PDA

View Full Version : Bf1940 vs Hurricane



XyZspineZyX
07-14-2003, 10:16 PM
In ww2 b109 1940 model took out hurricane easly and read about it and wached on tv discovery channel.But in il2 they are almost impossible they turn easly.I have been flying bf109 for moths in Il2 FB, and today i still dont have any tactics agenst it, i have tryed everything from stall truns , combat flaps and attack from high alltitude.
I think u made a misstake u made hurricane easly manoverable plane. But it wasnt in real life.

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2003, 10:16 PM
In ww2 b109 1940 model took out hurricane easly and read about it and wached on tv discovery channel.But in il2 they are almost impossible they turn easly.I have been flying bf109 for moths in Il2 FB, and today i still dont have any tactics agenst it, i have tryed everything from stall truns , combat flaps and attack from high alltitude.
I think u made a misstake u made hurricane easly manoverable plane. But it wasnt in real life.

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2003, 10:22 PM
The Hurricane was/is a very nimble plane. Much more so than the 109. It was very slow so the 109's slash attacked it with great success. 109's can't turn with Hurricanes very well.

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2003, 10:41 PM
But you're right, the current turn performance exceeds real life performance (13 seconds for IIB, should be 19-20).

According to specs, the IIB should have a sustained turn rate marginally better than that of the 109F. Patch beta testers have said that this has been addressed.

Then on the second day, it was made bug free, and He saw that it was good.

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 12:02 AM
Even in real life the 109 was no match for the hurricane in a turning battle. So if you were trying to beat it theres just no way you would in a turning fight. Hurricanes were the most agile of the fighters, their weakness was in 2 areas, 1 armour, and 2 landing gear. You might want to recheck your information on tactics used in 109's beating the hurricane.




<table style="filter:glow[color=blueviolet, strength=3"><tr><td> <font color="FFCC66">Colonel Eagle
Commanding Officer
31st Fighter Group
Blue Dragons ~

"Return With Honor"</font></td></tr></table>

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 12:50 AM
Lets get something straight..... The FB Hurricane bears NO resemblance to real life flight models. The 109 could EASILY eat the Hurricane in RL. So all you virtual pilots that are kidding yourselves that you can beat 109s in the Hurricane ... wise up. The 109 SLAUGHTERED Hurricanes because they were slow,low and had no power to dive away (carbuerettors). Having flown the Hurricane for the first time recently... I have to say the FM is ARCADE, the guns get easy kills fromm 700m and it NEVER stalls, always climbs no matter what your speed is, and eats CHaikas and Ratas ...... need I say more???
My flame suit is on, I await the howls of denial with a limp lettuce.

]http://bb.bbboy.net/bbgallery/Fantasy_&_Animals/wolfhowl.gif (http://bb.bbboy.net/bbgallery/Fantasy_&_Animals/wolfhowl.gif[/img)

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 01:12 AM
Blackwulf your right about some of the FB hurricane FM but you are overstating its ability in FB and understating its ability in real life.

The Hurri in FB is dead meat if attacked properly by a 109, and certainely cant climb any where near the rate of the 109's in FB unless of course your not using manual prop pitch, in fact very few VVS planes can spiral climb with the 109's.

In real life it wasnt shot down in droves at all in fact it held its own fairly well against the 109E's although the E was a slightly superior plane, the F model's up totally out did the Hurri though.

I do agree with a lot of the FM faults though it can destroy you from up to 1k and it doesnt stall, but then not many of the VVS birds do.

BD, in the 109 stick to BnZ use similar tactics to the real ones and you will start to get kills while still able to make it home alive.

JG4_Tiger

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 01:18 AM
er.... I think your find you have got your facts wrong, the Hurricanes could out turn the 109 and thats not just me saying that, every thing I have read, every thing I have seen and even bin told by an x-RAF pilot who flow Hurricanes in ww2 that if they got a 109 behind them they could shake them by out turning and then ending up on the 109 tail.

And by the way it's a computer game not real life so get over it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 01:18 AM
I agree almost 100%. The problem is that in dogfright servers people WILL make the mistake of dogfighting...and then wondering why an aircraft 1k away is getting kills on them.... lol.
Of course ANY LW pilot worth his salt will NEVER dogfight the Hurri, Rata, or Chaika((not to mention Laggs, etc...)

]http://bb.bbboy.net/bbgallery/Fantasy_&_Animals/wolfhowl.gif (http://bb.bbboy.net/bbgallery/Fantasy_&_Animals/wolfhowl.gif[/img)

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 01:22 AM
@ Madcat..... Any 109 pilot that tried to out turn a Hurricane deserved all he got.
NO sensible LW pilot would EVER get into a turn fight with RAf or VVS planes. Air combat is not about out-turning, it is about using your aircraft's advantages against the opponents weaknesses.

]http://bb.bbboy.net/bbgallery/Fantasy_&_Animals/wolfhowl.gif (http://bb.bbboy.net/bbgallery/Fantasy_&_Animals/wolfhowl.gif[/img)

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 01:49 AM
One of my big hopes is that someday people will learn from flight sims that simple absolutes do not hold.

Hurricane I's could not outturn 109-E's except at low altitudes, period. The Hurricane engine lost more power than the 109 as altitude increased and turn performance is affected by power. Keep reading Madcat.

Below is a report from a Polish Hurricane pilot, Skaski. Note that when Skalski says "The Hurricane is more maneuverable - lower I must be able to break out.", he means the Hurri is more maneuverable LOWER and he feels he will be able to get the 109 off his tail. Other evidence so you don't latch on to just that? All the way down to below 10,000 ft the 109 stays on his 6, firing some of the time. And, "The lower we get, the more confident I grow. 10,000, 9,000, 8,000 feet. The altimeter indicator is moving quickly.", he is more confident because he is finally getting to the altitudes where his plane can turn better.

But you can do your own reading, this is true many times over in many different ways in combat aviation.

Don't make blanket statements on performance comparisons. The fastest planes usually aren't everywhere and certainly not from soon after takeoff to pre-landing, except maybe the 262 and even then the 163 may have the honor for speed. The best climbers might not zoom climb so well and again in different altitude ranges the 1st prize may belong to one and then another. Turning? Yeah, it's all in the wings!

Bon Apple-tite!

Neal


Battle of Britain II

2 September 1940.

501 Hurricane Squadron featured probably the largest contingent of Polish pilots of all British squadrons during the Battle. One of them was Stanislaw Skalski, who on September 2 was already an ace with 7.5 confirmed victories.

Pilot Officer Stanislaw Skalski, 501 Hurricane Sqn.

"A black, dense column of He-111s in front of us. We're attacking slightly from the side - several Me-109s are in the area. A few of them break off in our direction. Too late. A few seconds have decided, the sun helped us, their attempt is futile.

The squadron closes on bombers' tails. The Hurricanes' wings light up with fire from eight machine guns. The bullet traces frame the bomber silhouettes. A few mortally wounded Heinkels 111 leave first gaps in the enemy formation. First white umbrellas of parachutes open up under the blue sky.

I am the last one to attack.

The target is in my sights, I close in at high speed. The controls stiffen ... I use the other hand... The Heinkel's wings grow in the lit-up ring. Maybe a second, maybe less - last quick look in the rear-view mirror.

Lord Almighty!

I pull back on the stick as hard as I can to evade the burst from a Me-109.

My eyelids close, heavy as if made of stone - I am flushed with darkness. My stomach comes up, I feel nauseated. Subconsciously, I complete a circle. The darkness subsides.

Behind, on my tail is a Me-109. With horror I realize it's very close to closing the deadly circle. How do I break out of this hell? I cannot do anything to immediately shake him off my tail. I have to fight to the end. The thoughts race through my mind: Decrease altitude in tight circles. The Hurricane is more maneuverable - lower I must be able to break out. Speed, speed....

The Hurricane shudders, white trails pierce the sky. The German is trying his luck. Every now and then there's a flash of fire from the Messerschmitt's cannon. I realize it won't hit me - the deflection's too small. I'm all wet from sweating. The altimeter indicates 15,000 feet. It's taking awfully long. We just lost 10,000.

Down, down - lower still. A few more thousand feet. Gradually, I'm beginning to free up - my head starts turning more to the front. The distance is growing. The German can't shoot any more. But he doesn't give up. He's tough. Terrific fighter. Doesn't allow a smallest mistake. He's in command, I have to follow his will. No trick is possible. He is the master of life and death. The only possibility, the only thing I can do is take him lower and lower. But I succeed. He is following me like shadow, but I'm getting away, he's losing his advantage. Why is he giving up? Why doesn't he change his tactic, when he sees me getting away? He's making a terrible mistake.

The lower we get, the more confident I grow. 10,000, 9,000, 8,000 feet. The altimeter indicator is moving quickly. I tighten the circle to the limit - with all my willpower, exhausted emotionally, I decide that I want to win this duel. I'm already on equal terms with the German. The next thing to do is get on his tail. I already have a tactical advantage - altitude. The Hurricane is shaking, it's hot in the cockpit, sweat all over my face. I pull the stick with both hands - tighter and tighter, 5,000, 4,000 feet. He's just in front of me. Why doesn't he get away? He can still take the fight into vertical.

Suddenly... yes! The gunsight... deflection! A fraction of a second... the thumb frantically presses the firing button. A short burst. The German abruptly breaks into a dive.

I missed! goes through my mind.

I stay on his tail. The ground is approaching quickly, I feel completely exhausted.

He's getting away.

I never let him out of my gunsight.

I'm waiting for him to pull out... then....

Can't be...? Or can it? He should be pulling out already, he's very low, too low.

I can't believe it.

A fireball... I pull out of the dive. I slide back the canopy and circle over the burning debris. I feel bitterness in my mouth. I take off the oxygen mask and breathe in the air. I look out of the cockpit. I feel sorry for the German. He was terrific, why didn't he bale out? (...)

A few minutes later I see two airplanes in dogfight, low over the ground. A Hurricane is in big trouble. My intervention won't be difficult. The Messerschmitt doesn't see me. I still have a lot of ammo. Two long bursts. The Hurricane joins me, I see the 501 squadron's letters on the fuselage. I have just saved a colleague, sergeant Adams.

Two hours later, in the next fight, sergeant Adams was killed."

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 01:58 AM
OK, this is BS

If the Hurricane could turn better than a Bf-109, why did the British make the Spitfire? Why not just streamline and up-engine the Hurricane?

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 03:18 AM
Hurricane I was substantially slower than either the Spitfire II or the Bf-109 E.

By way of compensation, The Hurricane was highly maneuverable and easy to fly. Its widely-spaced landing gear made it easy to land without ground looping, an important point. It was also easier to maintain and repair than the Spitfire.



now the spitfire

Powered by the superb Rolls Royce Merlin V-12 engine, the Spitfire II was faster than the Bf 109 E at altitudes above 15,000 feet. At altitudes above 15,000 feet, where the Battle of Britain was fought, the Spitfire was an even match for the Bf-109. Like the Hurricane, the Spitfire was armed with eight wing-mounted .303 machine guns. Considerably faster than the Hurricane, it was more difficult to produce due to its more complex structure, in particular the elegantly tapered wing

SPITFIRE XIV VERSUS BF109G
Maximum Speed: The Spitfire XIV is 40 mph [64 km/hr] faster at all heights except near 16,000 feet
[4878 m] - where it is only 10 mph [16 km/hr] faster.

Maximum Climb: The same result - at 16,000 feet [4878 m] the two aircraft are virtually identical, otherwise the Spitfire XIV outclimbs the 109. The zoom climb is practically identical when the climb is made without the throttle open. Climbing at full throttle, the Spitfire XIV draws away from the 109 quite easily.

Dive: During the initial part of the dive, the 109 draws away slightly, but when a speed of 380 mph [611 km/hr] is reached the Spitfire XIV begins to gain on the 109.

Turning Circle: The Spitfire XIV easily out-turns the 109 in either direction.

Rate of Roll: The Spitfire XIV rolls much more quickly.

Conclusion: The Spitfire XIV is superior in every respect.


Just the facts guys




Message Edited on 07/14/0309:21PM by CO_Eagle_31stFG

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 04:06 AM
Which model 109G? And at waht alts are those turns, rolls, etc compared at? And... 16,000 ft? The ceilings of both planes are?

Geez, it's like the full statistics of WWII fighters should fit in 10-point type on the backs of bubblegum cards with room for short essays and a picture on the front. Make mine one of those pictures that looks different from 2 different angles so in one the Spit is shooting and in the other the FW is blowing up. The do blow up, almost every time I read!

Why bother with realism in a sim? Let's just have each plane always able to beat some other a certain way regardless of alt, speed, etc, and then all the planes can be like that. The 'facts' can be gotten from the short blurbs in picture books and websites.

'Fact': the I-16 was really hard to shoot down and really a front line fighter throughout the war. It is the plane that shot down over 40% of all LW fighters on the East Front.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 04:13 AM
As i know about some tactics of 109s... 109s MUST go with pair. If both 109 pilots very good in flying in pair, they are almost invincible. There's why Brit's pilots follow the tactics of Luft 'Finger 4'.

Lt.Davis

http://www.angelfire.com/hero/apvg/tigerlogo.jpg


**Speed is the KEY**

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 04:24 AM
B.D wrote:

A Bf1940 vs Hurricane.. What is a Bf1940? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 04:54 AM
i dont really care if the hurri is over modeled, because when the patch comes and the hurri is modeled correctly the spit mkI will be arriving in FBshortly after, and it can turn even better than the hurri and was a bit faster, of course not as fast as the 109E.

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 05:17 AM
good grief read the post what altitudes and what model its there in plain english just read it

<table style="filter:glow[color=blueviolet, strength=3"><tr><td> <font color="FFCC66">Colonel Eagle
Commanding Officer
31st Fighter Group
Blue Dragons ~

"Return With Honor"</font></td></tr></table>

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 07:16 AM
JG77BlackWulf_2 wrote:
- Lets get something straight..... The FB Hurricane
- bears NO resemblance to real life flight models. The
- 109 could EASILY eat the Hurricane in RL. So all you
- virtual pilots that are kidding yourselves that you
- can beat 109s in the Hurricane ... wise up. The 109
- SLAUGHTERED Hurricanes because they were slow,low
- and had no power to dive away (carbuerettors).
- Having flown the Hurricane for the first time
- recently... I have to say the FM is ARCADE, the guns
- get easy kills fromm 700m and it NEVER stalls,
- always climbs no matter what your speed is, and eats
- CHaikas and Ratas ...... need I say more???
- My flame suit is on, I await the howls of denial
- with a limp lettuce.

1. Hurricane wasnt that bad plane as you desicribed.
2. Well you must be RBJ if its easy to kill enemy from 700m /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
3. It does stall. I usually stall once or twice in night.
4. And about Ratas/Chaikas..it all depends about your and enemy skill lvl, as in server where i play has one very skilled rata pilot and he is a damn hard to shoot down, also skilled 109 pilot can take Hurricane down, i've been shooted down a lot and im not that bad pilot myself.





http://stellar.no-ip.info/ban/fb.jpg

Message Edited on 07/15/0309:17AM by Stellar73

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 08:12 AM
There were no MkII in BoB. The MkI in FB is fairly accurate . Lets see:

1. 109E is better in Z&B, as it climbs much better, has better top speed and has good armament.

2. The Hurricane can out-turn. Almost better than the spitfire IIRC. LW Pilots missed them by hard turning. he reason the 109 and their pilots got many hurricanes was because the hurricanes were busy with the bombers and they didn't see the enemy at all (109 in Z&B).

3. In FB surprise on AI pilots is almost impossible to achieve (they seem to have radar), so it is hard to do what happened in BoB.

4. MAybe some of the guns need some tweaking (the .303 seem to effective and the Mg15 and Mg/FF sometimes seem to do a lot, sometimes nothing at all)

Remember, it was not the planes only, it was the battle itself:
Hurris on bombers (docens of them)
Spits (if any) after fighters
lots of planes around...
Hard to keep all the bad spots covered....
No icons...
fear...
bullets around...
at any second you can be history.

<img src=http://www.silence.plus.com/xanty/stuff/fb_falco.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 08:35 AM
CO_Eagle_31stFG wrote:

- now the spitfire
-
- Powered by the superb Rolls Royce Merlin V-12
- engine, the Spitfire II was faster than the Bf 109 E
- at altitudes above 15,000 feet. At altitudes above
- 15,000 feet, where the Battle of Britain was fought,
- the Spitfire was an even match for the Bf-109. Like
- the Hurricane, the Spitfire was armed with eight
- wing-mounted .303 machine guns. Considerably faster
- than the Hurricane, it was more difficult to produce
- due to its more complex structure, in particular the
- elegantly tapered wing

This part is pretty good as far as it goes, which isn't really that far. Faster above 15k ft where it was an even match for the 109 used in the BoB I am guessing.
Funny, in EAW the 109 had the speed edge in sustained running where it took longer for the engine to overheat than the Spit did. That is the kind of depth to learn from good flight sims, that a max speed number isn't the whole time for instance. Combat conditions are much more varied when the complexities are taken into consideration, the 109's had been running at slow cruise above the bombers when the Brit fighters had to run hard to climb to alt in response. The Spit was VERY GOOD for its time (Galland told Goebels that to beat the Brits in the BoB he needed Spitfires, I've heard him relate that in a wav file) but you try chasing the 109's back over the channel and it's a long hard run where maybe you get some if things go right and maybe they get you. Better to chase down the bombers.

- SPITFIRE XIV VERSUS BF109G
- Maximum Speed: The Spitfire XIV is 40 mph [64
- km/hr] faster at all heights except near 16,000 feet

I guess that Isegrim could figure out which G model. You play a sim where there is a 109G2, 109G6 early and late plus a 109G6/AS. That's not all the G variants. Do you expect to outperform all G models by those numbers? Unless they are talking about the AS, you may be dissapointed.

- [4878 m] - where it is only 10 mph [16 km/hr]
- faster.
-
- Maximum Climb: The same result - at 16,000 feet
- [4878 m] the two aircraft are virtually identical,
- otherwise the Spitfire XIV outclimbs the 109. The
- zoom climb is practically identical when the climb
- is made without the throttle open. Climbing at full
- throttle, the Spitfire XIV draws away from the 109
- quite easily.

Otherwise the Spit outclimbs the 109... they mean below 16k, right? And I guess that nearing 16k ft the Spit does not draw away from the 109 by much at all, whichever G variant they are not mentioning that is.

- Dive: During the initial part of the dive, the 109
- draws away slightly, but when a speed of 380 mph
- [611 km/hr] is reached the Spitfire XIV begins to
- gain on the 109.
-
- Turning Circle: The Spitfire XIV easily out-turns
- the 109 in either direction.

Am I to assume at 16k or below, or only below 16k?

- Rate of Roll: The Spitfire XIV rolls much more
- quickly.

Also ambiguous.

- Conclusion: The Spitfire XIV is superior in every
- respect.

At 16k and below, the altitudes of the BoB? And not a word in this about how long to run the engine heat up. Does this sound like picking stats to make one plane look good? A little pride and propaganda at work? I'd rather be in the Spit XIV than most 109G's but I would not expect a walk in the park against the late variants of the G and that superiority vanishes seemingly above 16k ft while in the time of the Spit XIV the 109's were flying considerably higher. Will you be surprised in a sim when you are bounced from above and the 109's you thought inferior just dance all over you? Will you understand engine state and energy state differences, or will you complain about over and under modelling?

- Just the facts guys

But not ALL the facts is all I want to point out. Don't wear a fan pin for ANY plane and you won't be dissapointed. There will be plenty of times when the Spit will kick arse, but it's not so cut and dry like that.

If combat isn't a deeply complex situation then your sim is tending towards arcade. The older the sim, the less dimensions of reality contained. There has been a steady progression upwards in the best sims and of course there have also been eye-candy arcade and semi-arcade sims as well, like Janes WW2F and worse, Crimson Skies. Look to the good ones and learn a new level or aspect from each. That is what IL2 delivered and FB takes it a step further with CEM. May the patch fulfill that promise and show the real aspects in the real proportions.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 10:21 AM
B.D wrote:
- In ww2 b109 1940 model took out hurricane easly and
- read about it and wached on tv discovery channel.But
- in il2 they are almost impossible they turn easly.I
- have been flying bf109 for moths in Il2 FB, and
- today i still dont have any tactics agenst it, i
- have tryed everything from stall truns , combat
- flaps and attack from high alltitude.
- I think u made a misstake u made hurricane
- easly manoverable plane. But it wasnt in real life.

Hurricane MKII models are a bit incorrect in FB but so is the BF109-E.

So basicly your not flying correct if you have problems with the Hurricane since the Emils climb much better, and are much faster then the Hurricanes in FB.

So Boom & Zoom the Hurricanes and do not turn with them, when they turn go in the vertical again and circle around for another attack.

So conclusion, the Hurricane MKII's are a bit uber but not as much as the rocket climbing Emils in FB.

The upcomming patch fixes both the Hurricane MKII's and the Emils. (Both get tones down a bit)

<center> http://www.322squadron.com/images/322.gif </center>

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 10:28 AM
When I started flying online in FB with my mates from IL-2, our two brits would try out the Hurri and eat me alive in my Emil, time and time again.

Till, one day, I climbed like a madman upon merge.

He looked pitiful in his Hurricane, trying to get the nose up and to fire off a few shots, that missed by many meters.

I initiated a hammerhead, and when I came down, he was stalling and hanging in the air like a ripe apple. Takatakataka, his control cables snapped and he went down.

In a single pass.


So sorry, but Hurris in FB in the unpatched version are more than easy meat for the 109.

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 11:59 AM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
- Which model 109G? And at waht alts are those turns,
- rolls, etc compared at? And... 16,000 ft? The
- ceilings of both planes are?

The Spitfire LF Mk.IX and Mk.XIV, and also Mustang III were tested against a Bf 109G-6N/U2/R6/R3, W.Nr.412951, named TP814 in British colours. The plane was captured in the summer of 1944, when it got disoriented and landed in Britain.

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/capt-luft/bf109/tp814-02.jpg


Basically that means that the "109G" was a night fighter version with night navigation equipment, equipped with a fuel drop tank/bomb shackles (some additional drag), two 20mm gun gondolas under the wings which added 215 kg extra weight and decreased climb rate and manouveribility greatly, and also caused a modest amount of speed loss (-10km/h). From other tests against the Tempest V. it is clear that British test pilots were unfamiliar with the operation of automatic leading edge slats on the 109s ("The Tempest is slightly better, the Bf.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall.") , and this resulted that they didn`t nearly pushed the plane to it`s limits in turns. I also suspect they used only limited boosts and powers to conserve the engine, which happened with other captured planes - what is certain that Capt. Eric Brown didn`t use more than 1.3ata when he flew W.Nr.412951.

In other words, the plane was some 30-35km/h slower than the clean fighter version, and turned a LOT worser because of the weight of gunpods, fusalge shackles, and the pilot`s unwillingness to pull the stick after the slats opened - which latter under normal circumstances would allow HIGHER G-loads, lower stall speed and tighter turns.

A clean Spitfire LF Mk.IX`s speed was practically identical to a clean G-6`s, and so was it`s climb rate up to around 6000m. Over that altitude, the Spit climbed a touch bit better, unless we are talking about a G-6/AS, G-14/AS, G-10 or K-4 with a high altitude engine, which was a rather common type in 1944, and was better at high altitudes.

The results of the tests should be understood by taking into account the exact conditions of the plane`s specialized (an all-wheater/night bomber destroyer, and not a daylight air superiority fighter) nature.

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
07-15-2003, 01:22 PM
JG77BlackWulf_2 wrote:
- Lets get something straight..... The FB Hurricane
- bears NO resemblance to real life flight models. The
- 109 could EASILY eat the Hurricane in RL. So all you
- virtual pilots that are kidding yourselves that you
- can beat 109s in the Hurricane ... wise up. The 109
- SLAUGHTERED Hurricanes because they were slow,low
- and had no power to dive away (carbuerettors).
- Having flown the Hurricane for the first time
- recently... I have to say the FM is ARCADE, the guns
- get easy kills fromm 700m and it NEVER stalls,
- always climbs no matter what your speed is, and eats
- CHaikas and Ratas ...... need I say more???
- My flame suit is on, I await the howls of denial
- with a limp lettuce.

Also, the Hurricane MK1 is pretty correctly modelled and no uberplane in any way.

It's the various MKII models that are a bit overmodelled but to say they cannot be beat is total bull.
They are still slow and several German planes climb and dive much better then the Hurricane in FB.

And since the Rata's cannot be damaged by small arms fire (Bug) I find it rather funny that you can kill them so easy with the 8x.303 machine guns from 700 meters out.

<center> http://www.322squadron.com/images/322.gif </center>

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 01:23 PM
BTW... I'm not saying the Hurri is difficult to kill with a 109 (any model); it is terribly over modelled though and the guns are crazy!! (I'm not that idiot RBJ btw). Try getting hits let alone kills with the LW mg at those extreme ranges.


http://bb.bbboy.net/bbgallery/Fantasy_&_Animals/wolfhowl.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 01:34 PM
JG77BlackWulf_2 wrote:
- BTW... I'm not saying the Hurri is difficult to kill
- with a 109 (any model); it is terribly over modelled
- though and the guns are crazy!! (I'm not that idiot
- RBJ btw). Try getting hits let alone kills with the
- LW mg at those extreme ranges.

Only the climb rate is overmodelled dude, other then that it's a piece of junk.

And the flimsy .303 machine guns don't make kills at long ranges, only pretty sparkles and the occasional lucky hit.

<center> http://www.322squadron.com/images/322.gif </center>

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 02:02 PM
Once again Hurries I&II and Bf109E&F had the same sustained turn rate, slightly over 20deg/sec. With equal pilots no one can gain against each other in a flat turnfight in real life.
In FB however both Hurries easily outturn early Bf109 which is incorrect. Also all early planes turn better that they should in both turn rate and radius and at much higher AOA(VVS and LW), making deflection shooting next to impossible (you have to shoot blindly all the time).

Also pilot effort on the stick is not simulated and this gives a great advantage to early turners that they did not have in real life. After a turnfight at sustained turn rate (3G) for say 4 turns any pilot is completely exhausted and has to ease the Gs for at least a minute to recover, time in which he was easy prey for enemy fighters. Fighter pilots had developed a special sense in their search for exhasted pilots by looking at the way enemy fighters move their wings.

Also for some strange reason in shallow dives and climbs, all early fighters can stay with early Bf109 (especially with Emils) which is completely inaccurate. The acceleration advantage should be seen immediatelly. These coupled with super flat trajectories and incrdible punch of the VVS armament (especially BS MGhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif and Hispanos on HurriIIc) leaves little room for early Bf109. This is why early VVS are very very popular when they should not be.

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 02:24 PM
- I would not expect a walk in the park
- against the late variants of the G and that
- superiority vanishes seemingly above 16k ft while in
- the time of the Spit XIV the 109's were flying
- considerably higher. Will you be surprised in a sim
- when you are bounced from above and the 109's you
- thought inferior just dance all over you?

Superiority doesn't vanish over 16,000ft, it almost vanishes at that height, but improves again as you go futher up.

In general, the Spits did better than the 109s as altitude increased, especially at above 25,000ft.

If you go here:
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14pt.html

You'll see that 16,000ft was one of the worst heights for the Spit XIV, just above MS supercharger, and way below FTH in FS supercharger.

There's a reason Isegrim always gives performance comparisons at 6000m, it was just about the best height for the 109, almost the worst for the Spit.

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 03:14 PM
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/9378/warspit.html interesting reading

<table style="filter:glow[color=blueviolet, strength=3"><tr><td> <font color="FFCC66">Colonel Eagle
Commanding Officer
31st Fighter Group
Blue Dragons ~

"Return With Honor"</font></td></tr></table>

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 03:31 PM
hop2002 wrote:
-
- Superiority doesn't vanish over 16,000ft, it almost
- vanishes at that height, but improves again as you
- go futher up.
-
- In general, the Spits did better than the 109s as
- altitude increased, especially at above 25,000ft.

"In general"?

Let`s see. Spit Is and IIs. are worser at altitude than 109E because the latter has a better engine for high altitudes. Funny, but every single author agrees on that.

Spit V is worser than 109F for the same reason. Poor supercharging, bulky airframe. Result: some 20-30 k/h slower in the best case. Climb ditto. And this one is the most produced of all Spits. Some Squadrons even used them in late 1943.

SpitIXFs of 1942 are no better at high altitude and are considerable worser at low altitudes. Only the Spit LFIX could cure that problem in 1943 for the low altitudes, and again it was no faster at high altitude than the 109G. On the contrary, it was a slower.

When the DB605AS and it`s variants came in 1944, the common Spitfire IXs, even the specialized high altitude Mk.XIHF found themselves outclassed at high altitudes. Only the rare XIVs had really better performance, over 7500m. But they were too few, a handful of (5-7) sqaudrons receiving them till the end of the war, and could hardly make their presence felt.


I made a small curve on that, based on real-life flightests. The 109G-2 and Spit IXLF are both tested by the NII VVS. The K-4`s performance is from German tests, for the Spit XIV it`s from post-war British tests. Each of them represent "normal" planes, and not the prototypes Hop likes to show all the time.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/SPEED%20109G2andK4%20vs%20Spit9LFand14.jpg


-
- You'll see that 16,000ft was one of the worst
- heights for the Spit XIV, just above MS
- supercharger, and way below FTH in FS supercharger.


True, the Merlin`s supercharger control was a primitive, fixed-gear ratio type that`s why the performance loss. But who is to be blamed for that?

The 109 has advantage at those altitude ranges bacause it`s has better engine design. Why? It has a more more advanced supercharger control. There`s no sudden gaps and loss of power with a variable-gear type SC. All this moaning about "how unfair" it is to compare altitudes where the Spit gets the low end of stick because of it`s worser engine design is ridiculus. Though Hop`s reasoning behind it is not hard to grasp: everything should show how better the Spit was - those facts which don`t show this should be ignored !


- There's a reason Isegrim always gives performance
- comparisons at 6000m, it was just about the best
- height for the 109, almost the worst for the Spit.

There`s a reason why Hop always makes such blatant lies like this. I wonder where and when did I gave a comparison ONLY for 6000m? Of course I didn`t, but this 6000m story is another old one: long ago, poor Hop just couldn`t swallow some facts about the relative performance of these planes, like the fact that at 6000m the 109K-4 was some 40 km/h faster than his pet SpitXIV. The old wound still hurts it seems. He doesn`t cares that the SpitXIV has advantage over 7500m in speed, he just can`t accept that at ANY altitude anything can be faster than a Spitfire. Nothing. You can see him argue just as well the Spit being the best diving plane of the war, reaching Mach numbers that even the P-47 couldn`t. A "Spit-dweep", he calls himself. Others call him Hop-the-fanatic-Brit. Both are appropriate.

But speaking of dishonesty.. Hop knows the conditions of the AFDU test against the "109G", and the exact subtype of the plane. He knows it carries gunpods, which subtract from it`s performance. Yet every time he lists the results of the tests, he gets forgotful to mention these conditions.


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

Message Edited on 07/15/0304:41PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 03:37 PM
One correction to the last post..lol it's not worser it's worse


As everyone continues to debate everything here keep in mind the top 3 fighter planes of WW2 were the P-51, the Spitfire, and the 109.

Debate as you will, but when it all comes down to it, it truely was the skill of the pilot in each plane taht made the planes successful. Many records stating kills are overrated by people in forums. They make it sound as if it were only the plane doing all the record making. Look up the records people there really were alot of kills by these planes but what fails to get acknowledged is alot of kills were done by certain pilots and those pilots had multiple kills ( over 10 some in the hundreds) but this was the pilot in the plane with the skill to do so. None of us here ever flew the planes and I think if we actually had the chance to we would all be humbled.

We get the luxery of trying to base performance on stats, not actual experiance in flying them, we also have the option of press a key, where they did many things manually.


<table style="filter:glow[color=blueviolet, strength=3"><tr><td> <font color="FFCC66">Colonel Eagle
Commanding Officer
31st Fighter Group
Blue Dragons ~

"Return With Honor"</font></td></tr></table>

Message Edited on 07/15/0309:40AM by CO_Eagle_31stFG

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 03:41 PM
CO_Eagle_31stFG wrote:
- As everyone continues to debate everything here keep
- in mind the top 3 fighter planes of WW2 were the
- P-51, the Spitfire, and the 109.


A correction. If you are talking about dogfighters Mustang has no place in here. 109 completely dominates the skies until '44, when they could be challenged by Spitfire XIV at high altitude and La7 at low altitude.

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 03:47 PM
yawns.. this is getting boring lol

everyones an expert.



<table style="filter:glow[color=blueviolet, strength=3"><tr><td> <font color="FFCC66">Colonel Eagle
Commanding Officer
31st Fighter Group
Blue Dragons ~

"Return With Honor"</font></td></tr></table>

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 04:43 PM
- Let`s see. Spit Is and IIs. are worser at altitude
- than 109E because the latter has a better engine for
- high altitudes. Funny, but every single author
- agrees on that.

At 15,000ft the 109E4 is about 3 mph faster than a Spit Ia running on 87 octane fuel.

By 25,000ft, the Spit Ia is about 17mph faster. (Still on 87 octane. On 100 octane, as used during the BoB, the Spit would be faster at 15,000ft as well)

- Spit V is worser than 109F for the same reason. Poor
- supercharging, bulky airframe.

The Spit V is worse than the later 109F4, but about the same as the earlier 109f1 and 2.

Regardless, we were talking about late war aircraft, the exact model was the XIV, iirc.

- SpitIXFs of 1942 are no better at high altitude and
- are considerable worser at low altitudes.

Than what?

The 109G2, according to the figures in the Russian chart you use as a source for the Spit figures, did 403 mph at 23,000ft. By 36,000ft, it was down to 378 mph.

The Spit was slower at 23,000ft, only 382, but faster above 27,000.

As to your figures for the G2, they don't tie in with the Russian charts, the Reichlin tests of them G1, or any figures I've seen elsewhere.

Those figures for the G2 also don't take in to account the engine limitations that were applied in service, reducing performance considerably.

- Only the
- Spit LFIX could cure that problem in 1943 for the
- low altitudes, and again it was no faster at high
- altitude than the 109G. On the contrary, it was a
- slower.
Than what? A 109G2, using boost levels they didn't use in service? Even though the G2 had largely been taken out of service and replaced by the G6 by 43?

The G6 was slower for a number of reasons, amongst them that they had to add bulges in the wings to allow for different wheels, to try and reduce the number of takeoff/landing accidents.

Compare the Spit LF IX with it's contempories, not the G2.

- Only the rare XIVs had really better
- performance, over 7500m. But they were too few, a
- handful of (5-7) sqaudrons receiving them till the
- end of the war, and could hardly make their presence
- felt.

I should think, given the Luftwaffes fuel situation, the Spit XIV racked up more hours on combat sorties than the 109K4 ever did.

- I made a small curve on that, based on real-life
- flightests. The 109G-2 and Spit IXLF are both tested
- by the NII VVS.

Yes, but the figurs the NII gives for the 109G2 don't match the ones you have drawn there.
They give 505 km/h at sea level, less than 650km/h at 7000m.

You have give 530km/h and 665km/h.

- The K-4`s performance is from German
- tests, for the Spit XIV it`s from post-war British
- tests. Each of them represent "normal" planes, and
- not the prototypes Hop likes to show all the time.

The K4's performance is for C3 fuel and MW50. In real life, due to the terrible fuel situation in the Luftwaffe, they used B$ fuel and MW50, for around 150 - 200hp less than the performance figures you are using.

The Spit XIV figures you give are for the Spit XIV running on 100 octane fuel, 18lbs boost, whereas the RAF in Britain, then on the continent, switched to 150 octane, 21 or 25lbs boost. That gave 250 - 500hp more than the performance figures you are using were obtained at.

Strangely, you keep comparing the figures for the best standard a 109K4 could ever reach, to the worst for a Spit XIV. Wonder why?

Shall I do the same?

