PDA

View Full Version : P39, Hurri, P40 - from Russian Pilots



XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 05:54 PM
Not really a 'vs.', but here is an interesting article about the p39:

http://www.airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/romanenko/index.htm

My favorite quote:

"They differed from Soviet-produced fighters in having a more powerful armament, survivability, and a good radio, and fell behind our fighters in vertical maneuverability, capability to withstand excessive G-forces, and to execute acute maneuvers. The pilots loved their Airacobras for comfort and good protection. As one P-39 pilot expressed it, he felt like he was "flying in a safe". Airacobra pilots did not burn because the aircraft was metal and the fuel cells were positioned far away in the wing. They were not subject to jets of steam or streams of oil because the engine was behind them. Their faces were not beat up on protrusions of the gunsight"



S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem



Message Edited on 08/07/0305:06PM by Recon_609IAP

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 05:54 PM
Not really a 'vs.', but here is an interesting article about the p39:

http://www.airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/romanenko/index.htm

My favorite quote:

"They differed from Soviet-produced fighters in having a more powerful armament, survivability, and a good radio, and fell behind our fighters in vertical maneuverability, capability to withstand excessive G-forces, and to execute acute maneuvers. The pilots loved their Airacobras for comfort and good protection. As one P-39 pilot expressed it, he felt like he was "flying in a safe". Airacobra pilots did not burn because the aircraft was metal and the fuel cells were positioned far away in the wing. They were not subject to jets of steam or streams of oil because the engine was behind them. Their faces were not beat up on protrusions of the gunsight"



S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem



Message Edited on 08/07/0305:06PM by Recon_609IAP

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 05:55 PM
Also, Hurricane lend lease information:

http://www.airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/sheppard/index.htm



Interesting for a Soviet pilot to say this as well:

"A. S. Describe the cockpit, visibility, instruments, bullet-proof glass and armored seat. Was there a palpable difference after the I-16 and the Hurricane? Better or worse?

N. G. Of course, the P-40s were better than the I-16 and the Hurricane. After the first flight, I said to myself, "Well, Kolya, finally they have given you a modern fighter."


P40's kicking some butt here http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem



Message Edited on 08/07/0305:06PM by Recon_609IAP

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 05:59 PM
There would have been alot more pilots saying they liked the P-39, except that Stalin didn't want to here it.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------47|FC=-
<center>
"No Guts No Glory"
<center>
http://www.fighter-collection.com/p-47d/img/jug.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 06:02 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- There would have been alot more pilots saying they
- liked the P-39, except that Stalin didn't want to
- here it.



...and he didn't want to hear it.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


<center>http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/bp_geminiCombined.gif

<center><table style="filter:glow[color=red,strength=1)">Warning: My intense sense of humor may tug at the stick crammed in your shaded spot.</table style></center> <center><table style="filter:glow[color=red,strength=1)">If you treasure your lack of humor please refrain from reading my posts as they may cause laughter.</table style></center> <center><table style="filter:glow[color=red,strength=1)">Heaven Forbid.</table style></center>
<table style="filter:glow[color=black,strength=1)">
<font size=+2><font color="black">Still loving my P-39</font></font> </table style>
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
<table style="filter:glow[color=green,strength=4)"> www.blitzpigs.com</center> (http://www.blitzpigs.com</center>) </table style>

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 06:03 PM
hehe, you are right! crazy isn't it.


Interesting piece of information that I don't see modelled in FB:

About the Hurricane:

"A. S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, didn't you get the impression that the engine was somewhat underpowered?

N. G. This was a heavy air frame that did not glide well. The Rolls-Royce engine was good, but could not stand up to prolonged operation at maximum output. It broke down. Of course, it was a weak engine for this particular air frame
"


prolonged operation at maximum output. You'd think this hurri would die out like the 109 did in IL2.


Great stuff on that link:
http://www.airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/part1.htm

Talks about i16, hurri, etc...

Nice to read this - especially the comparision of the i16 to the 109E.

Part 2 moves to the p40

S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem



Message Edited on 08/07/0305:04PM by Recon_609IAP

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 06:10 PM
P40 armament



A. S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, what kind of armaments did the P-40 have?

N. G. Our Tomahawks and Kittyhawks had machine gun armaments only, the same on both models. Only large-caliber machine guns. Two synchronized [in the nose] and two in the wings. Browning 12.7mm. Powerful, reliable, good machine guns. In time, relatively soon after we received these aircraft, we began to remove the wing-mounted weapons in order to lighten the aircraft, leaving only the two synchronized guns.

A. S. Were two machine guns enough?

N. G. Yes, more than enough. I already told you how powerful they were.



http://www.airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/part2.htm

S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 06:14 PM
Further on he speaks of no wing mounted mg

"A. S. So your P-40s did not have wing-mounted machine guns?

N. G. No. Ours had only the [nose-mounted] synchronized machine guns. "


Wonder what deviation this was?



Also:
----
"A. S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, how would you evaluate the speed, rate of climb, acceleration, and maneuverability of the P-40? Did it suit you?

N. G. I say again, the P-40 significantly outclassed the Hurricane, and it was far and away above the I-16. "
----

"Significantly outclassed". I don't get that feeling at all in FB!





S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem



Message Edited on 08/07/0305:16PM by Recon_609IAP

ZG77_Nagual
08-07-2003, 06:15 PM
Interesting - the article mentions he-113s as being present on the EF - and distinguishes between them and 109s in the same battle - can't find much concrete on the 113 but the brits also seemed to think they were around in significant numbers.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 06:16 PM
Pokrishkin, Rechkalov and Bochko mentioned in their memoirs that P-39 was superior to any soviet fighters up till LA5FN, which arrived in late1943. Pokrishikin got in trouble with superiors not once for promoting american fighter and comparing it to soviet aircraft...where current russian planes were below his requirements. Even YAK1B which had better turn characteristics was no match to it. Not as durable with rather poor armament it was not match to P-39 in the dive and vertical.

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 06:19 PM
yep.

And I don't really get that sense out of FB - do you?

Funny people say how 'overmodelled' the p39 is.

I'd say the p40 and p39 are very good aircraft in comparision to these soviet planes.

To be put up against what I consider the best 'dogfight' aircraft (109F) is quite a compliment.



---

"N. G. I say again, the P-40 significantly outclassed the Hurricane, and it was far and away above the I-16.

Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943. If you take into consideration all the tactical and technical characteristics of the P-40, then the Tomahawk was equal to the Bf-109F and the Kittyhawk was slightly better.

Its speed and vertical and horizontal maneuver were good. It was fully competitive with enemy aircraft.

As for acceleration, the P-40 was a bit heavy, but when one had adjusted to the engine, it was normal.

When the later types Bf-109G and FW-190 appeared, the P-40 Kittyhawk became somewhat dated, but not by much. An experienced pilot could fight an equal fight with it.

I flew somewhere around 50 combat sorties and participated in 10-12 aerial engagements in the P-40. Then the regiment became the next in line to replace its equipment-for the P-39 Airacobra"



Then he says "later types Bf-109G and FW-190 appeared, the P-40 Kittyhawk became somewhat dated, but not by much. An experienced pilot could fight an equal fight with it."

You get the sense from some german pilots here that they should 'own' a p40 - I don't think so!!!

Then the p39 was the next step - LOL





S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem



Message Edited on 08/07/0305:21PM by Recon_609IAP

ZG77_Nagual
08-07-2003, 06:30 PM
Pokrishkin actually stuck with his p39 when offerred an la7.
I will say this - at risk of getting into trouble - the evaluation given the hurri, p40 and i16 by Golognikov is matched exactly by the relative performance of these planes in the beta patch

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 06:31 PM
note that this was the p-40C he describes, not the E we have.

_____________
Ian Boys
=38=Tatarenko
Kapitan - 38. OIAE

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 06:35 PM
"the evaluation given the hurri, p40 and i16 by Golognikov is matched exactly by the relative performance of these planes in the beta patch "


That is good to hear. I follow the p40 and p39 pretty closely.

Always have wondered how they match up.

Thanks Ian, I'm off to learn the differences between the C and E model http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


So - why did they put the Soviet engine in the field mod?

S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

ZG77_Nagual
08-07-2003, 06:38 PM
P39 was raised as needing some work - apparent monster climb rate - we'll see though. In fights against them I thought energy retention could explain it.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 06:41 PM
It does say in one of those that the p39 didn't have that great of climb rate.

I picture it being a bit more manueverable, with less climb than now.



Found a comparision of the p40 models:
http://www.compsoc.man.ac.uk/~wingman/p40.html


S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

ZG77_Nagual
08-07-2003, 06:42 PM
39 did have a rep for great aerodynamics.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 06:51 PM
Recon you can get P-40 info from here

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p40.html

, if you need a source.


It is nice to see a thread without the usual uber nationalistic crap posted by some and/or taken as a nation slight/insult./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Hope it stays this way.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 07:02 PM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- Pokrishkin actually stuck with his p39 when offerred
- an la7.


"Pokrishkin loving his P-39" is a myth been repeated time after time, and this is not <u>exactly</u> true.
True, Pokrishkin had definitely preferred Cobra over every Russian fighter participated in the air battle over Kuban in the spring of 1943 (which were LaGG-3, Yak-1 and Yak-7).
But being the division commander, he wanted to convert his division to La-7 at the end of 1944 and only complexity of retraining pilots (conversion from the P-38 with nose wheel to a taildragger La-7, very different engine management), which costed the life of one of his friends on landing in La-7 demo flight, stopped him. Don't remember the name of the pilot, but he was very famous Russian ace. They just didn't have time - his division was constantly thrown into battle.
He was actually very open about his preference for La-7 at that time. This is not to take anything from Aircobra, his workhorse during the war.


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 07:07 PM
OK, very good info & links...but...

"If you take into consideration all the tactical and technical characteristics of the P-40, then the Tomahawk was equal to the Bf-109F and the Kittyhawk was slightly better.

i don't really believe the Kittyhawk was a better plane than the 109F. A good pilot could hold his own etc. but Golodnikov is afterall a fighter pilot (short guy, big watch, even bigger ego) I love his interview just want to put in that we shouldn't get TOO excited about the P40 here. Still it is nice to hear something nice about it.

i just wish I could take up Tomahawk/P40b/c with only the two centrally mounted MGs. i wonder how differently it would perform from the P40 E in FB ?


http://perso.wanadoo.fr/yak11/autresyaks/df002.jpg

"Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then you are wasting your time on this earth." -Roberto Clemente

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 07:07 PM
In addition to Bogan`s post will say that Pokrishkins regiment did a field trials for LA5FN in the summer of 1943 and they were very pleased with new russian bird. It was beginning of the end for P-39 at his regiment. LA5FN was clearly superior to P-39 in all aspects that important in aircombat.

Before you flame me...those are not my words /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 07:17 PM
Yeah Recon. I was on that site already and found it pretty interesting. Actually, the link has been posted here already a while back. And imho it brings up one of the most important factors which is completely ignored in FB: G-limits. From the first a/c until today they have had certain G-limits. Mostly the pilot would suffer a G-lock anyway when reaching as high G values (9+), but still it is an important lack in realism when he finds himself in an intact a/c and not one with a wing fewer after excessive G maneuvers. Further more, when reaching high G values quickly and for a short time, there is no G-lock iRL but still the pilot has to know and must not exceed the limitation of his a/c.
This topic has been brought up already in the past, and some people suggested "It can't be done" (because of today's PC technology or whatever). Of course this is BS. I remember it happened to me more often than not back in Warbirds as I was beginning to learn B&Z. Flightsims as far back as 1995 one's (if not even before that) did that. And more or less recent examples would be Warbirds, Aces High, EAW, FS etc. Maybe they didn't do it in a manner you could run a physics study about, but leaving it out completely is way further off.
Point is: Exceed the G limits of you a/c, and you will break it in some manner. I believe FB could do that pretty well. We already have damages occuring when over-speeding the craft in a dive. Wonder why it isn't done yet for over-G. I would really like to see it. Maybe the final version of the patch will do it, that would be great.

Regards
heartc


=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 07:22 PM
Also don't forget that the real reasons for P-39 adoption by VVS were purely administrative, not based on performance of the aircraft - mainly the fact that it was the only aircraft available in numbers for a lend lease contract at a time when USSR desperately needed more aircrafts to compensate the enormous losses. Here's relevant passage from the very same site:

"The first aircraft arrived from Great Britain. After the RAF rejected the airplane in December 1941, it was recommended for delivery to the USSR along with the Hurricane. The British VVS rejected the Airacobra for the following reasons: uncompleted design, production defects, incongruence of the conceptual design of this aircraft for the genuine nature of combat operations in Europe, and so on. Therefore there were legitimate reasons on the Soviet side to be critical of the qualitative aspects of the British deliveries. However, turning away from the "class" approach to history, the "pluses" of the British assistance should be noted. Irrespective of the specific type of aircraft delivered, these were: timeliness (the decision to deliver 200 fighters to the USSR at the end of July 1941 and arrival of the first 16 aircraft in Arkhangelsk on 31 August); scope of deliveries (669 fighters before the end of 1941, true, of 800 promised by the Moscow protocol); regularity (by the spring of 1942, 12 convoys during the seven months since August 1941); the tendency to render uncompensated assistance (from the letter of W. Churchill to I. V. Stalin, received on 6 September 1941, "In the first paragraph of your letter you used the word 'to sell'. We do not look at this matter from that point of view and never thought about payment. It would be better if any assistance rendered to you by us were based upon the same basis of comradeship on which was based the American legislation regarding lend-lease, that is without formal monetary accounting."[1] ); timeliness (the peak of British deliveries came at the end of 1941 and the first half of 1942, a period of acute shortage of aircraft in the Soviet VVS. Aircraft deliveries to units were lagging as plants were being evacuated eastward [2] ). At the beginning stage British deliveries favorably compared with American deliveries, which began to arrive significantly later, in early 1942. And if the positive aspects of British assistance were obvious only until July 1942 (later it began to fall behind by almost all measures), then the practice of designating for the USSR only second-rate combat equipment had a place throughout the entire war."

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 07:39 PM
Huckebein_FW, your timeline is way off...

Russian data:

First two P-39 were received from GB in the middle of January 1942, by 22nd reserve/training (?) regiment, but was tested by NII VVS special team with a help of British engineers and technicians.

Other data state - first 11 P-39 from GB reached USSR "before the end of 1941".

End of January 1942 - 20 more P-39D from England.

April-May 1942 - official testing on NII VVS. At the same time started the training of regular pilots from frontline units.

