 2x1 MG 151/20E."
gripen
-
It's pretty much irrelevant what should the configuration of the supposed standard Fw 190G or what ever if we know with 100% certainty that these tested planes (EB-104 and PE882, planes used for speed testing) had adjustable cooling gills.
That is the rub, Gripen, that strikes at the heart of these test legitmacy.
Take a look at EB-104. In some sections it refered too as an FW-190A4. Others an FW-190A5 or sometimes an FW190G. All in the same file!
Facts are allies did not know the nomenclature of the varient they were testing much less the operational details on how to maintain the aircraft or convert the engine set up. They certainly did not know the design differences other than the obvious external ones.
It is just silly to hold them up as the expert and final word on the design's performance.
According to Baugher it was a prototype:
Well that internet modeler site certainly knows more than the Luftwaffe and Focke Wulf on the FW190 too.
That is a great site with quite a bit of correct information. However it does make some mistakes.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Well, I have not said anything regarding the performance reached with these captured planes; anyway the PE882 and EB-104 seem to have been quite bit faster than the MP499, most probably the engines were running better and the drag configuration might have been also better.
What I have said is that Mr. Crumpp's statements, like these planes were crashed or cooling gills were fixed, are wrong. The situation is exactly same as what I said about the claims in 109 myths article regarding the RAE report on AE479.
Regarding the internet sources, which is better, my source in the net or Mr. Crumpp's source in the net? The point here is that I'm refering primary sources on these planes (PE882 and EB-104).
gripen
-
Regarding the internet sources, which is better, my source in the net or Mr. Crumpp's source in the net?
Bookie just has the correct information. My info is coming from the Beanstandungen.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Bookie just has the correct information.
What if Baugher has the correct information? Mr. Crumpp's opinion on this might be a bit biased BTW.
gripen
-
Oh, dear.
On a flip side, are there some good graphs or datasheets around from properly adjusted 190's?
I mean, when it comes to i.e. the Spitfire, I have a lot of data on many variants of many models, - when it comes to 109's it goes more scarce (particularly looking for 109E's) and on the 190 very little.
So, to keep comparisons civilized, maybe look at the figures of real 190's vs the same models that the allied tested? If there are any.
-
This modification was a prototype of a new fighter-bomber Fw 190G version and its first variant (G-1) simultaneously.
Baugher is not really wrong in this case Gripen.
The wording is just akward.
Facts are the cooling gills did not exist for the FW190A4 or the G1.
At least according to the Luftwaffe and Focke Wulf.
The point here is that I'm refering primary sources on these planes (PE882 and EB-104).
The British however say differently that the gills did exist for the FW190A4.
BTW can you explain to us how either an FW-190A4/U8 or an FW-190G1 can have adjustable cooling gills when the Germans say the parts do not exist?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126269458_gcoolingflaps.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126269501_gseriescoolingflaps.jpg)
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Baugher is not really wrong in this case Gripen.
The wording is just akward.
Facts are the cooling gills did not exist for the FW190A4 or the G1.
Direct quote from Baugher (http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2004/11/stuff_eng_fw190_01.htm) :
" Fw 190A-4 could be distinguished by the following external features:
* Fixed cooling slots behind the engine (except for final production batches which were fitted with adjustable slots of the A-5 version)"
And the facts are that there is plenty of pictures of showing the PE882 with adjustable cooling gills as well as above posted report.
gripen
-
Again Gripen,
How do you explain a part that is not available according to the manufacturer?
Others can make whatever claim they wish, facts are Focke Wulf Bremen says the part is not available for the type.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Why don't you just read the quote from Baugher, it gives you a direct answer:
"except for final production batches which were fitted with adjustable slots of the A-5 version"
gripen
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Again Gripen,
How do you explain a part that is not available according to the manufacturer?
Others can make whatever claim they wish, facts are Focke Wulf Bremen says the part is not available for the type.
All the best,
Crumpp
Maybe you have an early parts list Crumpp. Did not sometime through the A-4's production did it not receive adjutable gills?
-
There is plenty of pictures of PE882 in the LEMB (http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=655) showing the adjustable gills clearly.
gripen
-
W.nr.7155
Certainly is an anomoly. The WerkNummer does not correspond to any FW190A4/U8's.
http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/werkn.htm
Given that it is an SKG 10 aircraft conducting night bombing of England, I would say the RAE got ahold of one of the few special construction birds designed for that purpose.
It probably started life as an FW-190A4/U8 before it was modified.
Certainly is not a fighter varient.
