Originally posted by Angus
Good Gripen, good.
I have to have a potshot at Izzy though, forgive me please 
Firstly:
"The Spit had nice big bulges for the cannons through it`s service, THANK YOU desingers who designed a thin wing so much unsuited for bigger weapons"
So, it would actually have been better in your your opinion to have the wing much thicker?
[/B]
Yes. A bit thicker profile wouldnt mean much in drag, but would lead to better lift coeff, which would mean less wing area would be required and so on..
Firstly, in 1940 the Spitfire MkI had roughly the same Hp on 87 oct, and somewhat more on 100 oct.
[/B]
WRONG, on 87 octane the Mk I had about 100-150 HP less than the 109E at SL.
The Spitfire had less power at high alt, where max speeds were obtained.
[/B]
Probably, but I didn`t see yet a comparable Brit/Jerry engine curve. The former give it usually with rammed power, the latter with static power... apples and oranges. The Spit was somewhat faster at max. level speed, that is for sure.
Once fitted with a rotol 3-blade airscrew it outclimbed the 109 while being heavier, it was however a tad slower.
[/B]
Not according to any tech doc I have seen.
Once up to 100 oct the Spit I outclimbed and outran the 109E.
[/B]
Not if the 109E was on 100 octane, too. And it was by the time the Spit was on 100 octane in numbers.
In 1944 you had Spit XIV swarming around. I have not seen data of a 109 being 40 mph faster. So please promote this.
[/B]
Swarming around?
Maybe in the pinky-binky Raffanatic`s fantasies, but in reality, and ironically, there were more Me 262s in service than Mk XIV. And this tells about the small numbers of the MkXIVs, rather than how 'common' the Schwalbe was... of course the Griffon was much larger, much heavier, much thirstier than the 605s in the later 109s - and produced more power at altitude. Despite that, the Spit required about 200 HP more to obtain the same speeds, 5blade prop or not... the 1944 109s had apprx. the same power at al as the IXFs, IXLF, but clocked at 680-715 km/h, whereas the MkIXs could come to 650 km/h, or not even that fast.
Then here:
"THANK YOU weapon developers in Britain who couldn`t came up with a cannon of their own, and forced the designers to put an large French cannon designed for rigid engine mounts and not flexible wings which cause them to jam. "
You may have a problem here, for the Hispanos were very good weapons indeed. I have not stumbled across any tales of horrible jammings yet. Please promote som.
Very good ballistics, good ROF, and high velocity.
In 1941 perhaps the finest aircraft cannon in the world?
[/B]
No Angie-bamgie, its YOU who id having a problem. You are so obsessed with this Spitfire Supreme thingie within your thick skull that you suffer from tunnel vision all the time.
The Hispanos were troublesome, ask the USN, or ask the Spitfire squads that requested to be switched back the 8-gun Spits when first saw those cannons. Rigid mounting was essential for their reliable operation, this was easily done when they were bolted to the Hispano-Suiza engine of the French fighters, much less so when they were lightly built in the too flexible Spitfire wings, which wasnt rigid enough even to keep roll rate decent at high speed, owing to wing flexing...
Finest aircraft cannon in the world in 1941? Yep, provided the Mauser MG 151/20 and the Svhak doesn`t enter the competetion, both faaaaaaar better fighter cannons, the Shvak in it`s basic mechanics and compactness, and the Mauser on the whole, and provided that the bigger size, bigger weight (50% heavier than anything else), high recoil, unreliable operation, self-dangerous ammunition, small ammo capacity thanks to ammo drums are considered positive qualities for the Hispanos. They did the job, little more than that. Frankly the Brits used it because they had nothing else. They didn`t have their own aircraft MGs developed, they didn`t have their own tank MGs, they didn`t have their own aircraft HMGs neither, so they kept relying on license-built stuff, whatever they could get. WW1-era American brownings or 1930s vintage French cannons designed for a different role...
You must have forgotten take your pills....
The radiator needs air to function, it always causes parasite drag.
Put it in the "shade" and you'll need it to be bigger.
[/B]
Angie`s own theories... I wonder why the guys at Messerscmitt, Yakovlevs, North American suddenly choosed this way then?
Now, the boundary layer around the fuselage is not as important as say on the top of the wings. Do you know what a boundary layer is? A couple of days ago you did not know what a washout is.
[/B]
I bet if you could go back 70 years in time with this knowladge, the guys at North American would forget about all that radiator ducting, and we would now know the Mustang with a big, f. ugly paperbox shaped thing crudely welded onto its underneath. `cos according to Angie (and Supermarine!) that`s the way to go (slow). And I guess Mtt would suddenly wouldn`t re-design the 109 with a new type radiator
with boundary layer separator ducting, as it`s "not important".
Funny though that the desingers who though it was important, were also the same guys who had the faster planes...
You may of course have a problem with the Mustang, for on the same power as a 109 it was faster, with very much more range.
[/B]
No Angie, its again you who is thickly wrong on the factual side. The Mustang wasnt ANY faster than the 109 on the same power (in fact it clocked very much the same), and didnt have a single mile greater range on the same fuel. But replace the word with 'Spitfire', and you are right all the way.
You are just repeating your old fantasies, but as always, you are awfully poor giving some backup for them. As a matter of fact, I NEVER seen you backing your statements with any techspec..
Quite some headache for a brownie-trousers bubchen. But so be it, a German had his hand in on the design so it stays as a so-so.
Frankly I'd like to know what the heck is wrong with you. The only explanation I can think off is complete 1930's German religion, or a brownskirt reincarnation.
[/B]
Actually the only headache I have here is my futile attempt to bring some light into the thick skull of a half literate serf, who had his head stuck and frozen into his hairy butthole, and I cant pull it out if he wishes to live in the comfort of darkness.
I mean, pointing at brilliant design features of objects like the 109, 262 etc is very fine. But you seem so obsessed with hatred on anything WW2 allied sided that it is just stunning. Be it tanks, armies, aircraft, campaigns, victories, political figures, the total outcome or whatever. Anything German just must be better.
Can you tell me why?
All ears?
[/B]
Angie, pull your had out of your butt, and maybe you see things differently, not this sorry lame-ass black-and-white, awfully primitive way of projecting things into everything you dont like, as you currently do.