At the beginning of May 1942, on the Afrikanda airfield near Murmansk, 19th GIAP received first 16 Aircobras (in shipping boxes), tech personnel started to assemble them, pilots were learning to fly using flight manuals in English.

On May 15 - 19th GIAP conversion was considered completed.
On the same day - first combat sortie from the Shonguy airfield and fight with Messerschmitt fighters, but no sides suffered any losses. On a next day in a fight with eight Bf-109 one Aircobra was damaged and crash-landed, pilot survived. This was first Aircobra lost on an Eastern Front.

On June 15, 1942 on the West of Murmansk, six P-39 from 19th GIAP intercepted 6 bombers and 16 escort fighters.During 45 minutes fight six enemy planes were destroyed.

In November of 1942 first P-39D (UA army specs, 37mm cannon, V-1710-63 engine) started to arrive. Planes were arriving via Murmansk, Alaska and Iran.

January 1, 1943 - front line units had 105 Aircobras.

AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942


Message Edited on 08/07/0302:41PM by Bogun

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 07:43 PM
Yes, it seemed wrong to me to, considering the entering in production dates. But the main point remains, the reason for adoption - availability in important numbers.


Yet some of your dates seem wrong too. Americans say first service delivery for P-39N was in Nov42, though the type did not saw combat with VVS until spring of '43.


Message Edited on 08/07/0301:46PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 08:06 PM
I believe my timeline is correct - it is planes were delivered to reserve/training units, which were not counted as frontline units. It took time for those units to become combat ready (few months) and start taking part in the war.

Also, Russians were offered many planes at different times (the only planes which were not offered despite Russian request were - P-38, B-24, B-29 and P-80). Even B-17 was offered initially, but there was no need for it at a time. Later Russians asked specifically for B-17G, but were told - B-17G were needed for 8th AirForce in GB.

In 1941-42 Russians were starving to replace lost planes - they were taking anything flying, but were given mostly obsolete planes by GB. When initial stress was gone in 1943 more realistic approach prevailed - Russians refuse to take any more of the Hurricanes and P-40 (which both, by the way, were in mass production till 1944).

Russians were satisfied at this time with P-39 for VVS and Spitfires for PVO - there was no need to complicate the maintenance and training with other types - production of Russian planes took off and there were no more stress like at the beginning of the war.


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942


Message Edited on 08/07/0303:07PM by Bogun

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 08:17 PM
Recon_609IAP wrote:
- yep.
-
- And I don't really get that sense out of FB - do
- you?
-
- Funny people say how 'overmodelled' the p39 is.
-
- I'd say the p40 and p39 are very good aircraft in
- comparision to these soviet planes.
-
- To be put up against what I consider the best
- 'dogfight' aircraft (109F) is quite a compliment.


Again Recon, combat pilot feelings are not performance testing. They merely represent the pilot's qualities, which were certainly present since he survived fighting the entire war duration.


P39, P40, early Yaks, Laggs, Hurri are all overmodelled, having the same mistake in FM: the speed loss is off. In every maneuver Bf-109 should loose less speed than any of the aircraft mentioned in any maneuver, because of much better excess thrust (at any speed and AoA) and power loading that Bf-109 enjoyed.

Try for example a hard 360 degrees turn, just above the ground, from 550km/h, with both P-39N and F4. You'll see that P-39N speed at the exit from turn is at least 350km/h whereas F4 could barely sustain 200km/h if it did't spin already. Physics offers no explanation for such huge difference. That's overmodelled!

You have to understand that if speed loss is not correctly modelled there is no energy fighting possible. It is a crucial element for a good combat flight simulation.
That's why you'll see only turn fighters online.

But speed loss is not the only problem for P-39. Climb rates, acceleration, turn rate and radius and general handling characteristics are also wrong. Many planes are overmodelled in various characteristic, but none of them in so many areas like P39 (though I have a tough candidate, I-16, fortunately you can ignore it).



Message Edited on 08/07/0302:34PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 08:19 PM
Bogun wrote:
-
- Also, Russians were offered many planes at different
- times (the only planes which were not offered
- despite Russian request were - P-38, B-24, B-29 and
- P-80). Even B-17 was offered initially, but there
- was no need for it at a time. Later Russians asked
- specifically for B-17G, but were told - B-17G were
- needed for 8th AirForce in GB.


Yes many planes were offered but none in P-39 quantities. Sure they could get more performant types along P-39 deliveries but that would only create logistical problems.

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 08:26 PM
very true, I do agree.



Numbers should always be the foundation - ie. turning, speeds, energy bleeds, etc...

I find pilot experience to show 'how' they were used.



Then again - we don't fly how they flew - what is important to us doesn't seem as important to them.




S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 09:12 PM
Huckebein_FW, why don't you add Bf109 and Fw190 to the list of overmodeled planes?

They both well off the mark in performance characteristics
First in speed and roll rate, Second in speed and climb... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

It looks like you somewhat selective in you choice for the planes you decided to declare overmodeled....

By the way I cannot spin Bf109F no meter what I do - it is truly Uber plane in FB.
There are no (very little) speed lost in turns if you are not trying to blackout while turning on F. Don't understand what do you want - for Bf109 to gain speed in turns?
I am not at all happy with P-39 and I-16 now - they lost their appeal not flying like I thought they should.

Hope this all will change with the patch. I just afraid that Luftwhiners will get what they were aiming from the beginning - castrate all Russian planes and artificially inflate the performance of German birds, like they did already with Fw190..




AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 04:23 AM
THANK YOU to all who posted infomation in this thread

was very interesting reading

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 05:24 AM
Salute

Huckebein continues to show his lack of understanding of aircraft physics.

A careful look at the shape of the P-39 reveals what its advantages were.

The P-39 did not have a very good level climb true, but its zoom climb and dive acceleration was excellent for the reason that its Drag Coefficient was extremely low, in fact the best of all American built fighters with the exception of the P-51. And it was easily better than a 109.

The P-39n had a zero lift drag coefficient of .0217. (P-51's was .0176)

That on a wing area of 213.2 Sq/ft gave it an equivilent flat plate area of 4.63 Sq/ft.

This meant it retained speed and energy much better than other aircraft with less clean airframes.

Even though the British rejected the Airacobra, that did not mean it was incapable of fighting German aircraft. It was more a case of the British regarding the Spitfire V as an even better choice.

The AFDU did some comparative dog-fighting tests with the Airacobra, (P-400) against a captured Messerschmitt BF 109E. The Airacobra and the Bf 109E carried out mock dog-fighting at 6000 feet and 15,000 feet. The Bf 109E had a height advantage of 1000 feet in each case. The Bf 109, using the normal German fighter tactics of diving and zooming, could usually only get in a fleeting shot. The Bf 109 could not compete with the Airacobra in a turn, and if the Bf 109 were behind the Airacobra at the start, the latter could usually shake him off and get in a burst before two complete turns were completed. If the Bf 109 were to dive on the Airacobra from above and continue the dive down to ground level after a short burst of fire, it was found that the Airacobra could follow and catch up to the Bf 109 after a dive of over 4000 feet. When fighting the Bf 109E below 20,000 feet, the Airacobra was superior on the same level and in a dive.

The current P-39Q and Q10 are overmodelled in their level climbs, which affects their zoom climbs, but they should not have their level of energy bleed adjusted much.


Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw






Message Edited on 08/08/0304:27AM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 06:38 AM
Of all the planes discussed here the P40 seems the most undermodeled. It had a good to excellent roll rate, which is somewhat OK in the game, but it's level speed is WAY off....Even though the later E and M that we have in the game were heavier than the early B and C, top speeds stayed about the same because of increased engine output.

A P40 should be able to attain 360mph (579kph) in level flight at 15,000ft., which it clearly does not in FB.

And I won't even mention the dive problem, or it's propensity to burst into flames at the slightest hint of enemy fire, which again is not correct.

If the above issues are corrected on the P40, it will become a serious contender in early year servers.

Be Sure!!

<center><FONT color="red">[b]BlitzPig_EL</FONT>[B]<CENTER> http://old.jccc.net/~droberts/p40/images/p40home.gif
</img>.
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day that it was vanity:
but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible. "
--T.E. Lawrence

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 01:23 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute
-
- Huckebein continues to show his lack of
- understanding of aircraft physics.


No Buzzsaw you're the one with complete lack of knowledge in physics. Not much time ago you're trying to sell P-47 as a good turner because it had a wing loading not much bigger than it's counterparts, completely ignoring it's awful powerloading, which affects the same way the turn rate characteristic.


- A careful look at the shape of the P-39 reveals what
- its advantages were.
-
- The P-39 did not have a very good level climb true,
- but its zoom climb and dive acceleration was
- excellent for the reason that its Drag Coefficient
- was extremely low, in fact the best of all American
- built fighters with the exception of the P-51. And
- it was easily better than a 109.
-
- The P-39n had a zero lift drag coefficient of .0217.
- (P-51's was .0176)
-
-
- That on a wing area of 213.2 Sq/ft gave it an
- equivilent flat plate area of 4.63 Sq/ft.
-
- This meant it retained speed and energy much better
- than other aircraft with less clean airframes.

Better than a careful look at Airacobra you should check your physics manual.

First Bf-109F flat plate is 0.0235 * 176.76 = 4.15 sqft. That means that regardless of speed Bf-109F produces less parasitic drag that P-39. Also for a ww2 fighter (with usual aerodynamic config) induced drag is more than three times bigger than parasitic drag in best sustained turns. Since induced drag depended on this factor:

cl^2/(pi*e*AR) which is
0.151 for Bf109F (clmax 1.54) and
0.154 for P-39 (clmax 1.44)

So total drag generated is less for Bf-109F.

I can complete the calculations for sustained turn rates and speed loss, but I'd like you to do them yourself here, since you're so eager to judge my knowledge of physics.
I say P-39 looses more speed than Bf109F (not much though), you support the ridiculous FB FM in which F4 looses almost two times more speed than P39(!!!). Let's see your calculations that support this out-of-this-world ideea.


Message Edited on 08/08/0307:30AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 01:52 PM
the P-40 had a reputation for being a Tuff , reliable plane ......

how does it handel damadge in FB again ? .........

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 03:23 PM
I don't wish to get involved in bickering about planes' dogfight abilities, but I saw a question I can answer:

Recon_609IAP wrote:
- So - why did they put the Soviet engine in the field
- mod?

The Soviets replaced the Allison V-1710-39 with the Klimov M-105P in some P-40E's (about 40). The swap was done because there was a shortage of spare parts for the V-1710. There is supposedly no change in performance from the engine swap. While there probably were some differences, the engines made about the same power. If they could have had it their way, my guess is the Soviets would have gotten all of their P-40E's with the M-105. It would have been much easier to train ground crews on one engine instead of two, and domestic parts are much easier to get than parts for a foreign engine. Of course, the P-39's and others had V-1710's, so there still would've been a need for training and parts for the Allisons anyway.

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 03:51 PM
Thanks Greenhorn!



S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 05:21 PM
Hey All!


I just got a copy of Black Cross Red Star Vol. 2 and I read that overall, the lend-lease planes that they recieved from the Brits and Americans were OK. They complained that the planes they got were "poorly assembled" and they suffered from an acute lack of spare parts. Furthermore, the engines in American and British aircraft could not be used to their full potentials because the soviets used a lower octane fuel(octane 74 -76) than the engines were disigned for. As a result, the engines wore out quickly. Despite all of this, the Russians loved the P-39 becuse it was modern when compared to the planes they were flying before. The Hurricane, from all accounts was panned (too heavy, too slow, low power/weight ratio.) According to the book, the soviets had trouble getting used to the P-40 ( it was heavy, but it was much more powerful than anything they had been used to flying and they also liked the armmament.) Once the Russians got used to it, the plane became a tough contender. The most interesting thing I read was that German pilots agreed that turning with P-40's in a dogfight was "tantamount to suicide", esspecially if it was in the hands of a good pilot.

Capt. Arnold

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 05:26 PM
I've heard good stuff about that book.

Would you highly recommend it?



S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 05:29 PM
JR_Greenhorn wrote:
-
- Recon_609IAP wrote:
-- So - why did they put the Soviet engine in the field
-- mod?
-
- The Soviets replaced the Allison V-1710-39 with the
- Klimov M-105P in some P-40E's (about 40). The swap
- was done because there was a shortage of spare parts
- for the V-1710. There is supposedly no change in
- performance from the engine swap. While there
- probably were some differences, the engines made
- about the same power. If they could have had it
- their way, my guess is the Soviets would have gotten
- all of their P-40E's with the M-105. It would have
- been much easier to train ground crews on one engine
- instead of two, and domestic parts are much easier
- to get than parts for a foreign engine. Of course,
- the P-39's and others had V-1710's, so there still
- would've been a need for training and parts for the
- Allisons anyway.
-
-

It was not totally a "field mode" but it was done because of necessity, not because of better performance with M-105 engine.
Russians replaced both engine and propeller group on the one from the LaGG in a repair shop near besieged Leningrad. They just had plenty M-105 and not enough Allison engines there. Performance suffered a little - with "new" engine plane become 10-15 km/h slower.


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 06:13 PM
Salute Huckbein

I have never sold the P-47 as a 'Good Turner'.

What I have said, an argument which is backed up by both test data and historical accounts, is that the P-47 maintained control authority from its elevator and ailerons at high speed, while other aircraft degraded at a faster rate.

In regards to your claim that the 109 has a smaller flat plate area, that is clearly based on a false assumption, that being your 'estimated' Drag Coefficient. I say 'estimated' kindly, since no one here who has done any serious research will believe this aircraft had as clean an airframe as you suggest.

The simple fact that the 109 had slats in the leading edges, plus the positioning of the air intake for the radiator right at the front of the aircraft, just behind the nose, meant that turbulence and drag would be considerable.

The 109 was a 1934 design, originally topping out at 290mph, and its aerodynamics are primitive compared to later aircraft.

A number of calculations done for the 109 put its Drag Coefficient in the .036 area. Which means its flat plate area was roughly 25% greater than you suggest.


RAF74 Buzzsaw



Message Edited on 08/10/0309:19AM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 06:27 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
-
- Any realistic calculations done for the 109 put its
- Drag Coefficient in the .036 area. Which means its
- flat plate area was roughly 25% greater than you
- suggest.

Why noy post one of your realistic calculations. Oh you can't, I forgot. 0.036 CdO is for a bomber Buzzsaw, even I-16 ewas better than that. I think we can end our little chat here, since you lack the even the basic knowledge necessary.

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 10:24 PM
Recon_609IAP wrote:
- I've heard good stuff about that book.
-
- Would you highly recommend it?
-



Hell Yeah!! Its a very good read. Lots of interesting stories of people I've never heard of before. As you know, the eastern front isnt the most popular genre in WWII history here in the US. Good stuff!