Spit LF IX vs 109G6
At sea level, 109G6 about 335 - 340mph.
At sea level, LF IX about 360 mph

At sea level, 109G6 about 4000ft/min climb rate
At sea level, LF IX about 5500ft/min climb rate

At 14,000ft, 109G6 about 380mph
At 14,000ft, LF IX about 410mph

At 14,000ft, 109G6 about 3600ft/min
At 14,000ft, LF IX about 4600ft/min

Plu of course the Spit could at all altitudes turn better and roll better.

Finally, the 109K4, even with Isegrim's figures, did 378 mph at sea level, 392 at 3500ft.

The Spit XIV did 389 mph at sea level, 406mph at 3,500ft.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14speedns.jpg


Fit those true figures in to Isegrims chart, and you will see the Spit XIV was faster at almost all altitudes, as well as climbing better, turning better, rolling better.

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 04:54 PM
- The 109 has advantage at those altitude ranges
- bacause it`s has better engine design. Why? It has a
- more more advanced supercharger control.

It had a different supercharger coupling, not control.

In most engines, the supercharger is driven by by gears, so spins at a fixed speed relative to engine rpm.

In the DB601/605 the supercharger was driven by a coupling that allowed the supercharger to slip, so the supercharger wasn't fixed to the engine speed.

At some altitudes, the fixed method is worse, because the supercharger uses the same energy at all times, even when it didn't need to.

However, from just below critical altitude in each gear, and above critical altitude in FS gear, the fixed system is better, because it wastes almost no energy. The DB system, which allowed for slip at lower altitudes, wastes more power because of it.

It's much like the difference between a manual gearbox and a CVT on a car.

- All this moaning about "how unfair" it is
- to compare altitudes where the Spit gets the low end
- of stick because of it`s worser engine design is
- ridiculus.

No, the point is the DB benefits at altitudes where the fixed supercharger gear has just ghanged up. At higher altitudes, it loses out. Naturally you choose to compare at those altitudes where the Spit has just changed up, where it loses out, not at FTH and above, where the 109 loses out.

Just as you use power figures, you distort the argument to provide the best figures for the 109, the worst for everything else.

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 05:52 PM
hop2002 wrote:

- It's much like the difference between a manual
- gearbox and a CVT on a car.


CVT is better in both acceleration and fuel consumption than manual gear box (and of course better than automatic). You just need someone to do it right. Take a look at the specs for Audi's CVT gearbox.

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 06:00 PM
And hop2000 you always point to those british test that never tell the power output of their engine (they give only the boost, knowing very well that boost is not a measure of power output). All the Boscombe tests from '43 to the end of the war are made with engines much powerful (at least 200hp) than those put in production, and have no relevance for the actual performance of british fighters. It's just a nice case of "what if", the british ww2 daydream.

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 06:10 PM
hop2002 wrote:
-- Let`s see. Spit Is and IIs. are worser at altitude
-- than 109E because the latter has a better engine for
-- high altitudes. Funny, but every single author
-- agrees on that.
-
- At 15,000ft the 109E4 is about 3 mph faster than a
- Spit Ia running on 87 octane fuel.

PROVIDED the Spit IA has variable pitch propellor. Sadly it didn`t for most of the time. It had to use 2-pithc prop, with considerable speed loss.


-- Spit V is worser than 109F for the same reason. Poor
-- supercharging, bulky airframe.
-
- The Spit V is worse than the later 109F4, but about
- the same as the earlier 109f1 and 2.


No. Any 109F model, F-1 through F-4 is faster than the Spit V at all altitudes.

The F-1/F-2 did 515 to 525 km/h at SL. The Spit VB only about 480 km/h.

Max. speed of Spit VB was 597 at 6200m without the usual snowguards, and 587 in the standard config with them.

F-1 or F-2 could do 615 km/h. 630 with increased RPM.

At high altitude, say 8000m, Spit VB makes 565 km/h. 109F-2 makes 600 km/h (or 615 with increased RPM).

The F-4 is even more faster.

It doesn`t even nearly shows the trend that altitude would favour Spits.. quite the contrary.



-
-- SpitIXFs of 1942 are no better at high altitude and
-- are considerable worser at low altitudes.
-
- Than what?
-
- The 109G2, according to the figures in the Russian
- chart you use as a source for the Spit figures, did
- 403 mph at 23,000ft. By 36,000ft, it was down to 378
- mph.


With gunpods, that is... "5-point" 109G2, written there, isn`t it?


-
- The Spit was slower at 23,000ft, only 382, but
- faster above 27,000.

Again, a clean Spit IX vs. a 109G-2 with gunpods again.

But here`s a clean Spit IXLF vs. a clean G-2:

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/SPEED%20109G2andK4%20vs%20Spit9LFand14.jpg


Spit IXLF is SLOWER at ALL altitudes.


- As to your figures for the G2, they don't tie in
- with the Russian charts, the Reichlin tests of them
- G1, or any figures I've seen elsewhere.

They are from Russian chart. You have seen that as well... And that they don`t tie up with you, that`s hardly relevant.

http://www.pbase.com/image/11679724 ( <A HREF=)" target=_blank>http://www.pbase.com/image/11679724</a>

530 km/h at SL, 665 km/h at 7000m. Russian chart. You have seen it already.


- Those figures for the G2 also don't take in to
- account the engine limitations that were applied in
- service, reducing performance considerably.

Engine limitations were lifted soon and were not present in every unit. For example, the planes tested by the Russians didn`t have throttle limitations. And even running on lower boost, the G-2 is still faster than the Spit IXLF, it could reach 649 km/h at 1.3ata and 7000m. It`s above critical altitude performance is not effected at all.


-- Only the
-- Spit LFIX could cure that problem in 1943 for the
-- low altitudes, and again it was no faster at high
-- altitude than the 109G. On the contrary, it was a
-- slower.

- Than what? A 109G2, using boost levels they didn't
- use in service?

What are you making up again? G-2 doesn`t using 1.42 ata? Go and see you doctor. You have surreal visions.


- Even though the G2 had largely been
- taken out of service and replaced by the G6 by 43?

Hmm, really? I wonder, the G-6 production started in the very end of 1942, how could it just replace hundreds of G-2s within a month? As a matter of fact, G-2s were still common in late 1943.


-
- The G6 was slower for a number of reasons, amongst
- them that they had to add bulges in the wings to
- allow for different wheels, to try and reduce the
- number of takeoff/landing accidents.

G-6 was about 10-15 km/h slower than the G-2, but only above 6000m.

-
- Compare the Spit LF IX with it's contempories, not
- the G2.

Sure, why not? The IXLF still gets the low end of stick at altitude. The G-6 could go 530 km/h at SL and 650 at 6600m. And it didn`t even nearly lost as much speed with altitude as the SpitIXLF.

Of course, G-6`s with high altitude engines were even faster at 680 km/h@7500m.


-
- I should think, given the Luftwaffes fuel situation,
- the Spit XIV racked up more hours on combat sorties
- than the 109K4 ever did.

Sure-sure, everything is possible in your world, isn`t it? Even that the existing 60-70 Spit14s make more sorties than ~340 K-4s. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Even if the LW put up more fighter sorties on the whole than the RAF-FC...

You have no idea on the number of sorties flown, that is. But post numbers that would prove your point - if you have any, but I don`t tie too much hope to that.

-
- Yes, but the figurs the NII gives for the 109G2
- don't match the ones you have drawn there.
- They give 505 km/h at sea level, less than 650km/h
- at 7000m.
-

Those are figures for a "five-point" G-2, = G-2 with 5 guns (3 normal, + 2 as gunpods).

-
- You have give 530km/h and 665km/h.
-

Not me.

http://www.pbase.com/image/11679724

-
- The K4's performance is for C3 fuel and MW50.
-

The fuel type does not effect high altitude performance at all. In any case, w/o C-3, the speed under 6500-7000m is some 10 km/h less. WOW! That means it`s still faster, even if you give the K-4 87 octane, and the Spit XIV 150 octane.


- In
- real life, due to the terrible fuel situation in the
- Luftwaffe, they used B$ fuel and MW50, for around
- 150 - 200hp less than the performance figures you
- are using.

In real life, they used C-3 fuel or B-4 fuel. Both were available, as in 1944 only the amount crude oil was reduced, not the amounts of additives that were used for raising the octane number. Only in your dreamworld they run on B-4. And even then they are faster than the XIV...


- The Spit XIV figures you give are for the Spit XIV
- running on 100 octane fuel, 18lbs boost, whereas the
- RAF in Britain, then on the continent, switched to
- 150 octane, 21 or 25lbs boost. That gave 250 - 500hp
- more than the performance figures you are using were
- obtained at.


In real life, 150 grade that was neccesary to obtain higher boost were on limited supply, and the amounts were given to Spitfire IX units which would be hopelessly outclassed without it. It makes sense, as there were 50-60 Spit9 squardons would be gutted without it. The mere 5 Squadrons of XIVs could still do nicely without it.

In real life, Spitfire XIVs couldn`t run at +25lbs boost, because they were not cleared for that:

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Griffon%20limits%20of%2021lbs.jpg


-
- Strangely, you keep comparing the figures for the
- best standard a 109K4 could ever reach, to the worst
- for a Spit XIV. Wonder why?

Worst figures for the 14? How is that, I used the advertising figure of 360 mph@SL for the chart, in REAL LIFE tests, Spit14 could even hit 350mph...



-
- Shall I do the same?
-
- Spit LF IX vs 109G6
- At sea level, 109G6 about 335 - 340mph.
- At sea level, LF IX about 360 mph
- At sea level, 109G6 about 4000ft/min climb rate
- At sea level, LF IX about 5500ft/min climb rate


Irrevelant, as you have already admitted you searched for the worst figures for the 109, and best prototype figures for the Spit. You don`t want to be taken seriously, do you?



- At 14,000ft, 109G6 about 380mph
- At 14,000ft, LF IX about 410mph
- At 14,000ft, 109G6 about 3600ft/min
- At 14,000ft, LF IX about 4600ft/min


Show me your 109G-6 climb and speed chart. Oh, you were just making it up? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BTW, which LF IX could do 4600 ft/min at 14000ft? Certainly not a sigle, as that would require to force-close their radiators shuts, which they couldn`t do as it had no means of manual control, and the automatic thermostat opened it full in climb to provide aduquate cooling. With radiators open, they managed some 3800 ft/min at that altitude. Provided they had 150 grade fuel, which they didn`t for most of the time.



- Plu of course the Spit could at all altitudes turn
- better and roll better.

Turn better OK, it`s good for suicede, but roll better, LOL don`t make me laugh. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif The Spit was a poor roller in all it`s history, the ailerons were already very heavy on the Mk.VA, and according to factory pilots, they progressivevly got worse. Pilots say they could do only half as many rolls with the MkIX than with the MkI or V. They say later marks are even worser.

This is underlined by NACA testing of Spit VA, with metal ailrons:

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Spitchar4.jpg



The 109G could easily outroll the Spit, especially the clumsly 14, at any speed. This is particularry true for the K-4 with it`s mechanically boosted ailrons.


- Finally, the 109K4, even with Isegrim's figures, did
- 378 mph at sea level, 392 at 3500ft.
-
- The Spit XIV did 389 mph at sea level, 406mph at
- 3,500ft.


389mph was done in crash-program test where they stripped a XIV from aerial mast, mirrors, wingtips, loaded only with half fuel load, and runned the engine well above it`s operational boosts. It was a single plane, and no similiar saw squadrons service.

Even with 150 grade and maximal boost of +21lbs, Spit XIVs could go no faster than 370mph. Still slower than the K-4.


- Fit those true figures in to Isegrims chart, and you
- will see the Spit XIV was faster at almost all
- altitudes, as well as climbing better, turning
- better, rolling better.

Those "true figures" refer to a single prototype in a crash programme agaisnt V-1 raids; it never saw service.


The chart that is posted above and are based on real-world flight tests done in Germany and the UK, show that the K-4 have a significant speed advantage of up to 40-50km/h, from Sea level up to 7500m, over which the Spitfire XIV has a small advantage of about 10 km/h.

In addition, maximal powers that enable this performance can be used for 10 minutes on the K-4, and only 5 minutes on the Spitfire XIV.

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
07-15-2003, 06:11 PM
- And hop2000 you always point to those british test
- that never tell the power output of their engine
- (they give only the boost, knowing very well that
- boost is not a measure of power output).

Boost is the equivalent of manifold pressure in the US< or ata in Germany. Planes are flown at particular throttle settings. There is rarely any need for a pilot to know what the power output of his engine is.

- All the
- Boscombe tests from '43 to the end of the war are
- made with engines much powerful (at least 200hp)
- than those put in production, and have no relevance
- for the actual performance of british fighters

Huh? They are flown with production engines for the most part. The Spit XIV is flown with a prototype engine, but the body of the report points that out.

Some of them may have less power than the service models, because engines in the RAF were usually rerated upwards, as opposed to the Luftwaffe, who rated them highly in prototypes, and lowered the rating in service (see for example the 109G2, 190A3 etc, which were derated in use, and the Spit V, which went from 9lbsb boost in the tests, to 12lbs, to 16lbs by summer 42)


Have you got a source for such a wildly innacuarte claim?

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 06:44 PM
hop2002 wrote:

-
- Some of them may have less power than the service
- models, because engines in the RAF were usually
- rerated upwards, as opposed to the Luftwaffe, who
- rated them highly in prototypes, and lowered the
- rating in service (see for example the 109G2, 190A3
- etc, which were derated in use, and the Spit V,
- which went from 9lbsb boost in the tests, to 12lbs,
- to 16lbs by summer 42)


Have you got a source for such a wildly innacuarte claim?

Germans engines were not derated in use. Their CR and MAP constanly increased during the war. The only temporary decrease was with the initial batches of engines. The British also were forced to lower boost pressure on the Griffon due to bearing troubles, and on Packard-Merlin Spitfires.

Daimler Benz engines start at 1.3 ata, and finished the war at 1.98ata - and had some 30% higher compression ratio for better effiency as well, unlike Brititish engines.


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
07-15-2003, 07:12 PM
hop2002 wrote:
-- I made a small curve on that, based on real-life
-- flightests. The 109G-2 and Spit IXLF are both tested
-- by the NII VVS.
-
- Yes, but the figurs the NII gives for the 109G2
- don't match the ones you have drawn there.
- They give 505 km/h at sea level, less than 650km/h
- at 7000m.
-
- You have give 530km/h and 665km/h.


Hop,

He's right on this. I've seen Finnish tests results of the G2 full of ammo and fuel running at less than full boost (it was a combat aircraft and they didn't want to stress the engine.) It got similar results. I've seen some really questionable Russian NII results for 109's bandied about... 505 km/hr is much slower than reality for sea level. That would make is slower than the F2 even, more like an Emil.

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 07:12 PM
hop2002 wrote:
-- The 109 has advantage at those altitude ranges
-- bacause it`s has better engine design. Why? It has a
-- more more advanced supercharger control.
-
- It had a different supercharger coupling, not
- control.

It had different coupling, and different control for that. Did you forget that 109s used a single-lever automated engine/SC RPM control, and for mixture as well, whereas Spitfires had different levers for boost and RPM, not to mention mixture?


-
- In most engines, the supercharger is driven by
- gears, so spins at a fixed speed relative to engine
- rpm.
-
- In the DB601/605 the supercharger was driven by a
- coupling that allowed the supercharger to slip, so
- the supercharger wasn't fixed to the engine speed.

Every fixed gear SCs has slips. Otherwise their gearing would break when they engage the supercharger. The DB/Allison style is only different that it slip below FTH and conserves power. But at FTH, they all have the same amount of slip - approx. 3-4%.



- At some altitudes, the fixed method is worse,
- because the supercharger uses the same energy at all
- times, even when it didn't need to.

Do I recall right that because of this type design, Merlins/Griffons loose tremendous powers in a range of about 3000meters, unlike DBs/Allisons?


- However, from just below critical altitude in each
- gear, and above critical altitude in FS gear, the
- fixed system is better, because it wastes almost no
- energy. The DB system, which allowed for slip at
- lower altitudes, wastes more power because of it.


No. You don`t get the operation method. Below critical altitude, the DB system is only partly connected to the engine drive, there`s only partial load on the engine, in accordance to the superchargin needs. When full supercharging is needed, the system allows for a minimum slip, just like fixed gear superchargers. There`s no more effiency loss than with those, the only loss occurs to the increased oil heat levels which need a larger cooler.



- It's much like the difference between a manual
- gearbox and a CVT on a car.

Yep, see the Audi`s CVT, as Huck` said: it provides constant, optimum torque all the times, not just peaks and valleys of power like a normal manual gearshift.


-
-- All this moaning about "how unfair" it is
-- to compare altitudes where the Spit gets the low end
-- of stick because of it`s worser engine design is
-- ridiculus.


- No, the point is the DB benefits at altitudes where
- the fixed supercharger gear has just ghanged up. At
- higher altitudes, it loses out.

No. There`s no disadvantage at higher altitudes with variable speed SCs in power. It generates more heat for oil only, and it needs a more cooling capacity, and some 10 lbs exta weight. At those high altitudes, they work the very same way as fixed-speed SCs, ie. running at full speed with a minimal slip.

BTW, which DB loosed out? They single stage DBs convinently beated the single staged Merlins, and two staged DBs the two stage Griffons at altitude.


- Naturally you choose
- to compare at those altitudes where the Spit has
- just changed up, where it loses out, not at FTH and
- above, where the 109 loses out.


Where did I make such comparison? Show me, I am tired of your constant parrotting of such invalid accusations.


- Just as you use power figures, you distort the
- argument to provide the best figures for the 109,
- the worst for everything else.


It wasn`t me who provided figures for a stripped, half loaded, overboosted single Spitifre, that was used to an extent of a single crash program test, now was I ?



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
07-15-2003, 07:23 PM
I have noticed that the URL for Soviet G-2 speed chart got garbled. Here`s the chart. It can be seen that it matches my curves exactly (unsurprisingly, as the curves were made based on it..)

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fghterchart.jpg


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
07-15-2003, 07:41 PM
Could we have more charts lol

you know this arguement will never be settled....same arguement in the good ole cfs games ..yes you know the zero is better..no the corsair is better.. dadadadada etc etc.

nobody is going to win on this string as some people favor the hurrican and spit other the 109.

hurricane/spit flyers cannot truely be objective to 109 planes and vice versa just flat out won't happen.

this is about as good a line as my daddys better than your daddy....see my plane is better than your plane.. alot of whining and nothing will be solved here.

As for me I'm sticking to US and RAAF planes as that is what my squads planes actually consisted of.

Just be glad this game has less flaws than CFS3.

<table style="filter:glow[color=blueviolet, strength=3"><tr><td> <font color="FFCC66">Colonel Eagle
Commanding Officer
31st Fighter Group
Blue Dragons ~

"Return With Honor"</font></td></tr></table>

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 08:06 PM
- PROVIDED the Spit IA has variable pitch propellor.
- Sadly it didn`t for most of the time. It had to use
- 2-pithc prop, with considerable speed loss.

All were equipped with variable speed props in June 1940. Prior to that, performance was poorer, but then the opposition was the 109E3 and E1, with terrible armament, so it didn't matter so much.

- No. Any 109F model, F-1 through F-4 is faster than
- the Spit V at all altitudes.
-
- The F-1/F-2 did 515 to 525 km/h at SL.

Source for the 109 figures? The Warbirds flight model team give 295mph/ 475km/h as the real figure, based on the following source:

Aircraft Evaluation Report, No 110, 7-2-43
German factory technical documentation

A US Wright Field test report for the 109F4 gives the sea level speed as 295 mph 475 km/h for the F1/F2, and 310mph 500km/h for the 109F4.


- The Spit VB only about 480 km/h.

Where do you get that figure? Extrapolating from the Spit V tests? Bear in mind they are only using 9lbs boost for the speed tests, which is a 1 hour rating. 12lbs was the WEP rating, and provided far more power.

- F-1 or F-2 could do 615 km/h. 630 with increased
- RPM.

Source again? The same US Wright field report gives the F1/F2 a max of 600 km/h, the Warbirds flight model team again do the same.

- At high altitude, say 8000m, Spit VB makes 565 km/h.
- 109F-2 makes 600 km/h (or 615 with increased RPM).

About 575 according to the tests, and again the Spit is still flying at 9lbs boost, not the 12lbs authorised at that time.

- With gunpods, that is... "5-point" 109G2, written
- there, isn`t it?

Oh, you want to compare a 109 with a single low powered 20mm, and 2 rifle calibre Mgs, against a Spit with 2 much more powerfull cannon and 4 mgs.

The 109 needed the gunpods to equal the firepower of the Spit. Stripping out more than half the armament hardly makes for a fair comparison, does it? Pity the 109 couldn't carry a decent armament internally at that point in the war, but it couldn't.

- Again, a clean Spit IX vs. a 109G-2 with gunpods
- again.

A Spit with 2 very powerfull cannon and 4 mGs, against a 109 with 3 low powered cannon, and 2 MGs. Sounds much fairer than a Spit with 2 powerfull cannon and 4 MGs against a 109 with 1 low powered cannon and 2 MGs, doesn't it?

-
- Spit IXLF is SLOWER at ALL altitudes.

With double the armament, slower than the 109G2 running at boosts it couldn't use in service.

- Engine limitations were lifted soon and were not
- present in every unit. For example, the planes
- tested by the Russians didn`t have throttle
- limitations.

- What are you making up again? G-2 doesn`t using 1.42
- ata? Go and see you doctor. You have surreal
- visions.

From AIR 40/64

Subject: DB605 engine in the ME 109 G

The takeoff and emergency power of 1.42ata 2800rpm may not at present be used.

In engines with the reinforced pistons, the danger of them burning through is not so great, but the takeoff and emergency power may still not be used.

So the engines were restricted. Got anything to say the restrictions were lifted later?

- Sure, why not? The IXLF still gets the low end of
- stick at altitude. The G-6 could go 530 km/h at SL
- and 650 at 6600m. And it didn`t even nearly lost as
- much speed with altitude as the SpitIXLF.

So why compare it with a low alt Spit IX then? Why not a Spit F IX with Merlin 63, or even a Spit HF IX, or a Spit F or HF VIII?

- Sure-sure, everything is possible in your world,
- isn`t it? Even that the existing 60-70 Spit14s

950+ actually

- You have no idea on the number of sorties flown,
- that is. But post numbers that would prove your
- point - if you have any, but I don`t tie too much
- hope to that.

I do know that the RAF typically flew in squadron strength, whereas the Luftwaffe pilots report frequent groundings due to lack of fuel, and often only flying a couple of aircraft at a time when they could get a small ammount of fuel.

- Those are figures for a "five-point" G-2, = G-2 with
- 5 guns (3 normal, + 2 as gunpods).

You mean a 109 approaching the firepower of a Spit?

- The fuel type does not effect high altitude
- performance at all. In any case, w/o C-3, the speed
- under 6500-7000m is some 10 km/h less.

You are saying the 109K4 required 200hp for an extra 10km/h????

My God, the aerodynamics must have been appaling. If 200hp was required for an extra 10km/h, the plane must have been deep into compresion in level flight. Only transonic drag could account for that.

In contrast, the Spit XIV gained 28mph from an extra 450 HP, so about an extra 15 mph from 200hp. And yet the 109K4 only managed 6 mph from 200 hp???? Terrible.

- In real life, they used C-3 fuel or B-4 fuel. Both
- were available, as in 1944 only the amount crude oil
- was reduced, not the amounts of additives that were
- used for raising the octane number.

Wrong.

The 190A series required C3 fuel, the 109s could run on B4 at reduced performance. The Luftwaffe, with their lack of fuel, had a choice of running only 109s at higher performance, and throwing away the B4, or running 109s at lower performance and 190s as well.

http://pub131.ezboard.com/fallboutwarfarefrm43.showMessage?topicID=434.topic

Scroll down for the chart. You seem to have forgotten that thread, despite being active on it.

- In real life, 150 grade that was neccesary to obtain
- higher boost were on limited supply,

From Summer 1944 to the end of the war, Britain produced more 150 fuel than the Germans produced aviation fuel of all types.

- In real life, Spitfire XIVs couldn`t run at +25lbs
- boost, because they were not cleared for that:

Isegrim, it says they will be able to in future. That document was certainly compiled before September 44, because it says the Centaurus is limited to 8.5lbs, whereas by September 44 it had already increased to 12lbs.

- Worst figures for the 14? How is that, I used the
- advertising figure of 360 mph@SL for the chart, in
- REAL LIFE tests, Spit14 could even hit 350mph...

Sorry, I've show you the figures, the Spit XIV could do 389 at sea level.

- Irrevelant, as you have already admitted you
- searched for the worst figures for the 109, and best
- prototype figures for the Spit. You don`t want to be
- taken seriously, do you?

No, they are valid figures. That's the performance of the 109G6, and the Spit LF IX.

- Show me your 109G-6 climb and speed chart. Oh, you
- were just making it up?

Oh, have you got a different one, with gunpods?

- BTW, which LF IX could do 4600 ft/min at 14000ft?
- Certainly not a sigle, as that would require to
- force-close their radiators shuts, which they
- couldn`t do as it had no means of manual control,
- and the automatic thermostat opened it full in climb
- to provide aduquate cooling.

No, the automatic thermostat opened it when coolant temperature got too high.

- With radiators open,
- they managed some 3800 ft/min at that altitude.
- Provided they had 150 grade fuel, which they didn`t
- for most of the time.
-
Well, there was more 150 octane floating around than C and B4 combined, so I dread to think what the Luftwaffe must have been using.

- The Spit was a poor
- roller in all it`s history, the ailerons were
- already very heavy on the Mk.VA, and according to
- factory pilots, they progressivevly got worse.

Really? Test pilots reported no difference between the V and IX:

" The Spitfire IX was compared with a Spitfire VC for turning circles and dog-fighting at heights between 15,000 and 30,000 feet. At 15,000 feet there was little to choose between the two aircraft although the superior speed and climb of the Spitfire IX enabled it to break off its attack by climbing away and then attacking in a dive. This manoeuvre was assisted by the negative 'G' carburettor, as it was possible to change rapidly from climb to dive without the engine cutting. At 30,000 feet there is still little to choose between the two aircraft in manoeurvrability, but the superiority in speed and climb of the Spitfire IX becomes outstanding. The pilot of the Spitfire VC found it difficult to maintain a steep turn without losing height, whereas the pilot of the Spitfire IX found that he had a large reserve of power which enabled him to maintain height without trouble. The all-round performance of the Spitfire IX at 30,000 feet is most impressive."

or between the IX and XIV:

"Rate of roll is very much the same. "

- The 109G could easily outroll the Spit, especially
- the clumsly 14, at any speed.

ROFLOL

COMBAT TRIAL AGAINST Me. 109G

The Spitfire XIV rolls much more quickly


Tactical Trials ME109G6-U2

Rate of Roll
21.........Here again the Spitfire has a marked advantage at all speeds.


Claiming the Luftwaffe didn't have a fuel shortage is stretching the bounds of credibility. Claiming the 109 rolled well? ROFLOL.

- This is particularry
- true for the K-4 with it`s mechanically boosted
- ailrons.
Mechanically boosted? Are you back to claiming the 109K4 had hydraulic ailerons? Or do you mean Flettner tabs?

- 389mph was done in crash-program test where they
- stripped a XIV from aerial mast, mirrors, wingtips,
- loaded only with half fuel load, and runned the
- engine well above it`s operational boosts. It was a
- single plane, and no similiar saw squadrons service.

No, sorry, 389mph at sea level was the speed of the Spitfire XIV, in standard operational conditions.

Speed of Spitfire F XIV
389 mph at sea level. It's there in black and white.

It's based on a Spitfire XIV cleaned up to normal standards.

In fact, it's nowhere near as heavily cleaned up as was standard for test aircraft, for example the US test that gave the Fw190 416mph resorted to stripping the plane completely, and repainting it.

The Spit XIV in question had an aerial mast and full fuel. Removing the mirror and wingtips was a common configuration.

Now, what what condition was the 109K4 in your chart in? A prototype? Did it have IFF, radio mast, bomb rack etc? Or is it a projection drawn up before the aircraft even flew?

- Those "true figures" refer to a single prototype in
- a crash programme agaisnt V-1 raids; it never saw
- service.

It did, as you can see the ministry of supply are quoting it as the speed of a Spitfire XIV.

- The chart that is posted above and are based on
- real-world flight tests done in Germany

Can we see this real world flight test? I'd be interested to see the condition of the K4.

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 08:29 PM
hop2002 wrote:

- Can we see this real world flight test? I'd be
- interested to see the condition of the K4.


That's exactly what I have been asking for: a real world flight test. What production model of Spitfire XIV reached 390mph at sea level?

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 08:31 PM
-- Some of them may have less power than the service
-- models, because engines in the RAF were usually
-- rerated upwards, as opposed to the Luftwaffe, who
-- rated them highly in prototypes, and lowered the
-- rating in service (see for example the 109G2, 190A3
-- etc, which were derated in use, and the Spit V,
-- which went from 9lbsb boost in the tests, to 12lbs,
-- to 16lbs by summer 42)
-
-
- Have you got a source for such a wildly innacuarte
- claim?

I quoted it above:

From AIR 40/64

Subject: DB605 engine in the ME 109 G

The takeoff and emergency power of 1.42ata 2800rpm may not at present be used.

In engines with the reinforced pistons, the danger of them burning through is not so great, but the takeoff and emergency power may still not be used.


- Germans engines were not derated in use.

The DB605 was, see above.

The BMW 801 was designed for 1.42 ata in the 190A3, but it couldn't be used, and was restricted to 1.35 ata.

- The British also were forced to lower boost
- pressure on the Griffon due to bearing troubles, and
- on Packard-Merlin Spitfires.

When? The Griffon was rated at 18lbs, and was later run at 21 and 25lbs. The Packard Merlin was rated at 18lbs, and later run at 25lbs, before dropping back to 18lbs towards the end of the war.

- Daimler Benz engines start at 1.3 ata, and finished
- the war at 1.98ata - and had some 30% higher
- compression ratio for better effiency as well,
- unlike Brititish engines.

The Merlin started at 1.42 ata, and finished the war at 2.7 ata.

However, I don't recall any Merlin or Griffon being given one rating before introduction, and then being restricted futher after entering service.

- Every fixed gear SCs has slips. Otherwise their
- gearing would break when they engage the
- supercharger.

That's called a clutch, and it doesn't slip except when changing. Once the gear has changed, the supercharger cannot slip.

- The DB/Allison style is only different
- that it slip below FTH and conserves power. But at
- FTH, they all have the same amount of slip - approx.
- 3-4%.

At FTH and above, a geared supercharger like the RR type has 0 slip.

- Do I recall right that because of this type design,
- Merlins/Griffons loose tremendous powers in a range
- of about 3000meters, unlike DBs/Allisons?

Yes. Look at the Russian DB605/Griffon chart you have posted before. The Griffon has peaks above the DB605, and troughs below it. That's down to the difference in the superchargers.

- No. You don`t get the operation method. Below
- critical altitude, the DB system is only partly
- connected to the engine drive, there`s only partial
- load on the engine, in accordance to the
- superchargin needs.

That's what I said.

- When full supercharging is
- needed, the system allows for a minimum slip, just
- like fixed gear superchargers.

No, the fixed gear supercharger has zero slip.

- There`s no more
- effiency loss than with those, the only loss occurs
- to the increased oil heat levels which need a larger
- cooler.

If you are getting more heat in the oil, that heat is coming from mechanical wastage. The DB used a hydraulic coupling, which wasted some energy whatever the supercharger speed.

- Yep, see the Audi`s CVT, as Huck` said: it provides
- constant, optimum torque all the times, not just
- peaks and valleys of power like a normal manual
- gearshift.

Yes, and at a constant speed it wastes more power than a manual transmision.

- No. There`s no disadvantage at higher altitudes with
- variable speed SCs in power. It generates more heat
- for oil only, and it needs a more cooling capacity,
- and some 10 lbs exta weight.

Where is that heat coming from? there's no such thing as free heat. It's coming from the extra friction from the hydraulic coupling.

- At those high
- altitudes, they work the very same way as
- fixed-speed SCs, ie. running at full speed with a
- minimal slip.

A fixed supercharger has zero slip above FTH. Cars don't drive along with slipping clutches, if they do they have a problem, and burn out quickly.

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 09:06 PM
hop2002 wrote:

- Superiority doesn't vanish over 16,000ft, it almost
- vanishes at that height, but improves again as you
- go futher up.
-
- In general, the Spits did better than the 109s as
- altitude increased, especially at above 25,000ft.
-
- If you go here:
- <a
- href="http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spi
- t14pt.html"
- target=_blank>http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/ea
- gles/spit14pt.html</a> -
-
- You'll see that 16,000ft was one of the worst
- heights for the Spit XIV, just above MS
- supercharger, and way below FTH in FS supercharger.
-
- There's a reason Isegrim always gives performance
- comparisons at 6000m, it was just about the best
- height for the 109, almost the worst for the Spit.

I expect two camps and both to shift true numbers of apples and oranges around for comparisons. And I am not gonna take sides, just note weak or wrong spots in arguments as much to deflate as to throw a little light where I can.

16,000 ft and above that the Spit gains again... and yet Isegrim uses 6000m because that's where the 109 has the best advantage. 6000m is considerably above 16,000 ft. Should I take it that the Spit hasn't regained its' advantage yet at the 6000m alt range? Spit XIV, that is and 109G-something.

-------------------------------

As I wrote earlier; comparing different planes best performance stats to determine how they will stack up in combat is a mistake. Sometimes one or the other or both may be in a state to achieve its best even given both being maintained top shape new, fueled properly and unused boost tanks (MW-50, water, nitrous) and lack of extraneous racks and equipment which any being not optimized cuts from =possible= peak performance. It may still be that from prior to encounter use the engine is hot and top power time won't be what it could be if the engine was not. Add in one plane having an alt or speed advantage, let's call it the other guy and you didn't notice --- and suddenly that plane has been overmodelled and it's time to post outrage which is only what I expect from people who compare statistics as if they were physical law. As a matter of fact, I've seen many such posts with vigorous statistical defense and loads of disregard for circumstance. My plane should beat your plane, etc.

Stats are fine but the conclusions are what I find to be hype.

Edit: Actually, after reading many of the above, even stats can be hyped terribly. I guess I had forgotten the worst... where's the Chimp and Milo to fill in full volume? My numbers are better than yours, you didn't say how, etc, etc, etc.


Neal




Message Edited on 07/15/0304:44PM by WWMaxGunz

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 09:23 PM
- 16,000 ft and above that the Spit gains again... and
- yet Isegrim uses 6000m because that's where the 109
- has the best advantage. 6000m is considerably above
- 16,000 ft.

The 109G6 the British were using in this test had a critical altitude of 16,000ft, according to the report.

It wasn't uncommon for two models of the same plane to have a critical altitude 3000ft feet apart, and of course Isegrim rarely uses the G6 in any of his comparisons, preferring the G2, or the latter G6AS.

The RAF report goes on:

" Above 16,000 feet the advantage of the Spitfire XIV increases progressively with altitude, being 50 m.p.h faster at 30,000 feet. "

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 10:18 PM
Okay... but what is the title of this thread and why discuss not only Spitfires but Spit XIV's? I think there was some ratcheting up of models so I blame no one, it's how things work. Maybe best to stick to 1940 109 vs Hurricane?


Neal

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 11:19 PM
thx for wxplaning it for the hurricane noobs

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 11:34 PM
Hehe some of u have missunderstod me i am talking about 109bf1940 not the spitfire or 109bf K or F...

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 01:38 AM
he dosnt use the g6 the most common of the 109s cos it sucked, the IX outperformed it pretty much every where, with the K4 well gimme a 150 octane XIV and ill get him into a good all il2 turn fight http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, only thing that can outroll a clipped spit is a 190.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 06:26 AM
At a time or another BMW801, DB601N, DB601E, DB605A had to be derated due to various troubles. In the case of the DB605A it was not until June 1943 that the limitation was lifted.

Butch

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 09:32 AM
Salute

Back to original question, ie. whether or not the Hurricane could be easily outturned by the 109 in 1940.

The British did a test in June of 1940 between a captured 109E3 and a Hurricane I and Spitfire I.