The engines were different. For example different wiring harnesses were mounted:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126300883_wiringharness1.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126300925_wiringharness2.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126300961_wiringharness3.jpg)
Lets check out a portion of BMW's instructions for their engines to Focke Wulf:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126300832_differentmotors.jpg)
In 1943, the FW190 was using 6 different motor set ups.
Think of the 801 series like the "Dodge Hemi" of the Luftwaffe. Same motor with a variety of set ups and performance.
http://www.allpar.com/mopar/new-mopar-hemi.html
All the best,
Crumpp
-
The last A-4 production batch made by Fieseler contains WNr. 7155. Previous batch contains WNr. 5843 ie PM679 which also featured adjustable cooling gills (picture in Butler's book).
Power unit was basicly similar in all RAE tested Fw 190s (all had 801D2).
gripen
-
Power unit was basicly similar in all RAE tested Fw 190s (all had 801D2).
Sure it was Gripen. Again Focke Wulf and BMW do not know what they are talking about.
The document is refering to the BMW801D2 and is dated November 1943.
Maybe you have an early parts list Crumpp. Did not sometime through the A-4's production did it not receive adjutable gills?
Hey Milo,
Sorry I missed this. The parts list is from 1944, it is dated at the bottom.
It is not in any of the Beanstandungen FW190's to use the adjustable gills on the FW190A4 I have seen.
Post war historians are conflicting in their views as well.
I would say using them would make perfect sense but for one important detail. The panels are of different length. It means retooling for a limited production on a superceded variant.
Now what does fit is the special construction night bomber varients of that SKG 10 used. Seems very likely as they were the only unit to recieve this construct, the aircraft came from SKG 10 and was bombing at night.
The gills would have helped with the FW190's large amount of exhaust glare by keeping the engine compartment air from blowing the exhaust flames away from the fuselage blinding the pilot.
The flame dampeners help tremendously but FW190A was never very popular in the Nachtgeschwaders. FW190A5 and later are much more common as night fighters than the FW190A4 and lower.
Once you tool up for that, then finish building the rest with the gills.
However, the question then becomes, How does a Geschwader TO get replacement parts for his FW190A4 with cooling gills?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Now what does fit is the special construction night bomber varients of that SKG 10 used. Seems very likely as they were the only unit to recieve this construct, the aircraft came from SKG 10 and was bombing at night.
The PE882 and PM679 were standard late production Fw 190A-4s with U8 kit, all late production A-4s featured adjustable cooling gills regardless the use (the part is simply the part for the A-5 as noted by Baugher). The rest is plain speculation by Mr. Crumpp who just can't realize the facts and will apparently continue this for ever.
gripen
-
the part is simply the part for the A-5 as noted by Baugher
Hey Gripen,
You do realize they extended the fuselage on the FW901A5?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126332028_fw190a5.jpg)
That means the cooling gill panel would have to be shorter for an FW190A4.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126269458_gcoolingflaps.jpg)
Now, other serial production parts that made the change between varients are listed.
The cowl MG cover for example:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126331534_mgcover.jpg)
Is listed along with the different part numbers for the variants so that the Geschwader TO can order the correct part from the Luftwaffe's inventory.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126331619_mgcover2.jpg)
Notice the absence of numbers for the cooling flap panel:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126269501_gseriescoolingflaps.jpg)
Now what you do not find listed are special production or prototypes. You cannot order a Hirth supercharger for example or wingtanks for a Ta152C.
There must have been very few FW-190A4's produced with gills for the Luftwaffe to have not assigned it a supply code.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Hi,
realy, arent you all talking about smal changings which often found place in planes, long before this planes got a new number or sign?
And if this new plane, lets say the 190G did appear in a official note, the 190G at the front already was more a 190F or something else.
Its already difficult to keep track to the allied development of their planes and the exact changines, regarding german planes this is more speculation and often, even and specialy cause sources are available, its subjective.
190A4/U8 or 190G, prototype or not, oh my god! The 109G6AS and G10 are also more K4´s than 109G´s, or are the early K4´s with the early engine G10´s??
Regarding the speed and other performences.
To be able to value the exact speed of a plane, you need to know how the pilot did test it, unfortunately we often dont know this.
Here i dont talk about the engine and radiator flaps etc settings!
A plane with a very very smooth dive is much faster than the plane with a very very smooth climb. The different of speed will be even bigger with a plane with relative high weight but relative smal drag(109, P51, P39, P38, P47, FW190).