Capt. Arnold

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 01:38 AM
I was fooling around with some mates online one night using the p40 V 109f4,The 109 was a clear winner over the p40 every time ( both were used as T@B ) just to see for myself how good it was we swaped aircraft and again the 109 was king It simply out handled the p40 and never come close to stalling unlike the p40,Later we used it in B@Z and it was imposable to fight it with the p40 clearly the okl have at least one uber plane /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

No1RAAF_Pourshot

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 03:39 AM
Howdy

pourshot wrote:
- I was fooling around with some mates online one
- night using the p40 V 109f4,The 109 was a clear
- winner over the p40 every time ( both were used as
- T@B ) just to see for myself how good it was we
- swaped aircraft and again the 109 was king It simply
- out handled the p40 and never come close to stalling
- unlike the p40,Later we used it in B@Z and it was
- imposable to fight it with the p40 clearly the okl
- have at least one uber plane /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
- No1RAAF_Pourshot
-

Hmm and two nights ago, I killed 4 109's (3F's, 1E),
1 190A4, and 2 Hurri MK1's in a single sortie. All of the
planes exploded or lost wings except for the 190 which
was an engine kill. I died that sortie running down a
190A4 when I noticed I was going 610Kmh level on the deck
and tried to slow down. Boom

I have no problem whatsoever out turning a 109F in a P40E.
If the 109 just yanks the stick back... If he uses his plane
to it's advantage (better accel, better climb, more power)
I die.
Any opponent can get an fairly easy P40 Kill by showing
the P40 his tail, diving past 500kmh, and then leveling off.
If the greedy P40 pilot follows,, Boom.
109's just can't get close enough for a spray and pray shot
from a P40. Usually if any bullet hits the 109 is on fire,
a cable is shot out, or the engien is dead. Dead engines
are far more likely to happen versus 190's though.

S!
Weasel

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 03:53 AM
BgWeasel wrote:
- Howdy
-
- pourshot wrote:
-- I was fooling around with some mates online one
-- night using the p40 V 109f4,The 109 was a clear
-- winner over the p40 every time ( both were used as
-- T@B ) just to see for myself how good it was we
-- swaped aircraft and again the 109 was king It simply
-- out handled the p40 and never come close to stalling
-- unlike the p40,Later we used it in B@Z and it was
-- imposable to fight it with the p40 clearly the okl
-- have at least one uber plane /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
--
-- No1RAAF_Pourshot
--
-
- Hmm and two nights ago, I killed 4 109's (3F's, 1E),
-
-
- 1 190A4, and 2 Hurri MK1's in a single sortie. All
- of the
- planes exploded or lost wings except for the 190
- which
- was an engine kill. I died that sortie running down
- a
- 190A4 when I noticed I was going 610Kmh level on the
- deck
- and tried to slow down. Boom
-
- I have no problem whatsoever out turning a 109F in a
- P40E.
- If the 109 just yanks the stick back... If he uses
- his plane
- to it's advantage (better accel, better climb, more
- power)
- I die.
- Any opponent can get an fairly easy P40 Kill by
- showing
- the P40 his tail, diving past 500kmh, and then
- leveling off.
- If the greedy P40 pilot follows,, Boom.
- 109's just can't get close enough for a spray and
- pray shot
- from a P40. Usually if any bullet hits the 109 is
- on fire,
- a cable is shot out, or the engien is dead. Dead
- engines
- are far more likely to happen versus 190's though.
-
- S!
- Weasel
-
-
-
-
-
True but I was playing against pilots I know well, so we both know each other's tricks ,it just came down to the planes.

And how often can you get that many kills in one sortie sure it happens but if you can do it regularly then it wont matter what your flying/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Hell I got 1200 points in one coop (all air kills) on hyper last week but that was a fluke if I get one or two kills I'am usualy happy

No1RAAF_Pourshot

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 06:04 AM
"The type-28 and -29 were arguably equal to the Bf-109F, perhaps a little bit behind. The remaining I-16 types, of course, were not even close. The F model appeared in the north in large numbers in November 1942. Before that time we saw primarily the E model. The I-16 type-28 and -29 fell behind the F model in maximum speed and vertical maneuver, but surpassed the F model in horizontal maneuver and armament. The F model was very capable in vertical maneuver. If he even thought you were going to catch him, the pilot gave it more throttle and broke away.

The FW-190 appeared at approximately the same time as the Bf-109F, sometime in October 1942. It was a powerful fighter. The 190 surpassed the I-16 in every respect, perhaps, except horizontal maneuver. But by this time our Yaks and lend-lease P-40s and P-39s were arriving in large numbers."



"The type-28 and -29 were arguably equal to the Bf-109F, perhaps a little bit behind."

"The 190 surpassed the I-16 in every respect"

It sounds like someone had a greater opinion of the FW190 than the 109F




JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 07:01 AM
Great thread Recon...really good stuff!!! THIS is what this forum is REALLY all about!! Stuff like this is so refreshing..... I get sick of the silliness but this stuff is great........ this is the kind of stuff I come here looking for.

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 08:26 AM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute
-
- Huckebein continues to show his lack of
- understanding of aircraft physics.
-
- The P-39n had a zero lift drag coefficient of .0217.
- (P-51's was .0176)
-

You may use terms that are beyound the comprehension of about 95% of this forum. It does not necessarily make your case stronger, whatever it may be. Like Huck just about correctly notes you wrongly try to connect profile drag with manouvering (E-bleed), additionally you throw in questionable figures with label _serious_.

Just leave the confusing stuff out and try to see what is able to manage what and with which means, huh?

Quoting the object viewer (this data is of course largely open to nitpicking). Aircraft top speeds vs. power:

On SL:
P-39N1 clocks 500 km/h with 1420 HP
Bf-109 F-4 520 km/h with 1350 HP
P-47D-27 534 km/h with 2300 HP
P-51D 578 km/h with 1720 HP

Now 109 manages 4% higher velocity (8% higher drag) with 5% less power. Jug manages 14% higher drag with 61% increase in power. P-51 manages 33% more with 21% power increase. If you arrange these in quality figures you will see that, with for example 1350 HP the SL top speed might be something like:

P-47 409 km/h
P-39N1 487 km/h
P-51D 512 km/h
F-4 520 km/h

What would this tell about aerodynamic quality?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

-------------------------------------
In these locked and shackled neighbourhoods, bridge and tunnel diplomats.
See the golden ghetto's creeper.
Crazy flags from history, songs for the White House gangsters, guns for hellgate railway sleepers.
But there's a man who makes no enemies, a body never breathless, no ambition ever hopeless.
So how stands the city on this winter's night?
The city on the hill or so they said.
The snow is falling down around the armoury.
The city's closing in around my head.

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 09:58 AM
Ugly_Kid wrote:
- On SL:
- P-39N1 clocks 500 km/h with 1420 HP
- Bf-109 F-4 520 km/h with 1350 HP
- P-47D-27 534 km/h with 2300 HP
- P-51D 578 km/h with 1720 HP
-

HOLD ON! So the F-4 is supposedly faster than the P39 even in FB's object viewer? Why the hell does the P39 outrun my G-2 then?!@ /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Don't know why I'm writing this but here goes:-

Top X-wing wannabes in need of some clipping IMO:
I-16
I-153
Hurricane
P-39N1

Top brick impressions that need a look see:
P-40
P-47
109G-6 early
Brewster

<hr width="400">Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and have their
shoes!
http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg (http://www.jagdgeschwader1.com)

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 03:47 PM
Jetbuff

According to Object Viewer:

Depending on altitude - you could be outrun.



109G2
Sea Level: 535
7Km: 666


P39N-1
SL: 500
3.5 km: 605



S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem



Message Edited on 08/09/0302:48PM by Recon_609IAP

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 07:44 PM
Salute Ugly Kid

Your quoted data figures from the object viewer are wrong in several areas.

The following are from "America's Hundred Thousand", probably the best overall source on U.S. aircraft.

First of all the P-39n Allison V-1710-85 (E19) engine has a Military power rating of 1125 horsepower at sea level, Takeoff is 1200 hp, it has 1115 at 15,000 ft, 1420 at war emergency power at 9700 ft. (its best altitude) The speed figures you are are quoting are from Military power tests, ie. on 1125 hp at sea level. You cannot use the hp figures for 9700 ft for a sea level speed test. So you have overrated the horsepower required to produce that speed, therefore underrating the aerodynamic effectiveness of the aircraft.

Second, the P-51D was rated at 587 kph at Sea Level with the Packard Merlin V1650-7 of 1720 hp. You have underated the speed on this aircraft.

Third, the P-47D-22 with the R2800-63 was rated at 552 kph at Sea Level on 2300 hp. The P-47 D27 with the R2800-59 had 2600 hp and was rated at 568 kph at Sea level. Your speed figures seem to be from the P-47D10 with the R2800-21, which was the aircraft tested by the Soviets and the one which seems to have made its way into the object viewer. Once again, you have underrated the aircraft.

If you want to do such an efficiency comparison, then at least get your figures correct.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 09:43 PM
Salute

Further:

If you are going to calculate aerodynamic efficiency, then do it correctly.

Here is a Page which has all the formulae required:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/app-c.htm

Additionally, to simplify your task, there is another connection which deals specifically with the 109.

A Dr. Sighard F Hoerner published a paper in 1965 which examined the 109G for its aerodynamic efficiency.

The paper is slightly flawed in that the starting data for the 109G model he was looking at was incorrect.

However, the methods used in the paper, and the formulae are completely accurate.

All that is needed to arrive at a correct estimation of the 109's aerodynamic efficiency, or any aircraft's, would be to follow the steps he takes, and plug in the correct data.

I have the article, and would be happy to send it out to anyone who is interested. I have lost the URL for it, although its available somewhere.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 01:10 AM
Recon_609IAP wrote:
- Further on he speaks of no wing mounted mg
-
- "A. S. So your P-40s did not have wing-mounted
- machine guns?
-
- N. G. No. Ours had only the [nose-mounted]
- synchronized machine guns. "
-
-
- Wonder what deviation this was?
-
-
-
- Also:
-----
- "A. S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, how would you evaluate
- the speed, rate of climb, acceleration, and
- maneuverability of the P-40? Did it suit you?
-
- N. G. I say again, the P-40 significantly outclassed
- the Hurricane, and it was far and away above the
- I-16. "
-----
-
- "Significantly outclassed". I don't get that
- feeling at all in FB!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- S!
- 609IAP_Recon


True as written but from what Nikolay said to FB there are 2 MG's in the wings to account for. The weight of those guns changes top speed, climb and turn of the P-40. Perhaps with the guns, the difference was no longer 'significant' which we don't know how much that is anyway.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 05:18 AM
Recon_609IAP wrote:
- Jetbuff
-
- According to Object Viewer:
-
- Depending on altitude - you could be outrun.
-
-
-
- 109G2
- Sea Level: 535
- 7Km: 666
-
-
- P39N-1
- SL: 500
- 3.5 km: 605
-
-

Still think the P39 is a tad overmodelled speed-wise and possibly in the sustained climb department - not by Hurri or I-16 standards though. Could be related to the E-bleed model but I'm crap at nailing these things down.

I have no problem with it's zoom climb performance or turning ability.

<hr width="400">Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and have their
shoes!
http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg (http://www.jagdgeschwader1.com)

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 06:58 AM
Buzzsaw,

I can already calculate the aerodynamic efficiency or drag coefficients, thank you very much. That was not the point, I merely wanted to point out that some simple comparisons may be more, let's say, accesable to common people visiting this forum and give a better overview. You don't have to put smoke curtain in front of it. In the light of that particular set of numbers it does not look so bad for Bf and it does not look so rosy for P-39, you can then try other numbers.

For the errors in the figures you really have to complain to Oleg, 1C or UBI, not me, I truly don't care. Everybody knows by now that people have their dearest figures of their pet aircraft. Generally, these performance figures from the object viewer are also found in the game and if I have to bet P-51D will only make 578 km/h with 110% throttle the day it comes. Right or wrong I truly don't care. I also frankly don't care which one is more "aerodynamically" efficient.

Hoerner's article:

http://pub131.ezboard.com/fallboutwarfarefrm31.showMessage?topicID=2853.topi c

Concerning Hoerner's article it was not just errors in figures, the dude also accounted for some 15% thrust from the exhaust, that's a) uncommon b) questionable. You see, if you use prop efficiency of 0.85 and add 15% from the thrust you have 100% efficiency from the power transmission, I mildly doubt that. Furthermore, he made his comparison on 22000 ft altitude where a) that top speed is questionable b) the power figure is dubious. After that _you_ come to a conclusion that any serious estimates yield CD0=0.036. Moreover, you can truly question the high prop efficiency figure 0.85 itself for 6600 m altitude. Yes, if you arrange the figures skillfully you are able to make the thruth what you want. I do not mean disrespect to Dr. Hoerner, the purpose of that article was clearly not meant as the final thruth about 109.

In the end you can't do the absolute comparison without knowing exactly the prop efficiency at top speed, for example. You can calculate dozen different flat plate efficiencies and drag coefficients but you are nowhere nearer the thruth. The comparison I made is also nowhere near accurate. So what? I doubt you will find a fighter from that era that in the end was seriously ueber, maybe excluding Me 262. The piston engine fighters started reaching the maximum efficiency and there was no going up anymore, the only thing that more powerfull engines would produce is the fuel consumption. You can clearly see this from the development of top speed records.

-------------------------------------
In these locked and shackled neighbourhoods, bridge and tunnel diplomats.
See the golden ghetto's creeper.
Crazy flags from history, songs for the White House gangsters, guns for hellgate railway sleepers.
But there's a man who makes no enemies, a body never breathless, no ambition ever hopeless.
So how stands the city on this winter's night?
The city on the hill or so they said.
The snow is falling down around the armoury.
The city's closing in around my head.


Message Edited on 08/10/0307:53AM by Ugly_Kid

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 08:58 AM
Salute Ugly

Glad you don't make disrespect for Dr. Hoerner, since he would seem to know a lot more than you do, being a Published Professor Emeritus, and acknowledged expert on the subject of Fluid Dynamics.

For some details on his published works, go here:

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Sighard+F+Hoerner&ei=UTF-8&fr=fp-top

In regards to his 'errors', let us have a look.

Here is his first page:

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/uploads8/10561774605q44t.jpg


The figure which he provided for top speed does not correspond to the normally accepted 'top' speed for the 109G6. (Although he does not specify a model, it is obvious he is referring to the 109G6, as you can see the 'Buboes' and other details in the drawings which relate to this model) However, at the same time, the altitude and speed he mentions is not the one normally associated with the 109G6's top speed and rated altitude.