The following are the results: (I will send the original documents if anyone wishes to look at them, just send me a PM)

>>>>>

REPORT ON INVESTIGATION OF TURNING CIRCLES OF ME-109, SPITFIRE AND HURRICANE

By Wing Commander G.H. Stainforth

1. I was flying at 2000 metres at 160, 200 and 240 mph. IN each case the Hurricane started behind the Messerschmidt and the Messerschmidt went into the turns as quickly as possible and tried to out-turn the Hurricane on the level or slight downward spiral at about 3-4g. Tightening up beyond a certain point resulted in teh slats opening unevenely and lateral flicking and slowing down of the rate of turn. The maximum rate of turn was obtained with the slats just about opening, either both just closed or both just open, and at the maximum rate of turn the Hurricane remained close to my tail. In each case the throttle was open fully after the turn was started and for one or two turns the airscrew pitch was set to give 2600 - 2700 rpm, ie. 11.30 on the clock-face pitch indicator, as for takeoff.

2. I then started two or three more runs on the tail of the Hurricane, and was out-turned within about one complete turn. Attempts were made to fly straight away in order to leave the Hurricane far enough behind to turn round quickly, gaining height to make an attack before the Hurricane was close enough to turn on to my tail, but this took too long as the Messerschmidt only gained about one mile in 30 miles and so the turn was made too close, with the result that the Hurricane succeeded in getting on my tail straight away.

(Report continues with comparison of turning abilities of Spitfire and 109, with Spitfire similarly to the Hurricane, coming out ahead)

<<<<<<

The 1940 era Hurricane was a reasonable match for the 109, especially if the 109 pilot was stupid enough to get into a dogfight. If the 109 was flown correctly, using an altitude advantage and dive and zoom tactics, then it would normally prevail. But a Hurricane with altitude advantage on a 109 was a very dangerous opponent.

Unfortunately for the Hurricane, it was almost at the end of its development in 1940, and the models which followed, the Hurricane IIA, IIB and IIC were not much of an improvement. On the other hand the 109F was a very big improvement on the 109E, with improved control response, and much better climb and speed.

Whereas the 1940 era Hurricane I had a top speed of 316mph versus the 348mph of the 109E3, a difference of 32mph, the Hurricane IIc had a top speed of 340mph versus 390mph for the 109F4, a difference of 50mph. With a tropical filter on it, the Hurricane IIc was reduced to approximately 327mph.

Climbrate comparisons were even more pronounced.

A Hurricane I had a max climbrate of 2750 ft per minute, compared to a 109E3 which had a max. climbrate of approximately 3000 ft per minute.

On the other hand a Hurricane IIC had a max climbrate of 3200 ft per minute, compared to a 109F4 which had a max climbrate of approximately 4000 ft per minute.

From the above information, you can see the gap widened considerably when the 1941 models were compared.

The Hurricane II could still outturn the 109F, but with the larger difference in speed and climb, this became almost academic, as turning became mostly a defensive maneuver, as the 109's could easily avoid the Hurricanes attacks with their higher speed and better climb.

I am hoping the patch does not totally eviserate the Hurricane. It should still have a better turn, but the ability to climb and zoom, as well as run full power indefinitly should be adjusted.


Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw

P.S. In regards to Isegrim's usual litany of much repeated nonsense, all I can say, is that I wish he would develop some more objectivity and recognize that aircraft other than the 109 had good qualities. Its gets boring having to refute the same old tired insistancies over and over.

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 10:32 AM
hop2002 wrote:

- All were equipped with variable speed props in June
- 1940.

False. Only a partition had constant speed props, the majority


- Prior to that, performance was poorer, but
- then the opposition was the 109E3 and E1, with
- terrible armament, so it didn't matter so much.

E-3`s armament was 2x20mm cannons and 2x7.92mm machinguns. It proved to be FAR superior to the 4x7.7mm MG armament of the Spit I, and much better than the 8 gunned Spit IA, which lacked any kind of cannon armament. During BoB, it often happened that half a squadron of Spits emptied their ammo load on a sinlge Heinkel, and still couldn`t shoot it down. One Heinkel took more than 1000 hits from them, yet still returned to based... 7.7mm guns were THAT ineffective. 20mm guns on the other had ripped British bombers, fighters apartwith ease. No wonder the Brits were desperate to equipe their fighters with any cannon they could lay their hands on.

And of course 109Es shoot down a lot more Spits than they lost themselves.

-
-- No. Any 109F model, F-1 through F-4 is faster than
-- the Spit V at all altitudes.
--
-- The F-1/F-2 did 515 to 525 km/h at SL.
-
- Source for the 109 figures? The Warbirds flight
- model team give 295mph/ 475km/h as the real figure,
- based on the following source:
-
- Aircraft Evaluation Report, No 110, 7-2-43
- German factory technical documentation


Considering that the E-3 already did 470 km/h at SL, it`s somewhat hard to believe.

German Kennblatt for F-1/2 gives 515kph at SL, and notices that with increased RPM, it`s additional 10-15 kph faster.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/F1%20Kennblatt.jpg



Oh, and don`t even try to "translate" what Wirklich geschwindichkeit means (=TAS). You speak no German. I remember last time you translated "1. Gang" which means simple "1st gear speed" as "very special methanol injection which wasn`t used etc.". Sometimes you are really desperate. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



- A US Wright Field test report for the 109F4 gives
- the sea level speed as 295 mph 475 km/h for the
- F1/F2, and 310mph 500km/h for the 109F4.

Irrevelant, as they are proven wrong by German documents and they probably gave figures for Kampfleistung only.


-
-
-- The Spit VB only about 480 km/h.
-
- Where do you get that figure? Extrapolating from the
- Spit V tests? Bear in mind they are only using 9lbs
- boost for the speed tests, which is a 1 hour rating.
- 12lbs was the WEP rating, and provided far more
- power.

Wrong, according to the SpitV flgith manual, maximum boost is 9lbs, and could be maintainef for no longer than 5 minutes.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3134.gif


"1. Introduction.

.......Brief performance trials were required of a Spitfire Mk VB fully operationally equipped for comparison with two other aircraft of the type not operationally equipped and previously tested at this establishment. The suffix "B" after the type denotes that the aeroplane is fitted with 2-20mm. guns and four 0.303 inch guns. A standard Spitfire I airscrew was fitted with the blade settings at 54 degrees coarse and 34 degrees fine.

2. Results of tests.

(a) The top speed of the aeroplane is 371 m.p.h. at 20,100 feet.

(b) With the snowguard fitted the top speed falls to 365 m.p.h. at 18,800 feet. "

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3134.html



-
-- F-1 or F-2 could do 615 km/h. 630 with increased
-- RPM.
-
- Source again? The same US Wright field report gives
- the F1/F2 a max of 600 km/h, the Warbirds flight
- model team again do the same.


F-1 and F-2 Kennblatt. THIS is the OFFICIAL German flight
manual for it, not some arcade flight sim`s crew... LOL.

But if you want a "flight model" team data, Oleg MAddox also gives F-2 as

"Speed:
Sea level: 515 km/h.
At 5,100 m: 615 km/h."

http://www.il2sturmovik.com/games_elts/pop-up/planepop.php?planeid=bf-109f-2


F-1 or F-2 could do 615 km/h. 630 with increased RPM.

-
-- At high altitude, say 8000m, Spit VB makes 565 km/h.
-- 109F-2 makes 600 km/h (or 615 with increased RPM).
-
- About 575 according to the tests, and again the Spit
- is still flying at 9lbs boost, not the 12lbs
- authorised at that time.


12 lbs was not authorized at that time. Again you are dreaming.


-
-- With gunpods, that is... "5-point" 109G2, written
-- there, isn`t it?
-
- Oh, you want to compare a 109 with a single low
- powered 20mm, and 2 rifle calibre Mgs, against a
- Spit with 2 much more powerfull cannon and 4 mgs.

LOL, Hop. The Mauser cannon was FAR more powerful than the inefficient and unrelialbe Hispano, thanks to it`s much higher ROF, more powerful and RELIABLE shells.

The centerline Mauser cannon had 200 rounds. Hispanos had only 60 (later 120) rounds per gun.

The Mauser`s shells contained 18.6 gram of RDX-Nitropenta explosives. The Hispano shells contained 7 gram of the 20-30% less power Tetryl.

I wonder with TWICE the explosive load in the Mauser`s shell, what would their relative destructive capabilities look like?


And of course there`s the advantage of a cannon firing just straight forward in the centerline, and not two heavy recoil cannons which rake the plane, spaced 5 meters apart in the wings.

And of course, a single Mauser cannon only weight 2/3 of that of a bulky Hispano.



- The 109 needed the gunpods to equal the firepower of
- the Spit.

On the contrary. The Brits were mimicing the 109E`s cannon armament after thaking some harsh lesson from it during BoB. But by that time, that armament configuration was already deemed as obsolate on the 109, and they moved a single modern, high ROF cannon firing in the centerline with improved shells. It wasn`t until afer the war the Brits managed to copy (again) those advanced shells for their own weapons.


This is what the single cannon`s single hit from the 109 does to a Spit:


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/1SchusswithMK108onSpit.jpg



Show me anything comparable from the Hispano. No, you can`t. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



- Stripping out more than half the armament
- hardly makes for a fair comparison, does it?

Gunpods were possible to use on about 20% of the 109s... it wasn`t standard armament, and it could be removed for air superiority missions.

Still, too bad the 109G is so much faster at altitude, isn`t it?

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/SPEED%20109G2andK4%20vs%20Spit9LFand14.jpg



- Pity
- the 109 couldn't carry a decent armament internally
- at that point in the war, but it couldn't.


You just make a fool of yourself with that stupid moaning. Pity that the Tommy`s didn`t have access to any decent cannon, isn`t it, they had to do with a modified FRENCH cannon, with poor shells and all the disadvantage of a wing mounted design.

Pity the Spit was so piggy at altitude, isn`t it?

-
-- Again, a clean Spit IX vs. a 109G-2 with gunpods
-- again.
-
- A Spit with 2 very powerfull cannon

Hispanos were not powerful cannon. They had slow ROF, and weak shells.

- Sounds much fairer than a Spit with 2 powerfull
- cannon and 4 MGs against a 109 with 1 low powered
- cannon and 2 MGs, doesn't it?

How many Spits had 4 cannnons during the war...?


-
--
-- Spit IXLF is SLOWER at ALL altitudes.
- With double the armament, slower than the 109G2
- running at boosts it couldn't use in service.

LOL, where did it had double the firepower? The fact that the Spit`s guns were just as inefficient as it`s old airframe hardly makes the comparision unfair. That`s was the best the Brits could hope to offer.

And of course all the 109G-2s the Soviets captured had no engine restrictions in them. Strange, isn`t it?


-
-- Engine limitations were lifted soon and were not
-- present in every unit. For example, the planes
-- tested by the Russians didn`t have throttle
-- limitations.
-
-- What are you making up again? G-2 doesn`t using 1.42
-- ata? Go and see you doctor. You have surreal
-- visions.
-
- From AIR 40/64
-
- Subject: DB605 engine in the ME 109 G
-
- The takeoff and emergency power of 1.42ata 2800rpm
- may not at present be used.
-
- In engines with the reinforced pistons, the danger
- of them burning through is not so great, but the
- takeoff and emergency power may still not be used.
-
- So the engines were restricted. Got anything to say
- the restrictions were lifted later?


All DB605A`s were cleared to 1.42 ata in 1943. All 109G-2s captured by the Soviets were cleared for 1.42ata.

There`s plenty of evidence that the "document" you have "qouted" here, is nothing more than your own forged fake.


-
-- Sure, why not? The IXLF still gets the low end of
-- stick at altitude. The G-6 could go 530 km/h at SL
-- and 650 at 6600m. And it didn`t even nearly lost as
-- much speed with altitude as the SpitIXLF.
-
- So why compare it with a low alt Spit IX then? Why
- not a Spit F IX with Merlin 63, or even a Spit HF
- IX, or a Spit F or HF VIII?

Why not a high alt Spit with a high alt 109 then? The Spit IXHF, of which only a handful of 400 were produced, could do 670 kph at it`s best altitude. The G-5/AS or G-6/AS could do 675 kph, the G-6/ASM 680, the G-10 could do 690 kph etc.

And of course, these models were built in thousends rather than hundreds.


-
-- Sure-sure, everything is possible in your world,
-- isn`t it? Even that the existing 60-70 Spit14s
-
- 950+ actually

That`s the total production number, which includes post-war production only. If you want, we may compare this to 1700 K-4s, 2500 G-10s etc...

But in reality, there was only 5 Spit XIV Squadrons in combat on the continent. Each Squadron means a maximum 20 aircraft, of which only 12 were used, the rest were reserves. And of course no unit had 100% strenght and servicilibility at one time. In November, you can see that many Typhoon squadrons had no more than 2-3 planes on hand and operational. See the book "Operation Bodenplatte".

So that leaves us 100 (5x20)Spitfires in service in the dreamworld case, and more like 60-70 in real life.

From German documetns we know the exact strenght of 109s. There were 320 or so K-4s in service. Not to mention G-10s, G-6/AS etc.

The RAF lost the race for high altitude performance. They couldn`t produce enough modern planes, they had to do with the old Spit IXs from 1944 even in 1945.



-
-- You have no idea on the number of sorties flown,
-- that is. But post numbers that would prove your
-- point - if you have any, but I don`t tie too much
-- hope to that.
-
- I do know that the RAF typically flew in squadron
- strength, whereas the Luftwaffe pilots report
- frequent groundings due to lack of fuel, and often
- only flying a couple of aircraft at a time when they
- could get a small ammount of fuel.

So in brief you admit you were lying. Thank you.


-- Those are figures for a "five-point" G-2, = G-2 with
-- 5 guns (3 normal, + 2 as gunpods).
-
- You mean a 109 approaching the firepower of a Spit?


Single hit from the 109`s nose cannon on a British bomber:

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Mk%20108%20effect%20on%20Blenheim.jpg



Show me a similiar for the Spit. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



-
-- The fuel type does not effect high altitude
-- performance at all. In any case, w/o C-3, the speed
-- under 6500-7000m is some 10 km/h less.
-
- You are saying the 109K4 required 200hp for an extra
- 10km/h????

No, it required 140 HPto gain 13 km/h at SL/


-
- My God, the aerodynamics must have been appaling. If
- 200hp was required for an extra 10km/h, the plane
- must have been deep into compresion in level flight.
- Only transonic drag could account for that.

- In contrast, the Spit XIV gained 28mph from an extra
- 450 HP, so about an extra 15 mph from 200hp.

Not so. The XIV could gain mph from an extra 200HP. Unfortunately, 450 plus HP was never avaiable due to the weak contruction of the Griffon 65 engines.

In contrast, the 109K could reach 607 km/h with only 1960HP, the Spit XIV required 2035HP to reach 580 km/h.

But no wonder, the Spit was an obsolate and overburdened aiframe, with no aerodynamic improvements over it`s carreer. Quite the contrary, it only become worser and worser.

-
-- In real life, they used C-3 fuel or B-4 fuel. Both
-- were available, as in 1944 only the amount crude oil
-- was reduced, not the amounts of additives that were
-- used for raising the octane number.
-
- Wrong.
-
- The 190A series required C3 fuel, the 109s could run
- on B4 at reduced performance. The Luftwaffe, with
- their lack of fuel, had a choice of running only
- 109s at higher performance, and throwing away the
- B4, or running 109s at lower performance and 190s as
- well.
-
- <a
- href="http://pub131.ezboard.com/fallboutwarfarefrm
- 43.showMessage?topicID=434.topic"
- target=_blank>http://pub131.ezboard.com/fallboutwa
- rfarefrm43.showMessage?topicID=434.topic</a>

The chart shows III/JG77`s K-4s only. Hop makes his claim on sole use B-4 fuel use on this chart only.

In reality, K-4s were in service with II/JG2, I/JG4, III/JG4, IV/JG4, II./JG11, III/JG26, I/JG27, II/JG27, III/JG27, Stab/JG53, II/JG53, I/JG77, III/JG77 .

It`s not hard to see he wants to use a single example and only a part of the picture.

It`s important to him, because on B-4 the K-4 was as fast as the Spit XIV on 150 grade fuel, and much faster than on 100 grade fuel, but on C-3, the K-4 was much faster than any operational Spitfire.



-
-- In real life, Spitfire XIVs couldn`t run at +25lbs
-- boost, because they were not cleared for that:
-
- Isegrim, it says they will be able to in future.

A very strange interpretation of a document that says it isn`t cleared to +25 lbs because of bearing troubles.

Interestingly enough, in RAF test in Oct 1945, Griffons are STILL limited to +21lbs:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/la187.gif


"Maximum for combat (5 mins. limit *) +21lbs, 2750 RPM

.....* A concession has been granted to allow combat rating to be used continuously on the climb at this Establishment. "

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit21.html




- That document was certainly compiled before
- September 44, because it says the Centaurus is
- limited to 8.5lbs, whereas by September 44 it had
- already increased to 12lbs.

As seen above, Griffons were still limited to run at +21lbs even half year after the war ended.



-
-- Worst figures for the 14? How is that, I used the
-- advertising figure of 360 mph@SL for the chart, in
-- REAL LIFE tests, Spit14 could even hit 350mph...
-
- Sorry, I've show you the figures, the Spit XIV could
- do 389 at sea level.


You figures are for a boost



-
-- Irrevelant, as you have already admitted you
-- searched for the worst figures for the 109, and best
-- prototype figures for the Spit. You don`t want to be
-- taken seriously, do you?
-
- No, they are valid figures. That's the performance
- of the 109G6, and the Spit LF IX.



-
-- Show me your 109G-6 climb and speed chart. Oh, you
-- were just making it up?
-
- Oh, have you got a different one, with gunpods?

Where`s the chart, Hoppy? Oh, you were making it up.


-
-- BTW, which LF IX could do 4600 ft/min at 14000ft?
-- Certainly not a sigle, as that would require to
-- force-close their radiators shuts, which they
-- couldn`t do as it had no means of manual control,
-- and the automatic thermostat opened it full in climb
-- to provide aduquate cooling.
-
- No, the automatic thermostat opened it when coolant
- temperature got too high.
-
-- With radiators open,
-- they managed some 3800 ft/min at that altitude.
-- Provided they had 150 grade fuel, which they didn`t
-- for most of the time.
--
- Well, there was more 150 octane floating around than
- C and B4 combined, so I dread to think what the
- Luftwaffe must have been using.
-
-- The Spit was a poor
-- roller in all it`s history, the ailerons were
-- already very heavy on the Mk.VA, and according to
-- factory pilots, they progressivevly got worse.
-
- Really? Test pilots reported no difference between
- the V and IX:
-
- " The Spitfire IX was compared with a Spitfire VC
- for turning circles and dog-fighting at heights
- between 15,000 and 30,000 feet. At 15,000 feet there
- was little to choose between the two aircraft
- although the superior speed and climb of the
- Spitfire IX enabled it to break off its attack by
- climbing away and then attacking in a dive. This
- manoeuvre was assisted by the negative 'G'
- carburettor, as it was possible to change rapidly
- from climb to dive without the engine cutting. At
- 30,000 feet there is still little to choose between
- the two aircraft in manoeurvrability, but the
- superiority in speed and climb of the Spitfire IX
- becomes outstanding. The pilot of the Spitfire VC
- found it difficult to maintain a steep turn without
- losing height, whereas the pilot of the Spitfire IX
- found that he had a large reserve of power which
- enabled him to maintain height without trouble. The
- all-round performance of the Spitfire IX at 30,000
- feet is most impressive."
-
- or between the IX and XIV:
-
- "Rate of roll is very much the same. "



-- The 109G could easily outroll the Spit, especially
-- the clumsly 14, at any speed.
-
- ROFLOL
-
- COMBAT TRIAL AGAINST Me. 109G
-
- The Spitfire XIV rolls much more quickly
-
- Tactical Trials ME109G6-U2
-
- Rate of Roll
- 21.........Here again the Spitfire has a marked
- advantage at all speeds.


Oh course this was already debunked. They tested a nightfighter G-6 with droptank and gunpods vs. a clean Spit 14. How fair. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Of course, it`s neccesary to make such comparisions, as the clean 109 easily outrolls the sluggish SpitXIV at any speed.



- Claiming the Luftwaffe didn't have a fuel shortage
- is stretching the bounds of credibility. Claiming
- the 109 rolled well? ROFLOL.


Claiming that the Spitfire could roll like a 109 is enough for any nerve specialist to put a white jacket on you.

Spit VA roll rate:

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Spitchar5.jpg


Notice the "excessive" forces for roll at high speed, and the cramped cocpit that only allows for 40lbs force.


Mark Hanna on 109 roll rate:


"The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 250 mph. This is particularly true of the Charles Church's Collection clipped wing aircraft. Our round tipped aeroplane is slightly less nice to feel. With the speed further back the roll rate remains good, particularly with a bit of help from the rudder. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51."



-
-- This is particularry
-- true for the K-4 with it`s mechanically boosted
-- ailrons.

- Mechanically boosted? Are you back to claiming the
- 109K4 had hydraulic ailerons? Or do you mean
- Flettner tabs?

Hmm, what could be mechanically boosted? Of course Flettner tabs. Too bad the Spitfire didn`t have them... well, it`s performance suffered from it.



-
-- 389mph was done in crash-program test where they
-- stripped a XIV from aerial mast, mirrors, wingtips,
-- loaded only with half fuel load, and runned the
-- engine well above it`s operational boosts. It was a
-- single plane, and no similiar saw squadrons service.
-
- No, sorry, 389mph at sea level was the speed of the
- Spitfire XIV, in standard operational conditions.


389mph at SL was done at +25 lbs. Spitfire XIV couldn`t run at +25lbs as are shown and proven.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Griffon%20limits%20of%2021lbs.jpg



Neil Stirling also made the conditions of the Spit in the tests clear:

"Incorrect, I have the entire trial report AVIA 6/10618.

Spitfire.

The leading edge of the wing was stripped and painted the rest of the aircraft was rubbed down only.
Finish = 8mph
Increased boost = 28 mph
Speed at 0ft = 388mph.
The graph that you can see on the internet includes the effect of removing the rear view mirror and clipping the wing."


Also Eric Brown who participated in the test makes no doubt about it`s nature:

"About mid-June a crash programme was initated to improve the low-level performance of the Spitfire, Tempest V, and Mustang III by using a specially developed 150 octane aromatic fuel to give abnormally high power for strictly short bursts. The engine attrition rate would of course be high, but the urgency of the situation demanded drastic measures."



-
- Speed of Spitfire F XIV
- 389 mph at sea level. It's there in black and white.
-

Nurse, come, he`s becoming unstable.. give him something to cool him down.

-
- It's based on a Spitfire XIV cleaned up to normal
- standards.

And outright lie.


- In fact, it's nowhere near as heavily cleaned up as
- was standard for test aircraft, for example the US
- test that gave the Fw190 416mph resorted to
- stripping the plane completely, and repainting it.


Source for your ridiculus claims?


- The Spit XIV in question had an aerial mast and full
- fuel. Removing the mirror and wingtips was a common
- configuration.

Show me 5 pictures of Spit XIVs with removed mirrors and wingclips. That shouldn`t be so hard then. But wait a minute, last time you claimed some 5000 out of the 900 produced had it`s wingtips removed, isn`t it?



-
- Now, what what condition was the 109K4 in your chart
- in? A prototype? Did it have IFF, radio mast, bomb
- rack etc? Or is it a projection drawn up before the
- aircraft even flew?

It`s serial plane, unlike the stripped, half loaded Spit14 prototype running on boost levels in excess the limits of operational use.

It must feel bad to have to rely on such silly protos, becuse your pet plane sucks so much.


-- Those "true figures" refer to a single prototype in
-- a crash programme agaisnt V-1 raids; it never saw
-- service.
-
- It did, as you can see the ministry of supply are
- quoting it as the speed of a Spitfire XIV.


That`s already debunked, you just make a fool of yourself with your parrotting. I wish you great success in that.



-
-- The chart that is posted above and are based on
-- real-world flight tests done in Germany
-
- Can we see this real world flight test? I'd be
- interested to see the condition of the K4.
-

Can we see any of your documents which you claim to exists? No, of course not, because they are all made up or forged by you!

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
07-16-2003, 10:34 AM
hop2002 wrote:
-- 16,000 ft and above that the Spit gains again... and
-- yet Isegrim uses 6000m because that's where the 109
-- has the best advantage. 6000m is considerably above
-- 16,000 ft.
-
- The 109G6 the British were using in this test had a
- critical altitude of 16,000ft, according to the
- report.


Hop is again making up things. Here`s part of the British report on the G-6 test:

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109G6U2_AFDU%20Engine.jpg


Critical altitude was 22 000 feet.

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
07-16-2003, 10:39 AM
Boogeymen of the Spitfire pilots.

Pilot / Number of Spitfires shot down:
-------------------------------------

Obst. Josef "Pips" Priller 68

Obstlt. Egon Mayer 53

Genlt. Adolf "Dolfo" Galland 50

Maj. Siegfried Schnell 49

Obstlt. Kurt "Bu-mann" Bühligen 47

Maj. Joachim Müncheberg 46

Oblt. Rudolf "Rudi" Pflanz 45

Maj. Erich Rudorffer 40

Obst. Walter "Gulle" Oesau 38

Maj. Wilhelm-Ferdinand "Wutz" Galland 37

Maj. Hans "Assi" Hahn 36

Oblt. Adolf Glunz 34

Maj. Erich Leie 32

Obst. Johannes Seifert 32

Hptm. Johannes Schmid 32

Maj. Siegfried Freytag 30+

Obstlt. Gerhard Michalski 29

Maj. Karl Borris 28

Hptm. Kurt Ebersberger 27

Obst. Herbert Ihlefeld 26

Obstlt. Heinz-Edgar "Pritzel" B¤r 25

Obstlt. Werner "Vati" M¶lders 25

Hptm. Siegfried Lemke 25

Oblt. Herbert Rollwage 22

Hptm. Ernst-Wilhelm Reinert 21

Hptm. Hans-Joachim "Jochen" Marseille 20

FjOfw. Emil Babenz 20

Maj. Klaus Mietusch 19

Hptm. Bruno Stolle 18

Oblt. Erich Schmidt 15

Lt. Jakob Augustin 14


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
07-16-2003, 03:02 PM
-- All were equipped with variable speed props in June
-- 1940.
-
- False. Only a partition had constant speed props,
- the majority

According to Spitfire the History, by 16th August every Spitfire and Hurricane in Britain, including those in storage, had been converted.

Operational squadrons had been equipped by mid July.

-
- E-3`s armament was 2x20mm cannons and 2x7.92mm
- machinguns. It proved to be FAR superior to the
- 4x7.7mm MG armament of the Spit I, and much better
- than the 8 gunned Spit IA, which lacked any kind of
- cannon armament.

The E3 was so unsatisfactory they were field modified to E4 standard.

- And of course 109Es shoot down a lot more Spits than
- they lost themselves.

Not quite true actually. More 109s were lost than Spits. Perhaps you want to try and rephrase it?

- German Kennblatt for F-1/2 gives 515kph at SL, and
- notices that with increased RPM, it`s additional
- 10-15 kph faster.

Care to post the whole document? Butch has already confirmed above that the DB601N in the F1/F2 had a derated engine in service.

In fact, the engine was originally designed to run at 1.42 ata, but was derated to 1.35 ata. 1.35 ata produced 1175ps at sea level.

In May 1941, it was derated again, to 1.25ata, which produced around 1020ps.

http://pub131.ezboard.com/fallboutwarfarefrm44.showMessageRange?topicID=393. topic&start=1&stop=20

Now, care to show us which engine rating your performance figures are based on?

- Wrong, according to the SpitV flgith manual, maximum
- boost is 9lbs, and could be maintainef for no longer
- than 5 minutes.

Funny, my Spit V manual shows 16lbs boost.

However, go here:

http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/pro_190_survey_b_3.jpg


Even the Spit I was cleared for 12lbs boost once 100 octane fuel was introduced in 1940.

- F-1 and F-2 Kennblatt. THIS is the OFFICIAL German
- flight
- manual for it, not some arcade flight sim`s crew...

And the Wright Field lot are some "acrade flight sim's crew"? Again, what engine ratings are those performance figures based on? You have the full report, lets see that part. Even the date would be nice.

- 12 lbs was not authorized at that time. Again you
- are dreaming.

12lbs was authorised from the start for the Spit V. It was already used in the Spit I, but it's hard to find tests for that as well.

- LOL, Hop. The Mauser cannon was FAR more powerful
- than the inefficient and unrelialbe Hispano, thanks
- to it`s much higher ROF, more powerful and RELIABLE
- shells.

Really?

RAF trials found they detonated on the surface far too often, causing little internal damage.

Apparently the Germans agreed, because they never used the mine shell exclusively, and later went on to develop a hydrostatic fuse, so that the shell would explode only when they entered a fuel tank.

- The centerline Mauser cannon had 200 rounds.
- Hispanos had only 60 (later 120) rounds per gun.

The Hispano in the Spit had 120 rounds by the time the 109F4 was in service. Prior to that, you are comparing 2 Hispanos against 1 MG FF or 15mm MG 151 in the F1/F2.

The Hispano fired a substantially heavier round at substantially higher muzzle velocities.

As to unreliable shells, that applied only to the original French designs. RAF trials of the new type shells found they reliably penetrated structe before exploding, and had a devastating effect when they did. Unlike mine shells, they put out a lot of shrapnel.

- I wonder with TWICE the explosive load in the
- Mauser`s shell, what would their relative
- destructive capabilities look like?

Blast doesn't do as much damage as shrapnel. Particularly not in the small quantities in a 20mm shell.

- And of course there`s the advantage of a cannon
- firing just straight forward in the centerline, and
- not two heavy recoil cannons which rake the plane,
- spaced 5 meters apart in the wings.

Twice the firepower is still twice the firepower.

The Luftwaffe found that on average, pilots could hit even a 4 engined bomber with only 2% of shots fired. When air to air gunnery was that innacurate, placement of the guns had little effect.

- And of course, a single Mauser cannon only weight
- 2/3 of that of a bulky Hispano.

Exactly. The Germans need a small gun to fit in the 109. One of the limitations of the design.

- On the contrary. The Brits were mimicing the 109E`s
- cannon armament after thaking some harsh lesson from
- it during BoB.

No, the RAF had decided on cannon armament long before the BoB. It just took time introducing it.

The Nazis knew they were going to war early, so started rearmament earlier. Britain hoped to avoid war, so rearmament lagged.

- But by that time, that armament
- configuration was already deemed as obsolate on the
- 109, and they moved a single modern, high ROF cannon
- firing in the centerline with improved shells.

Which shows how they had misread the situation. The RAF had also decided cannon armament was needed, but they knew it would require several cannon, that's why the Spit was fitted with 2, and capable of taking 4.

In contrast, the 109 was redeigned for 1 cannon, and they then had to hang more under the wings because it was inadequate.

- This is what the single cannon`s single hit from the
- 109 does to a Spit:

Isegrim, you know, and I know, that picture shows a post war test with the 30mm. As we are talking about the 20mm in the 109, using that picture without making that clear to anyone else reading is dishonesty of the worst sort. How do you expect people to take you seriously when you present a picture of the effects of a 30mm as a 20mm?

- Gunpods were possible to use on about 20% of the
- 109s...

Really? I though it was far higher than that. Still, that means they didn't even have the choice of a decent armament.

- Hispanos were not powerful cannon. They had slow
- ROF, and weak shells.

They had the same rate of fire as the inboard cannons on the 190. Compared to a single MG151, the 2 Hispanos would put out far more shells, far heavier shells, at a far higher muzzle velocity.

Hispano shells had less explosive than mine shells, but far more than normal German HE shells, and far more than German AP. And only 2 shells in 5 were mine shells, sometimes not even that many.

- How many Spits had 4 cannnons during the war...?

I don't recall mentioning 4 cannon Spits, but probably around 1000 or so. The vast majority had the option though, unlike the only 20% of 109s, according to you.

- LOL, where did it had double the firepower? The fact
- that the Spit`s guns were just as inefficient

Much heavier shells, at much higher muzzle velocity, and 2 guns instead of 1.

- And of course all the 109G-2s the Soviets captured
- had no engine restrictions in them. Strange, isn`t
- it?

Perhaps they were like the 190A3 the British captured, that was tested at higher power despite the restrictions.

Butch has already confirmed what I said above.


- All DB605A`s were cleared to 1.42 ata in 1943. All
- 109G-2s captured by the Soviets were cleared for
- 1.42ata.

Oh, 1943. You forgot to mention that part before, didn't you?

- There`s plenty of evidence that the "document" you
- have "qouted" here, is nothing more than your own
- forged fake.

So how come Butch has the same information? How come even you admit to the same thing?

- But in reality, there was only 5 Spit XIV Squadrons
- in combat on the continent. Each Squadron means a
- maximum 20 aircraft, of which only 12 were used, the
- rest were reserves. And of course no unit had 100%
- strenght and servicilibility at one time. In
- November, you can see that many Typhoon squadrons
- had no more than 2-3 planes on hand and operational.
- See the book "Operation Bodenplatte".
-
- So that leaves us 100 (5x20)Spitfires in service in
- the dreamworld case, and more like 60-70 in real
- life.
-
- From German documetns we know the exact strenght of
- 109s. There were 320 or so K-4s in service. Not to
- mention G-10s, G-6/AS etc.

Isegrim, your double standards are showing again.

When looking at the number of Spit XIVs in service, you take the number of squadrons in Europe (not even the number of squadrons elsewhere, like Britain, Italy, Balkans, far east etc) and multiply by 12, to give 60 planes. You ignore the number of aircraft delivered to the RAF during the war, 500+

When looking at the number of G10s and K4s in service, you look at the number delivered to the Luftwaffe, and not the number of front line units actually using serviceable aircraft.

I remeber when you were using RichTO from the onwar board as a source, even though his reply to you was:

"No and no Barbie, there is a difference between on hand and in service"

- So in brief you admit you were lying. Thank you.

Isn't calling someone a liar grounds for getting banned?

I said the Germans could not run full strength operations, and were frequently grounded due to lack of fuel. How does that equall "admitting lieing"?

- Single hit from the 109`s nose cannon on a British
- bomber:

Again showing a 30mm hit and pretending it's a 20mm?

- Show me a similiar for the Spit.

Show me a 20mm hit, not a 30mm you are dishonestly pretending is 20mm.

--- The fuel type does not effect high altitude
--- performance at all. In any case, w/o C-3, the speed
--- under 6500-7000m is some 10 km/h less.
--
-- You are saying the 109K4 required 200hp for an extra
-- 10km/h????
-
- No, it required 140 HPto gain 13 km/h at SL/

Isegrim, you first claimed that the difference between C3 and B4, both with MW50, was 10km/h. Now you say 13km/h. Which is it?

Even by your revised figures, a 140hp gain for an 8mph speed gain doesn't look good. The Spit gained 28mph for 450hp, so probably around 12 mph for the first 140hp of that. And the Spit was bigger and heavier.

- Not so. The XIV could gain mph from an extra 200HP.
- Unfortunately, 450 plus HP was never avaiable due to
- the weak contruction of the Griffon 65 engines.
-
- In contrast, the 109K could reach 607 km/h with only
- 1960HP, the Spit XIV required 2035HP to reach 580
- km/h.

Sorry, it's there in black and white, 389mph at sea level. Just wishing it wasn't won't help.

You've always had trouble with the concept of 150 octane, ever since Neil Sterling got the production figures, but wishing it away won't help.

- The chart shows III/JG77`s K-4s only. Hop makes his
- claim on sole use B-4 fuel use on this chart only.
-
- In reality, K-4s were in service with II/JG2, I/JG4,
- III/JG4, IV/JG4, II./JG11, III/JG26, I/JG27,
- II/JG27, III/JG27, Stab/JG53, II/JG53, I/JG77,
- III/JG77 .

And as Butch says, that was the standard across all of them.

It's easy to see why, if the Luftwaffe had both C3 and B4 fuel, they could fly only 109s, or the same number of 109s at lower power AND 190s. Easy to see which they'd choose.

Do you have any documents which show C3 use by 109G10 and K$ squadrons?

No, so the only evidence available says it was not used.

- It`s not hard to see he wants to use a single
- example and only a part of the picture.