Therefor its important to know if the Vmax tests are made decelerated or accelerated, how long the strait flight was and if the pilot rather did tend to keep a smooth dive or a smooth climb(exact levelflight is pretty not impossible).
Therfore its quiet strange to get in dispute cause 20km/h.
Regarding sources from the internet, i dont understand why some people talk that bad about it.
Most books and articles i know base on same or similar sources and only cause they are on paper and you did pay for it, they dont be a bit better. Its rather the other way around, cause once at home, they cant get a update, therefore the once written mistake can get to be a Myth, cause always someone will refer to this wrong book! (the 'kit' Carson article is a good example: http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/Carson/Carson.html ).
Realy, the 109 article on the virtual pilots page is what it is, it shal make people thinking, nothing more nothing less.
Looks like it did the job very well. :D
Greetings, Knegel
P.S.: Nice documents! :)
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
You do realize they extended the fuselage on the FW901A5?
The image posted above shows actually that extension is front of cooling gill panel and extension is not part of the cooling gill panel. Besides the pictures show that the adjustable cooling gills were there so it was not a problem to fit them there.
Originally posted by Crumpp
There must have been very few FW-190A4's produced with gills for the Luftwaffe to have not assigned it a supply code.
Baugher and Beaman note that the late Fw 190A-4 production batches got A-5 style cooling gills (which had a supply code) and this is supported by pictures of late production A-4s.
Below is yet another Fw 190A4/U8 with adjustable cooling gills, this time in LW service:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/852_1126359896_10-09-05rr.jpg)
Originally posted by Knegel
realy, arent you all talking about smal changings which often found place in planes, long before this planes got a new number or sign?
And if this new plane, lets say the 190G did appear in a official note, the 190G at the front already was more a 190F or something else.
Infact I don't know what is Mr. Crumpp's point now, it is the fact that the these A-4s tested by RAE (PE882 and PM679) featured adjustable cooling gills unlike what Mr. Crumpp stated earlier. How many got them in the LW service is pretty much irrelevant for this discussion, apparently quite many based on evidence.
gripen
-
The image posted above shows actually that extension is front of cooling gill panel and extension is not part of the cooling gill panel. Besides the pictures show that the adjustable cooling gills were there so it was not a problem to fit them there.
Gripen,
You do know I am on the Board of Director's for the "White 1 Foundation"?
I don't care what it "Looks Like" in a book. The real thing is one piece of sheet metal over a supporting frame.
http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/cowlflaps12.jpg
Baugher and Beaman note that the late Fw 190A-4 production batches got A-5 style cooling gills (which had a supply code) and this is supported by pictures of late production A-4s.
Primary documentation says different, Gripen. It is posted above.
Please explain how a Geschwader TO is going to order replacement gills for his FW190A4?
He doesn't. He makes them at the Geschwader or he puts on the old style.
Some special production machines it appears got gills.
Below is yet another Fw 190A4/U8 with adjustable cooling gills, this time in LW service:
It's an FW190A5 night bomber version. The fuselage extension forward of the wing root is unmistakable. Not to mention the MTT tragers.
Wow, I bet you have been able to identify a plethora of FW190A4's with cooling gills. I think you have to be able to identify what you are looking at before making claims based on visual identification.
You are correct in that the cooling gill issue is a sideline.
You still have not explained how the allies got around the different engine set up of the G series?
Read the last paragraph and explain it!
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126300832_differentmotors.jpg)
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Oh, goodness.
No 190's were the same then?
From Crumpp:
"Please explain how a Geschwader TO is going to order replacement gills for his FW190A4?
He doesn't. He makes them at the Geschwader or he puts on the old style."
Exactly that. No perfect world for the old LW. ;)
-
You are correct Angus. FW190's are not all the same.
Problem with the gills though is that earlier varients have serial production parts listed and they are in the supply system.
The adjustable gills for the FW190A4 are simply not in the supply system. Therefore it is unlikely they were a serial production part. More likely they were a KB run. Keinebau orders are unusual but not unheard of in German aircraft and represent a very limited non-standard production of a prototype or specialized aircraft.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
You do know I am on the Board of Director's for the "White 1 Foundation"?
Yes, you have made such claim. But you know, we are all anonymous here.
Originally posted by Crumpp
I don't care what it "Looks Like" in a book. The real thing is one piece of sheet metal over a supporting frame.
The RAE tested Fw 190A-4s (as well as the EB-104 and PN999) had this real thing and it was adjustable from cockpit.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Primary documentation says different, Gripen. It is posted above.