It is not at all clear whether or not 610 kph is the speed this aircraft could attain at 22,000 ft.

Let's look at the engine in question:

The DB605A, which is obviously the one he is referring to, produces the following horsepower:

(figures from original Messerschmidt documents which can be provided by e-mail if requested)

1475 hp at 2800 rpm at 1.42 atas at Sea Level

1355 hp at 2800 rpm at 1.42 atas at 18,700 ft. (this is the G6's 'rated' altitude, ie. the altitude at which the aircraft attains its fastest True Airspeed)

1250 hp at 2600 rpm at 1.35 atas at 19,000 ft.

1150 hp at 2600 rpm at 1.35 atas at 25,600 ft.

According to a number of sources, including the Finnish 109G6 manual, available here:

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-Manuals.html

The top speed of the 109G6 at its rated altitude is 650 kph at 5700 meters (18,700 ft).

We know the DB605A's power and the speed of the 109G6 fell off after 18,700 ft. The question is, by how much?

Is the Professor's figure of 610 kph at 22,000 ft. that far off? Perhaps, but not by that much.

Second issue, lets look at the power figure he provided, ie. 1200 hp at 22,000 ft. Looking at the figures for the engine above, we see that in fact, 1200 hp would actually quite possibly be less than what was available from this engine at that altitude. My data shows 1355 hp from 1.42 atas boost at 18,700 ft, 1150 hp at 1.35 atas at 25,600 ft, ie. at less than maximum boost and at 4600 ft higher altitude the engine is putting out only 50 less hp than the figure he quoted. What would the hp figure be at maximum boost at 22,000? It would seem likely higher than 1200. Which would mean that the Professor had inadvertently given an advantage to the 109G aerodynamics in terms of calculating the power available at 22,000 ft. The lower the power figure used to attain a particular speed, the better the aircraft's aerodynamics. When a lower figure is used mistakenly in a calculation, then the results will give an inadvertent boost to the aircraft's Drag Coefficient rating, something which seems to have happened in this case.

The Professor obviously had some personal experience with the 109G, he says so in his article.

However, he also listed a lower weight for the G6 model than it actually weighed, ie. 6700 lbs instead of the normally accepted 6930 lbs. So the wingloading figure he has listed, 39 lbs per Sq/ft is actually better than the actual aircrafts which again, skews the calculation of the aircraft's aerodynamic efficiency.

It seems that the Professor made mistakes in both directions, a top speed mistake which may have reduced the calculated aerodynamic efficiency, but also other mistakes which likely added to its efficiency rating.

In any case, plugging in the correct numbers can give us the real Drag Coefficient for this aircraft. I will be consulting with a Aeronautics engineer friend of mine, and will get back to you.

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 09:16 AM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:

- The simple fact that the 109 had slats in the
- leading edges, plus the positioning of the air
- intake for the radiator right at the front of the
- aircraft, just behind the nose, meant that
- turbulence and drag would be considerable.

Jesus... slats being a negative thing for speed. WRONG. They were a highly advanced feature that enable to have equivalent stall characteristics with small wing area (=less drag), unlike some more orthodox designs which crudely mounted 2 oversized wings to achieve those stall characteristics with vast amounts of drag.

"positioning of the air intake for the radiator right at the front of the aircraft".

Uh... air intake scoop or you refer to the oil cooler? It`s seems you can`t decide which one is which. Anyway, both were excellent designs, especially in 1940. The air intake scoop was well placed out of the boundary layer on the 109 (and 190D), which resulted minimum possible turbulance.
The oil cooler itself was designed to take advantage of the Meredith effects, by taking in air in the front, heating up and expanding the gases inside, and then letting them out on a continously adjusted outlet in the back of the oil cooler, creating "free" additional thrust, cancelling the drag the oil cooler created, and under some conditions, creating benefitial extra-thrust. It acted like a small rocket engine, and was rather similiar to that of the P-51`s.


- The 109 was a 1934 design, originally topping out at
- 290mph, and its aerodynamics are primitive compared
- to later aircraft.

ROFLOL! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Well that`s why every model of it was among the fastest planes of it`s time, convinently being faster than Spitfires, Hurricanes, P-40s etc. with the same or less amount of horsepower.

I.e. the Spitfire XIF had 1340HP and topped out at 310mph at SL. The Spitfire MkIXLF had 1650HP and topped out at 329mph at SL.
At the same period, the 109G-2 had 1310HP and topped out at 326mph at SL, the G-6 with 1475HP topped out at 329mph at SL.

The Spitfire Mk. XIVF had 2035HP and topped out at 359mph at SL. At the same time the 109K-4 reached 377mph with 2000HP.

In fact, only a few truly well desinged plane like the P-51 could match it`s effiency in converting horsepower to speed.


Oh, and BTW, the late 109s could hardly be considered an "1934 design", given that the airplane was completely redesigned in both external and internal structure in 1940 with the Bf 109F. Otherwise, I can hardly understand this propaganda with the original design date of the basic model. The US for example, was fighting the war with 99% of it`s planes designed before 1940. Not that would mean anything regarding performance...

-
- Any realistic calculations done for the 109 put its
- Drag Coefficient in the .036 area. Which means its
- flat plate area was roughly 25% greater than you
- suggest.
-

Buzzsaw is probably referring to a calculation using completely off numbers, which give much lower speeds (-40km/h slower) and weight (-100kg lighter) than the original aircraft actually was. With these wrong data used as the basis of calculation, naturally someone managed to arrive at 0.036. But just as they started with wrong numbers, they ended up with a wrong one as well.

Real drag coeffs Cd0s, however are the following:

G-1 and G-2: 0.0216
G-6: 0.023
K-4: 0.019

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 09:55 AM
Salute Isegrim

I was wondering when you would poke your head into this discussion.

Well, Welcome!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Let's have our discussion.

First of all, don't you feel like blushing when you insist that Slats are wonderful additions to speed.... lol

Read what the professor says about the slats on the wings of the 109:

(see Drag of the wings)

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/uploads8/1056177628j3vut.jpg

Do you know what "fully turbulent" means? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Not good. All those nasty shock waves start to form early...


Here's what he says about the fuselage and in particular the air intake and oil cooler.

(see Drag of Appendages)

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/uploads8/1056177860scgft.jpg


In regards to your comment about the Spitfire:

The Spitfire cannot be held up to be an especially slippery airframe. It is not very good, although not nearly as bad as the 109.

You want to bring to our attention the fact that the Spitfire IX was barely slower than the 109G. Excellent. The Spitfire was not an example of a superbly designed airframe.

And let's not forget the Spitfire had 242 Sq/ft of wings compared to 172 Sq/ft for the 109, had a larger fuselage, and weighed 7400 lbs, more than the 109. Its wetted area was far greater.

Finally...

The figures you present for the 109's Drag Coefficients are laughable.

Please provide the calculations which allow you to arrive at those figures.

Use the NACA sites formulas which I posted earlier in the thread please, or plug your speed, hp and altitude into Dr. Hoerner's calculations.


Thankyou RAF74 Buzzsaw




Message Edited on 08/10/0309:03AM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 09:58 AM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
-
- It is not at all clear whether or not 610 kph is the
- speed this aircraft could attain at 22,000 ft.
-

Sorry? Every single primary document lists it at 650kph/22k ft. What do you mean it`s not clear? It perfectly is.



- Let's look at the engine in question:
-
- The DB605A, which is obviously the one he is
- referring to, produces the following horsepower:
-
- (figures from original Messerschmidt documents which
- can be provided by e-mail if requested)
-
- 1475 hp at 2800 rpm at 1.42 atas at Sea Level
-
- 1355 hp at 2800 rpm at 1.42 atas at 18,700 ft.
- (this is the G6's 'rated' altitude, ie. the altitude
- at which the aircraft attains its fastest True
- Airspeed)


Again you have some very basic troubles in understanding BASIC phenomenons. You think that the static power critical altitudes you qouted refer to the plane`s top speed critical altitude.

You simply fail to understand that a plane`s maximum speed is developed at where it`s engine`s rated altitude, taking into account the effect of rammed air, which means that in high speed flight the engine`s static critical altitude is increased greatly.

Why? Since planes travel at high speeds, their movement compresses the air further in the air intake, helping out the supercharger. The result is that the same pressure can be kept up for additional 1000-1500meter altitude, compared to static conditions.

That`s why the DB605A develops 1355HP at 5.8km in static conditions, but when installed in a plane that runs at high speeds, it can actually maintain power up to 6.6km (G-6) or 7km (G-2). In the latter example, it can be noticed that plane aerodynamics also effect the amount of gain from rammed powers, since a larger drag aircraft cannot attain such high speeds and thus gain as much free supercharging work, which leads to less power above rated altitude, which again means less speed, and it`s starts all over again until these factors come to balance. In case of the G-2 and G-6 with the same engine and same boost, this was the following:

G-2: 665kph at 7000m
G-6: 650kph at 6600m.



-
- The top speed of the 109G6 at its rated altitude is
- 650 kph at 5700 meters (18,700 ft).
-

Nope, 650 kph at 6600meters according every single document or test, ie. GLC C-E2 charts.


-
- We know the DB605A's power and the speed of the
- 109G6 fell off after 18,700 ft. The question is, by
- how much?

Sorry, it didn`t fell of after 18700ft. On the contrary, it continoued to increase up to 22 000 ft.


-
- Is the Professor's figure of 610 kph at 22,000 ft.
- that far off? Perhaps, but not by that much.
-

Well they are "only" 40kph off... that`s a LOT. It translates to 6.5% difference in speed, which would mean no less than 20.1% in power difference !! (power requirements increase on the cube).

In other words: Using the guy`s numbers (1200HP/610kph/22k ft), to attain the REAL speed figure of the G-6 at that altitude with that "other plane" he was describing, for one to increase the speed by 40ph (6.5%) would require 20.1% of more power than actually, or about 250 additional horsepower.



-
- It seems that the Professor made mistakes in both
- directions, a top speed mistake which may have
- reduced the calculated aerodynamic efficiency, but
- also other mistakes which likely added to its
- efficiency rating.

You mean he made an ENORMOUS mistake in top speed, and some small other glitches which wouldn`t nearly do as much difference.

And while it seems you were very well aware of these mistakes, you continued to present the flawed results as real ones.... no comment!

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 10:05 AM
109f has low drag

does not matter that 109 has low drag because she is small,

for physic is that unimportant how you get low drag

p39n-1,spit5 with more power sealevel but are slower as f4 although 109 have not good propeller effectiveness

spit5,p39n-1 have not better drag as f4

especcially p47 suffer at sealevel with her drag
only 534km/h with with 2000ps

f4 has same speed sealevel with only 1350ps

you could calculate so many you will,

when plane is with more power is slower,
has it more drag


Message Edited on 08/10/0302:31PM by Skalgrim

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 10:11 AM
Salute Isegrim

I stand by my comments:

Don't like the Professors Speed and weight figures?

Do the calculations yourself.

Plug your corrected figures into the formula and let's see what comes out.


RAF74 Buzzsaw



Message Edited on 08/10/0309:13AM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 10:19 AM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:

-
- First of all, don't you feel like blushing when you
- insist that Slats are wonderful additions to
- speed.... lol
-
- Read what the professor says about the slats on the
- wings of the 109:
-
- (see Drag of the wings)

Well it`s good for a laugh. He says the ENTIRE wing surface is fully turbulent. Proof? None. Studies? Not a single. He just says so.

I wonder if he knows it that good, why wasn`t he the head of Messerscmitt? And how could it be that today, literally hundreds of designs use leading edge slats, ranging from the F-14 Tomcat through the Jumbo jet?

Funny that onwards from the F-86 itself, the USAAF made such great use of those slats. Why? Because they are generally viewed as very useful aerodynamic devices in aviation industry, simple as that.

-
- Here's what he says about the fuselage and in
- particular the air intake and oil cooler.
-
- (see Drag of Appendages)

Funny that the guy considers them bad, and everybody else says he`s wrong.

Again: Studies to prove it? No. Wind tunnel tests? No. A guy says so, while many disprove him. That alone is whoefully inaduquate.



- In regards to your comment about the Spitfire:
-
- The Spitfire cannot be held up to be an especially
- slippery airframe. It is not very good, although
- not nearly as bad as the 109.

If it`s not worser, why is it much slower?
And as ugly kid showed, if the 109 is so bad, why it is generally faster than others at the same power, or at least equal? Only Soviet designs and the P-51 can match it`s aerodynamic effiency. It`s there, black and white. Speed, and the power required for it.


-
- You want to bring to our attention the fact that the
- Spitfire IX was barely slower than the 109G.
- Excellent. The Spitfire was not an example of a
- superbly designed airframe.
-
- And let's not forget the Spitfire had 242 Sq/ft of
- wings compared to 172 Sq/ft for the 109, had a
- larger fuselage, and weighed 7400 lbs, more than the
- 109. Its wetted area was far greater.

Yet the 109 could attain similiar or better climb rate and handling, with greater speed as a bonus. The reason is brief and simple: those bad automatic leading edge slats, that allowed for smaller wing area, and weight save.

The Spitfire was the least efficient design of that age of all mainstream fighters, considering the amount of horsepower it required to haul it around. The archaic design feature of using large lift surfaces (which wasn`t a bad idea in general, just blastedly inefficient) is only of the sources of this, however, one cannot slip past the poorly designed radiators and intakes with large drag and turbulance, and those half dozen bulges that cover the aircraft.

However Supermarine is only partly responsible for that. The Spitifire I was of the same weight as the Me109E, however the former was rigged with engines that in the later models were 50% heavier and bulkier, and the need t strenghten armament led to unwanted weigth gain and distruption of the airflow over the wings by the cannon barrels. It`s always the weakest link in the chain that sets the final qualities.



-
- Finally...
-

-
- The figures you present for the 109's Drag
- Coefficients are laughable.
-
- Please provide the calculations which allow you to
- arrive at those figures.
-
- Use the NACA sites formulas which I posted earlier
- in the thread please, or plug your speed, hp and
- altitude into Dr. Hoerner's calculations.

Here`s what Hans109s has to say on that, based on actual drag studies on 109G, of which I have a few bits.



"Drag and lift coefficient associated to 109G (in sustained climb):


Drag Coeff. is:

Cd = Cd0 + Cdi

where Cdi is:

Cdi = (Cl)²/PhiARe

Wing area: 16,05 m²
Wing Span: 9,92 m
AR: 6,13
e = 0,8

So we have a Cd0 = 0.0216 associated to a reference area of 16,05 m² for a 109G-1 airframe with G-4/6 wheels, with a non retractable tailwheel and without any kind of special treatment to the surface (polishing, filling, etc).