Isegrim, do you have other parts of the picture? Because right now it's your word against Butch's, but Butch has backed his up with documents, and common sense supports Butch as well.

- It`s important to him, because on B-4 the K-4 was as
- fast as the Spit XIV on 150 grade fuel,

No, the Spit did 389 at sea level, the K4 only 378. But of course, that's a K4 running on C3, and as Butch has shown, they had to make do with B4.

So the real figures would be Spit 389, 109K4 370.

-- Isegrim, it says they will be able to in future.
-
- A very strange interpretation of a document that
- says it isn`t cleared to +25 lbs because of bearing
- troubles.

"they will be able to in future" is a strange interpretation of a document that says:

"They will be capable of operation at 25lbs boost in the future"?

The two sentences say exactly the same thing.

- Interestingly enough, in RAF test in Oct 1945,
- Griffons are STILL limited to +21lbs:

Different engine. That's a Griffon 61, not a 65 used in the Spit XIV. Given that engines would need modifications to run 25lbs boost, which do you think would get priority, Spit XIV squadrons in service or the first production Spit 21 sent for tests?

- As seen above, Griffons were still limited to run at
- +21lbs even half year after the war ended.

The Griffon 61 was. Note this from Spitfire the History:

"A considerable number of F XIVs were delivered to De Havilands at Hatfield for what was code named 'GEM' modifications. No details of these modifications have ever been released but it is thought to have concerned engine output" p413

- Oh course this was already debunked. They tested a
- nightfighter G-6 with droptank and gunpods vs. a
- clean Spit 14. How fair.

Where have you seen it was fitted with a drop tank duing testing?

In fact, what sources have you got to show the 109 outrolling the Spit? The 109 had a poor roll, as everyone in the world but you acknowledges.

- Notice the "excessive" forces for roll at high
- speed, and the cramped cocpit that only allows for
- 40lbs force.

Funny you should say that:

(1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick as compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had more elbow room.
(2) Messerschmitt also penalized the pilot by designing in an unsually small stick top travel of plus or minus 4 inches, giving very poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron

Kit Carson was obviously stronger, because the Spit cockpit was far roomier.

- "About mid-June a crash programme was initated to
- improve the low-level performance of the Spitfire,
- Tempest V, and Mustang III by using a specially
- developed 150 octane aromatic fuel to give
- abnormally high power for strictly short bursts.

The Eric Brown doesn't know everything, does he? 150 octane was developed in 1943, not for the V-1s, was used in aircraft that never shased a V-1, and had the same time limits as 100 octane fuel.

- Nurse, come, he`s becoming unstable.. give him
- something to cool him down.

Sorry, it's there for everyone to see. Just because you don't like, doesn't mean it isn't true.

-- It's based on a Spitfire XIV cleaned up to normal
-- standards.
-
- And outright lie.

Calling someone a liar is cause for a ban. That's the second time you called me a liar in the same post.

The Spitfire involved had it's badly chipped paint redone, and a quick rubdown of the rest of the aircraft. The report notes it's a standard that can be achieved in squadron service.

- Source for your ridiculus claims?

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/

The first test report on that page:

"Prior to the comparitive tests the FW190 was stripped and painted"

- Show me 5 pictures of Spit XIVs with removed mirrors
- and wingclips.

Look for yourself. The total modifications ammounted to undoing 6 - 8 bolts.

- But
- wait a minute, last time you claimed some 5000 out
- of the 900 produced had it`s wingtips removed, isn`t
- it?
No, I said about 5000 out of 22,000 Spitfires.

- It`s serial plane, unlike the stripped, half loaded
- Spit14 prototype running on boost levels in excess
- the limits of operational use.

What's the source for your claims it's a serial plane? Can we see the test report? Because I believe it's a pre production calculation only, not an actual test report.

- Can we see any of your documents which you claim to
- exists? No, of course not, because they are all made
- up or forged by you!

Yes, I posted it up there. 389 mph at sea level. It's there in black and white for everyone to see.

Now, can we see the 109K4 document that shows level speeds, please? Not the one you've drawn yourself, but the original document.

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 03:05 PM
The missing picture above can be found at http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/pro_190_survey_b_3.jpg

- Hop is again making up things. Here`s part of the
- British report on the G-6 test:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtacvspit14.html

"Climb
25.....When both aircraft are at 16,000 feet (the rated altitude of the Me.109), there is little to choose between the climbing performance of the two aircraft, but at all other heights the Spitfire has a very pronounced advantage in rate of climb."

Again Isegrim, that document is not backed up by German engine charts, and is a simple mistake in the report, in a section entitled "Brief description of aircraft"

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 04:13 PM
It is always so entertaining when Issy tries to twist the facts.

"Spitfire F. Mk.VB W.3228 has been fitted with a special Merlin 50 engine, on which the supercharger impellor was "cropped" to a diameter of 9.5". On this engine the maximum permitted boost at combat rating was +18 lb/sq.in. instead of +16 lb/sq.in. as on a normal Merlin 50 engine."

The engine is the Merlin 50M.

Note the +18lb of boost used.

2,000ft, 0.4 min, 4720f/m(21.7m/m), 170mph, 3010rpm, 18.2lb

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3228.html

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

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 02:13 PM
Ooh, Hop vs. Isegrim, who will win? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 10:08 PM
Vipez- wrote:
- Ooh, Hop vs. Isegrim, who will win?

none, both are shure to know the "truth"

I find it very interesting to see how different so called "facts" look when view from the one or from the other side /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


quiet_man

second foundation member of the EURO_Snoopy fan club!

I'm quiet_man, but if I post I post quiet much /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 10:49 PM
i love to fly the Hurricane as i love to turn fight most of all

my Favourite DF is a Hurri v Hurri fight

the sweetest kill of all for the hurricane is BF 109 G or K which i do a lot of

if you cant kill a Hurricane thats your problem as it is easy to do

the BF pilots all run away & climb cause they cant turn ... whiners

they want 800 HP advantage AND A TURNING ADVANTAGE !!!!!!!!!!!

take away their Mk 108 & i bet the BF would be a LOT less popular online

the only way a Hurricane is overmoddeled a bit too much is in its climb rate

once i get my Spitfire i will be Hunting regular BF pilots EXCLUSIVLY for at least 2 weeks

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2003, 02:47 PM
hop2002 wrote:
---
--- All were equipped with variable speed props in June
--- 1940.
--
-- False. Only a partition had constant speed props,
-- the majority
-
- According to Spitfire the History, by 16th August
- every Spitfire and Hurricane in Britain, including
- those in storage, had been converted.
-
- Operational squadrons had been equipped by mid July.


More twisting. By mid July Spitfires and Hurricanes replaced their original FIXED pitch propellors to a primitive "variable pitch" which had only two fixed positions.... That does not equal CS props. Constants speed props didn`t come until the Spit II, but that didn`t came until the very end of 1940.

Naturally, all Bf109Es had infinitively variable propellors. A great proportion of the also had constant speed variable pitch propellors.


--
-- E-3`s armament was 2x20mm cannons and 2x7.92mm
-- machinguns. It proved to be FAR superior to the
-- 4x7.7mm MG armament of the Spit I, and much better
-- than the 8 gunned Spit IA, which lacked any kind of
-- cannon armament.
-
- The E3 was so unsatisfactory they were field
- modified to E4 standard.

Is that the same E-3 that wiped out the RAF over Wilhelshaven, Norway, France, the Low Countries, Northern France, Dunkirk, the Channel ?

Claiming that the E-3 was "so unsatisfactory" is like claiming that the Formula-1 Ferrari teams are "unsatisfied" with their car`s performance, even if they won most of the time in the contstructor`s race, just because they add newer and newer things to them and improve them furhter.


But alas, we can also say that the Spitfire I was so unsatisfactory, and had such major flaws in the design, that relegeted them to be unacceptable for combat, and had to be recalled and sent back to the factory to make them at least mission capable.

Probably that`s why Werner Molders said on the Spitfire after flying it: delightful as an aeroplane, but pathetic as a fighter.


-
-- And of course 109Es shoot down a lot more Spits than
-- they lost themselves.
-
- Not quite true actually. More 109s were lost than
- Spits. Perhaps you want to try and rephrase it?


In Hop`s private dreamworld, probably. However no single author agrees with you.

For example, Ted Hooton in "Spitfire special" gives the following numbers for BoB (between 1st July - 30th September):

Spitfire vs 109s: 219 Spitfires lost for 180 Messers in combat
Hurricane vs 109s: 272 Hurris for 153 Messers in combat

Messerschmitt`s enjoyed a kill ratio of 1.21 : 1 against Spitfires.


Perhaps you should stop dreaming and face the facts.


-
-- German Kennblatt for F-1/2 gives 515kph at SL, and
-- notices that with increased RPM, it`s additional
-- 10-15 kph faster.
-
- Care to post the whole document?

Why would I post anything that you are always ready to twist and manipulate, especially if you don`t post anything to prove your point ?

Would you post your Wright Field report, or anything that would prove your ridiculus 470 kph@SL claim ? We haven`t seen anything regarding that.


-
-- Wrong, according to the SpitV flgith manual, maximum
-- boost is 9lbs, and could be maintainef for no longer
-- than 5 minutes.
-
- Funny, my Spit V manual shows 16lbs boost.
-
- However, go here:
-
<img
- src="http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/pro_190
- _survey_b_3.jpg">
-
-
- Even the Spit I was cleared for 12lbs boost once 100
- octane fuel was introduced in 1940.



-- F-1 and F-2 Kennblatt. THIS is the OFFICIAL German
-- flight
-- manual for it, not some arcade flight sim`s crew...
-
- And the Wright Field lot are some "acrade flight
- sim's crew"?

Do I need to brush your memory on what you have said:

"The Warbirds flight model team give 295mph/ 475km/h as the real figure"

It seems Hop`s claim`s are based on a compter simulator game.

BTW, Wright Field test doesn`t even mention SL speed, and it notes that the performance is "Esitmated", at an unknown power.

Now I wonder, what is a more reliable source of data, an estimated speed with unknown power from a foreign evaluation team, or the detailed pilot`s manual for the same aircraft from the manufacturer and air force command?

The latter shows 515 kph at SL.

Spitfire Mk. Vc AA.873 test shows 476 kph at SL. The plane in March 1942 was still limited +9lbs according to the test.

Spitfire Mk. VB W.3134 test shows 468 kph at SL. Date is 18 June 1941 . Plane is limited to +9lbs.

Spitfire Mk. VB (Tropical) AB.320 test shows 450 kph at SL w/o fuel tank. In other words, it`s even slower than the 109E... Plane is limited to +9lbs according to tests. Date 15 April 1942.

Spitfire Mk. VC AA.878, 25 November 1942 . First test to determine effects new rating of +16lbs. New rating is limited to 3 minute, and results 510 kph at SL.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spitv.html


This is TWO years after the introduction of the 109F, and s still slower at SL, not to mention the higher altitude regimes.
By that time, 109Fs are largely replaced by 109Gs in the LW.

So much about the SpitV being as fast as the 109F.


- Again, what engine ratings are those
- performance figures based on? You have the full
- report, lets see that part. Even the date would be
- nice.


You will not receive any more information than neccesary, until to post sources for your claims which in my opinion are only blanket statements, aimed to erect new myths via endless parrotting of the same misinformation.


-- 12 lbs was not authorized at that time. Again you
-- are dreaming.

- 12lbs was authorised from the start for the Spit V.
- It was already used in the Spit I, but it's hard to
- find tests for that as well.


Yes it`s a bit hard to find +12lbs tests for the Spit V, not to mention Spit I, as they were not cleared for either rating in 1941, and for most of 1942. Even spring 1942 tests show +9lbs limit for the Spit V, at which it is some 40 kph slower than the 109F1, and even more than the F-4.

The reason is simply, they didn`t test planes at boost rates they were not cleared for.



-- LOL, Hop. The Mauser cannon was FAR more powerful
-- than the inefficient and unrelialbe Hispano, thanks
-- to it`s much higher ROF, more powerful and RELIABLE
-- shells.
-
- Really?
-
- RAF trials found they detonated on the surface far
- too often, causing little internal damage.


Which RAF trials, Hop? The ones which exists only in Hop`s head ? Give us a qoute then. OH, wait. You mix up it up with the results of Hispano trials. In these trials, it was found that Hispano HE rounds constantly exploded on the surface, and in many cases, often at the barrel end, damaging the gun itself.

Mauser firing trials.

"FIRING TRIALS WITH NEW TYPE OF GERMAN 20MM HE AND HE-INCENDINARY-TRACER AMMUNITION TAKEN FROM ME 109F-2 AIRCRAFT

Conclusions:

2, There`s a fairly high incendinary risk with HEI ammunition, three fires occuring from eight rounds fired at petrol filled self sealing tanks in the Blenheim wing.

4, Face hardened armor attacked directly must be 12mm thikc for complete immunity, whereas 6.6mm of homog. hard armor appears to be sufficient.

NOTE: Spitfires/Tempest had 6mm thick face hardened armor pilot seat.

--------------------------------------------------------


Similiar results under similiar conditions of test for Hispano 20mm API and HEIT shells:

Unarmored targets:

"Since [Hispano] API failed to function, the trials were repeated with various thickness of armor to determine the min. thickness neccesary to function [Hispano] API."

Armored targets:

"The performance of HEIT against armor within the stucture is poor, owing to detonation at the fusalge. In direct attack can penetrate 9mm of HH armor, compared to 8mm with HEI."

Unarmored targets:

"Against unarmored tanks, [Hispano] API is ineffective in causing fires. A 6 swg mild steel at rear spar is neccesary to funbction the fuse.... From this results it is estimated that fire freqeuncy of API against a real Heinkel wing is 6%."

NOTE: Not surprisingly, Hispano API shells were rather insensitive, and required a thick armor plate to make them function. But no WW2 bomber or fighter had that thickness installed, save perhaps the IL-2.


"Fire frequency of HEIT under these conditions is 31%... It should be noted that 6 out of 14 fires obtained outside the tank were accompanied a flash; this may due to incomplete detonation."

Armored targets:

"Trials with [Hispano] API against armored Heinkel wing. Results: 68 rounds fired, 17 fires."

Blast and fragmantation:

"Against two 14 swg sheets. In this case HEI rounds detonated just behind the first sheet [/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif n skin surface].

"These effects are neglible for API."

General:

"The screw-in head API is successfull, in contrast of the two piece design API. Many of the latter rounds broke up at the Heinkel fusalge."

"About 50% of the API rounds functioned on 6swg mild steel; less than that only functions the API only occasionally".

"Out of 250 rounds of HEIT fired, 7 rounds detonated at the gun with damage with damage to the recoild reducer but none to the barrel."

NOTE: Very nice. A Spitfire carried 2x120=240 rounds for two cannons. Thus a Spitfire pilot could expect that 7 of his OWN shells will damage his OWN plane every time he expand the ammunition...


Very good shells, indeed. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



- Apparently the Germans agreed, because they never
- used the mine shell exclusively, and later went on
- to develop a hydrostatic fuse, so that the shell
- would explode only when they entered a fuel tank.

Show me anything that agrees with you.


Apperatly, the British were very envious for those Mine shells, as they pressed direct copies of them into service, ironically for a gun copied from WW2 German design. which replaced Hispanos. (The 30mm Aden gun).


- The Hispano fired a substantially heavier round at
- substantially higher muzzle velocities.


The Hispano fired inferior shells from an inferior cannon with inferior rate of fire in an inferior way of mounting on inferior gun platform.



-
- As to unreliable shells, that applied only to the
- original French designs.
-

The RAF had to still rely on decade-old French cannon shells even in 1941-42, when those Hispano test were bade ? I didn`t know Britain was so poor.


- RAF trials of the new type
- shells found they reliably penetrated structe before
- exploding, and had a devastating effect when they
- did.

Blah, blah. Not according to a British test made with British shells.

"Armored targets:

"The performance of HEIT against armor within the stucture is poor, owing to detonation at the fusalge. In direct attack can penetrate 9mm of HH armor, compared to 8mm with HEI."


Feel free to post your own firing tests, which mention "devastating" effect. I wonder how could a shell have "devastating" effect with a mere 7-8 gram of explosive charge.


- Unlike mine shells, they put out a lot of
- shrapnel. Blast doesn't do as much damage as shrapnel.

Shrapnel is usuful to injure the pilot, damage the instruments, put nice little holes in the plane skin etc.

Blast effect just rips the plane apart.

Effect of a 30mm Mine shell (330 gram weight compared to 130gram of the Hispano, and about twice the shrapnel weight).

One just wonder what did this: blast, shrapnel, or kinetic energy (which was zero during the tests, as it was not fired from gun, just placed near the fusalge):

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/1SchusswithMK108onSpit.jpg



Apperantly, it`s blast that makes the biggest destruction.



-
-- I wonder with TWICE the explosive load in the
-- Mauser`s shell, what would their relative
-- destructive capabilities look like?


- Blast doesn't do as much damage as shrapnel.
- Particularly not in the small quantities in a 20mm
- shell.

Wrong. All the kinetic energy the shrapnel may posses and thus use for comes form the explosive load of the shell.

Thus small explosive load = little shrapnel energy, high explosvive load = high shrapnel energy.

The Hispano HEI shell had only 1/3 the explosive energy of a Mine shell, thus it`s shrapnels could only have 1/3 the energy of a mine shell`s fragments. Simply physical reality.



-
- Twice the firepower is still twice the firepower.

Twice as many parroting is still just twice as many parrotting.


- The Luftwaffe found that on average, pilots could
- hit even a 4 engined bomber with only 2% of shots
- fired. When air to air gunnery was that innacurate,
- placement of the guns had little effect.

Hmmm, a qoute from the Wright Field report you loved so much:

"ARMAMENT

The 109F has a light yet effective armament complement of guns composed by 2 MGs mounted in the nose and one cannon firing through the hollow propeller shaft... German prisoners claim that centralisation of the guns permits better aim in turns and at long ranges."


Apparanlty, if you have your cannons separated 4 meters apart, they will converge and let use you full firepower at a single range. At all other ranges, you only have a much smaller percantage of the firepower. Wing mounted cannons also cause a lot of shaking in aim:

This was especially a problem with light construction plane like the Spitfire:

"Placed into service in July 1940, the Spitfire IBs soon acquired an unenviable reputation for high rates of cannon stoppages. The heavy recoil of the opposite cannon made the aircraft virtually uncontrollable and useless as a gun platform, and the squadron chosen for the trials insisted on beig re-equipped with IAs."

- Bill Sweetman, "Spitfire" in "The Great book of WW2 Airplanes", page 285.


"Virtually uncontrollable and useless as a gun platform", the Spitfire was with cannons it seems.



-- And of course, a single Mauser cannon only weight
-- 2/3 of that of a bulky Hispano.
-
- Exactly. The Germans need a small gun to fit in the
- 109. One of the limitations of the design.

Strange... 109 being limited to "small guns"? That`s interesting. In which pub did you acquired this piece of information? For as I can remember, the 109 was perfectly capable of mounting the MK 103m (140kg, 2 meter lenght, installed in the engine mount), which was so powerful that it could easily penetrate a heavy tank with AP shots... yeah, they were really restricted. Or the ability to carry 3 MK108s inside the structure ?




-
- The Nazis knew they were going to war early, so
- started rearmament earlier. Britain hoped to avoid
- war, so rearmament lagged.
-

True, the British were just as slow in that as in introducing new models of existing planes in numbers. In 1940, they had the Spitfire, but not in numbers. 109Es on the other hand composed 99% of the LF fighter force.
In 1941, they had the Spit V., but again not in numbers. The bulk was still made up by Hurricanes. The LW already had the 109F in widespread service, and the 190 was there in the end of the year. In mid 1942, they introduced the Spit IX, but there was only a handful of them even by the end of 1942 - the LW already switched to 109Gs and 190s in large numbers. In 1944, they introduced the great performer Spitfire XIV - but what use was it, if there was less than a hundred available of them, even after a year of it`s introduction, when the rest of the Spitfire squadrons had to do with the Mk.IX, with a rather poor altitude performance by 1944? Again the LW had 4-5 times as many 109Gs and Ks with high altitude AS or D engines, 190Ds. They even had more Me 262s in service than all MkXIVs the British had.



-
-- But by that time, that armament
-- configuration was already deemed as obsolate on the
-- 109, and they moved a single modern, high ROF cannon
-- firing in the centerline with improved shells.
-
- Which shows how they had misread the situation. The
- RAF had also decided cannon armament was needed, but
- they knew it would require several cannon, that's
- why the Spit was fitted with 2, and capable of
- taking 4.

That`s why 109 aces scored some 40 000 airial victories, and Spitfire pilots... well, maybe 2000 ?



- In contrast, the 109 was redeigned for 1 cannon, and
- they then had to hang more under the wings because
- it was inadequate.


Apperantly, the vast numbers, literally tenthousends of airplanes lost to the 109 proves otherwise. The fact that the "flying tank" Il-2 Sturmovik was one of the most common victim of a 109 is also very telling.


The Wright report mentions that even the lightest armed 109, the 109F`s armanet is "effective". This effectiveness of course was increased, replacing the 7.92mm guns with 13mm ones (the British never did that on a similiar scale, and only much later), and replaced the 20mm cannon with the ultimtely destructive 3cm MK108.

In addition, when extra firepower was required, 20mm gunpods were also available (taking additional guns was not a possiblity for Spitfires, you had to do what they gave for you, that is, two old cannons with low ROF, little magazine capacity and poor shells), and 30mm gunpods were seen as a possibility to equip them.

A 109 armed with three 30mm cannons and two heavy machinguns proved to possess far more firepower than any Spitfire variant.


-
-- This is what the single cannon`s single hit from the
-- 109 does to a Spit:
- Isegrim, you know, and I know, that picture shows a
- post war test with the 30mm.

So? Wasn`t ALL wartime 109Ks and a great proportion of the wartime G-6s, G-14s, G-10 equipped with 30mm cannon of this type?

Is a demonstration of the effectiveness of the STANDARD 109 amrament considered "unfair" by you?

Show us the effects of a Hispano. Why are you so shy in that ?


- How do you expect
- people to take you seriously when you present a
- picture of the effects of a 30mm as a 20mm?

How do you expect people to hold you anything else than a dishonest manipulator who puts words into other`s mouth which they didn`t say ?


-
-- Gunpods were possible to use on about 20% of the
-- 109s...

- Really? I though it was far higher than that. Still,
- that means they didn't even have the choice of a
- decent armament.

Probably you are right. But they were helped a lot by the fragile contstruction of British fighters. Otherwise, how could it be possible that so quite a few Luftwaffe pilots shot down over a hundred British aircraft with such "non-decent" armament ?

Those Spitfires must have been REALLY fragile, no doubt.



-- Hispanos were not powerful cannon. They had slow
-- ROF, and weak shells.
-
- They had the same rate of fire as the inboard
- cannons on the 190.

Hmm, I wonder, how is that true? Since when 600 rpm of the Hispano equals 700-740 rounds of the Mauser ? You weren`t good at maths, now were you?


- Compared to a single MG151, the
- 2 Hispanos would put out far more shells, far
- heavier shells, at a far higher muzzle velocity.

Blah, blah blah. Far more shells that explode in the cannon and damage the plane, far heavier shells that have 1/3 of the explosive charge, and at "far" higher muzzle velocity which coupled with wing-mounted guns made the plane virtually useless as gun platform.

Maybe that`s why the MG151 is still produced, whereas the Hispano is not.


-
- Hispano shells had less explosive than mine shells,
- but far more than normal German HE shells,
-

We will now attempt to improve your ability to back up your blanket statements.

What was the amount and type of explosives in the various German 20mm shell types (such as HE, HEI, HEI-T etc.) ?


- and far
- more than German AP.

LOL! Desperation peaks out again, Hop now compares British HE shells with German AP! LOL! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Or a similiar one: even German 7.92 HE had far more explosive in it than a British 20mm AP... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


- And only 2 shells in 5 were
- mine shells, sometimes not even that many.

OK, just go ahead and prove that. I don`t expect an answer, because every time you were called up to prove your statements you evaded so far.

Interestingly enough, the 109G-14 that landed in the UK in July 1944, had it`s 20mm cannon loaded with 1 AP, 1 HE and 2 Mineshells. 50% of the ammo was mine shells.

"Armament

1 x MG151 20 mm. calibre, firing through propeller hub.
2 x MG131 over the engine.

Loading order 20 mm. gun

1 AP/I, 1 HE/I/T (S.D.)(M. Geschoss) repeating.
This order changed later in the belt to- 1 AP/I, 1 I/T, 2 HE/I/T (S.D.)(M. Geschoss) repeating."


In addtion, standard load for 30mm armed 109s was 50% mineshells in every case, the other half being Incendinary.


-
-- How many Spits had 4 cannnons during the war...?
-
- I don't recall mentioning 4 cannon Spits,

You indeed have a short memory, not being able to remember what you have said in the very same post of yours.

- but
- probably around 1000 or so. The vast majority had
- the option though, unlike the only 20% of 109s,
- according to you.

"probably around 1000". "Vast majority". Care to give us exact numbers?

Only "C" wings of the MkV had option to alternatively mount a 20mm cannnon instead of 4x7.7mm. That doesn`t reads as "vast majority" to me.

-
-- And of course all the 109G-2s the Soviets captured
-- had no engine restrictions in them. Strange, isn`t
-- it?
-
- Perhaps they were like the 190A3 the British
- captured, that was tested at higher power despite
- the restrictions.

No, they weren`t tested at higher powers, only the British believed that. If it were tested at higher powers, they would have reached 415 mph instead of 370 mph or so, which clearly indicates the lower powers used.


-
- Butch has already confirmed what I said above.
-

True that you are very adapt in misqouting others or putting words into theiur mouths, no doubt.


-- All DB605A`s were cleared to 1.42 ata in 1943. All
-- 109G-2s captured by the Soviets were cleared for
-- 1.42ata.
-
- Oh, 1943. You forgot to mention that part before,
- didn't you?
-

So, why isn`t it fair to compare the high altitude performance of a boost setting that was cleared in 1943 (and BTW, in no way effected high alt performance...) with a British fighter that first saw service no sooner than in the late spring of 1943?


Do you still deny, despite the loads of evidence, that the 109F was a lot more faster than the MkV at altitude, and that the 109G was more faster than the MkIX at altitude ?

-
-- But in reality, there was only 5 Spit XIV Squadrons
-- in combat on the continent. Each Squadron means a
-- maximum 20 aircraft, of which only 12 were used, the
-- rest were reserves. And of course no unit had 100%
-- strenght and servicilibility at one time. In
-- November, you can see that many Typhoon squadrons
-- had no more than 2-3 planes on hand and operational.
-- See the book "Operation Bodenplatte".
--
-- So that leaves us 100 (5x20)Spitfires in service in
-- the dreamworld case, and more like 60-70 in real
-- life.
--
-- From German documetns we know the exact strenght of
-- 109s. There were 320 or so K-4s in service. Not to
-- mention G-10s, G-6/AS etc.
-
- Isegrim, your double standards are showing again.



- When looking at the number of Spit XIVs in service,
- you take the number of squadrons in Europe (not even
- the number of squadrons elsewhere, like Britain,
- Italy, Balkans, far east etc)

Which is quite logical, as there was no MkXIV squadrons outside Europe, say there were no Italy, Balkans, far east squadron. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Should count ghost planes, too?

That leaves us with the 5 MkXIV fighter squadrons of the 2nd TAF.

- and multiply by 12, to
- give 60 planes.

I can multiply it with 1 or 2 as well, as this was the number of aircraft actually available for many 2nd TAF squadrons instead of the nominal 20.

But alternatively, why not play your game ? We multiply the theoretical maximum number of MkXIVs in their units and do the same with K-4s instead of using the actual strenght. Agreed ?


- You ignore the number of aircraft
- delivered to the RAF during the war, 500+

OK, prove your statement. Prove that 500+ aircraft were delivered to the RAF.

If it`s true, that means 80-90% of them were soon lost just as they arrived.



-
- When looking at the number of G10s and K4s in
- service, you look at the number delivered to the
- Luftwaffe, and not the number of front line units
- actually using serviceable aircraft.

No, my (actually Rich`s numbers) are for strictly for Frontline units.

Rich gave his figures where the first number showed planes with combat units, and the second with the "Erganzungs" units. Erganzungs means 2nd line units which were used to train pilots and send reserves to active frontline units.

For the 109K-4 on 31st January, 1945, Rich gave the number of 314 K-4s being with the "combat" units, and 0 with the "Erganzungs" units. (as 314/0)


-
- I remeber when you were using RichTO from the onwar
- board as a source, even though his reply to you
- was:
-
- "No and no Barbie, there is a difference between on
- hand and in service"


Your manipulations know no borders, right? Should I brush your memory a bit? The whole thing started when a certain hysterical character known for his deep anti-German feelings (I will refer to him as M.M. Any similiariaty of the signo with member of ubi.com forums is merely a matter of coincidence) started ranting that there was only a 100 Bf 109s left by 1945 in service.

RichTO corrected him by posting the exact makup of 109s, showing 1435 of them being with "combat" units, and 527 with "Erganzungs" units. Not surprisingly it was the older 109 models like G-6 that made up the bulk of the "Erganzung (=Replacment/Reserve)" units.

Then the same hysterical character started to complain that the "On Hand" numbers are always higher than "Operational" (=Mission ready), and it`s highly possible that out of the 1435+527 planes, less than a 100 was operational.

Rich said that his numbers are "On Hand", ie. the number of aircraft physically being with the 1st line combat units, and not the number of operational (=mission ready) planes).


Similiarry, out of the 0 to 100 Spitfire XIV which were "on Hand", only a portition was combat-ready/operational, the rest being repaired, transported etc.



-- Single hit from the 109`s nose cannon on a British
-- bomber:
-
- Again showing a 30mm hit and pretending it's a 20mm?

Nobody said it`s a 20mm hit. I only said it`s the effect of a single from the standard armament from a 109s basic weapon.

I will post it again, it`s so cool to see what a single shot from a "poorly armed" 109 can do to a Spitfire:


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/1SchusswithMK108onSpit.jpg



I hope you are not too envious because of the fact the Spitfire`s design proved to be incapable of mounting anything of similiar caliber.



-
-- Show me a similiar for the Spit.
-
- Show me a 20mm hit, not a 30mm you are dishonestly
- pretending is 20mm.


Show me a Hispano hit, don`t be shy, I promise I won`t mock you when we see that tiny scratch it makes.



---- The fuel type does not effect high altitude
---- performance at all. In any case, w/o C-3, the speed
---- under 6500-7000m is some 10 km/h less.
---
--- You are saying the 109K4 required 200hp for an extra
--- 10km/h????
--
-- No, it required 140 HPto gain 13 km/h at SL/
-
- Isegrim, you first claimed that the difference
- between C3 and B4, both with MW50, was 10km/h. Now
- you say 13km/h. Which is it?



- Even by your revised figures, a 140hp gain for an
- 8mph speed gain doesn't look good. The Spit gained
- 28mph for 450hp,

More like for +500HP.

- so probably around 12 mph for the
- first 140hp of that. And the Spit was bigger and
- heavier.

Sure that you are no engineer. Power requirements increased on the cube for similiar speed increase. For 140 HP, an increase from 1840 to 1980 HP the Spit may get 8mph, no more.

Spitfire Mk21 could do 368mph on +21lbs = +10 mph for +200 HP. A few mph slower than K-4 even on B-4, it seems.

As for "bigger and heavier", you could just say: less efficient.


-
- Sorry, it's there in black and white, 389mph at sea
- level. Just wishing it wasn't won't help.
-

Speaking of lies, how do they call someone in Brtiain who knows the truths but tells otherwise ? Like this guy:

--------------------------------------------------------

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvhyp&tpage=2&direction=0 ( <A HREF=)" target=_blank>http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvhyp&tpage=2&direction=0</a>

"Author: hop2002
Rank: Lonely Postman
Date: 07/16/03 04:02PM

"Firstly, I've never claimed that test shows normal Spit figures."

"Secondly, it doesn't show a stripped Spitfire. "

"It probably shows a Spit with the wingtips removed, but that was done on 5000+ Spits in total, so was a pretty common configuration."

"It shows a Spit with the mirror removed, but that wasn't exactly uncommon either."

"Show me one instance hwere I have claimed that was representative of Spits in squadron service."

"Oh, I forgot, I posted the picture to the OnWar forums, which are dead, so you can't prove it. How I managed to post the picture to a text only forum I still haven't been able to work out, let alone how I posted it before I'd even seen it, because I left OnWar before that was posted on the web."



http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvhyp&tpage=2&direction=0

Author: hop2002
Rank: Lonely Postman
Date: 07/15/03 09:06PM

-- Those "true figures" refer to a single prototype in
-- a crash programme agaisnt V-1 raids; it never saw
-- service.

" It did, as you can see the ministry of supply are quoting it as the speed of a Spitfire XIV. "

"No, sorry, 389mph at sea level was the speed of the Spitfire XIV, in standard operational conditions."

"Speed of Spitfire F XIV 389 mph at sea level. It's there in black and white."

"It's based on a Spitfire XIV cleaned up to normal standards."

------------------------------------------------------------


It`s there, black and white, that SOMEBODY is making.. hmm... some very untrue statements here. What`s the name of such a man in Britain ?


-
- You've always had trouble with the concept of 150
- octane, ever since Neil Sterling got the production
- figures, but wishing it away won't help.
-

Of course 150 octane was used, but in a rather limited scale, and not by the scale Neil would like to see, ie. ever single bus, motorbike, trainer, transport plane or fighter.

His figures show that 150 grade fuel was used on a rather limited scale even with it`s only user in 1944, the ADFU/FC, at a rate of 2000-12 000 ton per month.

You said the LW fuel situation was so bad, that they were grounded for it. Why not compar that 2000 tons with the smallest amount of LW consumption of aviation fuel in a month, ie. 50 000 tons in December 1944 ? If 50 000 tons is enough to being grounded, how much 2000 tons worth ?

Sightseeing flights ?



-- The chart shows III/JG77`s K-4s only. Hop makes his
-- claim on sole use B-4 fuel use on this chart only.
--
-- In reality, K-4s were in service with II/JG2, I/JG4,
-- III/JG4, IV/JG4, II./JG11, III/JG26, I/JG27,
-- II/JG27, III/JG27, Stab/JG53, II/JG53, I/JG77,
-- III/JG77 .
-
- And as Butch says, that was the standard across all
- of them.

Alas Butch hasn`t prove that, and I only accept something as fact when I see it`s proven. The rest - assumptions, hypothesis, theory etc.



-
- It's easy to see why, if the Luftwaffe had both C3
- and B4 fuel, they could fly only 109s, or the same
- number of 109s at lower power AND 190s. Easy to see
- which they'd choose.
-

Assuming that C-3 was on short supply, which is not true. If there`s enough C-3 to run some 109s and the 190As on it, whereas the rest of the 109s and 190Ds could run on B-4 without performance loss, which is to be used ?


-
- Do you have any documents which show C3 use by
- 109G10 and K$ squadrons?
-

Do you have any documents showing the ACTUAL use of 150 grade by MkXIV squadrons, ie. a doc showing the actual type of fuel used a particula month.

We only have the opposite. Neil Stirling showed that none of the Spit XIVs were running on 150grade in late 1944. So by your logic, that mean they never used it.



I even have documents which show C-3 use by ordinary G-14 squadrons, which absolutely didn`t require that fuel (according to Butch):

"
Captured Aircraft Report
August 1944

Me109G-14 W.Nr. 413601


Engine

DB605 A-1 Tp.
No. 01104968.
Maker: hsr. (ed.note: code for Henschel- Kassel)
Painted on the crankcase cover is: 605 A/m.

This engine has the normal small supercharger and both engine bearers are of light alloy. C-3 (100 octane) fuel is used but additional power for short periods is obtained from an apparatus known as the "MW 50", in conjunction with a boost pressure of 1.7 ata (equals British boost of +9.5). "


Also there are pilot`s memoirs which state that even some German bomber units ran on C-3 as well. Butch knows those well.