Some how you can't understand that a primary document might be incomplete. There is a lot of evidence that the late production A-4s had adjustable cooling gills. As an example Beaman (http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/fw190jb_1.htm) says:
"The late production models had the cowling slots changed from open to closable with the rectangular shape like the A-5."
And he goes even further and claims under A-5 section:
"Some A-4s were retrofitted with this feature."
I'd say that you should not fix your opinion based on just one document when the evidence is against it. Maybe you should change your attitude and look for the real answer instead making endless speculations. As an example Mr. Beaman posts frequently to 12 O'clock high (http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/) and might give you some sources.
Originally posted by Crumpp
It's an FW190A5 night bomber version. The fuselage extension forward of the wing root is unmistakable.
My mistake, I believed the text behind the picture. My apologies, I should have noted extension between wing and cowl.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Wow, I bet you have been able to identify a plethora of FW190A4's with cooling gills.
The cases of the PE882 and PM679 should be clear, adjustable cooling gills are visible in the pictures and identity of the planes is known.
Originally posted by Crumpp
You still have not explained how the allies got around the different engine set up of the G series?
Actually the Fw 190s in the RAE were A series planes and there is no reported problems after MP499 in RAE (and even that engine did run well after small changes). There is instead claims like "purred smoothly as it ran" by Brown and "the engine behaved perfectly" by other pilot (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/pro_190_survey_c_3.jpg).
gripen
-
The cases of the PE882 and PM679 should be clear, adjustable cooling gills are visible in the pictures and identity of the planes is known.
Actually all of these aircraft were captured within weeks off one another. All from mistaken landings at night and came from SKG10.
From "Wings of the Luftwaffe" by Capt. Eric Brown:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126390018_nichtbomben.jpg)
PE882 - landed in error at RAF West Malling during night operations on 17 April 1943.
PM679 - landed in error at RAF Manston on 20 May 1943 during night operations.
PN999 - Landed in error at RAF Manston on 20 June 1943.
Too bad they were not air superiority fighter versions. According to Focke Wulf and BMW, the motors are not the same as per their instructions to Luftwaffe personnel.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126300832_differentmotors.jpg)
But I guess, in your mind Gripen, the British are the experts in the FW190 not Focke Wulf or BMW.
The document I posted goes on to spell out the engine differences.
Eric Browns comments on the FW190G1 nachtbomber varient engine running refers to the "start" settings, Gripen. Not the entire throttle range:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126390054_enginestart.jpg)
The middle manifold pressure ran fine on all engines captured by the allies. Trouble was only experienced at the edge of the operating pressures, idle and emergency power.
My mistake, I believed the text behind the picture. My apologies, I should have noted extension between wing and cowl.
Yes Gripen. Don't believe everything you read in a book. Most books on the FW190 will say it had the same motor developing the same power throughout the lifetime of the design for example.
Or call an FW-190A5/U8 (G3) an FW-190A4 as was the case with EB-104.
It is certain that if it does not show up in the supply codes, it was not in the Luftwaffe supply system.
That does not mean it did not fly or show up on the airplane. Keinebau production runs did occur and it is certainly not above a Geschwaders technical abilities to build the gills by modifying the existing FW190A5 gills. All you need is a trained sheet metal worker and the tools.
It most certainly though was not a common item and very unlikely it was "serial production".
All the best,
Crumpp
-
So, being a Focke-Wulf is a complicated life ;)
-
So, being a Focke-Wulf is a complicated life
Not nearly as complicated as the Spitfire!
Shacklady's book makes my head hurt sometimes!
All the best,
Crumpp
-
See Rule #4
-
There is instead claims like "purred smoothly as it ran" by Brown and "the engine behaved perfectly" by other pilot.
Gripen,
This document most certainly says nothing about the smoothness or roughness of the motor at anything but cruising speed.
In fact the pilot confirms he knows of the reputation in the RAE for rough running.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126403549_pro_190_survey_c_3.jpg)
Other than the mock combat against the Mustangs, he offers his opinion on the FW190 vs Spitfire.
Hey Horrido,
Thanks for asking.
The book is coming along great. Still have more research to do but I am close.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
hEHE...GROFLLL
Well, to cut a long story short, IMHO, the 190 is a very very very well designed aircraft. So is the 109, and amazing for it's time.
However, for a knife fight between 109, 190 and a Spitty (since it was mentioned) given the same horepowers, I'd pick the Spitty, for some odd reason.