Drag increment due going from F/early G series cowling to a larger one associated to DB 603G supercharger:


Which gives us a (Delta)Cd = 0,00045

Fully retractable tailwheel: -0,00218
Wheel well covers: -0,00165

For a K-4 Cd0 of 0,0183, which gives us a Equivalent Profile Area of 0,294 m².

I'm missing Cd for the bigger oil cooler of DB 605D (worse Cdo), slightly increased supercharger air intake (worse Cd0), Erla hood (better Cd0) and enlarget tail fin & rudder (better Cd0). I estimated K-4 Cd0 between 0.0185 and 0.019 (wing area as reference area).

And for compatation's sake, Cd0 of Bf 109 G-6 is 0,023 (EPA = 0,369 m²)."

You may notice that I took the most pessimistic drag data for K-4.

Care to argue that?



http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 11:00 AM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute Ugly
-
- Glad you don't make disrespect for Dr. Hoerner,
- since he would seem to know a lot more than you do,
- being a Published Professor Emeritus, and
- acknowledged expert on the subject of Fluid
- Dynamics.

You seemed to miss the point, didn't you? The article was not meant as the final word on Bf-109G, for this reason any figures and pictures would have done.

- In any case, plugging in the correct numbers can
- give us the real Drag Coefficient for this aircraft.
- I will be consulting with a Aeronautics engineer
- friend of mine, and will get back to you.
-
-

Aha, I don't qualify 'cause I don't necessarily play your tunes?, very well. With all the lengthy stories and pictures you forgot one thing: The prop efficiency and the "additional" thrust from exhaust resulting in 100% transmission efficiency as well /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

With the data you wrote the top speed is likely to be around 633 km/h for that alt, the power being ~1257 HP. This results in CD0=0.026 with prop efficiency of 0.85. Accounting for induced drag CDi=0.003 from Oswald's efficiency of 0.75 and the usual stuff. However, like I said nyy=0.85 can be also further questioned. Since you're so resourcefull you might provide a prop efficiency chart for Bf because the crappy aerodynamics myth needs that desperately.

Once more where are you trying to get with that?

-------------------------------------
In these locked and shackled neighbourhoods, bridge and tunnel diplomats.
See the golden ghetto's creeper.
Crazy flags from history, songs for the White House gangsters, guns for hellgate railway sleepers.
But there's a man who makes no enemies, a body never breathless, no ambition ever hopeless.
So how stands the city on this winter's night?
The city on the hill or so they said.
The snow is falling down around the armoury.
The city's closing in around my head.

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 11:19 AM
Ugly_Kid wrote:

- With the data you wrote the top speed is likely to
- be around 633 km/h for that alt, the power being
- ~1257 HP. This results in CD0=0.026 with prop
- efficiency of 0.85. Accounting for induced drag
- CDi=0.003 from Oswald's efficiency of 0.75 and the
- usual stuff. However, like I said nyy=0.85 can be
- also further questioned. Since you're so
- resourcefull you might provide a prop efficiency
- chart for Bf because the crappy aerodynamics myth
- needs that desperately.

Thew fun thing is that if this discussion would be about propellor effiencies, Buzzsaw would write just as long tirades and would give 1000+1 reasons why the propellor effiency was poor with 109 propellors. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 11:25 AM
Salute Isegrim

I'll take the word of a Professor Emeritus over yours when he says the entire wing is turbulent... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Second, to compare the wing slat arrangement of a 109, with its mechanical hinges, and simple pressure driven activation, with a modern Jet aircraft's slats, with the precise hydraulic activated mechanics, sealed and precisely fitted is quite a stretch... Next you'll be saying the F-15 was copied from the 109, right? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

In regards to Wind tunnel tests, have a look at the end of the article:

(see: "Results of Me109 Analysis" for mention of a wind tunnel test of a 109)

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/uploads8/1056178389wee7t.jpg


Notice the Professor's figures are confirmed.

Finally, your equations are highly suspect, being cobbled together from a previous article, without a full equation provided, or performance data figures being provided.

The following are the approved NACA/NASA Formulae to obtain a Zero Lift Drag Coefficient.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/p509a.jpg



http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/p509b.jpg



http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/p510d.jpg



I will be doing the calculation tommorrow, for Sea Level, after I gather and confirm the horsepower, speed, weight, wing area, length, aspect ratio, and etc. data required for the calculation.


RAF74 Buzzsaw







Message Edited on 08/10/03 10:26AM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

Message Edited on 08/10/0310:27AM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 05:36 PM
I can hardly wait for your calculations. Then we'll use those formulas to calculate the max speed for planes will already know Cd0, like Spitfires. That will be so fun/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif we'll compare the results with the famous Boscombe tests. Max speed estimation for Spitfire XIV should be first on the list/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 05:48 PM
Note that your Professor Emeritus does not mention a single time the Bf-109 model in test. That is huge flaw, since there were drastic differences in aerodynamics between the models. For example Cd0 for Emil is around 0.0290, but F models (and G2) have 0.0235 as it is mentioned in a Cd vs cl polar in an original document posted here on forum.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 08:10 PM
Salute Huckbein

You need to look at the article again. Read all of it, don't just look at the pictures... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It clearly says: 109G, 1944 model. And specifies it has the DB605A engine.

I would hope... (perhaps not... lol) anyone with even the barest knowledge of the 109 should be able to figure out which model it is from that... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 08:59 PM
The wonks have hijacked the thread!

The Soviet pilot's memoirs that sparked this debate simply confirm what USAAF pilots who served in the Western end of the North Africa campaigns said about the same planes: they thought that on the horizontal plane, they could outturn the 109F and early G, and many of them tried it, and came back not only alive, but with kills.

While the theoretical discussions are endless, the RL experience was that experienced (by '42, these a/c had been in USAAF service for three years)P-39 & P-40 drivers (not most RAF) could corner a little sharper than the average (not experte) 109F drivers. Maybe the Germans were complacent (they had, after all, owned the RAF, RAAF & RSAAF P-40 squadrons they had previously encountered), or maybe they were a little gunshy of overstressing the 109's wings, which earlier in it's career, had been known to come off in high-G maneauvers.

Practical results indicate that while the theoretical capabilities of a given aircraft type may be superior to those of another, it still comes down to how far the respective pilots are able the push the envelope, and exploit their relative strengths.

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" - LCOL Don Blakeslee, CO, 4th FG, March, 1944

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 10:56 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute Huckbein
-
- You need to look at the article again. Read all of
- it, don't just look at the pictures... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
-
- It clearly says: 109G, 1944 model. And specifies
- it has the DB605A engine.


Yes, then he brings as a confirmation for it's calculations a test made in '41 by the french, which most probably is an Emil.

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/uploads8/1056178389wee7t.jpg


I'm sorry that's too much even for your Professor Emeritus, giving the worse Cd0 value (Emil) as the standard value for all 109s. In fact all the article is filled with confusions, he seems to have very little knowledge about 109.

And by the way, now I see where from you did get that 0.036 value for Cd0 - directly from Professor Emeritus masterpiece. First of all that is not Cd0 but total Cd, comprising both Cdp and Cdi. Second he vastly overestimates the thrust available at 20000ft. He puts in his calculations exhaust thrust, but he calculates the propeller thrust from a rated power in PS, instead of a dynamic power in HP, and with a high value for propeller efficiency at max RPM (0.85 prop eff was achievable but not at max RPM). If you redo that aproximative calculation:

total Cd = thrust/dynamic_pressure/wing_area = 925/184/172.76 = 0.029

Cdi = cl^2/(pi*AR*e) = (weight/(q*area))^2/(pi*AR*e) = (6834/(184*172.76))^2/(3.14*6.15*0.81) = 0.046/15.64 = 0.0029

=> Cd0 = Cd - Cdi = 0.029-0.0029 = 0.0261


Keep in mind that this value is obtained with that aproximative dynamic power value and max speed, though it is (surprisingly) close to the value of Cd0 for early G6 ('42). So practically the whole problem with his estimation comes from the incorrect value for thrust.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 08/11/0301:24AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 11:43 PM
horseback wrote:
- The wonks have hijacked the thread!
-
- The Soviet pilot's memoirs that sparked this debate
- simply confirm what USAAF pilots who served in the
- Western end of the North Africa campaigns said about
- the same planes: they thought that on the horizontal
- plane, they could outturn the 109F and early G, and
- many of them tried it, and came back not only alive,
- but with kills.


That's because you're reading only one side of the story. If you're reading more Axis pilots memoirs you'll see that most of them engaged in turnfights to achieve victories. I will give an example familiar to me, the highest scoring romanian ace (45 kills) Bazu Cantacuzino (I'm romanian) was a typical turnfighter. He enjoyed turnfights since he was an aerobatic pilot (with many international prizes won before the war) and he never felt unsecure engaging russian planes and pilots in turnfights. Most of the romanian top scorers were trained by H. Lipfert (200+ kills) which also enjoyed turnfighting in his 109. So I'm sorry pilots memoirs cannot be brought as a proof for relative turn performance of the ww2 fighters.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 08/10/0305:44PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 05:50 AM
Salute All

I have finished my research and I am ready to do the calculation as well as provide documentation.

However, I will first present my data.

I am happy to hear from anyone who can provide documented corrections to my research. I am not an aeronautical engineer, although I have carefully researched my findings.

I will use as my example, the 109G6 with the DB605A engine. My calculations will be for Drag at Sea Level, as that way, there can be no argument about power output at that level.

To begin with the engine:

In the Engine section of Jane's Fighting Aircraft of WWII, the DB605 is listed as having the following power characteristics.

Take Off and Emergency Power: 1475 hp at 2800 RPM at 1.42 Atas, at Sea Level

The Airframe of the 109G6 has the following dimensions:

Span: 32 ft 6 inchs

Length: 29 ft 4 inchs

Wing area: 16.05 meters, or 172.761 Sq/ft

Aspect Ratio: 6.1

For the performance and weight figures, since those are always controversial, I will provide original German test documents, so there is no room for argument.

Click on the following URL

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/lw/109_projekt.pdf

It opens with Acrobat Reader. Scroll down to the fourth document, which details speed test results at emergency power for a number of German aircraft, including a 109G6 with a DB605A engine.

Weight for the test aircraft is listed at 3350 kgs, or 7370 lbs. Speed at Sea Level is 520 km/hr or 325 mph.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 05:53 AM
Salute Huckbein

The professors calculation was for 22,000 ft, not 20,000 as you are suggesting. Suggest you do your calculations again.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 06:06 AM
Salute Horseback

Sorry to take over your thread, I initially made a small comment regarding the P-39's aerodynamic efficiency and then got jumped on.

In regards to the P-40 outturning the 109F and G2:

I am a documentary Producer and am currently working on a 1.5 hr piece on James "Stocky" Edwards, a Canadian Ace who flew P-40's, (KittyHawks) in the Desert, and later Spitfires in Italy and NorthWestern Europe.

I did approximately 10 hours of interviews with Wing Commander Edwards, during which we discussed the respective merits of the various aircraft he flew, and flew against.

His comments regarding the P-40 versus the 109F and G were essentially that he regarded the 109's as being entirely superiour fighters.

He said they were much faster, had a higher cruising speed, (very important in combat, since it takes time to accelerate from cruise to full speed) climbed better, and their weapons seemed to be less prone to jamming. (the P-40 wing .50's would jam in a high G turn, in the same way that a P-51b's guns would)

However, he did say the P-40's did have a couple of advantages. Those being that it turned tighter than the 109 in a level or diving turn, and that although a 109 had an initial acceleration advantage in a dive, the P-40 would catch up if the dive was maintained. The P-40 also seemed to roll and turn better at higher speeds.

Only in a climbing or spiral turn would the 109's have an advantage.

Here is a link to an excellent site on Edwards:

http://www.constable.ca/edwards.htm


Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 07:49 AM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute Huckbein
-
- The professors calculation was for 22,000 ft, not
- 20,000 as you are suggesting. Suggest you do your
- calculations again.

I modified them, you can read the results.


RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Weight for the test aircraft is listed at 3350 kgs, or
- 7370 lbs. Speed at Sea Level is 520 km/hr or 325 mph.


The weight for G6 is 3100kg and speed at sea level is 530km/h. That plane is a G6 late with a drop tank attached. 300l external tank carried aprox 220kg fuel, this is the cause for difference in weight and speed. Also note that 3370kg is the weight for K4 which carried a additional tank and a heavier engine. Please note that your report on Bf-109 aerodynamics gives a weight in test for G6 of 6700lb. Now we know that Bf-109G had an internal tank of 106 US gall = 636 lb so 7370-636 = 6734lb is a G6 without fuel. That's a piece of information that seems to have escaped to the vigilant Professor Emeritus since they tested a G6 at empty weight/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif (according to your data).


I suggest you to find another report on G6 weight and max speed, one that specifies clearly the configuration in test.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 08/11/0303:09AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 09:57 AM
Salute Huckbein

You're going to have to provide a little more proof than that.

Where does it say on the tests I provided that the aircraft is carrying a drop tank?

In fact on the subsequent tests included, they are very clear to specify when a GM-1 kit was included, or when Gondolas guns were attached.

Find me some other primary documentation or a notation on the documents.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 05:47 PM
Isegrim and Huckebein,

Been following your latest joint crusade to enshrine the Bf109 as the greatest fighter in the history of the world.

According to your infallible analysis, the Bf109 appraisals of yet another professional practicing aerodynamic engineer (this time a German in the bargain) are yet again all wrong. Do I understand correctly that you base you opinion on your own calculations? May I ask what credentials you might offer to encourage us here to accept your conclusions over and above those of practicing professionals - at least one of whom actually had hands-on flight test experience with the a/c in question?

Also, I believe it was Huckebein who argued in a related post that the Bf109 was, besides all else a superior turn-fighter. Huckebein bases this conclusion upon the fact that two or three experten plus a Romanian aerobatically trained pilot employed such tactics from time to time. While I accept that there were circumstances in combat when a Bf109 might profitably employ turn fighting tactics, how should we reconcile this claim with the myriad of other statements, primarily from LW pilots and other aces, that energy fighting was the most effective use of the Bf109 in combat? How do we reconcile this with the indisputable fact that LW pilots uniformly employed energy tactics. How should we reconcile the numerous comments in FIGHTERS OVER THE DESERT that German pilots conscientiously avoided turn fights versus Hurricanes, P40 variants, and Spits in North Africa because they could ALL out perform the Bf109 in horizontal turns (although, in fairness, it must be said that German fighters were well out numbered in N Africa).