-- It`s not hard to see he wants to use a single
-- example and only a part of the picture.
-
- Isegrim, do you have other parts of the picture?
- Because right now it's your word against Butch's,
- but Butch has backed his up with documents, and
- common sense supports Butch as well.
-
-- It`s important to him, because on B-4 the K-4 was as
-- fast as the Spit XIV on 150 grade fuel,



- No, the Spit did 389 at sea level, the K4 only 378.
- But of course, that's a K4 running on C3, and as
- Butch has shown, they had to make do with B4.
-
- So the real figures would be Spit 389, 109K4 370.


Again, what`s the word for the guy who writes like this above ? My vocabulary might be limited, but a 4-letter word or alternatively, a "split personality" comes to my mind.


--- Isegrim, it says they will be able to in future.
--
-- A very strange interpretation of a document that
-- says it isn`t cleared to +25 lbs because of bearing
-- troubles.
-
- "they will be able to in future" is a strange
- interpretation of a document that says:
-
- "They will be capable of operation at 25lbs boost in
- the future"?

Do you have ANY kind of evidence that Griffon 65 was EVER cleared to +25lbs ?

Evidence, not assumptions.

No, so the only evidence available says it was not used.



-
-- Interestingly enough, in RAF test in Oct 1945,
-- Griffons are STILL limited to +21lbs:
-
- Different engine. That's a Griffon 61, not a 65 used
- in the Spit XIV.

According to the RAF, Grif 61 and 65 fells into the same category, not being cleared for +21 lbs for the same reason. They had the same construction, only differing in gear ratio.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Griffon%20limits%20of%2021lbs.jpg



- Given that engines would need
- modifications to run 25lbs boost, which do you think
- would get priority, Spit XIV squadrons in service or
- the first production Spit 21 sent for tests?

Do you have ANY kind of evidence that Griffon 65 was EVER cleared to +25lbs ?

Evidence, not assumptions.

No, so the only evidence available says it was not used.



-- Oh course this was already debunked. They tested a
-- nightfighter G-6 with droptank and gunpods vs. a
-- clean Spit 14. How fair.
-
- Where have you seen it was fitted with a drop tank
- duing testing?

It`s there in the report, I have already posted it. Oh, memory issues again.


- In fact, what sources have you got to show the 109
- outrolling the Spit? The 109 had a poor roll, as
- everyone in the world but you acknowledges.

OK, give me a list with 6 billion signitures acknowlading that the 109 had a poor rate of roll. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Seriously, why don`t you back up your another blanket statement with something...? Is it so difficult? I bet it is.


Me 109E outrolling Spit I, in English tests:

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bank45.jpg


Bf 109E having TWICE the roll rate than the Spitfire at most airspeed. Spitfire gets outrolled. I hope you don`t complain about that, it`s from your favourith 4th FG webiste. You always refer to that site, so I belive you think it`s reliable.

Mark Hanna on 109 roll rate:


"The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 250 mph. This is particularly true of the Charles Church's Collection clipped wing aircraft. Our round tipped aeroplane is slightly less nice to feel. With the speed further back the roll rate remains good, particularly with a bit of help from the rudder. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51."



Jeff Ethell on Spitfire roll rate:


"The elevator is very light while the rudder is stiff and the ailerons even more so. Every Spitfire I've flown takes a bit more muscle to roll than most fighters. As speed increases both rudder and ailerons get heavier, resulting in a curious mismatch at high speed...one has to handle the almost oversensitive elevators with a light fingertip touch while arm-wrestling the stiff ailerons. Pilots had to keep this in mind during combat, particularly when going against the FW 190 which had a sterling rate of roll and exceptionally well harmonised controls. "



Spitfire VA:

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Spitchar4.jpg

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Spitchar5.jpg



Other Spitfire tests show it`s roll rate is no better than that of the Hurricane:

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/ROLLRATE%20Spit%20Hurri%20P40%20P36.jpg


Spitfire`s roll rate is 63 deg/sec at 300mph.


German document on 109F roll rate (Rollwendigkeit Me 109F) gives roll rate as approx. 80 deg/sec at 450kph/300mph.



Alex Heshaw, Chief factory pilot at the Castle Bromwich Spitifire plant:

"I loved the Spit ever Mark of it. But I must admit, though that later Marks were much faster, they were also inferior to previous Marks in manouveribility. When we checked how a Spit behaves during a roll, we counted how many full rolls we could do under a given time. With the MkII. or MkV., we could do 2 1/2 rolls, but the MkIX. was heavier, and we could do only 1 1/2 rolls. The later, more heavier Marks were could do even less. Designing an aeroplane is about findig balance. It`s hardly possible to improve performance without degrading other properties of the aircraft."



Spitfire MkXIV Handling trials:

"...........4.21 Controls and general flying. The type of fin and rudder incorporated in this aircraft caused a decrease in the change of directional trim with speed compared with JF.319. Rudder forces were of a similar magnitude. The ailerons, despite an absence of reflexing, were noticeably heavier."



It seems we have loads of evidence on that the Spit`s roll rate wasn`t any spectatular, and only got worsened with newer models.


-
-- Notice the "excessive" forces for roll at high
-- speed, and the cramped cocpit that only allows for
-- 40lbs force.
-
- Funny you should say that:
-
- (1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only
- apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick as
- compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had
- more elbow room.


Still he could outmanouver Spits (from the same test):

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bank45.jpg




- (2) Messerschmitt also penalized the pilot by
- designing in an unsually small stick top travel of
- plus or minus 4 inches, giving very poor mechanical
- advantage between pilot and aileron
-
- Kit Carson was obviously stronger, because the Spit
- cockpit was far roomier.


Oh, Kit Carson again. The same guy who states that the slats were useless (still the USAAF adopted them for the P-86..), the 109`s radiator design was never changed (WRONG), canopy design was never changed (WRONG), tailwheel design was never changed to fully retractable (WRONG), landing gear design was never changed to covered ones (WRONG), or the same guy who had never heard of the complete wing (aileron, flaps etc.) redesign with the 109F?

Some source he is. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



-
-- "About mid-June a crash programme was initated to
-- improve the low-level performance of the Spitfire,
-- Tempest V, and Mustang III by using a specially
-- developed 150 octane aromatic fuel to give
-- abnormally high power for strictly short bursts.
-
- The Eric Brown doesn't know everything, does he? 150
- octane was developed in 1943, not for the V-1s, was
- used in aircraft that never shased a V-1, and had
- the same time limits as 100 octane fuel.


Of course, Hop-the-fanatic-Brit is a much better source than those who participated in the tests themselves.. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


--- It's based on a Spitfire XIV cleaned up to normal
--- standards.
--
-- And outright lie.
-
- Calling someone a liar is cause for a ban. That's
- the second time you called me a liar in the same
- post.


Than in that case you should ask to ban Hop2002. I remember that no more than 2 weeks or so ago, Hop2002 said that he HAD NEVER ever claimed that the +25lbs stripped Spit or that it was typical for squadron service.

Now he says the opposite. How do they call that in Britain ? Give me an expression.



-- Show me 5 pictures of Spit XIVs with removed mirrors
-- and wingclips.
-
- Look for yourself. The total modifications ammounted
- to undoing 6 - 8 bolts.

Show me 5 pictures of Spit XIVs with removed mirrors and wingclips.

No, it seems you cant.



-- But
-- wait a minute, last time you claimed some 5000 out
-- of the 900 produced had it`s wingtips removed, isn`t
-- it?
-
- No, I said about 5000 out of 22,000 Spitfires.


Great. You have admitted that you were trying to sell other clipped wing marks as Spit XIV.


-
-- It`s serial plane, unlike the stripped, half loaded
-- Spit14 prototype running on boost levels in excess
-- the limits of operational use.
-
- What's the source for your claims it's a serial
- plane? Can we see the test report? Because I believe
- it's a pre production calculation only, not an
- actual test report.


You are free to believe anything.


-
- Yes, I posted it up there. 389 mph at sea level.
- It's there in black and white for everyone to see.
-


It seems it`s only your repeated dishonesty that now become black and white obvious.

-
- Now, can we see the 109K4 document that shows level
- speeds, please? Not the one you've drawn yourself,
- but the original document.
-

And any reason why I should do that ? You didn`t show any of your sources, why should do it more than it`s absolutely neccesary to crush your myths ?


Happy typing time.


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
07-19-2003, 03:23 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- hop2002 wrote:
----
---- All were equipped with variable speed props in June
---- 1940.
---
--- False. Only a partition had constant speed props,
--- the majority
--
-- According to Spitfire the History, by 16th August
-- every Spitfire and Hurricane in Britain, including
-- those in storage, had been converted.
--
-- Operational squadrons had been equipped by mid July.
-
-
- More twisting. By mid July Spitfires and Hurricanes
- replaced their original FIXED pitch propellors to a
- primitive "variable pitch" which had only two fixed
- positions.... That does not equal CS props.
- Constants speed props didn`t come until the Spit II,
- but that didn`t came until the very end of 1940.
-
- Naturally, all Bf109Es had infinitively variable
- propellors. A great proportion of the also had
- constant speed variable pitch propellors.
-
-
---
--- E-3`s armament was 2x20mm cannons and 2x7.92mm
--- machinguns. It proved to be FAR superior to the
--- 4x7.7mm MG armament of the Spit I, and much better
--- than the 8 gunned Spit IA, which lacked any kind of
--- cannon armament.
--
-- The E3 was so unsatisfactory they were field
-- modified to E4 standard.
-
- Is that the same E-3 that wiped out the RAF over
- Wilhelshaven, Norway, France, the Low Countries,
- Northern France, Dunkirk, the Channel ?
-
- Claiming that the E-3 was "so unsatisfactory" is
- like claiming that the Formula-1 Ferrari teams are
- "unsatisfied" with their car`s performance, even if
- they won most of the time in the contstructor`s
- race, just because they add newer and newer things
- to them and improve them furhter.
-
-
- But alas, we can also say that the Spitfire I was so
- unsatisfactory, and had such major flaws in the
- design, that relegeted them to be unacceptable for
- combat, and had to be recalled and sent back to the
- factory to make them at least mission capable.
-
- Probably that`s why Werner Molders said on the
- Spitfire after flying it: delightful as an
- aeroplane, but pathetic as a fighter.
-
-
--
--- And of course 109Es shoot down a lot more Spits than
--- they lost themselves.
--
-- Not quite true actually. More 109s were lost than
-- Spits. Perhaps you want to try and rephrase it?
-
-
- In Hop`s private dreamworld, probably. However no
- single author agrees with you.
-
- For example, Ted Hooton in "Spitfire special" gives
- the following numbers for BoB (between 1st July -
- 30th September):
-
- Spitfire vs 109s: 219 Spitfires lost for 180 Messers
- in combat
- Hurricane vs 109s: 272 Hurris for 153 Messers in
- combat
-
- Messerschmitt`s enjoyed a kill ratio of 1.21 : 1
- against Spitfires.
-
-
- Perhaps you should stop dreaming and face the facts.
-
-
-
-
--
--- German Kennblatt for F-1/2 gives 515kph at SL, and
--- notices that with increased RPM, it`s additional
--- 10-15 kph faster.
--
-- Care to post the whole document?
-
- Why would I post anything that you are always ready
- to twist and manipulate, especially if you don`t
- post anything to prove your point ?
-
- Would you post your Wright Field report, or anything
- that would prove your ridiculus 470 kph@SL claim ?
- We haven`t seen anything regarding that.
-
-
--
--- Wrong, according to the SpitV flgith manual, maximum
--- boost is 9lbs, and could be maintainef for no longer
--- than 5 minutes.
--
-- Funny, my Spit V manual shows 16lbs boost.
--
-- However, go here:
--
- <img
-- src="http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/pro_190
-- _survey_b_3.jpg">
--
--
-- Even the Spit I was cleared for 12lbs boost once 100
-- octane fuel was introduced in 1940.
-
-
-
--- F-1 and F-2 Kennblatt. THIS is the OFFICIAL German
--- flight
--- manual for it, not some arcade flight sim`s crew...
--
-- And the Wright Field lot are some "acrade flight
-- sim's crew"?
-
- Do I need to brush your memory on what you have
- said:
-
- "The Warbirds flight model team give 295mph/ 475km/h
- as the real figure"
-
- It seems Hop`s claim`s are based on a compter
- simulator game.
-
- BTW, Wright Field test doesn`t even mention SL
- speed, and it notes that the performance is
- "Esitmated", at an unknown power.
-
- Now I wonder, what is a more reliable source of
- data, an estimated speed with unknown power from a
- foreign evaluation team, or the detailed pilot`s
- manual for the same aircraft from the manufacturer
- and air force command?
-
- The latter shows 515 kph at SL.
-
- Spitfire Mk. Vc AA.873 test shows 476 kph at SL. The
- plane in March 1942 was still limited +9lbs
- according to the test.
-
- Spitfire Mk. VB W.3134 test shows 468 kph at SL.
- Date is 18 June 1941 . Plane is limited to +9lbs.
-
- Spitfire Mk. VB (Tropical) AB.320 test shows 450 kph
- at SL w/o fuel tank. In other words, it`s even
- slower than the 109E... Plane is limited to +9lbs
- according to tests. Date 15 April 1942.
-
- Spitfire Mk. VC AA.878, 25 November 1942 . First
- test to determine effects new rating of +16lbs. New
- rating is limited to 3 minute, and results 510 kph
- at SL.
-
- <a
- href="http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spi
- tv.html"
- target=_blank>http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/ea
- gles/spitv.html</a>
-
-
-
- This is TWO years after the introduction of the
- 109F, and s still slower at SL, not to mention the
- higher altitude regimes.
- By that time, 109Fs are largely replaced by 109Gs in
- the LW.
-
- So much about the SpitV being as fast as the 109F.
-
-
-- Again, what engine ratings are those
-- performance figures based on? You have the full
-- report, lets see that part. Even the date would be
-- nice.
-
-
- You will not receive any more information than
- neccesary, until to post sources for your claims
- which in my opinion are only blanket statements,
- aimed to erect new myths via endless parrotting of
- the same misinformation.
-
-
--- 12 lbs was not authorized at that time. Again you
--- are dreaming.
-
-- 12lbs was authorised from the start for the Spit V.
-- It was already used in the Spit I, but it's hard to
-- find tests for that as well.
-
-
- Yes it`s a bit hard to find +12lbs tests for the
- Spit V, not to mention Spit I, as they were not
- cleared for either rating in 1941, and for most of
- 1942. Even spring 1942 tests show +9lbs limit for
- the Spit V, at which it is some 40 kph slower than
- the 109F1, and even more than the F-4.
-
- The reason is simply, they didn`t test planes at
- boost rates they were not cleared for.
-
-
-
--- LOL, Hop. The Mauser cannon was FAR more powerful
--- than the inefficient and unrelialbe Hispano, thanks
--- to it`s much higher ROF, more powerful and RELIABLE
--- shells.
--
-- Really?
--
-- RAF trials found they detonated on the surface far
-- too often, causing little internal damage.
-
-
- Which RAF trials, Hop? The ones which exists only in
- Hop`s head ? Give us a qoute then. OH, wait. You mix
- up it up with the results of Hispano trials. In
- these trials, it was found that Hispano HE rounds
- constantly exploded on the surface, and in many
- cases, often at the barrel end, damaging the gun
- itself.
-
- Mauser firing trials.
-
- "FIRING TRIALS WITH NEW TYPE OF GERMAN 20MM HE AND
- HE-INCENDINARY-TRACER AMMUNITION TAKEN FROM ME
- 109F-2 AIRCRAFT
-
- Conclusions:
-
- 2, There`s a fairly high incendinary risk with HEI
- ammunition, three fires occuring from eight rounds
- fired at petrol filled self sealing tanks in the
- Blenheim wing.
-
- 4, Face hardened armor attacked directly must be
- 12mm thikc for complete immunity, whereas 6.6mm of
- homog. hard armor appears to be sufficient.
-
- NOTE: Spitfires/Tempest had 6mm thick face hardened
- armor pilot seat.
-
---------------------------------------------------------
-
-
- Similiar results under similiar conditions of test
- for Hispano 20mm API and HEIT shells:
-
- Unarmored targets:
-
- "Since [Hispano] API failed to function, the trials
- were repeated with various thickness of armor to
- determine the min. thickness neccesary to function
- [Hispano] API."
-
- Armored targets:
-
- "The performance of HEIT against armor within the
- stucture is poor, owing to detonation at the
- fusalge. In direct attack can penetrate 9mm of HH
- armor, compared to 8mm with HEI."
-
- Unarmored targets:
-
- "Against unarmored tanks, [Hispano] API is
- ineffective in causing fires. A 6 swg mild steel at
- rear spar is neccesary to funbction the fuse....
- From this results it is estimated that fire
- freqeuncy of API against a real Heinkel wing is
- 6%."
-
- NOTE: Not surprisingly, Hispano API shells were
- rather insensitive, and required a thick armor plate
- to make them function. But no WW2 bomber or fighter
- had that thickness installed, save perhaps the IL-2.
-
-
- "Fire frequency of HEIT under these conditions is
- 31%... It should be noted that 6 out of 14 fires
- obtained outside the tank were accompanied a flash;
- this may due to incomplete detonation."
-
- Armored targets:
-
- "Trials with [Hispano] API against armored Heinkel
- wing. Results: 68 rounds fired, 17 fires."
-
- Blast and fragmantation:
-
- "Against two 14 swg sheets. In this case HEI rounds
- detonated just behind the first sheet [/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif n skin surface].
-
- "These effects are neglible for API."
-
- General:
-
- "The screw-in head API is successfull, in contrast
- of the two piece design API. Many of the latter
- rounds broke up at the Heinkel fusalge."
-
- "About 50% of the API rounds functioned on 6swg mild
- steel; less than that only functions the API only
- occasionally".
-
- "Out of 250 rounds of HEIT fired, 7 rounds detonated
- at the gun with damage with damage to the recoild
- reducer but none to the barrel."
-
- NOTE: Very nice. A Spitfire carried 2x120=240 rounds
- for two cannons. Thus a Spitfire pilot could expect
- that 7 of his OWN shells will damage his OWN plane
- every time he expand the ammunition...
-
-
- Very good shells, indeed. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
-
-
-- Apparently the Germans agreed, because they never
-- used the mine shell exclusively, and later went on
-- to develop a hydrostatic fuse, so that the shell
-- would explode only when they entered a fuel tank.
-
- Show me anything that agrees with you.
-
-
- Apperatly, the British were very envious for those
- Mine shells, as they pressed direct copies of them
- into service, ironically for a gun copied from WW2
- German design. which replaced Hispanos. (The 30mm
- Aden gun).
-
-
-- The Hispano fired a substantially heavier round at
-- substantially higher muzzle velocities.
-
-
- The Hispano fired inferior shells from an inferior
- cannon with inferior rate of fire in an inferior way
- of mounting on inferior gun platform.
-
-
-
--
-- As to unreliable shells, that applied only to the
-- original French designs.
--
-
- The RAF had to still rely on decade-old French
- cannon shells even in 1941-42, when those Hispano
- test were bade ? I didn`t know Britain was so poor.
-
-
-- RAF trials of the new type
-- shells found they reliably penetrated structe before
-- exploding, and had a devastating effect when they
-- did.
-
- Blah, blah. Not according to a British test made
- with British shells.
-
- "Armored targets:
-
- "The performance of HEIT against armor within the
- stucture is poor, owing to detonation at the
- fusalge. In direct attack can penetrate 9mm of HH
- armor, compared to 8mm with HEI."
-
-
- Feel free to post your own firing tests, which
- mention "devastating" effect. I wonder how could a
- shell have "devastating" effect with a mere 7-8 gram
- of explosive charge.
-
-
-- Unlike mine shells, they put out a lot of
-- shrapnel. Blast doesn't do as much damage as shrapnel.
-
- Shrapnel is usuful to injure the pilot, damage the
- instruments, put nice little holes in the plane skin
- etc.
-
- Blast effect just rips the plane apart.
-
- Effect of a 30mm Mine shell (330 gram weight
- compared to 130gram of the Hispano, and about twice
- the shrapnel weight).
-
- One just wonder what did this: blast, shrapnel, or
- kinetic energy (which was zero during the tests, as
- it was not fired from gun, just placed near the
- fusalge):
-
<img
- src="http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/1Schussw
- ithMK108onSpit.jpg">
-
-
-
- Apperantly, it`s blast that makes the biggest
- destruction.
-
-
-
--
--- I wonder with TWICE the explosive load in the
--- Mauser`s shell, what would their relative
--- destructive capabilities look like?
-
-
-- Blast doesn't do as much damage as shrapnel.
-- Particularly not in the small quantities in a 20mm
-- shell.
-
- Wrong. All the kinetic energy the shrapnel may
- posses and thus use for comes form the explosive
- load of the shell.
-
- Thus small explosive load = little shrapnel energy,
- high explosvive load = high shrapnel energy.
-
- The Hispano HEI shell had only 1/3 the explosive
- energy of a Mine shell, thus it`s shrapnels could
- only have 1/3 the energy of a mine shell`s
- fragments. Simply physical reality.
-
-
-
-
-
--
-- Twice the firepower is still twice the firepower.
-
- Twice as many parroting is still just twice as many
- parrotting.
-
-
-- The Luftwaffe found that on average, pilots could
-- hit even a 4 engined bomber with only 2% of shots
-- fired. When air to air gunnery was that innacurate,
-- placement of the guns had little effect.
-
- Hmmm, a qoute from the Wright Field report you loved
- so much:
-
- "ARMAMENT
-
- The 109F has a light yet effective armament
- complement of guns composed by 2 MGs mounted in the
- nose and one cannon firing through the hollow
- propeller shaft... German prisoners claim that
- centralisation of the guns permits better aim in
- turns and at long ranges."
-
-
- Apparanlty, if you have your cannons separated 4
- meters apart, they will converge and let use you
- full firepower at a single range. At all other
- ranges, you only have a much smaller percantage of
- the firepower. Wing mounted cannons also cause a lot
- of shaking in aim:
-
- This was especially a problem with light
- construction plane like the Spitfire:
-
- "Placed into service in July 1940, the Spitfire IBs
- soon acquired an unenviable reputation for high
- rates of cannon stoppages. The heavy recoil of the
- opposite cannon made the aircraft virtually
- uncontrollable and useless as a gun platform, and
- the squadron chosen for the trials insisted on beig
- re-equipped with IAs."
-
-- Bill Sweetman, "Spitfire" in "The Great book of WW2 Airplanes", page 285.
-
-
- "Virtually uncontrollable and useless as a gun
- platform", the Spitfire was with cannons it seems.
-
-
-
-
-
--- And of course, a single Mauser cannon only weight
--- 2/3 of that of a bulky Hispano.
--
-- Exactly. The Germans need a small gun to fit in the
-- 109. One of the limitations of the design.
-
- Strange... 109 being limited to "small guns"? That`s
- interesting. In which pub did you acquired this
- piece of information? For as I can remember, the 109
- was perfectly capable of mounting the MK 103m
- (140kg, 2 meter lenght, installed in the engine
- mount), which was so powerful that it could easily
- penetrate a heavy tank with AP shots... yeah, they
- were really restricted. Or the ability to carry 3
- MK108s inside the structure ?
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-- The Nazis knew they were going to war early, so
-- started rearmament earlier. Britain hoped to avoid
-- war, so rearmament lagged.
--
-
- True, the British were just as slow in that as in
- introducing new models of existing planes in
- numbers. In 1940, they had the Spitfire, but not in
- numbers. 109Es on the other hand composed 99% of the
- LF fighter force.
- In 1941, they had the Spit V., but again not in
- numbers. The bulk was still made up by Hurricanes.
- The LW already had the 109F in widespread service,
- and the 190 was there in the end of the year. In mid
- 1942, they introduced the Spit IX, but there was
- only a handful of them even by the end of 1942 - the
- LW already switched to 109Gs and 190s in large
- numbers. In 1944, they introduced the great
- performer Spitfire XIV - but what use was it, if
- there was less than a hundred available of them,
- even after a year of it`s introduction, when the
- rest of the Spitfire squadrons had to do with the
- Mk.IX, with a rather poor altitude performance by
- 1944? Again the LW had 4-5 times as many 109Gs and
- Ks with high altitude AS or D engines, 190Ds. They
- even had more Me 262s in service than all MkXIVs the
- British had.
-
-
-
-
-
--
--- But by that time, that armament
--- configuration was already deemed as obsolate on the
--- 109, and they moved a single modern, high ROF cannon
--- firing in the centerline with improved shells.
--
-- Which shows how they had misread the situation. The
-- RAF had also decided cannon armament was needed, but
-- they knew it would require several cannon, that's
-- why the Spit was fitted with 2, and capable of
-- taking 4.
-
- That`s why 109 aces scored some 40 000 airial
- victories, and Spitfire pilots... well, maybe 2000 ?
-
-
-
-
-- In contrast, the 109 was redeigned for 1 cannon, and
-- they then had to hang more under the wings because
-- it was inadequate.
-
-
- Apperantly, the vast numbers, literally tenthousends
- of airplanes lost to the 109 proves otherwise. The
- fact that the "flying tank" Il-2 Sturmovik was one
- of the most common victim of a 109 is also very
- telling.
-
-
- The Wright report mentions that even the lightest
- armed 109, the 109F`s armanet is "effective". This
- effectiveness of course was increased, replacing the
- 7.92mm guns with 13mm ones (the British never did
- that on a similiar scale, and only much later), and
- replaced the 20mm cannon with the ultimtely
- destructive 3cm MK108.
-
- In addition, when extra firepower was required, 20mm
- gunpods were also available (taking additional guns
- was not a possiblity for Spitfires, you had to do
- what they gave for you, that is, two old cannons
- with low ROF, little magazine capacity and poor
- shells), and 30mm gunpods were seen as a possibility
- to equip them.
-
- A 109 armed with three 30mm cannons and two heavy
- machinguns proved to possess far more firepower than
- any Spitfire variant.
-
-
--
--- This is what the single cannon`s single hit from the
--- 109 does to a Spit:
-- Isegrim, you know, and I know, that picture shows a
-- post war test with the 30mm.
-
- So? Wasn`t ALL wartime 109Ks and a great proportion
- of the wartime G-6s, G-14s, G-10 equipped with 30mm
- cannon of this type?
-
- Is a demonstration of the effectiveness of the
- STANDARD 109 amrament considered "unfair" by you?
-
- Show us the effects of a Hispano. Why are you so shy
- in that ?
-
-
-- How do you expect
-- people to take you seriously when you present a
-- picture of the effects of a 30mm as a 20mm?
-
- How do you expect people to hold you anything else
- than a dishonest manipulator who puts words into
- other`s mouth which they didn`t say ?
-
-
--
--- Gunpods were possible to use on about 20% of the
--- 109s...
-
-- Really? I though it was far higher than that. Still,
-- that means they didn't even have the choice of a
-- decent armament.
-
- Probably you are right. But they were helped a lot
- by the fragile contstruction of British fighters.
- Otherwise, how could it be possible that so quite a
- few Luftwaffe pilots shot down over a hundred
- British aircraft with such "non-decent" armament ?
-
- Those Spitfires must have been REALLY fragile, no
- doubt.
-
-
-
-
--- Hispanos were not powerful cannon. They had slow
--- ROF, and weak shells.
--
-- They had the same rate of fire as the inboard
-- cannons on the 190.
-
- Hmm, I wonder, how is that true? Since when 600 rpm
- of the Hispano equals 700-740 rounds of the Mauser ?
- You weren`t good at maths, now were you?
-
-
-- Compared to a single MG151, the
-- 2 Hispanos would put out far more shells, far
-- heavier shells, at a far higher muzzle velocity.
-
- Blah, blah blah. Far more shells that explode in the
- cannon and damage the plane, far heavier shells that
- have 1/3 of the explosive charge, and at "far"
- higher muzzle velocity which coupled with
- wing-mounted guns made the plane virtually useless
- as gun platform.
-
- Maybe that`s why the MG151 is still produced,
- whereas the Hispano is not.
-
-
--
-- Hispano shells had less explosive than mine shells,
-- but far more than normal German HE shells,
--
-
- We will now attempt to improve your ability to back
- up your blanket statements.
-
- What was the amount and type of explosives in the
- various German 20mm shell types (such as HE, HEI,
- HEI-T etc.) ?
-
-
-- and far
-- more than German AP.
-
- LOL! Desperation peaks out again, Hop now compares
- British HE shells with German AP! LOL! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
- Or a similiar one: even German 7.92 HE had far more
- explosive in it than a British 20mm AP... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
-
-- And only 2 shells in 5 were
-- mine shells, sometimes not even that many.
-
- OK, just go ahead and prove that. I don`t expect an
- answer, because every time you were called up to
- prove your statements you evaded so far.
-
- Interestingly enough, the 109G-14 that landed in the
- UK in July 1944, had it`s 20mm cannon loaded with 1
- AP, 1 HE and 2 Mineshells. 50% of the ammo was mine
- shells.
-
- "Armament
-
- 1 x MG151 20 mm. calibre, firing through
- propeller hub.
-
- 2 x MG131 over the engine.
-
-
- Loading order 20 mm. gun
-
-
- 1 AP/I, 1 HE/I/T (S.D.)(M. Geschoss) repeating.
-
- This order changed later in the belt to- 1 AP/I, 1
- I/T, 2 HE/I/T (S.D.)(M. Geschoss) repeating."
-
-
-
- In addtion, standard load for 30mm armed 109s was
- 50% mineshells in every case, the other half being
- Incendinary.
-
-
-
--
--- How many Spits had 4 cannnons during the war...?
--
-- I don't recall mentioning 4 cannon Spits,
-
- You indeed have a short memory, not being able to
- remember what you have said in the very same post of
- yours.
-
-- but
-- probably around 1000 or so. The vast majority had
-- the option though, unlike the only 20% of 109s,
-- according to you.
-
- "probably around 1000". "Vast majority". Care to
- give us exact numbers?
-
- Only "C" wings of the MkV had option to
- alternatively mount a 20mm cannnon instead of
- 4x7.7mm. That doesn`t reads as "vast majority" to
- me.
-
--
--- And of course all the 109G-2s the Soviets captured
--- had no engine restrictions in them. Strange, isn`t
--- it?
--
-- Perhaps they were like the 190A3 the British
-- captured, that was tested at higher power despite
-- the restrictions.
-
- No, they weren`t tested at higher powers, only the
- British believed that. If it were tested at higher
- powers, they would have reached 415 mph instead of
- 370 mph or so, which clearly indicates the lower
- powers used.
-
-
--
-- Butch has already confirmed what I said above.
--
-
- True that you are very adapt in misqouting others or
- putting words into theiur mouths, no doubt.
-
-
--- All DB605A`s were cleared to 1.42 ata in 1943. All
--- 109G-2s captured by the Soviets were cleared for
--- 1.42ata.
--
-- Oh, 1943. You forgot to mention that part before,
-- didn't you?
--
-
- So, why isn`t it fair to compare the high altitude
- performance of a boost setting that was cleared in
- 1943 (and BTW, in no way effected high alt
- performance...) with a British fighter that first
- saw service no sooner than in the late spring of
- 1943?
-
-
- Do you still deny, despite the loads of evidence,
- that the 109F was a lot more faster than the MkV at
- altitude, and that the 109G was more faster than the
- MkIX at altitude ?
-
--
--- But in reality, there was only 5 Spit XIV Squadrons
--- in combat on the continent. Each Squadron means a
--- maximum 20 aircraft, of which only 12 were used, the
--- rest were reserves. And of course no unit had 100%
--- strenght and servicilibility at one time. In
--- November, you can see that many Typhoon squadrons
--- had no more than 2-3 planes on hand and operational.
--- See the book "Operation Bodenplatte".
---
--- So that leaves us 100 (5x20)Spitfires in service in
--- the dreamworld case, and more like 60-70 in real
--- life.
---
--- From German documetns we know the exact strenght of
--- 109s. There were 320 or so K-4s in service. Not to
--- mention G-10s, G-6/AS etc.
--
-- Isegrim, your double standards are showing again.
-
-
-
-- When looking at the number of Spit XIVs in service,
-- you take the number of squadrons in Europe (not even
-- the number of squadrons elsewhere, like Britain,
-- Italy, Balkans, far east etc)
-
- Which is quite logical, as there was no MkXIV
- squadrons outside Europe, say there were no Italy,
- Balkans, far east squadron. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Should count ghost
- planes, too?
-
- That leaves us with the 5 MkXIV fighter squadrons of
- the 2nd TAF.
-
-- and multiply by 12, to
-- give 60 planes.
-
- I can multiply it with 1 or 2 as well, as this was
- the number of aircraft actually available for many
- 2nd TAF squadrons instead of the nominal 20.
-
- But alternatively, why not play your game ? We
- multiply the theoretical maximum number of MkXIVs in
- their units and do the same with K-4s instead of
- using the actual strenght. Agreed ?
-
-
-- You ignore the number of aircraft
-- delivered to the RAF during the war, 500+
-
- OK, prove your statement. Prove that 500+ aircraft
- were delivered to the RAF.
-
- If it`s true, that means 80-90% of them were soon
- lost just as they arrived.
-
-
-
--
-- When looking at the number of G10s and K4s in
-- service, you look at the number delivered to the
-- Luftwaffe, and not the number of front line units
-- actually using serviceable aircraft.
-
- No, my (actually Rich`s numbers) are for strictly
- for Frontline units.
-
- Rich gave his figures where the first number showed
- planes with combat units, and the second with the
- "Erganzungs" units. Erganzungs means 2nd line units
- which were used to train pilots and send reserves to
- active frontline units.
-
- For the 109K-4 on 31st January, 1945, Rich gave the
- number of 314 K-4s being with the "combat" units,
- and 0 with the "Erganzungs" units. (as 314/0)
-
-
--
-- I remeber when you were using RichTO from the onwar
-- board as a source, even though his reply to you
-- was:
--
-- "No and no Barbie, there is a difference between on
-- hand and in service"
-
-
- Your manipulations know no borders, right? Should I
- brush your memory a bit? The whole thing started
- when a certain hysterical character known for his
- deep anti-German feelings (I will refer to him as
- M.M. Any similiariaty of the signo with member of
- ubi.com forums is merely a matter of coincidence)
- started ranting that there was only a 100 Bf 109s
- left by 1945 in service.
-
- RichTO corrected him by posting the exact makup of
- 109s, showing 1435 of them being with "combat"
- units, and 527 with "Erganzungs" units. Not
- surprisingly it was the older 109 models like G-6
- that made up the bulk of the "Erganzung
- (=Replacment/Reserve)" units.
-
- Then the same hysterical character started to
- complain that the "On Hand" numbers are always
- higher than "Operational" (=Mission ready), and it`s
- highly possible that out of the 1435+527 planes,
- less than a 100 was operational.
-
- Rich said that his numbers are "On Hand", ie. the
- number of aircraft physically being with the 1st
- line combat units, and not the number of operational
- (=mission ready) planes).
-
-
- Similiarry, out of the 0 to 100 Spitfire XIV which
- were "on Hand", only a portition was
- combat-ready/operational, the rest being repaired,
- transported etc.
-
-
-
--- Single hit from the 109`s nose cannon on a British
--- bomber:
--
-- Again showing a 30mm hit and pretending it's a 20mm?
-
- Nobody said it`s a 20mm hit. I only said it`s the
- effect of a single from the standard armament from a
- 109s basic weapon.
-
- I will post it again, it`s so cool to see what a
- single shot from a "poorly armed" 109 can do to a
- Spitfire:
-
-
<img
- src="http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/1Schussw
- ithMK108onSpit.jpg">
-
-
-
- I hope you are not too envious because of the fact
- the Spitfire`s design proved to be incapable of
- mounting anything of similiar caliber.
-
-
-
--
--- Show me a similiar for the Spit.
--
-- Show me a 20mm hit, not a 30mm you are dishonestly
-- pretending is 20mm.
-
-
- Show me a Hispano hit, don`t be shy, I promise I
- won`t mock you when we see that tiny scratch it
- makes.
-
-
-
-
----- The fuel type does not effect high altitude
----- performance at all. In any case, w/o C-3, the speed
----- under 6500-7000m is some 10 km/h less.
----
---- You are saying the 109K4 required 200hp for an extra
---- 10km/h????
---
--- No, it required 140 HPto gain 13 km/h at SL/
--
-- Isegrim, you first claimed that the difference
-- between C3 and B4, both with MW50, was 10km/h. Now
-- you say 13km/h. Which is it?
-
-
-
-- Even by your revised figures, a 140hp gain for an
-- 8mph speed gain doesn't look good. The Spit gained
-- 28mph for 450hp,
-
- More like for +500HP.
-
-- so probably around 12 mph for the
-- first 140hp of that. And the Spit was bigger and
-- heavier.
-
- Sure that you are no engineer. Power requirements
- increased on the cube for similiar speed increase.
- For 140 HP, an increase from 1840 to 1980 HP the
- Spit may get 8mph, no more.
-
- Spitfire Mk21 could do 368mph on +21lbs = +10 mph
- for +200 HP. A few mph slower than K-4 even on B-4,
- it seems.
-
- As for "bigger and heavier", you could just say:
- less efficient.
-
-
--
-- Sorry, it's there in black and white, 389mph at sea
-- level. Just wishing it wasn't won't help.
--
-
- Speaking of lies, how do they call someone in
- Brtiain who knows the truths but tells otherwise ?
- Like this guy:
-
---------------------------------------------------------
-
- <a href=" <a
- href="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-
- topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvhyp&tpage=
- 2&direction=0"
- target=_blank>http://forums.ubi.com/messages/messa
- ge_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvhy
- p&tpage=2&direction=0</a>"
- target=_blank>http://forums.ubi.com/messages/messa
- ge_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvhy
- p&tpage=2&direction=0</a>
-
-
- "Author: hop2002
- Rank: Lonely Postman
- Date: 07/16/03 04:02PM
-
- "Firstly, I've never claimed that test shows normal
- Spit figures."
-
- "Secondly, it doesn't show a stripped Spitfire. "
-
- "It probably shows a Spit with the wingtips removed,
- but that was done on 5000+ Spits in total, so was a
- pretty common configuration."
-
- "It shows a Spit with the mirror removed, but that
- wasn't exactly uncommon either."
-
- "Show me one instance hwere I have claimed that was
- representative of Spits in squadron service."
-
- "Oh, I forgot, I posted the picture to the OnWar
- forums, which are dead, so you can't prove it. How I
- managed to post the picture to a text only forum I
- still haven't been able to work out, let alone how I
- posted it before I'd even seen it, because I left
- OnWar before that was posted on the web."
-
-
-
-
- http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.
- asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvhyp&tpage=2&dire
- ction=0
-
- Author: hop2002
- Rank: Lonely Postman
- Date: 07/15/03 09:06PM
-
--- Those "true figures" refer to a single prototype in
--- a crash programme agaisnt V-1 raids; it never saw
--- service.
-
- " It did, as you can see the ministry of supply are
- quoting it as the speed of a Spitfire XIV. "
-
- "No, sorry, 389mph at sea level was the speed of the
- Spitfire XIV, in standard operational conditions."
-
- "Speed of Spitfire F XIV 389 mph at sea level. It's
- there in black and white."
-
- "It's based on a Spitfire XIV cleaned up to normal
- standards."
-
-------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
- It`s there, black and white, that SOMEBODY is
- making.. hmm... some very untrue statements here.
- What`s the name of such a man in Britain ?
-
-
--
-- You've always had trouble with the concept of 150
-- octane, ever since Neil Sterling got the production
-- figures, but wishing it away won't help.
--
-
- Of course 150 octane was used, but in a rather
- limited scale, and not by the scale Neil would like
- to see, ie. ever single bus, motorbike, trainer,
- transport plane or fighter.
-
- His figures show that 150 grade fuel was used on a
- rather limited scale even with it`s only user in
- 1944, the ADFU/FC, at a rate of 2000-12 000 ton per
- month.
-
- You said the LW fuel situation was so bad, that they
- were grounded for it. Why not compar that 2000 tons
- with the smallest amount of LW consumption of
- aviation fuel in a month, ie. 50 000 tons in
- December 1944 ? If 50 000 tons is enough to being
- grounded, how much 2000 tons worth ?
-
- Sightseeing flights ?
-
-
-
--- The chart shows III/JG77`s K-4s only. Hop makes his
--- claim on sole use B-4 fuel use on this chart only.
---
--- In reality, K-4s were in service with II/JG2, I/JG4,
--- III/JG4, IV/JG4, II./JG11, III/JG26, I/JG27,
--- II/JG27, III/JG27, Stab/JG53, II/JG53, I/JG77,
--- III/JG77 .
--
-- And as Butch says, that was the standard across all
-- of them.
-
- Alas Butch hasn`t prove that, and I only accept
- something as fact when I see it`s proven. The rest -
- assumptions, hypothesis, theory etc.
-
-
-
-
--
-- It's easy to see why, if the Luftwaffe had both C3
-- and B4 fuel, they could fly only 109s, or the same
-- number of 109s at lower power AND 190s. Easy to see
-- which they'd choose.
--
-
- Assuming that C-3 was on short supply, which is not
- true. If there`s enough C-3 to run some 109s and the
- 190As on it, whereas the rest of the 109s and 190Ds
- could run on B-4 without performance loss, which is
- to be used ?
-
-
--
-- Do you have any documents which show C3 use by
-- 109G10 and K$ squadrons?
--
-
- Do you have any documents showing the ACTUAL use of
- 150 grade by MkXIV squadrons, ie. a doc showing the
- actual type of fuel used a particula month.
-
- We only have the opposite. Neil Stirling showed that
- none of the Spit XIVs were running on 150grade in
- late 1944. So by your logic, that mean they never
- used it.
-
-
-
- I even have documents which show C-3 use by ordinary
- G-14 squadrons, which absolutely didn`t require that
- fuel (according to Butch):
-
- "
- Captured Aircraft Report
- August 1944
-
- Me109G-14 W.Nr. 413601
-
-
- Engine
-
- DB605 A-1 Tp.
-
- No. 01104968.
-
- Maker: hsr. (ed.note: code for Henschel- Kassel)
-
- Painted on the crankcase cover is: 605 A/m.
-
-
- This engine has the normal small supercharger and
- both engine bearers are of light alloy. C-3 (100
- octane) fuel is used but additional power for short
- periods is obtained from an apparatus known as the
- "MW 50", in conjunction with a boost pressure of 1.7
- ata (equals British boost of +9.5). "
-
-
- Also there are pilot`s memoirs which state that even
- some German bomber units ran on C-3 as well. Butch
- knows those well.
-
-
-
-
-
--- It`s not hard to see he wants to use a single
--- example and only a part of the picture.
--
-- Isegrim, do you have other parts of the picture?
-- Because right now it's your word against Butch's,
-- but Butch has backed his up with documents, and
-- common sense supports Butch as well.
--
--- It`s important to him, because on B-4 the K-4 was as
--- fast as the Spit XIV on 150 grade fuel,
-
-
-
-- No, the Spit did 389 at sea level, the K4 only 378.
-- But of course, that's a K4 running on C3, and as
-- Butch has shown, they had to make do with B4.
--
-- So the real figures would be Spit 389, 109K4 370.
-
-
- Again, what`s the word for the guy who writes like
- this above ? My vocabulary might be limited, but a
- 4-letter word or alternatively, a "split
- personality" comes to my mind.
-
-
---- Isegrim, it says they will be able to in future.
---
--- A very strange interpretation of a document that
--- says it isn`t cleared to +25 lbs because of bearing
--- troubles.
--
-- "they will be able to in future" is a strange
-- interpretation of a document that says:
--
-- "They will be capable of operation at 25lbs boost in
-- the future"?
-
- Do you have ANY kind of evidence that Griffon 65 was
- EVER cleared to +25lbs ?
-
- Evidence, not assumptions.
-
- No, so the only evidence available says it was not
- used.
-
-
-
--
--- Interestingly enough, in RAF test in Oct 1945,
--- Griffons are STILL limited to +21lbs:
--
-- Different engine. That's a Griffon 61, not a 65 used
-- in the Spit XIV.
-
- According to the RAF, Grif 61 and 65 fells into the
- same category, not being cleared for +21 lbs for the
- same reason. They had the same construction, only
- differing in gear ratio.
-
<img
- src="http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Griffon%
- 20limits%20of%2021lbs.jpg">
-
-
-
-
-- Given that engines would need
-- modifications to run 25lbs boost, which do you think
-- would get priority, Spit XIV squadrons in service or
-- the first production Spit 21 sent for tests?
-
- Do you have ANY kind of evidence that Griffon 65 was
- EVER cleared to +25lbs ?
-
- Evidence, not assumptions.
-
- No, so the only evidence available says it was not
- used.
-
-
-
--- Oh course this was already debunked. They tested a
--- nightfighter G-6 with droptank and gunpods vs. a
--- clean Spit 14. How fair.
--
-- Where have you seen it was fitted with a drop tank
-- duing testing?
-
- It`s there in the report, I have already posted it.
- Oh, memory issues again.
-
-
-- In fact, what sources have you got to show the 109
-- outrolling the Spit? The 109 had a poor roll, as
-- everyone in the world but you acknowledges.
-
- OK, give me a list with 6 billion signitures
- acknowlading that the 109 had a poor rate of roll.
- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
- Seriously, why don`t you back up your another
- blanket statement with something...? Is it so
- difficult? I bet it is.
-
-
-
- Me 109E outrolling Spit I, in English tests:
-
<img
- src="http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bank45.j
- pg">
-
-
- Bf 109E having TWICE the roll rate than the Spitfire
- at most airspeed. Spitfire gets outrolled. I hope
- you don`t complain about that, it`s from your
- favourith 4th FG webiste. You always refer to that
- site, so I belive you think it`s reliable.
-
- Mark Hanna on 109 roll rate:
-
-
- "The roll rate is very good and very positive below
- about 250 mph. This is particularly true of the
- Charles Church's Collection clipped wing aircraft.
- Our round tipped aeroplane is slightly less nice to
- feel. With the speed further back the roll rate
- remains good, particularly with a bit of help from
- the rudder. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to
- heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a
- P-51."
-
-
-
- Jeff Ethell on Spitfire roll rate:
-
-
- "The elevator is very light while the rudder is
- stiff and the ailerons even more so. Every Spitfire
- I've flown takes a bit more muscle to roll than most
- fighters. As speed increases both rudder and
- ailerons get heavier, resulting in a curious
- mismatch at high speed...one has to handle the
- almost oversensitive elevators with a light
- fingertip touch while arm-wrestling the stiff
- ailerons. Pilots had to keep this in mind during
- combat, particularly when going against the FW 190
- which had a sterling rate of roll and exceptionally
- well harmonised controls. "
-
-
-
- Spitfire VA:
-
<img
- src="http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Spitchar
- 4.jpg">
-
<img
- src="http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Spitchar
- 5.jpg">
-
-
-
- Other Spitfire tests show it`s roll rate is no
- better than that of the Hurricane:
-
<img
- src="http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/ROLLRATE
- %20Spit%20Hurri%20P40%20P36.jpg">
-
-
- Spitfire`s roll rate is 63 deg/sec at 300mph.
-
-
- German document on 109F roll rate (Rollwendigkeit Me
- 109F) gives roll rate as approx. 80 deg/sec at
- 450kph/300mph.
-
-
-
- Alex Heshaw, Chief factory pilot at the Castle
- Bromwich Spitifire plant:
-
- "I loved the Spit ever Mark of it. But I must admit,
- though that later Marks were much faster, they were
- also inferior to previous Marks in manouveribility.
- When we checked how a Spit behaves during a roll, we
- counted how many full rolls we could do under a
- given time. With the MkII. or MkV., we could do 2
- 1/2 rolls, but the MkIX. was heavier, and we could
- do only 1 1/2 rolls. The later, more heavier Marks
- were could do even less. Designing an aeroplane is
- about findig balance. It`s hardly possible to
- improve performance without degrading other
- properties of the aircraft."
-
-
-
- Spitfire MkXIV Handling trials:
-
- "...........4.21 Controls and general flying. The
- type of fin and rudder incorporated in this aircraft
- caused a decrease in the change of directional trim
- with speed compared with JF.319. Rudder forces were
- of a similar magnitude. The ailerons, despite an
- absence of reflexing, were noticeably heavier."
-
-
-
-
- It seems we have loads of evidence on that the
- Spit`s roll rate wasn`t any spectatular, and only
- got worsened with newer models.
-
-
--
--- Notice the "excessive" forces for roll at high
--- speed, and the cramped cocpit that only allows for
--- 40lbs force.
--
-- Funny you should say that:
--
-- (1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only
-- apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick as
-- compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had
-- more elbow room.
-
-
- Still he could outmanouver Spits (from the same
- test):
-
<img
- src="http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bank45.j
- pg">
-
-
-
-
-
-- (2) Messerschmitt also penalized the pilot by
-- designing in an unsually small stick top travel of
-- plus or minus 4 inches, giving very poor mechanical
-- advantage between pilot and aileron
--
-- Kit Carson was obviously stronger, because the Spit
-- cockpit was far roomier.
-
-
- Oh, Kit Carson again. The same guy who states that
- the slats were useless (still the USAAF adopted them
- for the P-86..), the 109`s radiator design was never
- changed (WRONG), canopy design was never changed
- (WRONG), tailwheel design was never changed to
- fully retractable (WRONG), landing gear design was
- never changed to covered ones (WRONG), or the same
- guy who had never heard of the complete wing
- (aileron, flaps etc.) redesign with the 109F?
-
- Some source he is. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
-
-
-
--
--- "About mid-June a crash programme was initated to
--- improve the low-level performance of the Spitfire,
--- Tempest V, and Mustang III by using a specially
--- developed 150 octane aromatic fuel to give
--- abnormally high power for strictly short bursts.
--
-- The Eric Brown doesn't know everything, does he? 150
-- octane was developed in 1943, not for the V-1s, was
-- used in aircraft that never shased a V-1, and had
-- the same time limits as 100 octane fuel.
-
-
- Of course, Hop-the-fanatic-Brit is a much better
- source than those who participated in the tests
- themselves.. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
-
---- It's based on a Spitfire XIV cleaned up to normal
---- standards.
---
--- And outright lie.
--
-- Calling someone a liar is cause for a ban. That's
-- the second time you called me a liar in the same
-- post.
-
-
- Than in that case you should ask to ban Hop2002. I
- remember that no more than 2 weeks or so ago,
- Hop2002 said that he HAD NEVER ever claimed that the
- +25lbs stripped Spit or that it was typical for
- squadron service.
-
- Now he says the opposite. How do they call that in
- Britain ? Give me an expression.
-
-
-
-
-
--- Show me 5 pictures of Spit XIVs with removed mirrors
--- and wingclips.
--
-- Look for yourself. The total modifications ammounted
-- to undoing 6 - 8 bolts.
-
- Show me 5 pictures of Spit XIVs with removed mirrors
- and wingclips.
-
- No, it seems you cant.
-
-
-
-
--- But
--- wait a minute, last time you claimed some 5000 out
--- of the 900 produced had it`s wingtips removed, isn`t
--- it?
--
-- No, I said about 5000 out of 22,000 Spitfires.
-
-
- Great. You have admitted that you were trying to
- sell other clipped wing marks as Spit XIV.
-
-
--
--- It`s serial plane, unlike the stripped, half loaded
--- Spit14 prototype running on boost levels in excess
--- the limits of operational use.
--
-- What's the source for your claims it's a serial
-- plane? Can we see the test report? Because I believe
-- it's a pre production calculation only, not an
-- actual test report.
-
-
- You are free to believe anything.
-
-
--
-- Yes, I posted it up there. 389 mph at sea level.
-- It's there in black and white for everyone to see.
--
-
-
- It seems it`s only your repeated dishonesty that now
- become black and white obvious.
-
--
-- Now, can we see the 109K4 document that shows level
-- speeds, please? Not the one you've drawn yourself,
-- but the original document.
--
-
- And any reason why I should do that ? You didn`t
- show any of your sources, why should do it more than
- it`s absolutely neccesary to crush your myths ?
-
-
- Happy typing time.
-
-
-
- <img
- src="http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-deskt
- opweb.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