Maybbe that's just me...;)
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Actually all of these aircraft were captured within weeks off one another. All from mistaken landings at night and came from SKG10.
The simple fact is that these planes contained the real thing ie adjustable cooling gills and these were late production A-4s.
This is hard evidence and it's supported by for example Baugher and Beaman. Your argument is based on one document which might be incomplete and the rest of your argument is plain speculation.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Too bad they were not air superiority fighter versions. According to Focke Wulf and BMW, the motors are not the same as per their instructions to Luftwaffe personnel.
Again you don't show the complete document and you don't point out why a 801D2 should run differently than another 801D2. It's documented that RAE was able to run a 801D2 up to it's specs and no problems were claimed with other 801s, the rest is again speculations from your side.
Originally posted by Crumpp
The document I posted goes on to spell out the engine differences.
Actually it states only "BMW 801", iand it's know that the BMW 801D2 was not the only BMW 801 version used in the Fw 190s. The rest is again speculations from your side.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Eric Browns comments on the FW190G1
Again the plane was a A4/U8, you just try to read Baugher ackwardly, see the second page (http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2004/12/stuff_eng_fw190_02.htm) in Baughers article:
"During the development of this new version, elements of the Fw 190A-4/U8 long range fighter-bomber were used, in which range extension was obtained by use of two droppable underwing fuel tanks of 300 litres capacity each. These tanks were carried on VTr-Ju87 pylons produced by the Weserflug company, with duralumin profiled fairings.
However, the increase in fuel weight to 880 kg could considerably reduce aircraft performance and extend takeoff length to the point of reducing the operational ability of the plane from smaller airfields. Therefore it was necessary to keep down the overall weight by simultaneous reduction of armour or armament. The designers applied the second solution, removed the fuselage mounted MG 17 7.9 mm machine guns and resisted applying a second pair of cannons in the wings. Thus the new Fw 190G-1 had armament reduced to only two MG 151/20 E 20 mm cannons mounted in the wing roots with a reduced 150 rounds per cannon ammunition.
For offensive armament the under-fuselage ETC 501 bomb rack could carry 250 and 500 kg bombs or four small 50 kg bombs after the ER 4 adapter applied.
The radio equipment suite deleted the FuG 25a IFF device and often the radio altimeter was not mounted.
Because of the extended engine operational time it was suggested that an additional oil tank be mounted under the cowling, near the windshield, in the place of the previously used MG 17 machine guns.
About 50 Fw 190A-4/U8 planes were produced that were included in the G series and got the official designation Fw 190G-1. During production, the shields of the underwing munitions locks were slightly enlarged and stiffened."
Shortly the G-1 was based on A4/U8 but it was not the same plane.
Originally posted by Crumpp
The middle manifold pressure ran fine on all engines captured by the allies. Trouble was only experienced at the edge of the operating pressures, idle and emergency power.
Speculations again, there is no documented problems in RAE after MP499 and it's documented that they could run even that engine succesfully after small changes.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Yes Gripen. Don't believe everything you read in a book.
It's up to you to bring in the evidence but for one reason or another you make just endless speculations.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Or call an FW-190A5/U8 (G3) an FW-190A4 as was the case with EB-104.
I have only claimed the documented fact that the EB-104 had adjustable cooling gills and you have claimed that it had not.
Originally posted by Crumpp
It is certain that if it does not show up in the supply codes, it was not in the Luftwaffe supply system.
There is a supply code for the A-5 part which apparently could be fitted to the A-4 and there is evidence which supports that.
Originally posted by Crumpp
It most certainly though was not a common item and very unlikely it was "serial production".
Well, here we have your speculations based on one document against the hard evidence and Baugher and Beaman.
gripen
-
Shortly the G-1 was based on A4/U8 but it was not the same plane.
That is what was thought in the immediate post war. However we now know that the FW-190A4/U8 was blanket redesignated the FW-190G1 when the decision to no longer produce umrüstzustand kits was made.
It was too complicated for a rüstzustand kit and was designated a seperate varient.
Fighter-bomber with underwing drop tanks; later re-designated FW 190 G-1
http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/variants.htm
Andrew's book:
http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/afrika.htm
Again you don't show the complete document and you don't point out why a 801D2 should run differently than another 801D2. It's documented that RAE was able to run a 801D2 up to it's specs and no problems were claimed with other 801s, the rest is again speculations from your side.
This is a whining statement coming from you, Gripen. I have never seen you post a complete document.
Mainly though I am saving the juicy details for the book.
