quote:

In fact TsAGI tests are much more correct and reliable source.

For realitive performance, I would agree.

For absolute performance....TsAGI is not even close.

All the report shows is information recorded under unknown conditions by a test pilot flying an unknown maintenance condition aircraft with very little experience in type.


All the best,

Crumpp

quote:

All the report shows is information recorded by a test pilot flying an unknown condition aircraft with very little experience in type.

I wonder if they took their time any evaluated each plane at it's respective corner-speed or if it was just some "do and see" fun-test.

You know, like the one they did with that funny propeller.

quote:

Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

For realitive performance, I would agree.

For absolute performance....TsAGI is not even close.

All the report shows is information recorded under unknown conditions by a test pilot flying an unknown maintenance condition aircraft with very little experience in type.

I hope you are aware that the linked Russian test is not a TsAGI test. In fact, it's not even a test. If you are, could you please say which TsAGI test you are referring to?

quote:

Originally posted by Bremspropeller:

I wonder if they took their time any evaluated each plane at it's respective corner-speed or if it was just some "do and see" fun-test.

They usually managed to get a 5% accuracy from German planes when compared to German data. Not that bad, considering they were using captured aircraft.

quote:

Originally posted by JtD:

They usually managed to get a 5% accuracy from German planes when compared to German data. Not that bad, considering they were using captured aircraft.

Well, in fact russians hold the record for the best climb rate achieved in a Bf-109G2
4,4min to 5000meters with a captured in Stalingrad plane !
So, please, don't underestimate their efforts

Well, maybe they just went for a test-flight on a really cold winter's day.

quote:

Well, in fact russians hold the record for the best climb rate achieved in a Bf-109G2

Under what conditions, Tipo-man?

I can take a screw driver, and in 1 turn increase the climb rate considerably on most any aircraft. It won't be correct by the maintenance manual and you are going to risk engine/propeller failure.

Set the blade stops to the wrong mark and you can increase climb rate AND get a reading on the tach that is within limits....

If the tach is not properly calibrated who knows what the rpm was on the climb....

Shed some weight and your climb goes up too. The difference between maximum performance in the summer and winter climb performance is extremely significant as well. My airplane sees 1800fpm in the summer and 3000fpm in the winter....

It is not a Russian thing, it is airplane thing. Nobody is saying anything about the competency of the Russians or anyone else.

All the best,

Crumpp

quote:

Originally posted by Tipo_Man:

Well, in fact russians hold the record for the best climb rate achieved in a Bf-109G2
4,4min to 5000meters with a captured in Stalingrad plane !
So, please, don't underestimate their efforts

I was under the impression that the 4.1 minutes achieved by the Finn also came from a G-2?
A G-1 at Rechlin was tested at 4.2 minutes, which is a pretty good agreement.

quote:

Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Well, maybe they just went for a test-flight on a really cold winter's day.

Or a not-so-cold-for-Russia winter day? LOL!

Gaston444 wrote:

quote:

Rall also described the two as complementary: "The Me-109 was like a rapier, the FW-190 was like a broadsword". For those who need to brush-up on their medieval weapons knowledge, let's just say a rapier is a long narrow blade and is used to attack only in a straight-line, point-first thrust, while the broadsword is traditionally seen as being swung in a curving motion. A CURVE, get it?

WOW. You don’t even really understand the difference between a broadsword and a rapier, or the styles of swordsmanship that they required. I have to wonder if you’ve ever even SEEN either type of weapon, given the way you’ve misrepresented Rall’s words.

A broadsword was a powerful heavy weapon, most often used with a two handed grip; it had a point and blades on both sides, and it was generally thought of as a kind of long, bladed club. It was more common before the invention of firearms, and was intended to be used against armored opponents. To use one, you had to be strong, and you definitely didn’t need to be subtle—you just hacked away at your opponent until you broke through his shield or armor.

A rapier was a much lighter sword used primarily with a one-handed grip, and became common after the development of firearms made heavy armor a liability. As a result, speed and reach allowed emphasis on the point rather than on hacking through armor plate or chain mail with a heavy blade; you didn’t need to be as strong. Some examples dispensed with a sharpened edge entirely. It was a weapon that required precision and great skill; any peasant oaf strong enough to swing a broadsword could be effective on the battlefields of its day, but the rapier was considered to be a gentleman’s weapon.

Rall compared the 190 to a broadsword in part because of its much heavier armament and partly because any peasant oaf could fly one and acquire the skill to be effective in it relatively quickly; a 109’s guns had to be aimed more carefully to take out an opposing fighter, much less an enemy bomber, and you had to know what you were doing to place yourself into position to make full use of your weapons.

I won't bother to comment on your other assertions, because you appear to belong to the "HEY!! I READ A WHOLE BOOK (or magazine article) AND NOW I HAVE THE TRUTH!!!" school of thought, and so far I see no evidence that you have ever made any effort to actually comprehend the information you've ingested.

cheers

horseback

quote:

Not within this thread's main issue mind you, but like the P-51 low-speed "trick", it does show how delusional is the notion that math formulas can tackle the complexities of a real-life object churning air into a spiral...