yeah... whatever...



---------------------------------------



http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.bryant3/ETSigGermany.gif




under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2003, 04:05 PM
The pictures look very impressive. The damage is blast damage. A really close analysis of blast effects reveals things not apparent to common sense alone. That shell was placed inside the fuselage at perhaps the optimum distance for effect which the width of a fuselage would provide as opposed to the thickness of a wing where there should be less effect (just read all of the report below and take as long as you need, it's good technical writing). Please note that where they say amount of charge doesn't make the difference, they specify the amount within the range thought to have been in the bomb and not just however much possible... I write this because someone undoubtedly will latch onto that after not reading the qualification or just forgetting it in the rush to find something to object to. You know how it is here. A 30mm shell will for sure make a bigger hole than a 20mm shell, it should have over 3x the volume if scaling up by cubes is right.

If the poor pilot or crew were within the blast radius... a shrapnel fragment has a chance of missing where concussive waves do not and what will even rattle metal will tear up nerves, blood vessels and other soft tissues. To be even outside the worst but close will still cause trauma and possible unconsciousness. I just would not think that shock waves would have as much effect on wiring and cables since they are hard don't have as much surface area.


This is from the Lockerbie plane crash investigation:

Aircraft Accident Report No 2/90 (EW/C1094)
Report on the accident to Boeing 747-121, N739PA at Lockerbie, Dumfriesshire, Scotland on 21 December 1988

APPENDIX G

MACH STEM SHOCK WAVE EFFECTS

1. Introduction

An explosive detonation within a fuselage, in reasonably close proximity to the skin, will produce a high intensity shock wave which will propagate outwards from the centre of detonation. On reaching the inner surface of the fuselage skin, energy will partially be absorbed in shattering, deforming and accelerating the skin and stringer material in its path. Much of the remaining energy will be transmitted, as a shock wave, through the skin and into the atmosphere but a significant amount of energy will be returned as a reflected shock wave, which will travel back into the fuselage interior where it will interact with the incident shock to produce Mach stem shocks - re-combination shock waves which can have pressures and velocities of propagation greater than the incident shock.

The Mach stem phenomenon is significant for two reasons. Firstly, it gives rise (for relatively small charge sizes) to a geometric limitation on the area of skin material which the incident shockwave can shatter. This geometric limitation occurs irrespective of charge size (within the range of charge sizes considered realistic for the Flight PA103 scenario), and thus provides a means of calculating the standoff distance of the explosive charge from the fuselage skin. Secondly, the Mach stem may have been a significant factor in transmitting explosive energy through the fuselage cavities, producing damage at a number of separate sites remote from the source of the explosion.

2. Mach stem shock wave formation

A Mach stem shock is formed by the interaction between the incident and reflected shock waves, resulting in a coalescing of the two waves to produce a new, single, shock wave. If an explosive charge is detonated in a free field at some standoff distance from a reflective surface, then the incident shock wave expands spherically until the wave front contacts the reflective surface, when that element of the wave surface will be reflected back (Figure G-1). The local angle between the spherical wave front and the reflecting surface is zero at the point where the reflecting surface intersects the normal axis, resulting in wave reflection directly back towards the source and maximum reflected overpressure at the reflective surface. The angle between the wave front and the reflecting surface at other locations increases with distance from the normal axis, producing a corresponding increase in the oblique angle of reflection of the wave element, with a corresponding reduction in the reflected overpressure. (To a first order of approximation,explosive shock waves can be considered to follow similar reflection and refraction paths to light waves, ref: "Geometric Shock Initiation of Pyrotechnics and Explosives", R Weinheimer, McDonnel Douglas Aerospace Co.) Beyond some critical (conical) angle about the normal axis, typically around 40 degrees, the reflected and incident waves coalesce to form Mach stem shockwaves which, effectively, bisect the angle between the incident and reflected waves, and thus travel approximately at right angles to the normal axis, i.e.parallel with the reflective surface (detail"A", figure G-1).

3. Estimation of charge standoff distance from the fuselage skin

Within the constraint of the likely charge size used on Flight PA103, calculations suggested that the initial Mach stem shockwave pressure close to the region of Mach stem formation (i.e.the shock wave face-on pressure, acting at right angles to the skin), was likely to be more than twice that of the incident shockwave, with a velocity of propagation perhaps 25% greater. However,the Mach stem out-of-plane pressure, i.e.the pressure felt by the reflecting surface where the Mach stem touches it, would have been relatively low and insufficient to shatter the skin material. Therefore, provided that the charge had sufficient energy to produce skin shatter within the conical central region where no Mach stems form, the size of the shattered region would be a function mainly of charge standoff distance, and charge weight would have had little influence. Consequently, it was possible to calculate the charge standoff distance required to produce a given size of shattered skin from geometric considerations alone. On this basis, a charge standoff distance of approximately 25 to 27 inches would have resulted in a shattered region of some 18 to 20 inches in diameter, broadly comparable to the size of the shattered region evident on the three-dimensional wreckage reconstruction.

Whilst the analytical method makes no allowance for the effect of the IED casing, or any other baggage or container structure interposed between the charge and the fuselage skin, the presence of such a barrier would have tended to absorb energy rather than re-direct the transmitted shock wave; therefore its presence would have been more critical in terms of charge size than of position. Certainly, the standoff distance predicted by this method was strikingly similar to the figure of 25 inches derived independently from the container and fuselage reconstructions.

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2003, 04:08 PM
NuFoerki wrote:
-
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:


- blah, blah, blah,..........

-
-
- yeah... whatever...
-


Guess what NuF? I agree with you./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Issy still can't make posts without his insults.


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

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2003, 04:27 PM
Issy doesn't like it when his beloved Bf109 get outperformed by other aircraft.

<center> http://www.322squadron.com/images/322.gif </center>

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2003, 05:01 PM
This from AIR 25/617 No 42 Group Operations log book.

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/Grade+150.jpg



Neil.

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2003, 05:48 PM
It makes you wonder how the Brits won with such crap planes huh?../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2003, 07:04 PM
when the mkIXe comes to FB i wanna see Hop and Issy dogfight, Issy in his G2 and hop in the mkIX. that outta keep stupid b!tch matchs like this from happening. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2003, 08:43 PM
Cappadocian_317 wrote:
- Issy doesn't like it when his beloved Bf109 get
- outperformed by other aircraft.
-

Nevermind, I'm sure his girlfriend will kiss it better.

Won't she?

...

Oh no!

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2003, 08:53 PM
Salute Isegrim

You continue to twist the facts.

Anyway, I'll present one graph which I would defy you to provide a counter to:


http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/42.gif



We've all seen this chart many times, from NACA, the predecessor to NASA, the most reputable Aero-Space institution in the US.

The chart quite clearly shows the standard model of the Spitfire had an excellent rollrate.

And that the clipped wing version had a rollrate better than anything but a 190.

Now please provide documents showing the 109 had a better rollrate. (I know you won't because you can't)

The charts you have provided, are tests of early model Spitfires and Hurricanes, with fabric ailerons. That is why they are being tested against P-40's and P-35's.

Let's look and see how the 109 actually flys.

Here's a 109 site which has several tests available:

http://www.bf109.com/flying.html

Two tests, one a transcription of a British AIR FIGHTING DEVELOPEMENT UNIT test of a 109E3, (I have the original documents for that test, if anyone wants them, please PM me and I will mail them) the other a test of a Spanish 109, an advanced model, comparable in flight characteristics to a 109K4.

What does the 109E test say about the 109E's?

>>>>

Ailerons

At low speeds the aileron control is very good, there being a definete resistance to stick movement, while response is brisk. As speed is increased, the ailerons bevome heavier, but response remains excellent. They are at their best between 150 mph and 200 mph, one pilot describing them as an 'ideal control' over this range. Above 200 mph they start becoming unpleasantly heavy, and between 300 mph and 400 mph are termed 'solid' by the test pilots. A pilot exerting all his strength cannot apply more than one-fifth aileron at 400 mph. Measurements of stick-top force when the pilot applied about one-fifth aileron in half a second and then held the ailerons steady, together with the corresponding time to 45 degrees bank, were made at various speeds. The results at 400 mph are given below:

Max sideways force a pilot can apply conveniently to the Bf 109 stick 40 lbs.
Corresponding stick displacement 1/5th.
Time to 45-degree bank 4 seconds.
Deduced balance factor Kb2 - 0.145.

Several points of interest emerge from these tests:

a. Owing to the cramped Bf 109 cockpit, a pilot can only apply about 40 lb sideway force on the stick, as against 60 lb or more possible if he had more room.
b. The designer has also penalized himself by the unusually small stick-top travel of four inches, giving a poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.
c. The time to 45-degree bank of four seconds at 400 mph, which is quite escessive for a fighter, classes the airplane immediately as very unmanoeuvrable in roll at high speeds.

Elevator
This is an exceptionally good control at low air speeds, being fairly heavy and not over-sensitive. Above 250 mph, however, it becomes too heavy, so that maneuvrability is seriously restricted. When diving at 400 mph a pilot, pulling very hard, cannot put on enough 'g' to black himself out; stick force -'g' probably esceeds 20 lb/g in the dive.

Rudder

The rudder is light, but rather sluggish at low speeds. At 200 mph the sluggishness has disappeared. Between 200 mph and 300 mph the rudder is the lightest of the three controls for movement, but at 300 mph and above, absence of a rudder trimmer is severely felt, the force to prevent sideslip at 400 mph being excessive.

Harmony

The controls are well harmonised between 150 mph and 250 mph. At lower speeds harmony is spoiled by the sluggishness of the rudder. At higher speeds elevator and ailerons are so heavy that the word 'harmony' is inappropriate.

<<<<<<<<

Clearly this plane is not very maneuverable at high speeds and has a poor rollrate at all speeds.

4 seconds to a 45 degree bank is very bad.

I have already posted the British test of a 109E versus a Hurricane I, showing the Hurricane easily outturned it.

Here is a document showing a Spitfire I versus a 109E:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit109turn.gif


Here's another one

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit109turn18.gif


I think these documents speak for themselves. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The British Vickers Armstrong Company also did some tests of the 109E after the initial tests by the AFDU. The summary of their test was as follows: (again I can mail the original documents to anyone who PM's me)

>>>>>

"The general conclusion on this aircraft is that although it handles well, and has excellent response to the controls at low speed, all the controls become far too heavy at speeds in excess of 300 mph, the ailerons in particular becoming almost solid at 400 mph. This restricts maneuverability. Turning circle is also poor, being for example 885 ft at 1200 ft as compared to 696 ft on the Spitfire, due to the higher wingloading on the Me109. Wingloading on the 109E is 32 lbs per Sq/ft compared to 25 lbs per Sq/ft for the Spitfire."

<<<<<<<


What about the later model Spanish 109? Here is what the test pilot says:


>>>>>>


The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 250 mph. This is particularly true of the Charles Church's Collection clipped wing aircraft. Our round tipped aeroplane is slightly less nice to feel. With the speed further back the roll rate remains good, particularly with a bit of help from the rudder. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates. Another peculiarity is that when you have been in a hard turn with the slats deployed, and then you roll rapidly one way and stop, there is a strange sensation for a second of so of a kind of dead area over the ailerons - almost as if they are not connected ! Just when you are starting to get worried they work again !

Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. As CL max is reached the leading edge slats deploy - together if the ball is in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manuevering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally. Pitch tends to heavy up above 250 mph but it is still easily manageable up to 300 mph and the aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 300 mph and below. Above 300 mph one peculiarity is a slight nose down trim change as you accelerate. This means that running in for an airshow above 300 mph the aeroplane has a slight tucking in sensation - a sort of desire to get down to ground level ! This is easily held on the stick or can be trimmed out but is slightly surprising initially. Maneuvering above 300, two hands can be required for more aggressive performance. EIther that or get on the trimmer to help you. Despite this heavying up it is still quite easy to get at 5G's at these speeds.

The rudder is effective and if medium feel up to 300. It becomes heavier above this speed but regardless the lack of rudder trim is not a problem for the type of operations we carry out with the aeroplane. Initial acceleration is rapid, particularly with nose down, up to about 320 mph. After that the '109 starts to become a little reluctant and you have to be fairly determined to get over 350-360 mph.

So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109. Other factors affecting the '109 as a combat plane include the small cramped cockpit. This is quite a tiring working environment, although the view out (in flight) is better than you might expect; the profuseion of canopy struts is not particularly a problem.

<<<<<<<<

I'll repeat one line again for you:

"The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter."


Time to give it up Isegrim. Time to admit, that while the 109 did have positive characteristics, ie. good climb and excellent speed; in a maneuvering contest, it would come out second best to a Spitfire.

Which is of course why 109 pilots always practiced boom and zoom tactics versus Spitfires.


Cheers Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2003, 11:26 PM
Isegrim, as always, you've posed a very good argument. Nicely done!


There are about four other people in here beside yourself that have an idea of what they're talking about. The rest base their information off of a computer game they've played or that game's manual they've ready. After all, IL-2:FB is God's truth when it comes to FMs, yes? :-|





_______________________________
Hauptmann Jochen "Heidi" Heiden
Jagderband 44
www.JagdVerband44.com (http://www.JagdVerband44.com)

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2003, 11:31 PM
RAF74Buzzsaw_XO wrote:
- Salute Isegrim
-
- You continue to twist the facts.
-
- Anyway, I'll present one graph which I would defy
- you to provide a counter to:
-
-
<img
- src="http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-r
- eport-868/42.gif">
-
-
-
- We've all seen this chart many times, from NACA, the
- predecessor to NASA, the most reputable Aero-Space
- institution in the US.


Great, now we can agree that the NACA is a reputable organisation which`s studies are to be accepted.

All my reports on Spitfire flight characterics are based on NACA reports.


- The chart quite clearly shows the standard model of
- the Spitfire had an excellent rollrate.
-
- And that the clipped wing version had a rollrate
- better than anything but a 190.
-
- Now please provide documents showing the 109 had a
- better rollrate. (I know you won't because you
- can't)

The report above you had lists for 50 lbs stick force.

NACA`s report on Spitfire VA clearly states that 50lbs stick force is not possible on the Spitfire.



The creators of this general study of aileron control wanted to give an overview under similiar standards for all planes, and not particular data for each aircraft, taking their stickforce limitations into account. The detail NACA report tell that at 30lbs stick force, ailerons could be defleceted up to 110mph only; they extrapolated 30lbs NACA Spitfire roll data to 50lbs, and simply extended the line up to 200mph. The chart is obviously calculated for a theoretical value of 50lbs instead of the normal maximum 40lbs (see below), and thus does not represent the real life qualities of a Spitfire.

This is good for comparision for the aileron desing itself, but not the whole aeroplane itself.


So you will have to settle with 53deg/sec at 300mph for the Spitfire:

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/ROLLRATE%20Spit%20Hurri%20P40%20P36.jpg



The "Rollwedingkeit 109G" documents states approx. 4.5seconds for a 360degree roll at 450kph/300mph for the Bf109F. That translates to 80 degree, or 50% higher roll rate than the Spitifire at the same high airspeeds.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109G_aileron_stability.jpg


Now you can say that you have seen something on 109 roll rate, and not just tell that "according to *everything* you read, the 109`s roll rate was poor", and then go to Allaboutwarfare.com, and open a topic so that they supply you with some data for a start...

http://pub131.ezboard.com/fallboutwarfarefrm31.showMessage?topicID=2871.topi c



- The charts you have provided, are tests of early
- model Spitfires and Hurricanes, with fabric
- ailerons. That is why they are being tested against
- P-40's and P-35's.

No. Both tests (actually the same MkVA from a series of tests) have metal ailrons.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/ROLL%20Spit%20-%20metal%20ail.jpg


The Spitfire and Hurricane was tested in November 1942. All Spitfires had metal ailerons by then.


Fabric covered Spitfires were even worser in roll rate, as the 45-degree bank chart shows.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bank45.gif


-
- Max sideways force a pilot can apply conveniently to
- the Bf 109 stick 40 lbs.

Apperantly, this is the same force limitation as in the Spitfire VA according to the respected NACA report.


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Spitchar4.jpg


Third paragraph: "The pilot was able to exert a maximum of about 40 pounds on the stick."


-
- a. Owing to the cramped Bf 109 cockpit, a pilot can
- only apply about 40 lb sideway force on the stick,
- as against 60 lb or more possible if he had more
- room.

It seems that the Spitfire had similiar sideway force limitations.


- b. The designer has also penalized himself by the
- unusually small stick-top travel of four inches,
- giving a poor mechanical advantage between pilot and
- aileron.

True, but the roll rate was still better than the Spit`s. See 45 degree bank chart.


- c. The time to 45-degree bank of four seconds at 400
- mph, which is quite escessive for a fighter, classes
- the airplane immediately as very unmanoeuvrable in
- roll at high speeds.

You mean the Spitfire I or the 109E ? Both had 4 second time at 400mph for a 45-degree bank.



- Elevator
-
- This is an exceptionally good control at low air
- speeds, being fairly heavy and not over-sensitive.
- Above 250 mph, however, it becomes too heavy, so
- that maneuvrability is seriously restricted. When
- diving at 400 mph a pilot, pulling very hard, cannot
- put on enough 'g' to black himself out; stick force
- -'g' probably esceeds 20 lb/g in the dive.


Why not compare it with a Spitfire VA`s elevator response, it`s extreme opposite:


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Spitchar1.jpg



Pull 3/4 inch and the plane stalls; something that you don`t want in combat. No wonder the NACA required 4 inch of stick top travel (hmm, this coincides with that of the 109`s...). According to the NACA, Spitfire elevator control was unsatisfactory.


This poorly balanced control harmony was recognized also by the pilot Jeff Ethell :

"The elevator is very light while the rudder is stiff and the ailerons even more so. Every Spitfire I've flown takes a bit more muscle to roll than most fighters. As speed increases both rudder and ailerons get heavier, resulting in a curious mismatch at high speed...one has to handle the almost oversensitive elevators with a light fingertip touch while arm-wrestling the stiff ailerons. "


Messerschmitt`s design philosophy was different. The elevator was kept heavy at high speeds, as it presented a natural barrier from stalling the aircraft in combat because of high-Gs, and also prevented the pilots applying too much load on the airframe. At the same time, the aircraft was still recoverable from extreme dive speeds, i.e. from 906 kph vertical dive, the a/c could recover within 1000 meter altitude.

According to the listing in Spitfire: History, many Spits broke up during dives. Perhaps there overappliable elevators were the reason.



- Clearly this plane is not very maneuverable at high
- speeds and has a poor rollrate at all speeds.
-
- 4 seconds to a 45 degree bank is very bad.


The Spitfire I needed exactly 4 seconds to make a 45 degree bank according to British tests.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bank45.gif


This is very bad. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


It seems that according to the same test you reffered to, the Spitfire will be greatly at all practical combat speeds by the 109E, and has similiar troubles at high speed regions.


-
- Time to give it up Isegrim. Time to admit, that
- while the 109 did have positive characteristics, ie.
- good climb and excellent speed; in a maneuvering
- contest, it would come out second best to a
- Spitfire.


What should I give up ? I have never ever questioned that the Spitfire can outturn a contempory 109 model, but nothing more. According to all tests we have here, this applies only to horizontal turning, but in roll rate the 109 has an advantage.

In the vertical, 109s are superior because of their dive and climb characteristics. Of course, they can`t match a Spit in turning.



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
07-20-2003, 02:49 AM
- More twisting. By mid July Spitfires and Hurricanes
- replaced their original FIXED pitch propellors to a
- primitive "variable pitch" which had only two fixed
- positions.... That does not equal CS props.
- Constants speed props didn`t come until the Spit II,
- but that didn`t came until the very end of 1940.

Sorry Isegrim, you're wrong.

"Despite the de Havilland claim that converting the 2 pitch propellers, then installed on most of the RAF fighters, to constant speed units would be difficult because the pitch changing unit would be unsuitable for interceptors,"
Spitfire the History, p 53 revised edition

"The change to de Havilland constant speed propellers had a decided effect on Spitfire performance because the unit's efficency was estimated to be 91%"

Spitfire the History, p 54 revised edition



--- And of course 109Es shoot down a lot more Spits than
--- they lost themselves.
--
-- Not quite true actually. More 109s were lost than
-- Spits. Perhaps you want to try and rephrase it?
-
-
- In Hop`s private dreamworld, probably. However no
- single author agrees with you.
-
- For example, Ted Hooton in "Spitfire special" gives
- the following numbers for BoB (between 1st July -
- 30th September):
-
- Spitfire vs 109s: 219 Spitfires lost for 180 Messers
- in combat
- Hurricane vs 109s: 272 Hurris for 153 Messers in
- combat
-
- Messerschmitt`s enjoyed a kill ratio of 1.21 : 1
- against Spitfires.