Actually it states only "BMW 801", iand it's know that the BMW 801D2 was not the only BMW 801 version used in the Fw 190s. The rest is again speculations from your side.
Nope, it's talking about BMW801C's and D's. Production of the first BMW801T series motors is several months away though!
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126419336_useofbmwmotors.jpg)
There are about 5 pages of non-standard size fold out charts listing all the parts of the engine/power egg by supply code showing what is compatible with what.
There is a supply code for the A-5 part which apparently could be fitted to the A-4 and there is evidence which supports that.
Nonsense. There is not a supply code for it. If it could be fitted it would have a code listed in the appropriate block. Notice the cooling gills part number is the same for all the FW-190A5 and above.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126269458_gcoolingflaps.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126269501_gseriescoolingflaps.jpg)
Parts that are different get their own code. As you can see, all serial production variants are listed.
Here we see #19, the MG cover:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126331534_mgcover.jpg)
The parts numbers are different based on the MG set up:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126331619_mgcover2.jpg)
Well, here we have your speculations based on one document against the hard evidence and Baugher and Beaman.
Produce the hard evidence!!
Frankly, you don't know where they got their information and to you it is second hand anyway.
I'm just looking at the original documentation, pilots who flew it, and actual aircraft.
Additionally, I am not researching the FW-190G series. My subject is the FW-190A8/A9 specifically. However I come across a large amount of data on all the FW-190 series in my research.
I read that information on the cooling gills off a test of a prototype G series, WNr. 669 and 670.
However the 1943 Focke Wulf instructions for the use of BMW 801 engines confirm that the engine/intake/oil cooler changes did occur.
The parts manual points to a KB runs for the FW-190A4/U8 for the cooling gills.
That's the facts according to Focke Wulf documentation.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
However we now know that the FW-190A4/U8 was blanket redesignated the FW-190G1 when the decision to no longer produce umrüstzustand kits was made.
Not according to Baugher, infact it could be said that the G-1 was just a redesignated A4/U8 with some modifications ie an A series airframe.
Originally posted by Crumpp
This is a whining statement coming from you, Gripen. I have never seen you post a complete document.
I have given the source, it's from PRO, it should be easily findable for you. Besides the conclusions tell about all we need to know and I also posted page giving the specific gravity. If you are interested about the rest, just go and get it.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Nope, it's talking about BMW801C's and D's. Production of the first BMW801T series motors is several months away though!
I can't really follow you now, first you claim that it's proves something about differences between engines of these planes (MP499, PE882, PM679 and PN999 had all the 801D2), now you say that it's about 801C and D?
Originally posted by Crumpp
Nonsense. There is not a supply code for it. If it could be fitted it would have a code listed in the appropriate block.
There is evidence that it could be fitted and the evidence is supported by Baugher and Beaman.
Most probably your information is incomplete and including it to your every post does not make it more complete regardless how many time you post them.
Maybe you should contact Mr. Beaman or Mr. Baugher instead repeating same mantra time after time.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Produce the hard evidence!!
I don't need to produce the hard evidence because the Germans allready made the evidence (http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=655) over 60 years ago.
gripen
-
Informative thread.
Lacks a thesis.
Can you guys post a thesis? A one-sentence theory in which there is a statement where you presumably disagree?
Just my five cents again ;)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Can you guys post a thesis? A one-sentence theory in which there is a statement where you presumably disagree?
All I said originally about the cooling gills is that these were adjustable in the certain planes (PE882, PM679, PN999 and EB-104) tested by allies.
gripen
-
All I said originally about the cooling gills is that these were adjustable in the certain planes (PE882, PM679, PN999 and EB-104) tested by allies.
Gripen,
Do you understand what KB stands for?
Keinebau is a short non standard production run.
Nothing more.
Next you are trying to claim that an FW-190A4/U8 is the same as an FW-190A4 fighter.
It is not and unless the RAE exchanged a some key components no matter how good their motor ran it would not equal a fighter varient.
The Focke Wulf documents show this.
The C3 issue has been covered as well.
You seem to be very selective in your facts Gripen.
This is getting like "smoothed and polished" and you wonder why folks do not take you seriously.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
So, cooling gills were adjustable in certain aircraft, yes or no?
And how big was their difference?
-
So, cooling gills were adjustable in certain aircraft, yes or no?
Obviously they were made and my info about the gills comes from a test on the prototype.
Just as obvious is the fact they were not a "standard" item as they do show up in the Luftwaffe supply system.
The engine differences come from multiple sources.
Luftwaffe manuals, BMW, and Focke Wulf documentation to be exact.