Oh, and by the way Isegrim - I noted with intense amusement in another topic post of yours that you have FINALLY found an American performance (on the FW190A-3) that you deem reliable. You must be gratified to have discovered at least one reliable American report on a/c performance. Ironically, this was the very same report that you (or Huckebein?) had been disparaging in a previous exchange with Skychimp - ROFLMAO.

Oh, and another postscript - The Bf109E series had a bad drag/turbulence problem as a result of its rectangular- mouth flush fitted air intake, which was completely re-designed beginning with the -F series. The designs of the chin oil cooler and the underwing radiator inlets were of the same poor flush mounted rectangular opening design and were never changed. How do you reconcile these in your drag calculations??

It seems to me that your infatuation with the "holy" Bf109 has reached distinctly unhealthy proportions.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 07:04 PM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
- Isegrim and Huckebein,
-
- Been following your latest joint crusade to enshrine
- the Bf109 as the greatest fighter in the history of
- the world.

In that case you should re-read our posts and try to discover their true intentions.

In my case, I`d decribe that intention as throughtly disproving and exposing the myths created on bad intentions by a guy who lacks even basic understanding of both the aircraft in question and basic aerodynamics.


- According to your infallible analysis, the Bf109
- appraisals of yet another professional practicing
- aerodynamic engineer (this time a German in the
- bargain) are yet again all wrong.


You may argue the facts, yet they won`t change. And it is a fact that the writer of that study used completely wrong performance data to start with, along with some VERY dubious assumptions, and therefore is entirelly flawed in it`s results.


- Do I understand
- correctly that you base you opinion on your own
- calculations?

No, you misunderstand that.


- Also, I believe it was Huckebein who argued in a
- related post that the Bf109 was, besides all else a
- superior turn-fighter. Huckebein bases this
- conclusion upon the fact that two or three experten
- plus a Romanian aerobatically trained pilot employed
- such tactics from time to time. While I accept that
- there were circumstances in combat when a Bf109
- might profitably employ turn fighting tactics, how
- should we reconcile this claim with the myriad of
- other statements, primarily from LW pilots and other
- aces, that energy fighting was the most effective
- use of the Bf109 in combat?

The 109 was a great if not the greatest energy fighter in WW2. It was also a fine turner. The latter fact seems to be something of an impossibility for some, it seems.

One doesn`t need much to find out that it was the best characteristic that was relied upon on most of the time.


- How do we reconcile this
- with the indisputable fact that LW pilots uniformly
- employed energy tactics.

Uniformly? You mean Marseille, who was known for preferring manouvering fights ?


- How should we reconcile the
- numerous comments in FIGHTERS OVER THE DESERT that
- German pilots conscientiously avoided turn fights
- versus Hurricanes, P40 variants, and Spits in North
- Africa because they could ALL out perform the Bf109
- in horizontal turns (although, in fairness, it must
- be said that German fighters were well out numbered
- in N Africa).


"Turning doesn`t wins dogfights" - Johnny Johnson, Spitfire pilot.

Think about it.



- Oh, and by the way Isegrim - I noted with intense
- amusement in another topic post of yours that you
- have FINALLY found an American performance (on the
- FW190A-3) that you deem reliable. You must be
- gratified to have discovered at least one reliable
- American report on a/c performance.

And the point, besides showing the completely useless nature of your lenghty tirade ?


- Ironically, this
- was the very same report that you (or Huckebein?)
- had been disparaging in a previous exchange with
- Skychimp - ROFLMAO.

Oh, perhaps it was the same report, perhaps it was a completely different one, perhaps it was me, perhaps it was Huckebein, and perhaps one of us were disparaging it, or perhaps not.

Perhaps you don`t have any real arguements to present.


- Oh, and another postscript - The Bf109E series had a
- bad drag/turbulence problem as a result of its
- rectangular- mouth flush fitted air intake, which
- was completely re-designed beginning with the -F
- series.


Sources for "bad drag/turbulence problem" ?


- The designs of the chin oil cooler and the
- underwing radiator inlets were of the same poor
- flush mounted rectangular opening design and were
- never changed. How do you reconcile these in your
- drag calculations??

In no way, because what you say is completely wrong and incorrect. The 109E`s underwing, manually controlled radiator design was completely redesigned with the 109F, replacing it with minimal drag, automatically controlled one which was 3/4 way buried into to wing structure on the intake side. Its SO OBVIOUS to anyone who had ever looked on a 109E`s and F`s radiator.

Besides : just why would anyone take seriously if the parrott-commando engages the "rectangular-intake = bad, bad, bad" mantra?



-----------------------------------------------------------
http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/systems/cooling/e-f_coolant.system.htm

Coolant System Changes

between the E and F models


As has been seen in the article regarding the radiator ducting from the Emil to the Friederich, quite a lot of effort was invested in the new F model with an eye towards maximum aerodynamic efficiency, balanced against the cooling requirements of the high performance DB601 engine. To that end, an entirely new coolant system was designed for the F, with a number of important changes:

- The single, vulnerable coolant tank behind the spinner baseplate was replaced with a 38.6 liter oil tank, and two small coolant tanks were mounted on either side of the engine crankcase.

- The radiators were lengthened and made more shallow, as discussed previously, as part of the drag reduction program. In addition, the feed and return lines were moved to the same side of the unit to facilitate ease of repair.

- The feed and supply routes were roughly the same as before; however, a feature not shown in the diagram below was the provision for fitting individual radiator shutoff valves in the feed tube to each radiator in order to shut one off in the event of combat damage. Somehow, this never became a standard factory fit and these became highly prized items in the field (for obvious reasons!).


The coolant system remained largely unchanged from the F on through the K models.
-----------------------------------------------------------


-
- It seems to me that your infatuation with the "holy"
- Bf109 has reached distinctly unhealthy proportions.
-

Well I bet that many monkeys in a zoo actually believe that it`s actually the visitors who are locked up in a cage. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

And one personal advice to you : it isn`t enough if you just all-out hate the 109 and make lenghty efforts, like typing nonsense about it. Some minimal knowladge on it certainly wouldn`t hurt in your small crusade of hatred .

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 07:20 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
-
- I will use as my example, the 109G6 with the DB605A
- engine. My calculations will be for Drag at Sea
- Level, as that way, there can be no argument about
- power output at that level.

[sigh]

It seems that it was a complete waste of time trying to explain the difference between static and dynamic power outputs.


- To begin with the engine:
-
- In the Engine section of Jane's Fighting Aircraft of
- WWII, the DB605 is listed as having the following
- power characteristics.
-
- Take Off and Emergency Power: 1475 hp at 2800 RPM
- at 1.42 Atas, at Sea Level

And at 0 km/h speed...


-
- It opens with Acrobat Reader. Scroll down to the
- fourth document, which details speed test results at
- emergency power for a number of German aircraft,
- including a 109G6 with a DB605A engine.
-
- Weight for the test aircraft is listed at 3350 kgs,
- or 7370 lbs. Speed at Sea Level is 520 km/hr or 325
- mph.

Some general hints for you:

PDF doc you found, Page 10.

Bf 109G-5 (differs from G-6 only in having pressurized cocpit), with Gondolas. Listed as 3150kg (obviously the weight of Gondolas were not added, it`s a clean T-O weight of a G-5.)

Plane is listed at Kampleistung. Curiously, it`s speed at SL (502 kph) and at 6600m (624kph) strangely coincides with those of the G-6`s on page 3: 502kph at SL, 621 kph at 6600m.

Interesting.

Also, Eric Brown mentions that the 20mm Gondola equipped G-6 he flew made 619kph at 6600m, close to factory specs (621kph). Notice that Brown was most likely flew the plane at Kampleistung.

That`s interesting, too.

Weight of a G-6, "clean" (w/o the Gondolas) was 3150kg (see Radinger/Otto).

Gondolas weighted 215kg, with ammunition. (see Radinger/Otto again).

Also on Page 8:

"Me 109K1, mit GM-1, DB605D = 3370kg
Me 109K1, mit GM-1, DB605D, mit Gondolenwaffen = 3570kg"


3150+215 = 3365kg. Your G-6 is listed at ~3350kg...

Drag docs for Bf 109G-1 give speed loss for gondolas as -8km/h, other test with G-6s give it as -10kph.


Make your own conclusions, on what G-6 you have saw on Page 4.



http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 08:08 PM
Still flogging dead horses? No one disputes the theoretical virtues of the 109F and later series (except for you guys), BUT (and it's a big but) a gifted pilot in an aircraft that comes close to yours in performance is going to beat you if you're not as good or more familiar with your plane's virtues. Something like 80% of all air to air kills were achieved by less than 5% of the fighter pilots who flew combat. And they did it by avoiding each other and and hacking down those in the other 95%, for the most part.

So, if the aircraft have similar performance, the pilot who forces the other to try to match his plane's strengths will most likely win. You don't get a lot of memoirs from the guys who lost those fights, and generally speaking, the majority of kills were made without the victim ever knowing what hit him.

So getting bent out of shape because a Russian ace thought he could out perform the 109F in his P-40 (and apprently, his being present to reminisce could be taken as proof) might not be a reasonable thing to do. Even some Luftwaffe experten acknowledged that the Warhawk could turn, as I recall one quoted in the Osprey book on 109 desert aces saying something to the effect that "...that dog still had some teeth" (not sure of the exact quote). The P-40 could turn and dive well enough to use those virtues to overcome its poorer accelleration and climb, if the pilot used those virtues to his advantage.

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" - LCOL Don Blakeslee, CO, 4th FG, March, 1944

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" - LCOL Don Blakeslee, CO, 4th FG, March, 1944

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 11:52 PM
Isegrim wrote, in his typically insulting manner -

And one personal advice to you : it isn`t enough if
- you just all-out hate the 109 and make lenghty
- efforts, like typing nonsense about it. Some minimal
- knowladge on it certainly wouldn`t hurt in your
- small crusade of hatred .


Blutarski replies -

Isegrim, your "personal advice", like your miserable unsolicited insults and as hominem disparagements carry exactly zero weight. You have absolutely no idea what my predelictions are toward any aircraft, one way or the other, much less the Bf109. It will no doubt surprise and amaze you that I actually harbor a great degree of affection for the 109 series.

Neither do you have the barest inkling of the degree of my background knowledge on any topic. But the degree of ignorant presumption which you display is hardly a shock to anyone. If what I write appears as "nonsense" to you, it is simply because you are either incapable or unwilling to brook any criticism of the dream world which you choose to cultivate. What you are doing is a disservice to the aircraft and the pilots who flew it.

The "small crusade of hatred" which you see before you is, in truth, nothing more than a manifestation of your own miserable emotional insecurity. I don't know you well enough to hate you.

I'll get to the rest of your post tomorrow, when I have more time.



Your friend and pro bono amateur psychoanalyst,

Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 12:06 AM
BLUTARSKI,

Issy has removed his Mr. Hyde personna and put his Dr. Jekyl personna back on. It was so nice for those few days when he was Mr. Hyde, much easier to believe what he had to say.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 12:29 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- 0.151 for Bf109F (clmax 1.54) and
- 0.154 for P-39 (clmax 1.44)


Huck, where does that figure for the Bf-109 come from? Careful.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 12:35 AM
Ugly_Kid wrote:

- What would this tell about aerodynamic quality?

It tells me Ugly_Kid and Huckebein_FW are exactly the same person. You "guys" even make the same gramatical errors.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
08-12-2003, 12:52 AM
It is my understanding that the 109 was, essentially, a lower speed dogfighter - that is that it had a formidable turn/roll etc. at lower speeds. Also good acceleration and climb - but that it stiffened up at higher speeds. This was the problem with the later 109s - as they became faster and heavier machines. The K was an attempt to clean up the aerodynamics - but the plane still had problems fast against other fighters. Which is not to say it was not an excellent plane. 109s were the mainstay of the german air force - and many outstanding pilots accumilated most of their experience with them - so they tended to stick with the devil they know. I'm not surpised that hungarian and romanian pilots turn fought the russians in them. I don't think the 109 was the equal of the 190s at higher speeds however.

To reiterate - I think the 109s were probably quite good at slow turn fights - also good accel, speed, climb and dive - so good at getting out of slow turn fights too. But things seem to be getting a little blown out of proportion here - the later 109 was a kluged design - it had drawbacks.

I think if you put a mediocre pilot in a yak 3 - and another mediocre pilot in a 109 - the yak will probably win (or the la) but if you put excellent pilots in both all bets are off.

I site no documentation - it doesn't work anyway and seems to make everyone emotional /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 06:43 AM
Salute Isegrim

I've considered your input, and come to the following conclusion:

First of all, Huckbein's argument that the G6 listed on Chart 4 was carrying a drop tank didn't make sense, since it is hardly likely the Luftwaffe would run a WEP speed test with a tank. Tanks were always dropped when aircraft entered a situation which required emergency power.

In regards to your argument:

First of all, the weight listed for the G5 with the DB605AS is 3230 kgs, or 7106 lbs, not 3150 kgs.

(you need to use the zoom tool with the pdf file... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

However, your argument that the G6 listed at 3350 kgs was one equipped with gunpods does make some logical sense. Although seems to be an oversight that it wasn't mentioned as equipement. On the other hand, it seems a very large number of G6's came standardly equipped with the gunpods in late '43 and early '44, due to the fact that the Luftfliegers found themselves overwhelmingly concerned with bringing down B-17's, and the single 20mm and 2 13mm's weren't enough for that task. (the 30mm weapons were not fitted to early G6's except in very small numbers and only entered general service with the late G6's in the spring of 1944.

Your mention of the G5 as comparison is valid, and although it doesn't weigh in at 3150 kgs, we know it would be heavier than a standard G6, since it had the larger supercharger, (the "S" in DB505AS) and also had materials added to allow for a pressurized cockpit. It is realistic to assume that would add up to another 80 kgs. For that reason, 3150 seems acceptable as the G6 base weight.

So I'll accept your arguement. 3150 kgs it is, or 6930 lbs, a figure which I have seen mentioned on many other occasions in secondary sources. Yet to see it in a primary document though. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Interesting thing about your insisting that the lower weight be used, is that overall, it will mean the CDo will be higher due to the small mass of the aircraft.

However, that still leaves the issue of top speed. Obviously it wouldn't be 520 kph, since that is the gunpod speed.

Should we go with the G5's speed of 530 kph? Difficult to say. The DB605AS's power curve was weaker at lower altitudes.

