Maybe the 190s arent wrong....or how to be really unpopular in 1 step

[Crumpp]

Speculating that interrogators know their subjects are enemy combatants? That their loyalties likely lie with their homeland?

Your leaving out the part of the equation and speculating that enemy prisoners will not resist by giving misleading answers. As opposed to assuming POW's will not resist by providing misleading information.  

Seems a pretty safe bet....safer than, say, assuming that the interrogators would take eveything at face value...

Nobody has claimed such a silly thing.  No statements were ever made about the interogators.

I think it is much more plausible to believe the BMW, Rechlin, and Focke Wulf reports on the technical aspects of the aircraft.

So it has nothing to do with speculation on the part of a POW's testimony.

Since the technical qualities discussed are not the technical qualities exhibited by the motor when set up properly. The engine did not vibrate excessively. In fact the Lufterrad was designed to uncouple from the shaft if it vibrated out of specified range.

[Crumpp]

Well NASA had to reverse engineer the Kommandogeraet in the Fw 190 to see how it went together

I can see that most of you are looking at this from your gameshape view and how it will benefit your side.

Lets use some common sense, however.
 
You think it might be important on a very rare and very expensive motor to get settings correct that could destroy the whole motor if not done properly?

Especially when the company that originally built the device says they can no longer set it up?

All the best,

Crumpp

[Simaril]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Your leaving out the part of the equation and speculating that enemy prisoners will not resist by giving misleading answers. As opposed to assuming POW's will not resist by providing misleading information....

originally posted by Simaril
...safer than, say, assuming that the interrogators would take eveything at face value...

Originally posted by Crumpp
Nobody has claimed such a silly thing.  No statements were ever made about the interogators.

Crumpp, this is what I mean. Let me explain the logical implications of your statements.

1)The interrogators are talking to the prisoners.
2)The prisoners try to fool the Brits.   <----- This is your claim against the report
3)But, the interrogators' job is to find the truth.
THEREFORE By saying that the report took the lies for the truth, YOU are claiming that the interrogators took the lies at face value.

Its a fairly simple connection...hard to see why you argued it wasnt there.


You arent stupid, evidenced by your ability to discuss aerodynamics in numbing detail. But, you dont seem open to considering opposing ideas, even  when they're about pretty minor points, and when they're logically kinda hard to argue against.

That implies either a blinding passion for the topic, or an arrogant heart that cant admit imperfection, or both.

I fully expect a defense will be mounted, but its pointless. Last time I said I'd lost respect it was out of frustration, but this time its from cool assessment of persistant behavior.

You might find that you got more respect...and that your valid points would be taken more seriously...if you openly admitted when you made a mistake.

[HoHun]

Hi Simaril,

>You might find that you got more respect...and that your valid points would be taken more seriously...if you openly admitted when you made a mistake.

I'm afraid the mistake is yours. Prisoners of War are an inaccurate and unreliable source of information, and any conclusions drawn from their statements are necessarily inaccurate and unreliable by themselves.

Crumpp's example simply illustrates the inherent inaccuracy of information acquired by interrogating prisoners. I can find nothing wrong with that.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Crumpp]

THEREFORE By saying that the report took the lies for the truth, YOU are claiming that the interrogators took the lies at face value.

I said exactly what I wrote.

I think it is much more plausible to believe the BMW, Rechlin, and Focke Wulf reports on the technical aspects of the aircraft.

So it has nothing to do with speculation on the part of a POW's testimony.

Since the technical qualities discussed are not the technical qualities exhibited by the motor when set up properly. The engine did not vibrate excessively. In fact the Lufterrad was designed to uncouple from the shaft if it vibrated out of specified range.

You want to focus on the relevance of the POW's testimony.  Having the benefit of hindsight, unlike the interrogator, we can cross-reference the POW's story with the many other sources.

It is a fact, that the BMW801 series did not run rough when properly set up. The RAE even got one to run smoothly on a bench after changing the plugs and settings.  Unforturnately they never flew it.

The only trouble with vibration the Germans experienced was in the 5-6KM altitude range on daureleistung and this was solved.

But, you dont seem open to considering opposing ideas, even when they're about pretty minor points, and when they're logically kinda hard to argue against.

I am very much open to opposing ideas but I am not open to agendas.  

I fully expect a defense will be mounted, but its pointless. Last time I said I'd lost respect it was out of frustration, but this time its from cool assessment of persistant behavior.