Without a Focke Wulf or BMW trained personnel and the correct parts, it would have been impossible to put a G series back to the same performance as a fighter.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
How much would the performance difference have been.
That's after all what it boils down to, right?
-
All the flight test I have seen of clean configuration G series show them slower in level speed and better in sustained climb but use a slower best climb speed.
The differences vary with the later series G's almost closing the gap in performance.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
My meager brain is about to explode.... I'm not sure why the issue is becoming so complicated..
It seems like its a classic "my word against yours" situation, except on one side, we have the documents from the guys who made the plane, and the other, the "Baugher" guy.
Isn't the discussion basically over if we know where this "Baugher" guy gets his info from?
So where does this "Baugher" guy get his info on the "gill" thingys from?
Can't we simply compare this "Baugher" guy's source with the Luftwaffe/Fockewulf documents and determine which is more credible?
-
I suppose the point gripen was trying to make in the 109 issue was to always go after the original sources, but then in the 190 issue some book is much better than the original sources ;)
Should I draw a conclusion from this that each person's primary sources are what he himself believes them to be... which ever suits the best in various issues :)
-
So, where does the book come from???
-
Baugher information comes from this:
The IPMS Stockholm site is maintained solely by the voluntary submissions of text, articles, photos and drawings. There is no editorial team in the word's traditional meaning, just a network of individuals who have been kind enough to support this project with documentation of their work.
It's a free article someone wrote. They did a great job for the most part, BTW.
We'd be more than glad to see your personal story about the subject - there is no requirement for any formal kit reviews, previews, ratings, technical data or the like. I always encourage our contributors to make their own choices of what particulars they'd like to write about. Some focus on modelling techniques, some on history, others on the kit. Your imagination and personal interest should be the best advisors here.
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/submission_guidelines.htm
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by gripen
I have given the source, it's from PRO, it should be easily findable for you.
[/B]
LOL... like I`d say, wanna see my evidence behind my claims? Sure, I will give you. Take a plane, come here in Budapest, it`s *somewhere* in the the archives of the HTK...
BS.
Nice documentation Crumpp, as always.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
You seem to be very selective in your facts Gripen.
I'm claiming very little in this thread. I'm merely pointing out that people seem to do unfounded claims against the data they don't like.
The 109 myths article contains several examples how the authors make claims about the tests they have not even read.
And you are making similar claims; as an example you have claimed that tested Fw 190s were crashed planes or that there was no adjustable cooling gills in the tested planes.
No one has claimed here that the A4/U8 is the same as A4 but if the racks are removed, it's quite close. As an example the tested top speed for the EB-104 (originally G-3) at FTH is according to report 415mph (668km/h) and that is about 50km/h more than the speed of the Focke Wulf tested Fw 190A-8 (WNr. 733705) at same power setting (with ETC 501 and unknown cooling fan).
Originally posted by BlauK
I suppose the point gripen was trying to make in the 109 issue was to always go after the original sources, but then in the 190 issue some book is much better than the original sources.
So what's your opinion; should I believe the report on that particular plane (PE882) and pictures showing the adjustable cooling gills. Or should I believe the parts list from Focke Wulf which gives no such option?
Originally posted by Kurfürst
LOL... like I`d say, wanna see my evidence behind my claims? Sure, I will give you. Take a plane, come here in Budapest, it`s *somewhere* in the the archives of the HTK...
Maybe I'll come one day, haven't been in Budapest since early nineties. BTW someone seem to have double standars here, I have at least claimed where to find the stuff.
gripen
-
Focke Wulf tested Fw 190A-8 (WNr. 733705) at same power setting (with ETC 501 and unknown cooling fan).
Yep, Gripen.
Well WNr. 1288, Kennz. SS+GL, using Motor Nr. 305573 was recorded at 585Kph on the deck during endurance trials for Erhöhten Notleistung. Do you think that should be held up as service FW190A8 performance? It is about as relevant as WNr 733705.
During the service trials, the FW190A8 hit 578 kph on the deck clean (normal finish) and 565kph with ETC501 fitted and normal finish.
As you can see, a wide variation in performance can be found depending on set of the aircraft. If you recall the propeller test flights:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1125870038_props.jpg)
As for the FW-190G1, please find a WerkNummer for a single FW-190G1.
Nil: Re-designated FW 190 A-4/U8s (in 1943/1944), no new build aircraft
http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/werkn.htm
Or should I believe the parts list from Focke Wulf which gives no such option?