Sorry, that's not what you said. That's why I asked if you wanted to rephrase it.

You said:

--- And of course 109Es shoot down a lot more Spits than
--- they lost themselves.

109Es shot down 180 odd Spits, according to your figures. They lost 650 odd 109Es.

And I'd like to see the figures for October, when 109 losses were high, and Spit losses low.

--- German Kennblatt for F-1/2 gives 515kph at SL, and
--- notices that with increased RPM, it`s additional
--- 10-15 kph faster.
--
-- Care to post the whole document?

- Why would I post anything that you are always ready
- to twist and manipulate, especially if you don`t
- post anything to prove your point ?

Because Butch has already confirmed that the engine in the 109F1/2 was derated twice in service, that it was designed to run at 1.42 ata and in service was restricted to 1.27ata.

Your figures obviously come from the preproduction 1.42ata rating, not the real life 1.27ata.

- Would you post your Wright Field report, or anything
- that would prove your ridiculus 470 kph@SL claim ?
- We haven`t seen anything regarding that.

I have no means of posting documents, which is why I don't accompany my posts with lots of pictures. You do.

It's a 619Kb pdf file called 109F_evolution.pdf, and contains a report numbered 110.

Note also the references on the Warbirds flight test department, which seem to agree.

Now, as you obviously have the document I have asked you to post, and the means to do so, why don't you post it?


- Do I need to brush your memory on what you have
- said:
-
- "The Warbirds flight model team give 295mph/ 475km/h
- as the real figure"
-
- It seems Hop`s claim`s are based on a compter
- simulator game.

No, they are based on a USAAF evaluation carried out at Wright Field.

The reference to the Warbirds link was so you could check their sources, which are:

Primary:

Aircraft Evaluation Report, No 110, 7-2-43
German factory technical documentation

Confirming and supporting:

Complete Book of Fighters, Green and Swanborough, 1994

Duels in the Sky, Brown, 1988

Fighter Combat, Shaw, 1985

WW2 Acft, Chant, 1975

Acft of WW2, Gunston, 1980


Their "Aircraft Evaluation Report, No 110" is probably the same thing, bearing in mind the numbers.

Now, we know the 109F1/2 was intended to use 1.42 ata as max power, and that in use it was restricted first to 1.35, then 1.27ata. Read Butch's post again for confirmation.

Given that what you posted seems to be factory documentation, it's not much of a stretch to assume it refers to 1.42ata, which the plane was designed to use, is it?

The fact that it had to be derated in use is naturally going to make it a lot slower, isn't it?


- BTW, Wright Field test doesn`t even mention SL
- speed, and it notes that the performance is
- "Esitmated", at an unknown power.


Oh so you already have the report?

As to the sea level speed, it goes down to 2000ft and 301mph, and is clearly headed for around 297 or so.


- Now I wonder, what is a more reliable source of
- data, an estimated speed with unknown power from a
- foreign evaluation team, or the detailed pilot`s
- manual for the same aircraft from the manufacturer
- and air force command?

I'd say the manufacturers figures. So at 1.42 ata the 109F1 may well have been as fast as you claim, though I suspect it was a cleaned up aircraft, in perfect condition.

However, in service, as Butch has already said, the engine was derated to a max of 1.25 ata, which will make a huge difference.

In fact, at 1.35 ata, the DB601N put out 1175ps at sea level.

At 1.25ata, it put out 1020ps, a difference of 150 hp.

Around 10% less power is certainly going to give you less speed, isn't it?


- Spitfire Mk. Vc AA.873 test shows 476 kph at SL. The
- plane in March 1942 was still limited +9lbs
- according to the test.
-
- Spitfire Mk. VB W.3134 test shows 468 kph at SL.
- Date is 18 June 1941 . Plane is limited to +9lbs.

All the Spit V performance tests were done at 9lbs boost. In fact, try and find a 12lbs boost test for the Spit I or II, yet they were also rated at 12lbs boost.

See for example the test against the 109E3 carried out in June 1940:

"Comparitive speed trials were then carried out, and the Spitfire proved to be considerably the faster of the two, both in acceleration and straight and level flight, without having to make use of the emergency +12 boost. "

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit1.html ( <A HREF=)" target=_blank>http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit1.html</a>


Spitfire Mk. Vc AA.873 test shows 476 kph at SL. The
- plane in March 1942 was still limited +9lbs
- according to the test.
-
- Spitfire Mk. VB W.3134 test shows 468 kph at SL.
- Date is 18 June 1941 . Plane is limited to +9lbs.
-
- Spitfire Mk. VB (Tropical) AB.320 test shows 450 kph
- at SL w/o fuel tank. In other words, it`s even
- slower than the 109E... Plane is limited to +9lbs
- according to tests. Date 15 April 1942.
-
- Spitfire Mk. VC AA.878, 25 November 1942 . First
- test to determine effects new rating of +16lbs. New
- rating is limited to 3 minute, and results 510 kph
- at SL.


In short you can't find a single test at 12lbs?

And that proves what, exactly? That 12lbs wasn't used?

http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/pro_190_survey_b_3.jpg


Spit V max 12lbs boost.

Abscence of proof is not proof of abscence.

- This is TWO years after the introduction of the
- 109F, and s still slower at SL, not to mention the
- higher altitude regimes.

No, it shows the Spit was clearly faster at sea level than the 109F1 and F2, and slower than the F4, which entered service a lot later than the Spit V.

Unless of course you want to compare a fantasy F1/F2 running at 1.4ata, which only ever existed in prototype form, because in service they were derated.


- You will not receive any more information than
- neccesary, until to post sources for your claims
- which in my opinion are only blanket statements,
- aimed to erect new myths via endless parrotting of
- the same misinformation.


Lol.

I've already given you my sources, which it seems you had all along. Now lets see the full report, not the single paragraphs you like to cut out of them, and allow the people on this board to see.

Notice how Isegrim very rarley posts a whole page, it's always a paragraph snipped here and there, with the bits in between left out.

Anyone would think he was trying to hide something http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



- Yes it`s a bit hard to find +12lbs tests for the
- Spit V, not to mention Spit I, as they were not
- cleared for either rating in 1941, and for most of
- 1942.

Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough

June 1940

Spitfire IA K.9791 with Rotol constant speed propeller
Me 109E-3 Werk-Nr 1304

5. Comparitive speed trials were then carried out, and the Spitfire proved to be considerably the faster of the two, both in acceleration and straight and level flight, without having to make use of the emergency +12 boost.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit1.html

Note the 109E3 in this test was performing below par, but the Spit I was cleared for 12lbs boost in June 1940.

- The reason is simply, they didn`t test planes at
- boost rates they were not cleared for.

And yet the Spit I clearly was. Also, by the time of the 190A3 test, the Spit was clearly running on 12lbs boost, it says so in black and white. Now, there is still no test of the Spit V at 12lbs, is there?

- Which RAF trials, Hop? The ones which exists only in
- Hop`s head ? Give us a qoute then. OH, wait. You mix
- up it up with the results of Hispano trials. In
- these trials, it was found that Hispano HE rounds
- constantly exploded on the surface, and in many
- cases, often at the barrel end, damaging the gun
- itself.
-
- Mauser firing trials.
-
- "FIRING TRIALS WITH NEW TYPE OF GERMAN 20MM HE AND
- HE-INCENDINARY-TRACER AMMUNITION TAKEN FROM ME
- 109F-2 AIRCRAFT
-
- Conclusions:
-
- 2, There`s a fairly high incendinary risk with HEI
- ammunition, three fires occuring from eight rounds
- fired at petrol filled self sealing tanks in the
- Blenheim wing.
-
- 4, Face hardened armor attacked directly must be
- 12mm thikc for complete immunity, whereas 6.6mm of
- homog. hard armor appears to be sufficient.

See what I mean? Paragraphs 2 and 4. Naturally paragraph 3 is left out:

"Both types of ammunition detonated consistently on perspex of the thickness used in aircraft, and the resulting fragments made scarcely any impression on 8.5mm face hardened armour. The dept of impression suggests even thinner armour would be equally effective."

As is paragraph 1, which says that the fuses show no signs of delayed action effect.

http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/pro_german_20mm_2.jpg


More information it's not "neccesary" for us to see.

In the Hispano trials, the HE/I/T shells detonated early, the redesigned HE/I shells penetrated well before exploding. You can see the entire tests here:

http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/prodocs.htm

(I'll let you read all the paragraphs yourself, without censoring any)

- Similiar results under similiar conditions of test
- for Hispano 20mm API and HEIT shells:
-
- Unarmored targets:
-
- "Since [Hispano] API failed to function, the trials
- were repeated with various thickness of armor to
- determine the min. thickness neccesary to function
- [Hispano] API."

(Snip the rest)

Note Isegrim is quoting the report on the page I linked to above, but rather than showing you the whole thing, he has typed out a huge ammount of data, again snipping out inconvinient paragraphs. No wonder it took him 3 days to reply.

- Similiar results under similiar conditions of test
- for Hispano 20mm API and HEIT shells:

Isegrim is choosing to give you the results of HE/I/T shells, which weren't used, and not the HE/I shells that were. The AP/I were later replaced by SAP/I and weren't in this test.

Now how did I guess Isegrim would give the HE/I/T results, and not the the HE/I?

- "Fire frequency of HEIT under these conditions is
- 31%... It should be noted that 6 out of 14 fires
- obtained outside the tank were accompanied a flash;
- this may due to incomplete detonation."

Why not post the figure for HE/I? 47% fires

- "Against two 14 swg sheets. In this case HEI rounds
- detonated just behind the first sheet [/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif n skin surface].

No mention of the range: 25yards. Even then, it put 38 fragments through the second 16swg sheet.

At 75 yards, the HE/I went through the first sheet, blew an 8" hole in the second sheet, and put 43 fragments through sheet 3.

At 200 yards, it went through sheet 1, blew a 10" hole in sheet 2, put 24 fragments through sheet 3, and 2 fragments through sheet 4.

- NOTE: Very nice. A Spitfire carried 2x120=240 rounds
- for two cannons. Thus a Spitfire pilot could expect
- that 7 of his OWN shells will damage his OWN plane
- every time he expand the ammunition...

Perhaps if they had used HE/I/T, and not HE/I. Now why would you leave out HE/I from all your descriptions?

Isegrim, how do you expect people to take you seriously when you doctor the evidence so much?


-- Apparently the Germans agreed, because they never
-- used the mine shell exclusively, and later went on
-- to develop a hydrostatic fuse, so that the shell
-- would explode only when they entered a fuel tank.
-
- Show me anything that agrees with you.


Tony Williams: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/

Are you claiming the mine shell was used exclusively, and not in a mix with other shells?


- The RAF had to still rely on decade-old French
- cannon shells even in 1941-42, when those Hispano
- test were bade ? I didn`t know Britain was so poor.

Do you expect people to believe you didn't see the HE/I sheels in that test? Or do you think people are so stupid they wouldn't find read the tests for themselves?


- Feel free to post your own firing tests, which
- mention "devastating" effect. I wonder how could a
- shell have "devastating" effect with a mere 7-8 gram
- of explosive charge.

I'll use the same tests you did Isegrim, but I'll let everyone read them. The whole thing, every type of shell used, not just the worst one. And I'll let them make up their own minds.



- Effect of a 30mm Mine shell (330 gram weight
- compared to 130gram of the Hispano, and about twice
- the shrapnel weight).

Finally you have stopped claiming the pic shows a 20mm mine shell.

- One just wonder what did this: blast, shrapnel, or
- kinetic energy (which was zero during the tests, as
- it was not fired from gun, just placed near the
- fusalge):

No, it was either fired from the gun, or placed inside the fuselage.
Note how the metal is bent outwards on both sides. If it was detonated outside the fuselage, the closest side would be blown inwards, not outwards.

And note that's a 30mm shell, which has many times the explosive content.

- Apperantly, it`s blast that makes the biggest
- destruction.

Certainly in 30mm. However, the 30mm shell had around 4 times the explosives content of the 20mm.


- Wrong. All the kinetic energy the shrapnel may
- posses and thus use for comes form the explosive
- load of the shell.
-
- Thus small explosive load = little shrapnel energy,
- high explosvive load = high shrapnel energy.

No, you can get substantial ammounts of shrapnel with small ammounts of explosives. However, you need enough metal to provide decent shrapnel, and the thin walled mine shells didn't have much metal.

- The Hispano HEI shell had only 1/3 the explosive
- energy of a Mine shell, thus it`s shrapnels could
- only have 1/3 the energy of a mine shell`s
- fragments. Simply physical reality.

I'll let someone else point out the obvious errors in that statement. Note however, that blast does not create shrapnel, you have to surround the explosives with some material that will provide shrapnel.

"Placed into service in July 1940, the Spitfire IBs
- soon acquired an unenviable reputation for high
- rates of cannon stoppages. The heavy recoil of the
- opposite cannon made the aircraft virtually
- uncontrollable and useless as a gun platform, and
- the squadron chosen for the trials insisted on beig
- re-equipped with IAs."
-
-- Bill Sweetman, "Spitfire" in "The Great book of WW2 Airplanes", page 285.


Yes, the Spitfire Ib used an experimental cannon installation, with a cannon that hadn't been fully modified from the original French engine mount design. It also used drums not the latter belt feed, and the guns were canted over, like in the P-51B.

- Strange... 109 being limited to "small guns"? That`s
- interesting. In which pub did you acquired this
- piece of information? For as I can remember, the 109
- was perfectly capable of mounting the MK 103m
- (140kg, 2 meter lenght, installed in the engine
- mount), which was so powerful that it could easily
- penetrate a heavy tank with AP shots... yeah, they
- were really restricted. Or the ability to carry 3
- MK108s inside the structure ?

Which 109 used the Mk103 Isegrim? Would this perhaps be some prototype that never saw service? The same as the 3 internal MK108 109, presumably.

- True, the British were just as slow in that as in
- introducing new models of existing planes in
- numbers. In 1940, they had the Spitfire, but not in
- numbers. 109Es on the other hand composed 99% of the
- LF fighter force.

And still lost in the BoB 1940 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


-- How do you expect
-- people to take you seriously when you present a
-- picture of the effects of a 30mm as a 20mm?
-
- How do you expect people to hold you anything else
- than a dishonest manipulator who puts words into
- other`s mouth which they didn`t say ?

Isegrim, this was the first exchange:

"- With gunpods, that is... "5-point" 109G2, written
- there, isn`t it?

Oh, you want to compare a 109 with a single low powered 20mm, and 2 rifle calibre Mgs, against a Spit with 2 much more powerfull cannon and 4 mgs.

The 109 needed the gunpods to equal the firepower of the Spit. Stripping out more than half the armament hardly makes for a fair comparison, does it? Pity the 109 couldn't carry a decent armament internally at that point in the war, but it couldn't."

To which you posted the picture of a 30mm cannon hit. Now, how many 109G2s had the 30mm cannon? That's just plain dishonesty.

The second exchange:

-- Those are figures for a "five-point" G-2, = G-2 with
-- 5 guns (3 normal, + 2 as gunpods).
-
- You mean a 109 approaching the firepower of a Spit?

Again you posted the effects of a 30mm hit. Again, how many 109G2s had a 30mm cannon?

We were arguing wether a 109G2 with or without gunpods was a fair match. You posted 2 pics of 30mm cannon effects, to try to con people that gunpods weren't needed. Again, do you think everyone else here is stupid?

-- They had the same rate of fire as the inboard
-- cannons on the 190.
-
- Hmm, I wonder, how is that true? Since when 600 rpm
- of the Hispano equals 700-740 rounds of the Mauser ?
- You weren`t good at maths, now were you?

Ever heard of syncronisation? (sp?) Also known as interrupter gear. It prevented the gun firing when the prop blade was in the way, and reduced ROF by about 20%

-- Compared to a single MG151, the
-- 2 Hispanos would put out far more shells, far
-- heavier shells, at a far higher muzzle velocity.
-
- Blah, blah blah. Far more shells that explode in the
- cannon and damage the plane,

Not using the real shells, that you convieniently left out of the report

- far heavier shells that
- have 1/3 of the explosive charge,

That actually have more explosive charge than the non mine shells that made up typically 3 out of 5 shells. Oh, and also have far more kinetic energy, far more shrapnel, and far better penetration.

And BTW, the Hispano HE/I shell had over half the explosive content of the 20mm mine shell, at 10-11 grams for the Hispano, 20g for the mine. The German HE/T had only 3.7g. Source: Tony Williams, author of "Rapid Fire"

http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

- and at "far"
- higher muzzle velocity which coupled with
- wing-mounted guns made the plane virtually useless
- as gun platform.

Hence the total victory of the Luftwaffe against the RAF/USAAF, almost all of their fighters having wing guns.

-- Hispano shells had less explosive than mine shells,
-- but far more than normal German HE shells,
--
-
- We will now attempt to improve your ability to back
- up your blanket statements.
-
- What was the amount and type of explosives in the
- various German 20mm shell types (such as HE, HEI,
- HEI-T etc.) ?

The German HE/T had only 3.7g. Source: Tony Williams, author of "Rapid Fire"

-- And only 2 shells in 5 were
-- mine shells, sometimes not even that many.
-
- OK, just go ahead and prove that. I don`t expect an
- answer, because every time you were called up to
- prove your statements you evaded so far.
-
- Interestingly enough, the 109G-14 that landed in the
- UK in July 1944, had it`s 20mm cannon loaded with 1
- AP, 1 HE and 2 Mineshells. 50% of the ammo was mine
- shells.

40%, 50% little difference. The loadout varied. But it wasn't all mine shells, as you've just admitted.


-- but
-- probably around 1000 or so. The vast majority had
-- the option though, unlike the only 20% of 109s,
-- according to you.
-
- "probably around 1000". "Vast majority". Care to
- give us exact numbers?
-
- Only "C" wings of the MkV had option to
- alternatively mount a 20mm cannnon instead of
- 4x7.7mm. That doesn`t reads as "vast majority" to
- me.

No, the C wing as fitted to several thousand Mk Vs, and several thousand Mk IXs, and several thousand of the other marks, could carry 4 20mms. In fact, few of the Spits built after the Mk V couldn't be equipped with 4 20mms.

The E wing could also carry 4 20mms.

However, the 4 20mm was fitted mainly to Mk Vs, and a few IXs and VIIIs. The exact numbers are impossible to pin down, because the armament could and was changed at depots and in the field.

Basically the mounting points for 4 20mm cannon were there on almost all Spits from the Vc onwards.

--- And of course all the 109G-2s the Soviets captured
--- had no engine restrictions in them. Strange, isn`t
--- it?
--
-- Perhaps they were like the 190A3 the British
-- captured, that was tested at higher power despite
-- the restrictions.
-
- No, they weren`t tested at higher powers, only the
- British believed that. If it were tested at higher
- powers, they would have reached 415 mph instead of
- 370 mph or so, which clearly indicates the lower
- powers used.

Oh, I see, the plane could run at 1.42ata, unlike all the others that were banned from doing so, but they didn't do so anyway.


-- Butch has already confirmed what I said above.
--
-
- True that you are very adapt in misqouting others or
- putting words into theiur mouths, no doubt.

Butch posted himself. His words are there for everyone to read. The engines were derated.

- Do you still deny, despite the loads of evidence,
- that the 109F was a lot more faster than the MkV at
- altitude, and that the 109G was more faster than the
- MkIX at altitude ?

The 109F1/2 was about on par with the Spit V at 9lbs boost. At 12lbs the Spit would have been a little faster.
The 109G2 would have been slower than the IX in it's derated form, and should be compared to a Spit IX with Merlin 63 by 1943, when it was rerated (as it was being phased out)

-- When looking at the number of Spit XIVs in service,
-- you take the number of squadrons in Europe (not even
-- the number of squadrons elsewhere, like Britain,
-- Italy, Balkans, far east etc)
-
- Which is quite logical, as there was no MkXIV
- squadrons outside Europe, say there were no Italy,
- Balkans, far east squadron. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Should count ghost
- planes, too?


Funny, I've read the account of Spitfire XIV's taking off from carriers to fly to Singapore, and their training in the run up.

As well as one squadron leader (might have been Ginger Lacey, can't remember, rejecting the first batch of Spits his Indian based squadron recieved because they had the cut down rear fusealge, which he didn't like.

And the tale of one batch that were shipped over, and suffered two wing seperations, when it was found the fitters had reassembled them without the neccessary refrigeration gear for the wing bolts. In order to make them fit, they had filed the bolts down rather than chilling them, and the first 2 to take off crashed.

It's late and I'm not going to search for Italy/Balkans squadrons now, but given the innacuracy of all your "facts" on the Spit so far, forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

- That leaves us with the 5 MkXIV fighter squadrons of
- the 2nd TAF.

Plus the Far East squadrons, plus any in Italy/Balkans, plus any in the UK.

-- and multiply by 12, to
-- give 60 planes.
-
- I can multiply it with 1 or 2 as well, as this was
- the number of aircraft actually available for many
- 2nd TAF squadrons instead of the nominal 20.

2nd TAF squadrons were routinely down to 1 or 2 aircraft per squadron? Source for this, Isegrim?

I presume they also had to use fuel salvaged from the copious German fuel dumps as they were overun as well. LoL.

- But alternatively, why not play your game ? We
- multiply the theoretical maximum number of MkXIVs in
- their units and do the same with K-4s instead of
- using the actual strenght. Agreed ?

Ok.

- OK, prove your statement. Prove that 500+ aircraft
- were delivered to the RAF.

Spitfire the History. Gives the serial number and delivery date for all Mk XIVs.

It's all there on p 421. I did give you the exact figures once before on Butch's board.

- If it`s true, that means 80-90% of them were soon
- lost just as they arrived.

No, unlike the Luftwaffe the RAF believed in maintaining reserve stocks. That's why during the BoB squadrons always maintained full strength, whereas the Luftwaffe was way below strength towards the end.

Surplus Mk XIVs were put in storage.

- Rich said that his numbers are "On Hand", ie. the
- number of aircraft physically being with the 1st
- line combat units, and not the number of operational
- (=mission ready) planes).
-
-
- Similiarry, out of the 0 to 100 Spitfire XIV which
- were "on Hand", only a portition was
- combat-ready/operational, the rest being repaired,
- transported etc.

No. What everybody else recognises, and you do not, is that the Luftwaffe was in a poor state by 1945. On hand planes would lack spare parts, planes would be canabilised, engines would be away for repair etc. The RAF, in contrast, had central storage of replacement aircraft, and no problems simply swapping out a plane. A ferry pilot would fly a new one in from stores, and the old one would be sent back for repair/overhaul etc.

The Luftwaffe was busy evacuating airfields, destroying planes which had no fuel or spares and couldn't fly.

On hand strength with the Luftwaffe would have been far higher than operational strength, but for the RAF/USAAF that wasn't the case.

- Show me a Hispano hit, don`t be shy, I promise I
- won`t mock you when we see that tiny scratch it
- makes.

http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/pro_crashed_ac_5.jpg


Sadly the picture isn't very clear, but the description of the hit, on a Ju88's tail, is that it blew a hole 18" by 18", and lifted the entire tailfin 9", causing the plane to crash.

Now lets see the 20mm Mg151 hit.

-- Even by your revised figures, a 140hp gain for an
-- 8mph speed gain doesn't look good. The Spit gained
-- 28mph for 450hp,
-
- More like for +500HP.

No, for 450hp. The plane was slightly over the standard 18lbs boost when they got it.

- Sure that you are no engineer. Power requirements
- increased on the cube for similiar speed increase.
- For 140 HP, an increase from 1840 to 1980 HP the
- Spit may get 8mph, no more.

450hp total gain gets you 28mph.

140hp gain is just under 1/3 of the total gain, so will give you more than 1/3 of the total speed gain.

1/3 of 28mph is 9.3mph. So the Spit would have gained far more than 9.3 mph from the first 140hp increase. Yo9ur such a good engineer, do the maths. Show us how you gain 8mph from the first 140hp increase, and 9 each from the next 2 140hp increases.

- Spitfire Mk21 could do 368mph on +21lbs = +10 mph
- for +200 HP. A few mph slower than K-4 even on B-4,
- it seems.

If you use your hugely optomistic figure of only 8mph difference between C3 and B4 fuel. However, you still haven't explained how the Spit, which was bigger and heavier, gained more than 10mph from 140hp, and the 109K4 gained only 8mph from 150hp+

- Speaking of lies, how do they call someone in
- Brtiain who knows the truths but tells otherwise ?

I think the vernacular is "Isegrim"

eg somebody who posts pictures of 30mm shell hits and claims them as 20mm, somebody who tells you something, quoting paragraph 2 and 4, when 1 and 3 contradicts him, etc.

- "Author: hop2002
- Rank: Lonely Postman
- Date: 07/16/03 04:02PM
-
- "Firstly, I've never claimed that test shows normal
- Spit figures."
-
- "Secondly, it doesn't show a stripped Spitfire. "
-
- "It probably shows a Spit with the wingtips removed,
- but that was done on 5000+ Spits in total, so was a
- pretty common configuration."

Look at the date. I haven't in the past claimed it was standard, I am now.

- "It probably shows a Spit with the wingtips removed,
- but that was done on 5000+ Spits in total, so was a
- pretty common configuration."

Perfectly true.

- "It shows a Spit with the mirror removed, but that
- wasn't exactly uncommon either."

Perfectly true.

- "Show me one instance hwere I have claimed that was
- representative of Spits in squadron service."

You still haven't.

- "Oh, I forgot, I posted the picture to the OnWar
- forums, which are dead, so you can't prove it. How I
- managed to post the picture to a text only forum I
- still haven't been able to work out, let alone how I
- posted it before I'd even seen it, because I left
- OnWar before that was posted on the web."

I still haven't managed to work out how I posted a picture to OnWar.

- "No, sorry, 389mph at sea level was the speed of the
- Spitfire XIV, in standard operational conditions."
-
- "Speed of Spitfire F XIV 389 mph at sea level. It's
- there in black and white."
-
- "It's based on a Spitfire XIV cleaned up to normal
- standards."
-
All perfectly true.

- It`s there, black and white, that SOMEBODY is
- making.. hmm... some very untrue statements here.
- What`s the name of such a man in Britain ?

In the past, you claimed I had claimed the 389mph figure was standard. I hadn't, and you have yet to find a single case where I have.

Since then, I have claimed it was standard. See the difference? If I say I have never been to Romania, and next week I go to Romania, am I a liar? No.

If you want to call me a liar again, find where I previously claimed it was standard, before the post you are quoting, not afterwards.

- Of course 150 octane was used, but in a rather
- limited scale, and not by the scale Neil would like
- to see, ie. ever single bus, motorbike, trainer,
- transport plane or fighter.


I've never seen Neil Sterling claiming that. As you can see from his figures above, it was very widespread. As I've pointed out before, Britain produced more 150 octane from summer 44 onwards than Germany produced aviation fuel in total. And didn't have large ammounts destroyed in transportation and bombing attacks.

- His figures show that 150 grade fuel was used on a
- rather limited scale even with it`s only user in
- 1944, the ADFU/FC, at a rate of 2000-12 000 ton per
- month.

12,000tons a month limited? Not when it's only used in frontline fighters. As an example of how "limited" that is, the RAF put their frontline fighters on 100 octane for the Battle of Briatin, and used 22,000 tons in 4 months.

- You said the LW fuel situation was so bad, that they
- were grounded for it. Why not compar that 2000 tons
- with the smallest amount of LW consumption of
- aviation fuel in a month, ie. 50 000 tons in
- December 1944 ? If 50 000 tons is enough to being
- grounded, how much 2000 tons worth

Wasn't December 44 one of their all out efforts? Lets compare the entire Luftwaffe, fighting on 2 fronts, with 150 octane consumption of 12,000 tons in 1 month, by Spitfires and a few Mosquitos only.

- Alas Butch hasn`t prove that, and I only accept
- something as fact when I see it`s proven. The rest -
- assumptions, hypothesis, theory etc.

Do you have any proof of the K4 using C3 in 1945? Butch has provided proof of the contrary, them only using B4, but you haven't yet provided any proof that they used C3.

In the abscence of any proof by you, and the prescence of proof by Butch, I'll leave it up to everyone else to make their own minds up.

- Assuming that C-3 was on short supply, which is not
- true.

Isegrim, everybody else accepts all fuel was on short supply for the Luftwaffe in 1945.

And don't forget, according to you, the RAF had hardly any aircraft, whereas the Luftwaffe had thousands and thousands of planes to keep running in 1945.

- If there`s enough C-3 to run some 109s and the
- 190As on it, whereas the rest of the 109s and 190Ds
- could run on B-4 without performance loss, which is
- to be used ?

That's assuming they have enough C3 for ALL the 190As and 109s. In reality they didn't have enough fuel, full stop.

So a choice of 190As AND 109s at 1800ps or 109s at 2000ps.

- Do you have any documents showing the ACTUAL use of
- 150 grade by MkXIV squadrons, ie. a doc showing the
- actual type of fuel used a particula month.

Neil Sterling has provided the figures showing how much was available, and the documents to show XIVs would be using it.

Butch has posted figures showing K4s using only B4.

What I have yet to see, is a single document showing 150 octane unavailable, or 109K4s using C3.

In other words, all the available documents support my position, and refute yours.

- We only have the opposite. Neil Stirling showed that
- none of the Spit XIVs were running on 150grade in
- late 1944.

No, he showed they couldn't use 25lbs boost in mid 44, some time before September. They did actually use 150 octane, even if they only ran at 21lbs boost.

- So by your logic, that mean they never
- used it.
-
Unlike the 109G2, which we know was derated, the document that shows the Spit XIV can't use more than 21lbs boost says they will be able to in the future.

Like your failure to find a test of 12lbs boost on the Spit I/V, abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.

- I even have documents which show C-3 use by ordinary
- G-14 squadrons, which absolutely didn`t require that
- fuel (according to Butch):
-
- "
- Captured Aircraft Report
- August 1944
-
- Me109G-14 W.Nr. 413601
-
-
- Engine
-
- DB605 A-1 Tp.
-
- No. 01104968.
-
- Maker: hsr. (ed.note: code for Henschel- Kassel)
-
- Painted on the crankcase cover is: 605 A/m.
-
-
- This engine has the normal small supercharger and
- both engine bearers are of light alloy. C-3 (100
- octane) fuel is used but additional power for short
- periods is obtained from an apparatus known as the
- "MW 50", in conjunction with a boost pressure of 1.7
- ata (equals British boost of +9.5). "

That doesn't show it was using it, just that that's the preffered fuel. We all know the Germans would have LIKED to use C3, but that doesn't mean they had enough of it to go around. Remember, the 190As would have got first call on the stuff.

- Also there are pilot`s memoirs which state that even
- some German bomber units ran on C-3 as well. Butch
- knows those well.

And yet Butch is of the opinion that C3 was in too short supply.

Note I am not saying the 109K4 never ran on C3, just that they had to take what they could get, and that would normally be B4.

-- No, the Spit did 389 at sea level, the K4 only 378.
-- But of course, that's a K4 running on C3, and as
-- Butch has shown, they had to make do with B4.
--
-- So the real figures would be Spit 389, 109K4 370.
-
-
- Again, what`s the word for the guy who writes like
- this above ? My vocabulary might be limited, but a
- 4-letter word or alternatively, a "split
- personality" comes to my mind.


Sorry Isegrim, but all anyone else sees is documents showing the Spitfire XIV doing 389 mph at sea level. That's what it says, after all.

--- A very strange interpretation of a document that
--- says it isn`t cleared to +25 lbs because of bearing
--- troubles.
--
-- "they will be able to in future" is a strange
-- interpretation of a document that says:
--
-- "They will be capable of operation at 25lbs boost in
-- the future"?
-
- Do you have ANY kind of evidence that Griffon 65 was
- EVER cleared to +25lbs ?

Yes. The ministry of supply saying that the speed of a Spit is 389 mph at sea level. Unless you are suggesting they could do 389 at 21lbs boost?

Also, a document saying they will be able to in the future, dated some time before September 1944.

- No, so the only evidence available says it was not
- used.

No, the only evidence says it was not used before September 44, but that same source say it will be in future. That, and an offical report saying 389mph at sea level, is the sum total of the evidence so far.

-- Different engine. That's a Griffon 61, not a 65 used
-- in the Spit XIV.
-
- According to the RAF, Grif 61 and 65 fells into the
- same category, not being cleared for +21 lbs for the
- same reason. They had the same construction, only
- differing in gear ratio.

Yes, and the report says there is a problem with the main bearing. There is also a note that lare numbers of Spitfire XIVs went to Hatfield for "GEM" modifications, that concerned engine output.

Now, what happens if we apply the same standards of proof to 109K4 performance claims? Where are the documents saying under what conditions, what engine rating, how often C3 was used etc? There aren't any, simply some sheets with performance numbers, that may well be taken from calculations, not tests.

- No, so the only evidence available says it was not
- used.

No, the evidence says it will be available, that modifications were carried out, and that the speed is 389mph at sea level, which fits 25lbs boost.

On the other hand, there is evidence showing K4s using only B4, and 190s getting the available C3, and no evidence to the contrary. None.

-- Where have you seen it was fitted with a drop tank
-- duing testing?
-
- It`s there in the report, I have already posted it.
- Oh, memory issues again.

Is that the place where it says

"with fittings under the fuselage to enable it to carry a jetisonable tank"?

And you think that means thy fitted a tank for testing?

Then, by the same logic, all those Spit test are done with a drop tank fitted? 389mph at sea level with a drop tank fitted?

- "The roll rate is very good and very positive below
- about 250 mph. This is particularly true of the
- Charles Church's Collection clipped wing aircraft.
- Our round tipped aeroplane is slightly less nice to
- feel. With the speed further back the roll rate
- remains good, particularly with a bit of help from
- the rudder. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to
- heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a
- P-51."

The ADFU on the 109 vs Spit V:

Rate of Roll
21.........Here again the Spitfire has a marked advantage at all speeds.


The AFDU on the 109 vs Spit XIV

Rate of Roll
28.........In the rolling plane the Spitfire again is superior at all speeds.


- German document on 109F roll rate (Rollwendigkeit Me
- 109F) gives roll rate as approx. 80 deg/sec at
- 450kph/300mph.

Stickforces? Because without knowing the stickforce, that's useless. Perhaps you can post the full document?

- Spitfire MkXIV Handling trials:
-
- "...........4.21 Controls and general flying. The
- type of fin and rudder incorporated in this aircraft
- caused a decrease in the change of directional trim
- with speed compared with JF.319. Rudder forces were
- of a similar magnitude. The ailerons, despite an
- absence of reflexing, were noticeably heavier."

The next sentence is:

"Variations in the weight of ailerons on Spitfire aircraft are common and are due to manufacturing differences between individual sets. This aircraft presumably had an inferior pair of ailerons; it is desirable that such ailerons should be rejected during production testing."

First it was paragraphs we didn't need to see, now it's down to individual sentences. How long before it's just individual words we are presented with?

- It seems we have loads of evidence on that the
- Spit`s roll rate wasn`t any spectatular, and only
- got worsened with newer models.

AFDU test comparing Spit V to IX:

"Manoeuvrability

20......... The Spitfire IX was compared with a Spitfire VC for turning circles and dog-fighting at heights between 15,000 and 30,000 feet. At 15,000 feet there was little to choose between the two aircraft although the superior speed and climb of the Spitfire IX enabled it to break off its attack by climbing away and then attacking in a dive. This manoeuvre was assisted by the negative 'G' carburettor, as it was possible to change rapidly from climb to dive without the engine cutting. At 30,000 feet there is still little to choose between the two aircraft in manoeurvrability, but the superiority in speed and climb of the Spitfire IX becomes outstanding."

AFDU comparing Spit XIV to Spit IX:

Rate of Roll
19. Rate of roll is very much the same.

-- (1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only
-- apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick as
-- compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had
-- more elbow room.
-
-
- Still he could outmanouver Spits (from the same
- test):
-
<img
- src="http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bank45.j
- pg">

Canvas aileron, replaced from the Spit V onwards.