I suspect it would have been that way no matter what based on your behavior.  Not being "arrogant" but I have some years of research into this aircraft behind me.  I have put my dues in digging through archives.

It is unrealistic to expect someone to post a report or two gleaned off the Internet and expect for the floodgates of realization to open from my POV.  Not to say I don’t appreciate it, the reports found on the internet are the most common and easiest reports to find.

Once more I even took the extra step by taking the time to PM you explaining exactly my position on your earlier request.  Granted I misunderstood and you expected me to use charts/drawings.

I encourage you to come down and take the measurements.

I am not going to do it nor will have one of our employees do it without compensation.

You want a crew of guys stop what they are doing while I take measurements. In just few minutes time will cost quite a bit of money in just salaries paid out to have guys wait. Who is going to pay for that?

Now consider we are a NON-profit Organization. We live on donations and the generosity of our members. It is their money, given to us, to restore this aircraft and maintain the museum. Now we are stealing in my book because that money is being spent on pursuits OTHER than our charter.

Make Sense?

I told HTC the exact same thing. I will give you all the data you need to build the most realistic Focke Wulf FM around. All it would take is a donation for our time to a non-profit tax deductible organization.

Understand now why I will not just go do it?

So I would say I have been more than fair.

All the best,

Crumpp

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp
The RAE even got one to run smoothly on a bench after changing the plugs and settings.  

Well, apparently you have not even read that report because it contains RAE test data on two  BMW 801s which both did run fine after minor adjustment. And that was not the end of RAE tests on the 801...

gripen

[Crumpp]

And that was not the end of RAE tests on the 801...

No it certainly was not.  However they never flew one of those motors Gripen.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Angus]

So, were they not getting full power out of the engine in the flight tests, or was it just the roughness?
Since they got the engines running nicely later on, why didn't they bother to take a ride again??????????

I remember Quill telling about testing the 190 himself, that must have been later than the "race" with Faber's 190. Sadly, in the book I have, he only mentions it and nothing more. There are more books from/about Quill. I wonder if there is some goodie around that none of us has seen.

Well, there are many, keep stumbling on them all the time.

[Crumpp]

So, were they not getting full power out of the engine in the flight tests, or was it just the roughness?

Why don't you be the judge?

1.  RAE tested performance is consistently on the low side of the percentage range of guarantee performance.  Sometimes the RAE measured performance is outside of that range and never optimistic.  All mention rough running motors and all are using allied natural petroleum AvGas.

2.  The Luftwaffe, BMW, and Rechlin tests do not mention "rough" running motors except early 801's development.  The flight tests consistently fall equally above and below the percentage range.

Where the Germans idiots who could not design an aircraft?

Where the allies trying to service an unfamiliar design during wartime?

All the best,

Crumpp

[Waffle]

Originally posted by Crumpp

1.  RAE tested performance is consistently on the low side of the percentage range of guarantee performance.  Sometimes the RAE measured performance is outside of that range and never optimistic.

 

as compared to what?

[Crumpp]

RAE tested performance is consistently on the low side of the percentage range of guarantee performance. Sometimes the RAE measured performance is outside of that range and never optimistic. All mention rough running motors and all are using allied natural petroleum AvGas.

Waffle says:

as compared to what?

The Luftwaffe, BMW, and Rechlin tests do not mention "rough" running motors except early 801's development. The flight tests consistently fall equally above and below the percentage range.

Easier to understand?

All the best,

Crumpp

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp
No it certainly was not.  However they never flew one of those motors Gripen.

RAE flew several other BMW 801s without particular problems. Just read Brown's comments on Fw 190.

There was no timing changes (as you have claimed in several boards) or what so ever large adjustments by RAE, only rough compensation of fuel gravity and the change of the plugs.

gripen

[Simaril]

Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Simaril,

...snip....

I'm afraid the mistake is yours. Prisoners of War are an inaccurate and unreliable source of information, and any conclusions drawn from their statements are necessarily inaccurate and unreliable by themselves.

...snip....

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Fair enough.

Simaril

[Crumpp]

There was no timing changes (as you have claimed in several boards) or what so ever large adjustments by RAE, only rough compensation of fuel gravity and the change of the plugs.

Wow, it is intentional are you just not that smart?

From the very report YOU posted:
 

All the best,

Crumpp

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Wow, it is intentional are you just not that smart?

From the very report YOU posted:

"The effect of the "Rich-Weak" automatic control was investigated and magneto timings determined."

That means investigation and determining (ie amount of timings were measured) not change of the timings.

gripen