Gripen what you seem to have trouble comprehending is that Focke Wulf documentation points to a KB special construction was done and not a serial production item. It is a fact that a serial production part would be listed and entered into the supply system.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Well WNr. 1288, Kennz. SS+GL, using Motor Nr. 305573 was recorded at 585Kph on the deck during endurance trials for Erhöhten Notleistung. Do you think that should be held up as service FW190A8 performance? It is about as relevant as WNr 733705.
During the service trials, the FW190A8 hit 578 kph on the deck clean (normal finish) and 565kph with ETC501 fitted and normal finish.
The sea speed value for the EB-104 was 340mph. Assuming the difference between 1,65ata and 1,42ata to be around 40km/h at sea level, that means that those A-8s and EB-104 were about equal.
Originally posted by Crumpp
As for the FW-190G1, please find a WerkNummer for a single FW-190G1.
I don't know what's the point here; the PM679 WNr. 5843 was, according to your source, a new built A4/U8 and it had adjustable cooling gills (picture can be found from Butler's book).
"ARW; 0145 805 - 0145 844 were FW 190 A-4/U8s"
The PE882 was from next production batch but Bookie does not give any details if this batch contains new built A4/U8s. The listing is incomplete anyway.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Gripen what you seem to have trouble comprehending is that Focke Wulf documentation points to a KB special construction was done and not a serial production item. It is a fact that a serial production part would be listed and entered into the supply system.
What you seem have trouble comprehending is that Focke Wulf documentation you have might be incomplete (the evidence point to that).
Please, take my advice and contact those persons who have studied the subject and stop the speculations.
gripen
-
I don't know what's the point here;
My point is to find a Werknummer for an FW-190G1, Gripen.
They do not exist because there were no new constructions. When the type was redesignated, the "G1" was not longer in production.
All FW190A4/U8's are FW-190G1's and were just renamed.
What you seem have trouble comprehending is that Focke Wulf documentation you have might be incomplete (the evidence point to that).
Feel free to present the evidence.
The sea speed value for the EB-104 was 340mph. Assuming the difference between 1,65ata and 1,42ata to be around 40km/h at sea level, that means that those A-8s and EB-104 were about equal.
Been covered Gripen. Read my last post.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
My point is to find a Werknummer for an FW-190G1, Gripen.
I don't see your point, the PE882 and PM679 were A4/U8s and the PM679 was according to your source new built (and probably the PE882 too because it was from later batch).
If you are interested about WNr.s of the G-1, you should do the search yourself. I don't see any connection to this discussion.
Originally posted by Crumpp
All FW190A4/U8's are FW-190G1's and were just renamed.
Not according to Baugher and actually your source says that the PM679 was a new built A4/U8, so it can't be a G-1 because, according to your source, there was no new built G-1s.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Feel free to present the evidence.
The picture of the PM679 can be found from "War Prizes" by Phil Butler, p. 18.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Been covered Gripen. Read my last post.
So we have a consensus that the EB-104 had quite realistic performance.
gripen
-
So we have a consensus that the EB-104 had quite realistic performance.
Yes it exhibits the classic G series performance when stripped and is within percentage tolerances.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1126480182_raftestflightstandards.jpg)
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Yes for an FW-190G1 it exhibits the classic performance.
So should I assume that the G-1 and the A-8 had quite similar performance with 1,42ata 2700rpm?
gripen
-
So should I assume that the G-1 and the A-8 had quite similar performance with 1,42ata 2700rpm?
Not a service FW-190A8. An FW-190A is not an FW-190G.
The flight test show an FW-190A8 doing 558 kph at 1.42ata @ 2700U/min clean with full wing armament.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Not a service FW-190A8. An FW-190A is not an FW-190G.
Well, is the sealevel speed around 540-550km/h a good assumption for an average A-8 in clean condition with 1,42ata 2700rpm?
gripen
-
Well, is the sealevel speed around 540-550km/h a good assumption for an average A-8 in clean condition with 1,42ata 2700rpm?
Most certainly bottom of the scale.
As I posted, Focke Wulf publishes 558kph for 4 MG151 and 555kph for Mk108's. Data is extrapolated from flight testing of several aircraft. It represents the numbers Focke Wulf told the Luftwaffe it's aircraft could do.
540kph is within 4% of 558kph and very close with the difference being not worth arguing over.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Just to update those following this thread:
I found a December 1943 Ersatzteilliste that lists the part numbers for the adjustable gills on the Pre-FW190A5 variants.
All the best,
Crumpp