Forgive me for being naive but what area of aircraft performance is too complex for mathematics to accurately predict and describe?

This isn't 1920, the physical laws which govern powered flight are well understood and thus aircraft performance is easily predicted and described with mathematical formulas.

Just so you know, Gunther Ralls quote comparing the BF109 to the FW190 as a rapier and a broadsword is repeated ad nauseum whenever the subject of relative performance between the two is brought up. Your interpretation is opposite to how most people read it but I have to give you points for creativity ( swung in a curving motion versus staight line thrust. Priceless.)

You are making an extraordinary claim which contradicts the conventional acceptance of the FW190's performance merits which requires validation beyond your personal interpretation of anecdotal evidence.

Get it?

quote:

Originally posted by horseback:
A broadsword was a powerful heavy weapon, most often used with a two handed grip; it had a point and blades on both sides, and it was generally thought of as a kind of long, bladed club. It was more common before the invention of firearms, and was intended to be used against armored opponents. To use one, you had to be strong, and you definitely didn’t need to be subtle—you just hacked away at your opponent until you broke through his shield or armor.

Gotta be honest, I am not in disagreement with you about the relative performance of the 190 and 109, but this assessment is full of myth and misconception, not that I blame you given that these misconceptions are rife due to TV and film.
Broadsword has essentially come to mean any medieval sword, the word itself is a fairly modern invention and can refer to single-handed or two-handed weapons. No swords are particularly effective against armor, although the development of swords during the middle ages DID favour a movement from sharp, flattened-oval profiled, single-handed cutting weapons toward hollow-ground or diamond-profiled hand-and-a-half thrusting swords (little clubbing involved), sharpness of blade becoming less critical as armour became more effective. Rapiers are big, heavy weapons, often heavier than a medieval single-handed sword, a descendant of the broadswords intended for civilian duelling, have a read: http://swordforum.com/articles/ams/char-rapier.php
Main thing I wanted to mention, though, is that swordsmanship with the longsword was every bit as developed as that of the smallsword fencing of the Renaissance and later - read up on I.33, Fiore Dei Liberi or any of the German masters like Talhoffer or Ringeck. Anyway, I could go on, but if you're going to rag on someone about not reading up properly, you could have been a better role-model. If you want to lose a few misconceptions, though, have a look at the articles on www.myarmoury.com, excellent website.
Back on topic, it's like TS_Sancho says, Gaston...the burden of proof is on you since you're working against the current consensus, and if you want anyone to believe your assertions you'd have to provide actual test data under the conditions you describe and explain why this test data is more reliable than that currently accepted to provide the best picture of these aircrafts' performance, rather than cherry-picked anecdotes and blind disregard of any others' evidence.

'Broadsword' and 'rapier' are general names given long after both types fell out of favor, and cover a wide range of weapons used over several centuries in the case of the broadsword, and at least two centuries in the case of the rapier.

I was using an image for each for each as appropriate to the Gunther Rall 'quote', and I assume that what he was picturing for a 'broadsword' (and bear in mind that the 'quote' is a translation of his original comments in German) may have been something along the lines of a two handed --I want to say great sword-- that was used in the late Middle Ages and well into the Renaissance, often by largish fellows with no pretensions to nobility.

'Rapier' in the context of the quote may actually have meant 'epee', but generally refers to the sorts of swords we see in movies about musketeers or Cyrano de Bergerac. I realize that some of these things were 1.5m long and little more than long steel spikes, but most popular images make them out to be more like the smaller gentleman's swords of the 1700s and later.

Both of these images are properly suited to Rall's comparison of the 190 and the 109, and that was why I used them.

Now run off and find an actual medieval weapons forum and nitpick someone else.

cheers

horseback

quote:

Originally posted by TheGrunch:

quote:

Originally posted by horseback:
A broadsword was a powerful heavy weapon, most often used with a two handed grip; it had a point and blades on both sides, and it was generally thought of as a kind of long, bladed club. It was more common before the invention of firearms, and was intended to be used against armored opponents. To use one, you had to be strong, and you definitely didn’t need to be subtle—you just hacked away at your opponent until you broke through his shield or armor.

Gotta be honest, I am not in disagreement with you about the relative performance of the 190 and 109, but this assessment is full of myth and misconception, not that I blame you given that these misconceptions are rife due to TV and film.
Broadsword has essentially come to mean any medieval sword, the word itself is a fairly modern invention and can refer to single-handed or two-handed weapons. No swords are particularly effective against armor, although the development of swords during the middle ages DID favour a movement from sharp, flattened-oval profiled, single-handed cutting weapons toward hollow-ground or diamond-profiled hand-and-a-half thrusting swords (little clubbing involved), sharpness of blade becoming less critical as armour became more effective. Rapiers are big, heavy weapons, often heavier than a medieval single-handed sword, a descendant of the broadswords intended for civilian duelling, have a read: http://swordforum.com/articles/ams/char-rapier.php
Main thing I wanted to mention, though, is that swordsmanship with the longsword was every bit as developed as that of the smallsword fencing of the Renaissance and later - read up on I.33, Fiore Dei Liberi or any of the German masters like Talhoffer or Ringeck. Anyway, I could go on, but if you're going to rag on someone about not reading up properly, you could have been a better role-model. If you want to lose a few misconceptions, though, have a look at the articles on www.myarmoury.com, excellent website.
Back on topic, it's like TS_Sancho says, Gaston...the burden of proof is on you since you're working against the current consensus, and if you want anyone to believe your assertions you'd have to provide actual test data under the conditions you describe and explain why this test data is more reliable than that currently accepted to provide the best picture of these aircrafts' performance, rather than cherry-picked anecdotes and blind disregard of any others' evidence.