In the Finnish G6 manual,

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-Manuals.html

...it mentions 540 km/hr. However that manual also lists a weight of 7700 lbs, obviously an error if we accept the reasoning above.

So what is the consensus on the G6's sea level speed. (1475 hp model please) Any documents?


RAF74 Buzzsaw



Message Edited on 08/12/0305:46AM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 07:02 AM
Salute Isegrim

On another issue related to my calculation of a CDo for the 109G6:

As part of the calculation for a CD:


http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/p510a.jpg



...there is required a second calculation for an overall engine propulsive efficiency:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/p507d.jpg


That calculation takes this form:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/p519e.jpg


As part of this calculation, I require the fuel consumption per hour at maximum power, or Cp of the DB605A I have some figures already, but wanted to confirm them with persons who have an interest, so once again there is no controversy.

Any help in this area would be welcome to confirm or contradict my figures.


RAF74 Buzzsaw




Message Edited on 08/12/0306:05AM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 07:17 AM
Fuel consumption for DB605 A is 480l/h at 1.42 ata and 2800rpm at sea level - power rating at this setting is 1475 PS (not HP) or 1550 PS (on C3). Unfortunately I don't have the dynamic power rating for this engine.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 08/12/0301:29AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 07:36 AM
Salute All

By the way, here are some figures for CDo's for USAAF planes, along with Equivilent Flat Plate Areas.

From Best to worst:


Aircraft----Drag Coefficient----Wing Area----Eq. Flat Plate

P-51D----------.0176-------------233.19-------4.10 Sq/ft

P-39n----------.0217-------------213.2--------4.63

P-63a----------.0203-------------248.0--------5.03

P-40-----------.0242-------------236.0--------5.71

F-2a-----------.0300-------------208.9--------6.27

P-47b----------.0213-------------300.0--------6.39

F4f-3----------.0253-------------260.0--------6.58

F4U-1D---------.0267-------------314.0--------8.58

P-38J----------.0270-------------327.5--------8.84

F6f-3----------.0272-------------334.0--------9.08

P-61b----------.0244-------------664.0--------15.94


You will notice that the P-47 Razorback actually has an excellent CDo, and a very aerodynamically efficient frame. It's overall drag was increased by the fact that it had a relatively large wing area. (300 Sq/ft)


These are NASA/NACA figures.


Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 07:42 AM
Can you point out in which NACA report you find those figures? I have probably another report because some of the values seem different.

Also do you have the original NACA report with the comparative chart for roll rates that is posted so often?

Thanks


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 08:07 AM
Hmmmm...

It seems the P40 cuts through the air pretty well for such a big old girl.....

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center><FONT color="red">[b]BlitzPig_EL</FONT>[B]<CENTER> http://old.jccc.net/~droberts/p40/images/p40home.gif
</img>.
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day that it was vanity:
but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible. "
--T.E. Lawrence

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 08:16 AM
Regarding the weight you have to consider that G14 was listed with 3270 kg loaded weight, and it had in plus to G6 the MW50 installation, MW50 tank and mixture. 3150 kg for G6 is still much but acceptable. Indeed the difference in weight came most probably from wing mounted gun pods.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 09:03 AM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
-
- Also, I believe it was Huckebein who argued in a
- related post that the Bf109 was, besides all else a
- superior turn-fighter.


Please quote the exact paragraph in the future because you have obviously distorted what I said in reality.

I said that Bf-109 E and F could not be outturned in Europe, the notable exceptions being early Spitfire and I-153 (there were others more obscure like MS-410 but none of them saw further development). That not means that they were besides all superior turnfighters because they were also superior energy fighters. Since energy fighting tactics were developed at the beginning of the war and were considered to be less risky for the pilot the subsequent 109 series (G&K) were transformed in dedicated energy fighters (excelling in climb, acceleration and speed rather than turns).


Nevertheless turnfighting in 109 was still possible even in late models (against for example La7) because the difference in turn rate was quite small (less than 2 deg/sec compared to La7) and real pilots have their own limits when pulling Gs. Right now in FB turnfighting is similar with flying without overheats, pilots are never exhausted, which is very unrealistic (energy fighting causes much less fatigue since you don't constantly pull Gs - an important advantage over turnfighting). Also 109 has a better chance to extend in case the things go wrong. And most of the time turnfighting was simply not possible in a multiple engagement because turnfighting transforms you in a easy target for bounce.


Keep in mind that energy fighting is still dogfighting, not hit and run technique (like B&Z). You're restricted to hit and run when you don't have any performance advantage over the enemy (but you a have at least a competitive max speed). Bf-109 was an energy fighter and so was Fw-190 initially. Faced with Spitfires (IX and later), La7 or late Yaks it could be used strictly as hit and run fighter. Hit and run fighters were all late american fighters.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 08/12/0303:55AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 03:43 PM
Huck,

Nice reasonable and balanced post, which clarifies your position. Thank you. I basically agree with the generality of what you you say. Turn-fighting in the 109 was indeed possible under certain circumstances of opposition a/c, opposition pilot quality, and/or tactical situation. But I do maintain that the primary fighter tactical doctrine of the LW was energy fighting.

I have been highyl influenced in my thinking by the German pilot testimonies in Shore and Ring's book FIGHTERS OVER THE DESERT, which make clear that they avoided turn fighting against British/Commonwealth fighter opposition in N Africa (P40 series, Hurricane, Spitfire later) for three reasons: (1) that the best and safest use of 109F flight characteristics against these opponents was energy fighting; (2) all three British a/c had superior horizontal turn performance (instantaneous at least); (3) it was needlessly dangerous to become embroiled in turning dogfights against a very numerically superior enemy. Isegrim is unable to grasp the fact that, because (1) and (3) are true, (2) is nevertheless also true.

As regards the turn performance of the Bf109 versus early RAF fighters, the relatively higher wing loading of the Bf109 generally put it at a disadvantage against RAF fighters, reduced somewhat by its depoyable l.e. slat feature. In the case of sustained turn performance the excess power advantage of the Bf109 would have improved the situation somewhat, depending upon 109 model and engagement altitude. I have some data on comparative maneuverability of the 109E3 versus Spit 1B circa BoB at home. It might shed some interesting light on the complexity of evaluating sustained turn performance. It is much the same as asking which a/c is faster - the first response must be: at what altitude?



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 05:56 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- In my case, I`d decribe that intention as throughtly
- disproving and exposing the myths created on bad
- intentions by a guy who lacks even basic
- understanding of both the aircraft in question and
- basic aerodynamics.

Above is apparently your mission statement. The "guy" to whom you refer is a formally trained and practicing German aeronautical engineer. This is the second aeronautical engineer (that I know of) whose results and opinions you have so blithely trashed, not to mention the countless other reports and evaluations which you has summarily dismissed out of hand for the simple reason that they disagree with your opinions. Apart from your own delusions of intellect, you have exactly no grounds to criticize, much less dismiss such literature when you clearly lack the necessary credentials to meaningfully evaluate their professional scientific work. The fact that you can do a bit of calculus and work your way through a formula or two only proves that you know just enough to be dangerous - nothing more. Your fundamental failing is in the area of intellectual honesty.



Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- You may argue the facts, yet they won`t change. And
- it is a fact that the writer of that study used
- completely wrong performance data to start with,
- along with some VERY dubious assumptions, and
- therefore is entirelly flawed in it`s results.

..... I have observed over time that your world of "facts" only includes those which support your positions. All other facts and data are designated as "VERY dubious assumptions", or lies, or propaganda, or someone's stupid mistake. This is another example of you intellectual dishonesty.



Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- The 109 was a great if not the greatest energy
- fighter in WW2.

..... Miraculously enough, I do not disagree with your appraisal, although I would stop short of deeming it "the greatest".



Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
It was also a fine turner. The
- latter fact seems to be something of an
- impossibility for some, it seems.
- One doesn`t need much to find out that it was the
- best characteristic that was relied upon on most of
- the time.


..... In one breath you designate the 109 as one of the greatest energy fighters of the war; in the next breath, you claim that it relied on its fine turning characteristics most of the time. Pardon me while I roll on the floor laughing myself into hysterics over your obvious logical inconsistencies. Are you actually arguing that the Bf109 was primarily employed as a turn fighter?!? Such an utterly foolish claim flies in the face of all historical combat aviation literature.

The Bf109 proved itself as an efficient energy fighter. German dive and zoom fighting tactics, whose origin can be traced back to the First World War, were basic fighting doctrine in the BoB, the Kanalschlacht, N Africa, Russia, and on into the European strategic air campaign. Energy tactics were so ingrained that combat disengagement by dive continued in practice into the later war period despite the fact that many American fighter models had superior dive performance by then.



Blutarski wrote:
-- How do we reconcile this
-- with the indisputable fact that LW pilots uniformly
-- employed energy tactics.

and Vo101_Isegrim replied:
- Uniformly? You mean Marseille, who was known for
- preferring manouvering fights ?

..... To argue that turn-fighting in the Bf109 was common practice on the grounds that a few experten and an aerobatically trained Romanian pilot used such tactics from time to time is laughable. Marseille did indeed excel at stall fighting. It is also a fact that his fellow German pilots freely admitted their total inability to emulate his unique flying skills. You clearly confuse the difference between general practice and special cases.


Blutarski wrote:
-- How should we reconcile the
-- numerous comments in FIGHTERS OVER THE DESERT that
-- German pilots conscientiously avoided turn fights
-- versus Hurricanes, P40 variants, and Spits in North
-- Africa because they could ALL out perform the Bf109
-- in horizontal turns (although, in fairness, it must
-- be said that German fighters were well out numbered
-- in N Africa).

Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- "Turning doesn`t wins dogfights" - Johnny Johnson,
- Spitfire pilot.
-
- Think about it.

..... This constitutes a classic non-reply to my question. Let's do "think about it". Above you say that "it (turning) was the best characteristic that was relied upon on most of
the time." Now you apparently deliver this little JJ quotation to once again completely reverse logical course. You must work on your consistency there, Isegrim.

Let me elaborate the point for your elucidation. In North Africa, the Bf109F series, which carried the lion's chare of the air to air combat role, was faced by early model Hurricanes, assorted lend-lease P40 variants, and rather later by the Spitfire V. All these British/Commonwealth a/c possessed instantaneous turn performance superior to that of the 109F. In addition, German fighters were normally considerably out-numbered in the air at any given point in the campaign. The great advantage ofthe Bf109 was its prodigious superiority in climb and dive performance over its opposition. Therefore, as previously in Europe, German pilots persisted in energy fighting tactics of the dive and zoom, or dive and disengage variety. To make it simple for you, the three fundamental reasons driving German tactics were: (1) to avoid turn-fighting against opponents superior in that flight regime; (2) to utilize the best relative performance qualities of the Bf109F to most advantage; (3) to avoid cecoming embroiled in lengthy disadvantageous turning engagements against commonly superior numbers.



Blutarski wrote:
-- Oh, and by the way Isegrim - I noted with intense
-- amusement in another topic post of yours that you
-- have FINALLY found an American performance (on the
-- FW190A-3) that you deem reliable. You must be
-- gratified to have discovered at least one reliable
-- American report on a/c performance.

-- Ironically, this
-- was the very same report that you (or Huckebein?)
-- had been disparaging in a previous exchange with
-- Skychimp - ROFLMAO.

Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- And the point, besides showing the completely
- useless nature of your lenghty tirade ?

..... Well, sorry to have offended your delicate sensibilities, but I frankly found it uproariously funny that you, of all people, would cite data from the same report that you had previously criticized as unreliable. Apparently you are unable to see the humor in this.

As regards the "useless nature of (my) lengthy tirade", judging from your previously demonstrated degree of intellectual obtuseness, it will probably indeed prove useless. But, then again, hope springs eternal.



Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- Oh, perhaps it was the same report, perhaps it was a
- completely different one, perhaps it was me, perhaps
- it was Huckebein, and perhaps one of us were
- disparaging it, or perhaps not.
-
- Perhaps you don`t have any real arguements to
- present.

...... The report in question will be quite easy to find. Just look into your "Best of Isegrim" log.


Blutarski wrote:
-- Oh, and another postscript - The Bf109E series had a
-- bad drag/turbulence problem as a result of its
-- rectangular- mouth flush fitted air intake, which
-- was completely re-designed beginning with the -F
-- series.

-- The designs of the chin oil cooler and the
-- underwing radiator inlets were of the same poor
-- flush mounted rectangular opening design and were
-- never changed. How do you reconcile these in your
-- drag calculations??


Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- In no way, because what you say is completely wrong
- and incorrect. The 109E`s underwing, manually
- controlled radiator design was completely redesigned
- with the 109F, replacing it with minimal drag,
- automatically controlled one which was 3/4 way
- buried into to wing structure on the intake side.
- Its SO OBVIOUS to anyone who had ever looked on a
- 109E`s and F`s radiator.
-
- Besides : just why would anyone take seriously if
- the parrott-commando engages the "rectangular-intake
- = bad, bad, bad" mantra?


..... Oooooh - "parrot commando"! Was that an insult? Should I feel bad now? Boo Hoo. Why do you resort to such pathetic adolescent responses? BTW, rectangular openings do not support maximum airflow per cross-sectional intake area; in simple terms, that is why air intakes on carburetor and injection stacks are of circular/oval cross section.

Your claim that the underwing radiators were "completely re-designed" for "minimal drag" greatly overstates the case, particularly as the question is related to drag issues. Both the oil cooler and radiator openings were flattened and widened, which most likely indeed reduced their drag. But the fundamental issue of rectangular openings set flush to the surface of fuselage or wing still left them in the area of disturbed boundary air - and this was the thrust of my question. To re-pose the question to you: if the air intake was altered to a circular cross-section with its mouth moved out of the boundary air layer, why was the same approach not applied to the oil cooler? Is it basically because they did not wish to further interfere with factory production? I am still interested in the answer to this question.

Oh, and by the way, the negative drag" Meredith effect, while contributing a small incremental reduction in drag due to accelerated emission of heated and therefore expanded air (essentially added thrust), is largely theoretical. To the best of my knowledge, no airstream driven cooling system has ever achieved a zero drag condition through employment of the Meredith effect, as I believe you claimed in an earlier post under this topic.



Blutarski wrote:
-- It seems to me that your infatuation with the "holy"
-- Bf109 has reached distinctly unhealthy proportions.

and Vo101_Isegrim inevitably replied:
- Well I bet that many monkeys in a zoo actually
- believe that it`s actually the visitors who are
- locked up in a cage.