..... Thanks, Grunch. It's always a good day when I learn something new and interesting. Excellent website as well.

Six pages and once again the original poster has never replied to anything posted in this thread.

LOL! In something slightly reminiscent of sports play the thread got hijacked real fast on page 1 with a
rousing performance of the 50 cals vs Tigers song including the Yes-They-Can and That's-Ridiculous verses.
There was also, notable to mention, some new wordings of the same old verses or something very like them.

If the owner doesn't come to claim it after 30 days it belongs to???

Oh, BTW slowing the prop does cut into the gyroscopic force needing to be countered in the turn.
Not exactly rocket science is it?

You only need to drop the revs in the start of the turn. If you're running 110%+WEP then you might
want to throttle down first and then drop the revs.

Best way I was shown to initiate a quick turn is to combine slowing the prop/engine with a nose down
turn both accelerating the plane and unloading my wings significantly at the same time, which allows
me to turn harder than I can while holding alt.
Once the turn is established then you want to bring the nose and then the revs back up. You only need
to drop maybe 100m in perhaps 45 to 90 degrees of turn and then back up to make a bit-tighter and faster
turn.

quote:

Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

quote:

Well, in fact russians hold the record for the best climb rate achieved in a Bf-109G2

Under what conditions, Tipo-man?

I can take a screw driver, and in 1 turn increase the climb rate considerably on most any aircraft. It won't be correct by the maintenance manual and you are going to risk engine/propeller failure.

Crumpp

If you speak about DB-605 you are probably correct. It was limited to 1.3ATA at that time(late 1942) because of hardware problems of the engine. (crankshaft if I remember correctly). So increasing the boost to 1.42ATA would give you some nice 175hp...
In fact in combat units this restriction was done with a pin on the throttle lever, which possible russians removed while testing.
You are correct that they didn't have the operational manual, and there was no overheat message back then

On other aircraft engines, a simple increase of boost was not possible, unless a higher octane fuel was used.

Still results from russian tests are very close to german ones. And I don't see a reason not to trust them.
In fact, there is a huge difference between one model in tests of soviet aircrafts also.
The same applies for all countries throughout the war I think.

Oh... and that same Bf-109G2... It crashed in Mart 1943 in a test flight due to engine failure.

whats strange is Gunther's quote also fits in with Chinese (ancient) weaponry.

Example their straight sword (rapier), thin and with a point, generally took 1000 days to master (if trained every day) and used angles and stabs at weak points. Edged cuts were used, though rare compared to stabs straight or coming in from appropriate angles.

This required more study in swordplay and strategy, especially vs armored opponents, as it employed a balance of offense / defense. Generally favored as the champion's or general's weapon . . .

109 tactics seem to favor this, using angles.



Their saber (broadsword) was different, a curved single edged weapon, took 90 days to master, and it was cutting / chopping / circular attacks in a rapid fashion and constant offense. Since it was easier, it was usually the conscripts, citizen soldier, or worker turned soldier's weapon.

It was good for attacking and since it was the foot soldier's weapon, generally worked best if in pairs or groups. FW 190's like wings . . .

quote:

If you speak about DB-605

I am speaking about engines in General Tipo-Man.

We have a BMW801, Merlin V1650-7, Jumo-213, Jumo 211, and are the North American distributor for MotoBende who specializes in DB engines. All have variations of the same adjustments. It is not a matter of knowing just which screw to turn....that is easy to figure out for any mechanic.

You have to know which way to turn it and how far to turn it. That is not easy and is next to impossible without the specific information from the manufacturer.

This has absolutely nothing to do with metering. It takes a screwdriver and a few minutes.

I just spent 2 full days after annual dealing with propeller adjustments issues in my aircraft to get the rpm/manifold pressure right after a propeller overhaul.

For example a propeller generally has three adjustments, one at the control arm on the governor which must be safety wired after adjustment and two adjustments on the propeller. One to influence rpm and another to change the blade stops.

quote:

It crashed in Mart 1943 in a test flight due to engine failure

I am not surprised it was being maintained by "hope this works".

That applies to any captured aircraft from any nation during the war.

Any flight test represents a very large increase in the chances for some pretty significant errors both from maintenance and the pilotage. These errors can be favorable or not. This is why all aircraft performance is a percentage range over a mean average under specific conditions.

All the best,

Crumpp