..... As you peer through the bars of your own self-imposed intellectual prison, perhaps you do believe that.



and Vo101_Isegrim wrote further:
- And one personal advice to you : it isn`t enough if
- you just all-out hate the 109 and make lenghty
- efforts, like typing nonsense about it. Some minimal
- knowladge on it certainly wouldn`t hurt in your
- small crusade of hatred.

..... As mentioned earlier, I do not know you well enough to hate you. And I certainly do not "hate" the Bf109, as you allege. In fact, it has been my preferred mount in many flight sims. What does peeve me no end however is the gross intellectual dishonesty you often display in your complete desperation to prove that the Bf109 was somehow superlative in every possible aspect of fighter performance. And your sad lack of decorum when addressing your counterparts on this forum is a further issue. It signifies a puerile and socially ungraceful nature, which is at unfortunate odds with your obvious intelligence, and offends me even when I agree with certain of your arguments.

Too bad.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 06:52 PM
Blutarski wrote: the negative drag" Meredith
- effect, while contributing a small incremental
- reduction in drag due to accelerated emission of
- heated and therefore expanded air (essentially added
- thrust),...

Should also consider reduction of low pressure in the volumetric area behind the protruding cooling assembly. The added thrust is quite probably far less important than the reduction of low pressure.

Another item which I have been pondering in this whole argument about drag values is the extreme difficulty of accurately computing the significant component of overall drag caused by passage of cooling air through internal ducting. This is not easy to compute. Judging from what I have read, this was very much an empirical science during the 30's and 40's.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 08:10 PM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-- In my case, I`d decribe that intention as throughtly
-- disproving and exposing the myths created on bad
-- intentions by a guy who lacks even basic
-- understanding of both the aircraft in question and
-- basic aerodynamics.
-
- Above is apparently your mission statement. The
- "guy" to whom you refer is a formally trained and
- practicing German aeronautical engineer.


You indeed have some serious problems with reading comprehension, and your qualities in producing large amounts of fertilizer in short time surely doesn`t make up for that.

I did not refer to any German aeronatical engineer. Especially not the one who couldn`t even get the BASIC data right.


-
- This is the
- second aeronautical engineer (that I know of) whose
- results and opinions you have so blithely trashed,
-

Second? Now who could that be? Oh, the Kit Carson guy, who doesn`t even know as much on the 109 as 8 year old boy (since only mere reading skills would be required) who took the tiresome job of reading just a SINGLE book on the development of the plane...? Because his page is just a miriad of errors, and one cannot decide wheter to laugh or cry at them. The "inverted bathtup", that never was replaced. Oh, yeah, what about the Erla haube? No retractable tailwheel, he claims, never added. Oh yeah, let`s just say, 109F, G, K? No gear fairings, he claims: some G-6s, all K-4s. But why to read it, why to read books? Inventing it up all by yourself is so much more fun !



- not to mention the countless other reports and
- evaluations which you has summarily dismissed out of
- hand for the simple reason that they disagree with
- your opinions.

I always enjoy when someone starts to speak about "countless", and "other reports", unable to naming any.

So mysterious, it is, and cries for further details.



- Apart from your own delusions of
- intellect, you have exactly no grounds to criticize,
- much less dismiss such literature when you clearly
- lack the necessary credentials to meaningfully
- evaluate their professional scientific work.

Yada-yada-yada. You may parrot your mantra as long as you want. Calling it "professional", and "scientific" doesn`t change at all that these guys you like so much couldn`t even get the very basics right.

After all, since these are your favourity refernces, it`s not hard to see the source of your flawed ideas and personal insecureness. How could something be right, when founded on wrong things?


- The
- fact that you can do a bit of calculus and work your
- way through a formula or two only proves that you
- know just enough to be dangerous - nothing more.
- Your fundamental failing is in the area of
- intellectual honesty.

More insults, more attack, but will that cover the fact that Mr. Blutarski have nothing important to say ?



- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-- You may argue the facts, yet they won`t change. And
-- it is a fact that the writer of that study used
-- completely wrong performance data to start with,
-- along with some VERY dubious assumptions, and
-- therefore is entirelly flawed in it`s results.
-
- ..... I have observed over time that your world of
- "facts" only includes those which support your
- positions. All other facts and data are designated
- as "VERY dubious assumptions", or lies, or
- propaganda, or someone's stupid mistake. This is
- another example of you intellectual dishonesty.


I have observed that again you have nothing to say, and the endless Goebbels-style parrotting and accusation with intellectual dishonesty is only intended to draw away the attention from the reality, which is that Blutarski has nothing important to say, and what we read here is the general and typical responce of someone with the mindset of a 8-year old child, just proven wrong, and who`s mind contains nothing else but a old, primitive wish for vengence, reflecting in his posts.



-
-
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-- The 109 was a great if not the greatest energy
-- fighter in WW2.
-
- ..... Miraculously enough, I do not disagree with
- your appraisal, although I would stop short of
- deeming it "the greatest".
-
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- It was also a fine turner. The
-- latter fact seems to be something of an
-- impossibility for some, it seems.
-- One doesn`t need much to find out that it was the
-- best characteristic that was relied upon on most of
-- the time.
-

- ..... In one breath you designate the 109 as one of
- the greatest energy fighters of the war; in the next
- breath, you claim that it relied on its fine turning
- characteristics most of the time.
- Pardon me while I
- roll on the floor laughing myself into hysterics
- over your obvious logical inconsistencies. Are you
- actually arguing that the Bf109 was primarily
- employed as a turn fighter?!? Such an utterly
- foolish claim flies in the face of all historical
- combat aviation literature.


You have a pardon. After all, why wouldn`t I give an excuse to somebody who`s unable to understand simple meaning of a sentence, which latter immidiately turns distorted in his strictly preconceptional thinking. After all, you don`t really need to read what I wrote; it already exists in your head.

Oh, so that you too could understand, I repeat myself:

The 109 had great energy characteristics.
The 109 had fine turning characteristics.
The better characteric was relied upon most of the time.

Try to decide which describes a better quality, the word "great/greatest" or "fine".

Look up in a dictionary if you are stuck.


-
- The Bf109 proved itself as an efficient energy
- fighter. German dive and zoom fighting tactics,
- whose origin can be traced back to the First World
- War, were basic fighting doctrine in the BoB, the
- Kanalschlacht, N Africa, Russia, and on into the
- European strategic air campaign.
-

Whoa, you sound like a real expert. The show would be even more convincing though, provided you would educate yourself on small details, like it`s not Kanalschlact but Kanalkampf... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



- Blutarski wrote:
--- How do we reconcile this
--- with the indisputable fact that LW pilots uniformly
--- employed energy tactics.
-
- and Vo101_Isegrim replied:
-- Uniformly? You mean Marseille, who was known for
-- preferring manouvering fights ?
-
- ..... To argue that turn-fighting in the Bf109 was
- common practice on the grounds that a few experten
- and an aerobatically trained Romanian pilot used
- such tactics from time to time is laughable.

I wish I could met you in person. It would be really funny to see a man who emmits mad laugh every time he misunderstoods a basic sentence, or mixes up the tellings of two different persons ( Oh, so that you too would understand, I cannot remember any time arguing about Rumanian aces (of whom I know very little) fighting style...)

Although one must admit that such experience becomes more of a boredom rather than entertainment over time.


- Marseille did indeed excel at stall fighting. It is
- also a fact that his fellow German pilots freely
- admitted their total inability to emulate his unique
- flying skills. You clearly confuse the difference
- between general practice and special cases.


I really do enjoy if someone goes in such lenghts while making a fool of himself. How about spending that time on a more successful try to understand the meaning of my words?



-
- Blutarski wrote:
--- How should we reconcile the
--- numerous comments in FIGHTERS OVER THE DESERT that
--- German pilots conscientiously avoided turn fights
--- versus Hurricanes, P40 variants, and Spits in North
--- Africa because they could ALL out perform the Bf109
--- in horizontal turns (although, in fairness, it must
--- be said that German fighters were well out numbered
--- in N Africa).
-
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-- "Turning doesn`t wins dogfights" - Johnny Johnson,
-- Spitfire pilot.
--
-- Think about it.
-
- ..... This constitutes a classic non-reply to my
- question. Let's do "think about it". Above you say
- that "it (turning) was the best characteristic that
- was relied upon on most of
- the time."

Strangely I cant recall that part.

- Now you apparently deliver this little JJ
- quotation to once again completely reverse logical
- course. You must work on your consistency there,
- Isegrim.

I do not need that, as I am fully consistent, it`s rather you should improve your skills in reading comprehension, which cause the confusion in your head.

After all, if you fail to understand the meaning in the first place, how could you reply anything non-foolish to it?


-
- Blutarski wrote:
--- Oh, and by the way Isegrim - I noted with intense
--- amusement in another topic post of yours that you
--- have FINALLY found an American performance (on the
--- FW190A-3) that you deem reliable. You must be
--- gratified to have discovered at least one reliable
--- American report on a/c performance.
-
--- Ironically, this
--- was the very same report that you (or Huckebein?)
--- had been disparaging in a previous exchange with
--- Skychimp - ROFLMAO.
-
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-- And the point, besides showing the completely
-- useless nature of your lenghty tirade ?
-
- ..... Well, sorry to have offended your delicate
- sensibilities, but I frankly found it uproariously
- funny that you, of all people, would cite data from
- the same report that you had previously criticized
- as unreliable. Apparently you are unable to see the
- humor in this.

Well human stupidity is an eternal source of fun, however, repeating the same stupidity make it loose it`s fun factor, like in your case, where you keep parrotting your self-dillusional version, instead of finally getting that I simply did not disparged the report on a FW 190, presented by Skychimps, for the simple reasons that Skychimp never showed that report I referred to, and he probably doesn`t even have it, which makes it somewhat troublesome to fit into your story.

But probably the complex nature of reality is the thing that make you escape into the your own subjective reality.


- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-- Oh, perhaps it was the same report, perhaps it was a
-- completely different one, perhaps it was me, perhaps
-- it was Huckebein, and perhaps one of us were
-- disparaging it, or perhaps not.
--
-- Perhaps you don`t have any real arguements to
-- present.
-
- ...... The report in question will be quite easy to
- find. Just look into your "Best of Isegrim" log.


Sure. Find it for me then. I can`t wait for that.



- Your claim that the underwing radiators were
- "completely re-designed" for "minimal drag" greatly
- overstates the case, particularly as the question is
- related to drag issues. Both the oil cooler and
- radiator openings were flattened and widened, which
- most likely indeed reduced their drag.
-

Funny to compare with your previous posts, where you claimed that they were never redesigned, and created large drag all the time./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



- But the
- fundamental issue of rectangular openings set flush
- to the surface of fuselage or wing still left them
- in the area of disturbed boundary air - and this was
- the thrust of my question. To re-pose the question
- to you: if the air intake was altered to a circular
- cross-section with its mouth moved out of the
- boundary air layer, why was the same approach not
- applied to the oil cooler? Is it basically because
- they did not wish to further interfere with factory
- production? I am still interested in the answer to
- this question.

Parrot-commando strikes again, "rectangular bad, bad, bad".

Still, funny to see how many modern aircraft still have rectangular air intake. The slow-flying, clumsy Concorde, or Tornado comes to the mind.


-
- Oh, and by the way, the negative drag" Meredith
- effect, while contributing a small incremental
- reduction in drag due to accelerated emission of
- heated and therefore expanded air (essentially added
- thrust), is largely theoretical. To the best of my
- knowledge, no airstream driven cooling system has
- ever achieved a zero drag condition through
- employment of the Meredith effect, as I believe you
- claimed in an earlier post under this topic.
-

Would you please list the studies you have read in this subject?


-
- Blutarski wrote:
--- It seems to me that your infatuation with the "holy"
--- Bf109 has reached distinctly unhealthy proportions.
-
- and Vo101_Isegrim inevitably replied:
-- Well I bet that many monkeys in a zoo actually
-- believe that it`s actually the visitors who are
-- locked up in a cage.
-
- ..... As you peer through the bars of your own
- self-imposed intellectual prison, perhaps you do
- believe that.


Here`s a virtual banana for you. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 09:37 PM
Isegrim,


Case closed. You are completely oblivious to anything I have said. Seek professional help.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 09:47 PM
Isegrim got PWNZED! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Good job, Blutarski! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>[BlitzPig_Voskhod]<center>
<center>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gingernuts/blitz_anim.gif <center>

http://airbase.uka.ru/hangar/planes/pix/su27vsf15.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 10:41 PM
Buzzsaw,

your "NASA" formulas are just variations accounting for inconsistent imperial unit system including correction factors. They are not different from equations presented by for example Isegrim or Huck.

This is a result for SI units by eliminating CL from the induced drag formula and extracting complete CD from thrust:

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/drag.jpg


Use any formulas you like but maybe you should know the background before making some corrections to Hoerner.

I am not sure of the figures you get from finnish G6 manual because the WEP was disabled. However here is a Rechlin test result for G-2:

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/9759597.109G1_Rechlinpage3.jpg


They are 99.9% identical to finnish airforce tests with a normal frontline fighter MT-215. SL 525 km/h with full ammo and 400 liter fuel and note 1.3 ata not 1.42 ata! Furthermore, quite a few sources give wing area as 16.16 sq m not 16.05 sq. m. However, this does not effect the flat plate area.



-------------------------------------
In these locked and shackled neighbourhoods, bridge and tunnel diplomats.
See the golden ghetto's creeper.
Crazy flags from history, songs for the White House gangsters, guns for hellgate railway sleepers.
But there's a man who makes no enemies, a body never breathless, no ambition ever hopeless.
So how stands the city on this winter's night?
The city on the hill or so they said.
The snow is falling down around the armoury.
The city's closing in around my head.

michapma
08-14-2003, 10:29 AM
Will be interested in seeing comments about some of these topics aircraft in light of The Patch.

Mike

<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10"><tr valign="middle" bgcolor="#3e463b"><td height="40" colspan="3" align="center">The ongoing IL-2 User's Guide project (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/)</a></td></tr><tr bgcolor="#515e2f"><td width="40%">FB engine management:
Manifold Pressure sucks (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182081-1.html)
Those Marvelous Props (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182082-1.html)
Mixture Magic (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182084-1.html)
Putting It All Together (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182085-1.html)
Those Fire-Breathing Turbos (Part 1 of 6) (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182102-1.html)</td><td align="center">

=69.GIAP=Chap

69.GIAP (http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/)</p></td><td width="40%" align="right" valign="top">Hardware:
Flight Simulation Performance Analyzed (http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_062a.html)
Building a home-made throttle quadrant step by step (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zkavv)
Sound Can Be Hazardous for Games (http://www6.tomshardware.com/game/20030405/index.html)</td></tr></table>