--- "About mid-June a crash programme was initated to
--- improve the low-level performance of the Spitfire,
--- Tempest V, and Mustang III by using a specially
--- developed 150 octane aromatic fuel to give
--- abnormally high power for strictly short bursts.
--
-- The Eric Brown doesn't know everything, does he? 150
-- octane was developed in 1943, not for the V-1s, was
-- used in aircraft that never shased a V-1, and had
-- the same time limits as 100 octane fuel.
-
-
- Of course, Hop-the-fanatic-Brit is a much better
- source than those who participated in the tests
- themselves..

No. Eric Brown tested planes. That doesn't mean he knows when or why 150 octane was produced, or how widely it was used. He was a test pilot, and evaluated it's effect on aircraft.

- Than in that case you should ask to ban Hop2002. I
- remember that no more than 2 weeks or so ago,
- Hop2002 said that he HAD NEVER ever claimed that the
- +25lbs stripped Spit or that it was typical for
- squadron service.
-
- Now he says the opposite. How do they call that in
- Britain ? Give me an expression.

I HAD NEVER claimed it was typical of squadron service. I am now. See the difference?

- Show me 5 pictures of Spit XIVs with removed mirrors
- and wingclips.
-
- No, it seems you cant.
-
I can't scan and post pics. Nor do I have any desire to. We both know how common clipped wing Spits were, and claiming unbolting a mirror is "stripped" is too bizarre for words.

-- No, I said about 5000 out of 22,000 Spitfires.
-
-
- Great. You have admitted that you were trying to
- sell other clipped wing marks as Spit XIV.


No, I was pointing out how common clipped wings were.

-- Now, can we see the 109K4 document that shows level
-- speeds, please? Not the one you've drawn yourself,
-- but the original document.
--
-
- And any reason why I should do that ? You didn`t
- show any of your sources, why should do it more than
- it`s absolutely neccesary to crush your myths ?

You have all the sources I used, as is obvious from your selective quoting of them.

It's fairly obvious to everyone, though, that your speed graph for the 109K4 is drawn by you, and not as yet backed up by anything. So far, it's a document from the minisrty of supply saying the Spitfire could do 389 mph at sea level, against a graph drawn by V101 Isegrim saying the 109K4 could do 378 at sea level. And you want people to believe the 109K4 was faster?

XyZspineZyX
07-20-2003, 02:56 AM
Sorry the pictures don' show. I tried to post them as links, but it didn't work. Right click the picture and select properties, and you can copy the address from there, and paste it into your browser.

- According to all tests we
- have here, this applies only to horizontal turning,
- but in roll rate the 109 has an advantage.

Isegrim, have you got any direct comparisons of rollrate between the 109 and metal aileroned Spits?

Because the AFDU have done direct comparisons, and don't agree with you, as I posted above.

XyZspineZyX
07-20-2003, 03:04 AM
You guys are still playing mix and match, my best against your worst as much as I can get away with.

Apples and oranges? This is all fruit salad when it comes to the blanket conclusions you all seem to want to make.

Just admit first that each plane had areas where it was better and areas where it was worse. Areas like altitude and speed with climb, roll and turn changing in those. My plane turns better at 12,000 ft in sustained turns does not mean better always, Mr. Spitfire. It is good but only within circumstances and tactics. The 109 turns faster when losing altitude which suggests different tactics is all. How do those doghouse charts change + and - 6000 ft? Or 3000 ft? Will the same tactics be indicated? Probably not. And Isegrim... you limit the Spit lbs on stick in one chart and then pull out German documents that do not specify force or how they were made (but assumptions will do?) to make what point?

Those are just small examples of the feeding frenzy you guys make of information and posts. No truth comes out except in little pieces which are lost in the comparisons to poorly related other pieces. The doghouse charts are the best complete pictures of performance I've seen here yet, and yet the conclusions drawn are poor in their limitedness to the desire of the poster.

Any clearly inferior planes either got withdrawn from frontline combat or wiped from the sky if the enemy was not strongly supressed. The Spitfires and 109's flew throughout the war. So many times I have read that the performances of the top planes were close to each other that I can only conclude that differences were made or broken by tactics or numbers. Tactics is something the pilots do or don't. Numbers... in the BoB it was the Brits who were outnumbered except where they concentrated planes while later in the war the =exact= same thing happened to the Germans... and yet I don't see the sides-fans pointing that it was both ways.

No, the issue of "best over all" is in itself a False Issue. You can only say points and those have very limited meaning (that none of you wants to point out) so why bother getting worked up?

Gentlemen?


Neal

XyZspineZyX
07-20-2003, 03:05 AM
hop2002 wrote:

- Have you got a source for such a wildly innacuarte
- claim?
-
-

You're dealing with Huck, here Hop. He doesn't have sources.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_images/koreanext.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-20-2003, 03:12 AM
Isegrim:

I've seen you claim that this is a 30mm hit. Got proof?

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/1SchusswithMK108onSpit.jpg



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_images/koreanext.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-20-2003, 11:36 AM
i´ve read the same about this 30mm hit in >>luftschlacht über deutschland<< by alfred price [im really not that sure about the author but don´t feel like looking it up).


unfortunatelly its too hot and somehow to boring to debate those planes for the 600th time.


did any opinion change so far? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

---------------------------------------



http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.bryant3/ETSigGermany.gif




under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
07-20-2003, 01:58 PM
That's not a single 30mm hit. Until I see proof, I say bill$hit.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/SkyChimp.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-20-2003, 02:39 PM
hop2002 wrote:


---- And of course 109Es shoot down a lot more Spits than
---- they lost themselves.
---
--- Not quite true actually. More 109s were lost than
--- Spits. Perhaps you want to try and rephrase it?
--
--
-- In Hop`s private dreamworld, probably. However no
-- single author agrees with you.
--
-- For example, Ted Hooton in "Spitfire special" gives
-- the following numbers for BoB (between 1st July -
-- 30th September):
--
-- Spitfire vs 109s: 219 Spitfires lost for 180 Messers
-- in combat
-- Hurricane vs 109s: 272 Hurris for 153 Messers in
-- combat
--
-- Messerschmitt`s enjoyed a kill ratio of 1.21 : 1
-- against Spitfires.
-
- Sorry, that's not what you said. That's why I asked
- if you wanted to rephrase it.
-
- You said:



---- And of course 109Es shoot down a lot more Spits than
---- they lost themselves.
-
- 109Es shot down 180 odd Spits, according to your
- figures. They lost 650 odd 109Es.

Changing standards again ? You now list all 109Es lost, to all causes, i.e. combat and accident, from all reasons, ie. to Hurricanes, Defieants, Spitfires, AAA etc.
That you want to compare to Spits lost to 109s, exluding all other reasons, like other LW planes, and the huge number of accidents with the untrained pilots of the RAF.


Well fine, why not making the same standards ? According to Len Deighton, 1900 British fighters were lost during the BoB to all reasons, vs. 650 109s according to your data.

1 : 3 ratio avouring the 109 again.


But I prefer to use Ted Hooton`s numbers which show only Spits that were lost to 109s, and 109s that were lost to Spits:

Ted Hooton in "Spitfire special" gives the following numbers for BoB (between 1st July - 30th September):

Spitfire vs 109s: 219 Spitfires lost for 180 Messers in combat

Hurricane vs 109s: 272 Hurris for 153 Messers in combat


Ted Hooton seems to be a better source than Hop-the-dishonest-and-fanatic-Brit.


- And I'd like to see the figures for October, when
- 109 losses were high, and Spit losses low.
-

According to "The Battle of Britain" by Peter G. Cooksley, losses in September and October (no breakdown:

Hurricane 294 destroyed, 77 damaged
Spitfire 195 destroyed, 76 damaged
Total: 489 destroyed, 153 damaged


109: 326 destroyed, 96 damaged

Ratio : 1.5 : 1 dest; 1.6:1 dam. favouring the 109

No wonder that British pilots started the habit of running away at the first sight of a 109.



---- German Kennblatt for F-1/2 gives 515kph at SL, and
---- notices that with increased RPM, it`s additional
---- 10-15 kph faster.
---
--- Care to post the whole document?

Care to post any of your documents ? Then we might chat about it.



- Because Butch has already confirmed that the engine
- in the 109F1/2 was derated twice in service, that it
- was designed to run at 1.42 ata and in service was
- restricted to 1.27ata.

No, Butch is a bit wrong in this. Notleistung was reduced to 1.35ata, and it was Kamplesitung was reduced to 1.25 ata, not Notleistung.

My numbers are for 1.3ata, 2800 RPM.


- Your figures obviously come from the preproduction
- 1.42ata rating, not the real life 1.27ata.

My numbers are for 1.3ata, real life limit was 1.35 ata.


- I have no means of posting documents, which is why I
- don't accompany my posts with lots of pictures. You
- do.

A rather poor excuse. There are dozens of free webspace servers.


- The reference to the Warbirds link was so you could
- check their sources, which are:
-
- Primary:
-
- Aircraft Evaluation Report, No 110, 7-2-43
- German factory technical documentation
-
- Confirming and supporting:
-
- Complete Book of Fighters, Green and Swanborough,
- 1994

Good to know that now you admit the K-4 could climb to 8000m in 5 minutes. It also had two 15 cannons, and an MK103 in the nose.

At least you listed Green as a reliable source on 109 performance.


-
- Acft of WW2, Gunston, 1980
-

Another major 109 expert. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


- Their "Aircraft Evaluation Report, No 110" is
- probably the same thing, bearing in mind the
- numbers.

Then it`s no surprise why their numbers are wrong: they are based on an estimated performance figure which doesn`t even list the exact power.

Chris Chant in "German Warplanes in WW2" lists 517kph at SL.



-
- Given that what you posted seems to be factory
- documentation, it's not much of a stretch to assume
- it refers to 1.42ata, which the plane was designed
- to use, is it?

It refers to 1.3 ata, 2800RPM.

-
- The fact that it had to be derated in use is
- naturally going to make it a lot slower, isn't it?
-

But of course. Still, 515, or even 495 kph at SL seems to be faster than Hop-the-fanatic-Brit`s pet SpitV at 470kph.


It`s so funny that you never ever admit you are wrong.


- Oh so you already have the report?
-
- As to the sea level speed, it goes down to 2000ft
- and 301mph, and is clearly headed for around 297 or
- so.

That`s indeed funny, so according to you, the F-2 was as slow as the E-3 on the very same powers ? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The report is hardly relevant in that matter, as it is not based on actual testing but is an estimation, without the powers listed.


German datasheets say 515 kph for F-1 and F-2. At 1.3ata.


Soviet evaluation at NII VVS confirmed these figures, though are lower at altitude than German figures.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Aircraft-evaluation-16.jpg



Spitfire VB max. speed at SL was 470 kph according to British tests at the Spitfire performance site. According to NII VVS, only 450 kph.


For you, 515kph is more than 470. Or 450, for that matter.


-
-- Now I wonder, what is a more reliable source of
-- data, an estimated speed with unknown power from a
-- foreign evaluation team, or the detailed pilot`s
-- manual for the same aircraft from the manufacturer
-- and air force command?

- I'd say the manufacturers figures. So at 1.42 ata
- the 109F1 may well have been as fast as you claim,
- though I suspect it was a cleaned up aircraft, in
- perfect condition.

515 kph at 1.3ata, 2800RPM.



- However, in service, as Butch has already said, the
- engine was derated to a max of 1.25 ata, which will
- make a huge difference.

No, 1.35 ata for Notleistung, 1.25 for Kampfleistung.



-
-- Spitfire Mk. Vc AA.873 test shows 476 kph at SL. The
-- plane in March 1942 was still limited +9lbs
-- according to the test.
--
-- Spitfire Mk. VB W.3134 test shows 468 kph at SL.
-- Date is 18 June 1941 . Plane is limited to +9lbs.
-


- All the Spit V performance tests were done at 9lbs
- boost. In fact, try and find a 12lbs boost test for
- the Spit I or II, yet they were also rated at 12lbs
- boost.

No, they had an emergency rating of +12lbs at 100 octane, but it weren`t used in serice, because it shrinked engine life to ONE TENTH, to 10 hours.


-
-
- In short you can't find a single test at 12lbs?
-
- And that proves what, exactly? That 12lbs wasn't
- used?

In short, there`s no single test that would should the MkV at 515 kph, the max. SL speed of the F-2 at 1.3ata ?



-
- Spit V max 12lbs boost.
-
- Abscence of proof is not proof of abscence.
-

Spit V makes 450-470 at +9lbs. At +16, it makes 510 kph. Obviously +12 is somewhere between, at around 480-490.

F-2 makes 515 kph at 1.3 ata, 525-530 at 1.42ata. Which one is faster?


- No, it shows the Spit was clearly faster at sea
- level than the 109F1 and F2, and slower than the F4,
- which entered service a lot later than the Spit V.

So according to Hop, 515 kph at SL for the F-2 is slower than 470 kph for the Mk V.

I am convinced. Though not about your point, but rather more about your math skills. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


- Unless of course you want to compare a fantasy F1/F2
- running at 1.4ata, which only ever existed in
- prototype form, because in service they were
- derated.

Sadly we are not comparing an 1.42 ata F-2, but an 1.3 ata one, which is below the maximum allowed 1.35ata.



-
- Lol.
-
- I've already given you my sources, which it seems
- you had all along. Now lets see the full report, not
- the single paragraphs you like to cut out of them,
- and allow the people on this board to see.
-

It`s seems you didn`t understand my terms. Read again, dumbo.



--
-- Yes it`s a bit hard to find +12lbs tests for the
-- Spit V, not to mention Spit I, as they were not
-- cleared for either rating in 1941, and for most of
-- 1942.
-
- Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough
-
- June 1940
-
- Spitfire IA K.9791 with Rotol constant speed
- propeller
- Me 109E-3 Werk-Nr 1304
-
- 5. Comparitive speed trials were then carried out,
- and the Spitfire proved to be considerably the
- faster of the two, both in acceleration and straight
- and level flight, without having to make use of the
- emergency +12 boost.

Notice the term "emergency". British term for maximum allowed power was combat. +12 lbs was called emergency because it destroyed the engine very fast, within 10 hours the engine went



- Isegrim is choosing to give you the results of
- HE/I/T shells, which weren't used, and not the HE/I
- shells that were.

Hop is trying to evade the facts of poor Hispano shell performance. He starts to make up stories some shells were better than is written black and white in the test report, and they weren`t used anyways.


- The AP/I were later replaced by
- SAP/I and weren't in this test.

ROFMALOL, you mean the VERY same shells were replaced by the very same shells?

http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/pro_hs_trials_3.jpg


"Ammunition AP/I (SAP/I)"

The "two" is the same, just different names for them. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

This type of ammunition, which replaced itself, was found:

"Since [Hispano] API failed to function, the trials were repeated with various thickness of armor to determine the min. thickness neccesary to function [Hispano] API."


"Against unarmored tanks, [Hispano] API is ineffective in causing fires. A 6 swg mild steel at rear spar is neccesary to funbction the fuse.... From this results it is estimated that fire freqeuncy of API against a real Heinkel wing is 6%."



-
- Now how did I guess Isegrim would give the HE/I/T
- results, and not the the HE/I?
-
-- "Fire frequency of HEIT under these conditions is
-- 31%... It should be noted that 6 out of 14 fires
-- obtained outside the tank were accompanied a flash;
-- this may due to incomplete detonation."
-
- Why not post the figure for HE/I? 47% fires
-

47% fires? Not according to the Report:

"The fire frequency of the HE/I/T is about 30%, which is similiar to the avarge performance of HE/I."

LINhttp://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/pro_hs_trials_1.jpg



-- NOTE: Very nice. A Spitfire carried 2x120=240 rounds
-- for two cannons. Thus a Spitfire pilot could expect
-- that 7 of his OWN shells will damage his OWN plane
-- every time he expand the ammunition...
-
- Perhaps if they had used HE/I/T, and not HE/I. Now
- why would you leave out HE/I from all your
- descriptions?


So you now claim that British fighters didn`t carry Tracer (/T) ammunition at all ? I saw different.


-
- Isegrim, how do you expect people to take you
- seriously when you doctor the evidence so much?
-

Hop, who will take you seriously, when you show such blind zealotry against overwhelming evidence?


--- Apparently the Germans agreed, because they never
--- used the mine shell exclusively, and later went on
--- to develop a hydrostatic fuse, so that the shell
--- would explode only when they entered a fuel tank.
--
-- Show me anything that agrees with you.
-
-
- Tony Williams: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/
-
- Are you claiming the mine shell was used
- exclusively, and not in a mix with other shells?

Are you still puttin words into my mouth ? Can you show me where I claimed only MG was used? It made up 50% of the ammo, a similir ratio of British HE in Hispano belt (which was 1 API or AP, and 1 HEIT or HEI).



-
-- The RAF had to still rely on decade-old French
-- cannon shells even in 1941-42, when those Hispano
-- test were bade ? I didn`t know Britain was so poor.
-
- Do you expect people to believe you didn't see the
- HE/I sheels in that test? Or do you think people are
- so stupid they wouldn't find read the tests for
- themselves?

Do you think that people are as stupid to believe your ridiculus claim that no British fighter ever carried HEIT ?


-
- I'll use the same tests you did Isegrim, but I'll
- let everyone read them. The whole thing, every type
- of shell used, not just the worst one. And I'll let
- them make up their own minds.

So that`s why you invented stories about HEIT not being used, API and SAP being different ammunitions, whereas they are the same, or that Mine shells didn`t compose 50% of a typical German belt ?

You are a monument of dishonesty and double standards.



-- Effect of a 30mm Mine shell (330 gram weight
-- compared to 130gram of the Hispano, and about twice
-- the shrapnel weight).
-
- Finally you have stopped claiming the pic shows a
- 20mm mine shell.


It`s seems you still didn`t stop your pale faced lies about me claiming it was a 20mm shell, which I never did.



-
-- One just wonder what did this: blast, shrapnel, or
-- kinetic energy (which was zero during the tests, as
-- it was not fired from gun, just placed near the
-- fusalge):
-
- No, it was either fired from the gun, or placed
- inside the fuselage.
- Note how the metal is bent outwards on both sides.
- If it was detonated outside the fuselage, the
- closest side would be blown inwards, not outwards.
-
- And note that's a 30mm shell, which has many times
- the explosive content.

It`s single a shell from the late 109`s standard armament.



-- Apperantly, it`s blast that makes the biggest
-- destruction.
-
- Certainly in 30mm. However, the 30mm shell had
- around 4 times the explosives content of the 20mm.

Thank you for admitting that 4 shells from 20mm is enough to do the same to a Spit. Looking at the amount of destruction, it seems 2 would be enough as well.


-- Wrong. All the kinetic energy the shrapnel may
-- posses and thus use for comes form the explosive
-- load of the shell.
--
-- Thus small explosive load = little shrapnel energy,
-- high explosvive load = high shrapnel energy.
-
- No, you can get substantial ammounts of shrapnel
- with small ammounts of explosives.

Physical impossibility. A schrapnel is just a piece of metal with ZERO speed, thus ZERO energy. It`s the explosion that gives it all it`s speed and thus energy.



- However, you need
- enough metal to provide decent shrapnel, and the
- thin walled mine shells didn't have much metal.

A 30mm Mineshell, even if thin walled, offered a lot more shrapnel than a 20mm Hispano.

A 20mm Mineshell had less of course than a Hispano. That`s why the German also used conventional HEIT shells with smaller explsive content, for incendinary effect and fragmentation.

The latter weight 115 gr of which 4-5 gram was explosives. => 110 gram shrapnel weight. And the use of more powerful explosive types made up for the less amount of charge.

A Hispano shell was 120 gram, of which 7 gram was explosives. => 113gram shrapnel.

I see no real difference here.


-
-- The Hispano HEI shell had only 1/3 the explosive
-- energy of a Mine shell, thus it`s shrapnels could
-- only have 1/3 the energy of a mine shell`s
-- fragments. Simply physical reality.
-
- I'll let someone else point out the obvious errors
- in that statement. Note however, that blast does not
- create shrapnel, you have to surround the explosives
- with some material that will provide shrapnel.

All mine shells I have seen far exhibited a metal layer around them. Even you couldn`t seriously think that Mausers fired pure chulks of explosives at the enemy.



-
- "Placed into service in July 1940, the Spitfire IBs
-- soon acquired an unenviable reputation for high
-- rates of cannon stoppages. The heavy recoil of the
-- opposite cannon made the aircraft virtually
-- uncontrollable and useless as a gun platform, and
-- the squadron chosen for the trials insisted on beig
-- re-equipped with IAs."
--
--- Bill Sweetman, "Spitfire" in "The Great book of WW2 Airplanes", page 285.
-
-
- Yes, the Spitfire Ib used an experimental cannon
- installation, with a cannon that hadn't been fully
- modified from the original French engine mount
- design. It also used drums not the latter belt feed,
- and the guns were canted over, like in the P-51B.


The reliablility improved, you are right in that. However, the excessive recoil remained, making little use of a Spit as a gun platform. Hispanos were just to much for such a light plane.



-
-- Strange... 109 being limited to "small guns"? That`s
-- interesting. In which pub did you acquired this
-- piece of information? For as I can remember, the 109
-- was perfectly capable of mounting the MK 103m
-- (140kg, 2 meter lenght, installed in the engine
-- mount), which was so powerful that it could easily
-- penetrate a heavy tank with AP shots... yeah, they
-- were really restricted. Or the ability to carry 3
-- MK108s inside the structure ?
-
- Which 109 used the Mk103 Isegrim? Would this perhaps
- be some prototype that never saw service? The same
- as the 3 internal MK108 109, presumably.


According to William Green, your source, all 109Ks were equipped with two 15mm cannons and a 30mm MK103. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

More seriously, the simple fact that these models amounting such heavy armament easily disprove your claim that the 109 was unable to mount heavy weapons. Clearly it was capable of that. Spitfire was not.



-
-- True, the British were just as slow in that as in
-- introducing new models of existing planes in
-- numbers. In 1940, they had the Spitfire, but not in
-- numbers. 109Es on the other hand composed 99% of the
-- LF fighter force.
-
- And still lost in the BoB 1940 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Well at least you don`t deny that the RAF was always slow in modernizing it`s fighter force.






- The 109 needed the gunpods to equal the firepower of
- the Spit.

No it didn`t.

- Stripping out more than half the armament
- hardly makes for a fair comparison, does it?

Half the armament would be a half Mauser and 1 a single MG17.

The gunpods were just extra, if they needed.


-
- The second exchange:
-
--- Those are figures for a "five-point" G-2, = G-2 with
--- 5 guns (3 normal, + 2 as gunpods).
--
-- You mean a 109 approaching the firepower of a Spit?
-
- Again you posted the effects of a 30mm hit. Again,
- how many 109G2s had a 30mm cannon?
-
- We were arguing wether a 109G2 with or without
- gunpods was a fair match. You posted 2 pics of 30mm
- cannon effects, to try to con people that gunpods
- weren't needed. Again, do you think everyone else
- here is stupid?

Hmm, Hoppy, isn`t it that the Bf 109 is THE plane that shot down the most enemy aircraft in all aviation history, and made _several thousend_ aces? You will have trouble to convince others that it lacked firepower, esp. as later variants with MK 108.

But you know what? Let`s pretend that gunpods were standard. After all, all this little hiss from you comes because you can`t accept as usual that a 109 could do anything better than a Spit. So why not compare an 1.42 ata (1943 standard) 109G-2 with gunpods vs. a MkIXLF ? You claimed high altitude performance is better.... Now we have 665 kph at 7000m (clean 109G-2 1.42ata) vs. 643 kph at 6700m for Spit IXLF. Now the gunpods substract 8 kph from the speed. Do some maths.

And believe what you want, you can only delude yourself, but not others. I am simply bored with your sweat-smelling attempts to prove that how much it should be a bomber-destroyer variant vs. a air superiority variant a matter of comparison, just because the redcoat plane gets some flimsy 10 kph slower.



-
--- They had the same rate of fire as the inboard
--- cannons on the 190.
--
-- Hmm, I wonder, how is that true? Since when 600 rpm
-- of the Hispano equals 700-740 rounds of the Mauser ?
-- You weren`t good at maths, now were you?
-
- Ever heard of syncronisation? (sp?) Also known as
- interrupter gear. It prevented the gun firing when
- the prop blade was in the way, and reduced ROF by
- about 20%

Hmm, Tony Williams, which you already qouted, seems to say 5-10% ROF reduction for German gears, because they used electric gear etc.

In any case, the Mauser(s) on the 109 weren`t syncronised in any case, so 700-740 rpm figure stands vs. 600 rpm for the Hispano.


-
- Not using the real shells, that you convieniently
- left out of the report

You mean the shells that replaced themselves? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


-
-- far heavier shells that
-- have 1/3 of the explosive charge,
-
- That actually have more explosive charge than the
- non mine shells that made up typically 3 out of 5
- shells.

More explosive charge of signifcantly lower quality explosive.



- Oh, and also have far more kinetic energy,
- far more shrapnel, and far better penetration.

According to you, 3 out of 5 shells (60%) have comparable fragmantation weight (110 gram vs. 110gram) than 50% of the Hisapano shells.

Kinetic energy is kinda like nothing compared to chemical energy. First, KE decreases with range, CE remains constant.


For comparison, at 0m a Hispano HEI shell has 4900mkg ((2820*0.3048)^2*.05*.130)/9.8) Kinetic energy0, and about 3/4 of that at 300 meter (3675mkg), according to ballistic charts.
Explosive load is small, 7 gram, and is composed of less powerful explosives, thus it`s 0.007x350 000= 2450 mkg.

So total is 3675+2450= 6125 mkg.

Also, German studies in the field concluded that a 1kg explosives worth 350-400 000 mkg energy, making about 8000 mkg in the case of a 20mm MG shell alone for the explosives.
KE0 is 3000 mkg, or about 2250 mkg at 300m.

Total 12 250 mkg at 300m.

Double that of a Hispano HEI shell.



And BTW, the Hispano HE/I shell had over half the
- explosive content of the 20mm mine shell, at 10-11
- grams for the Hispano, 20g for the mine.

The Hispano HE/I shell had 7 grams of explosives, the rest was only incendiry material.

Explosive type was the low powered tetryl, whereas the Minengeschoss used a mix of Hexogene and Nitropenta, which is 30% more powerful than tetryl.



- The German
- HE/T had only 3.7g. Source: Tony Williams, author of
- "Rapid Fire"

And was filled with Hexogene-Nitropenta, not tetryl...


-- and at "far"
-- higher muzzle velocity which coupled with
-- wing-mounted guns made the plane virtually useless
-- as gun platform.
-
- Hence the total victory of the Luftwaffe against the
- RAF/USAAF, almost all of their fighters having wing
- guns.


Hence the change to nose mounted guns by the RAF/USAAF, and copying German cannons and shells, isn`t it?


-
--- And only 2 shells in 5 were
--- mine shells, sometimes not even that many.
--
-- OK, just go ahead and prove that. I don`t expect an
-- answer, because every time you were called up to
-- prove your statements you evaded so far.
--
-- Interestingly enough, the 109G-14 that landed in the
-- UK in July 1944, had it`s 20mm cannon loaded with 1
-- AP, 1 HE and 2 Mineshells. 50% of the ammo was mine
-- shells.
-
- 40%, 50% little difference. The loadout varied. But
- it wasn't all mine shells, as you've just admitted.

I never claimed it was all mine shells, so I couldnt admit anything.

It was you who had admitted your comments on belt composition were unfounded.



--- but
--- probably around 1000 or so. The vast majority had
--- the option though, unlike the only 20% of 109s,
--- according to you.
--
-- "probably around 1000". "Vast majority". Care to
-- give us exact numbers?
--
-- Only "C" wings of the MkV had option to
-- alternatively mount a 20mm cannnon instead of
-- 4x7.7mm. That doesn`t reads as "vast majority" to
-- me.
-
- No, the C wing as fitted to several thousand Mk Vs,
- and several thousand Mk IXs, and several thousand of
- the other marks, could carry 4 20mms.

First "probably around 1000 or so".

Now: "several thousand Mk Vs, and several thousand Mk IXs, and several thousand of the other marks"

It expands like a balloon. When will it just blow up?


- In fact, few
- of the Spits built after the Mk V couldn't be
- equipped with 4 20mms.

Sure-sure. "Several thousends". /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


-
- The E wing could also carry 4 20mms.
-

No, only 12.7mm instead of 7.7mms.



-
- Basically the mounting points for 4 20mm cannon were
- there on almost all Spits from the Vc onwards.
-

No, as a matter of fact only MKVCs could mount 4x20mm, not the further models, and it remained so until the Mk21. MkIX C-wings were rare if any according to all authors I have read.


---- And of course all the 109G-2s the Soviets captured
---- had no engine restrictions in them. Strange, isn`t
---- it?
---
--- Perhaps they were like the 190A3 the British
--- captured, that was tested at higher power despite
--- the restrictions.
--
-- No, they weren`t tested at higher powers, only the
-- British believed that. If it were tested at higher
-- powers, they would have reached 415 mph instead of
-- 370 mph or so, which clearly indicates the lower
-- powers used.
-
- Oh, I see, the plane could run at 1.42ata, unlike
- all the others that were banned from doing so, but
- they didn't do so anyway.


All the others? Only DB605A-0 equipped ones, not DB605A-1 equipped G-2s, and only from end 1942 till mid 1943.

Glad you gave up your claim that the Brit A3 was running at 1.42ata.



- The 109F1/2 was about on par with the Spit V at 9lbs
- boost.

According to Hop, 470 kph is on par with 515kph.


- At 12lbs the Spit would have been a little
- faster.

According to Hop, if a Spit develops 510 kph at +16lbs, then at +12 lbs and much less horsepower, it will be a little faster than 515kph.


- The 109G2 would have been slower than the IX in it's
- derated form, and should be compared to a Spit IX
- with Merlin 63 by 1943, when it was rerated (as it
- was being phased out)

According to Hop, a derated G-2 with a SL speed of 525 kph and critical alt. speed of 649 kph is slower than Mk IXF. with a SL speed of 501 kph and a critical alt speed of 648 kph.



-
--- When looking at the number of Spit XIVs in service,
--- you take the number of squadrons in Europe (not even
--- the number of squadrons elsewhere, like Britain,
--- Italy, Balkans, far east etc)
--
-- Which is quite logical, as there was no MkXIV
-- squadrons outside Europe, say there were no Italy,
-- Balkans, far east squadron. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Should count ghost
-- planes, too?
-
- Funny, I've read the account of Spitfire XIV's
- taking off from carriers to fly to Singapore, and
- their training in the run up.

Funny, wasn`t that after VE day? Which Squadron was that?

List me the Squadrons of mk14s outside anywhere England or NW Europe. BTW, I have the list. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



- As well as one squadron leader (might have been
- Ginger Lacey, can't remember, rejecting the first
- batch of Spits his Indian based squadron recieved
- because they had the cut down rear fusealge, which
- he didn't like.

So what on Earth that proves? No data, no type of a/c.. it could well be a MKIX or XVI.

Or just a fairy tale.


- And the tale of....
-

Let`s keep it serious, shall we?



-
- It's late and I'm not going to search for
- Italy/Balkans squadrons now, but given the
- innacuracy of all your "facts" on the Spit so far,
- forgive me if I don't take your word for it.
-

You don`t have to take my word, I asked Mike Williams to list me the Mk14 Squadrons and places. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Not a single one outside N-W Europe.


-
-- That leaves us with the 5 MkXIV fighter squadrons of
-- the 2nd TAF.
-
- Plus the Far East squadrons, plus any in
- Italy/Balkans, plus any in the UK.

So that`s the 5 Squads of 2ndTAF + zero. Still 5 Squads.



-- I can multiply it with 1 or 2 as well, as this was
-- the number of aircraft actually available for many
-- 2nd TAF squadrons instead of the nominal 20.
-
- 2nd TAF squadrons were routinely down to 1 or 2
- aircraft per squadron? Source for this, Isegrim?

See the book "Operation Bodenplatte". It goes in details that quite a few Typhoon squadrons strenghts. It also mentions the Tempest killing Wing Commnaders on takeoff due to engine failure.


-
-- But alternatively, why not play your game ? We
-- multiply the theoretical maximum number of MkXIVs in
-- their units and do the same with K-4s instead of
-- using the actual strenght. Agreed ?
-
- Ok.

Great. We have 5 SpitXIV Squadrons of the TAF. Paper strenght per squadron is 20 planes, 5x20 is 100 Spit XIVs.

I have already listed the K-4 Gruppes in December 1944. These are with II/JG2, I/JG4, III/JG4, IV/JG4, II./JG11, III/JG26, I/JG27, II/JG27, III/JG27, Stab/JG53, II/JG53, I/JG77, III/JG77 .

That`s 12 Gruppes (Wings in British terms, Groups in US terms), + a Stabstaffel. Later more units received K-4s, as a matter of fact every Gruppe but 3. But let`s give some chance to the poor Brit, after luring him into such a trap. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

A German Gruppe by end of 1944 contained 3 to 4 Staffel (Squadron), each with 12+4= 16 planes. A Stabstaffel typicall hold only a half squadron of 4-6 planes.

That`s 12 x 4 x 16+6= 774 K-4s in these Gruppes.

Versus 100 Spitfire F MkXIVs of TAF.


-
-- OK, prove your statement. Prove that 500+ aircraft
-- were delivered to the RAF.
-
- Spitfire the History. Gives the serial number and
- delivery date for all Mk XIVs.
-
- It's all there on p 421. I did give you the exact
- figures once before on Butch's board.

So that means at least 400 were lost before the end of Hostilities.


- No, unlike the Luftwaffe the RAF believed in
- maintaining reserve stocks. That's why during the
- BoB squadrons always maintained full strength,
- whereas the Luftwaffe was way below strength towards
- the end.

Funny, in all actual operative strenghts, even in 1945, I always find LW units to have 70-80% operational level, which is quite typical for a USAAF of RAF squadron.

But care to post YOUR sources ? I.e. what was the operational strenght of, say, JG26 in January 1945 ?


- No. What everybody else recognises, and you do not,
- is that the Luftwaffe was in a poor state by 1945.


A Hop is driving on the Highway 7, and turns his radio on, listening to traffic news. The radio tells that caution has to paid on HW 7, as a lone madman drives against the traffic on the wrong side.

Hop cries out: What the heck, only one? All the bloody bastards ! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


- On hand planes would lack spare parts, planes would
- be canabilised, engines would be away for repair
- etc. The RAF, in contrast, had central storage of
- replacement aircraft, and no problems simply
- swapping out a plane. A ferry pilot would fly a new
- one in from stores, and the old one would be sent
- back for repair/overhaul etc.


Look into the JG26`s War diary. A pilot mentions that there was such an abundance of reserve planes that they didn`t even bothered repairing damaged planes, they simply went to the nearest supply depot, and picked a brand new one. There were LOADS of a/c standing there. He also mentions K-4s. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Not really surprising, in late 1944, Germany was producing some 3000 fighters A MONTH.


- The Luftwaffe was busy evacuating airfields,
- destroying planes which had no fuel or spares and
- couldn't fly.

In Hop`s gloriuos dreamworld.


- On hand strength with the Luftwaffe would have been
- far higher than operational strength, but for the
- RAF/USAAF that wasn't the case.


Prove. With actual numbers.


- Sadly the picture isn't very clear, but the
- description of the hit, on a Ju88's tail, is that it
- blew a hole 18" by 18", and lifted the entire
- tailfin 9", causing the plane to crash.

Funny, I can`t see any half meter diameter hole on this pic, even if it`s bad quality. I could certainly notice that. BTW, the Hispano tests seems to tell :

"At 75 yards, the HE/I went through the first sheet,
blew an 8" hole in the second sheet, and put 43
fragments through sheet "



-- Sure that you are no engineer. Power requirements
-- increased on the cube for similiar speed increase.
-- For 140 HP, an increase from 1840 to 1980 HP the
-- Spit may get 8mph, no more.
-
- 450hp total gain gets you 28mph.
-
- 140hp gain is just under 1/3 of the total gain, so
- will give you more than 1/3 of the total speed gain.

I have told you the increase is non-linear. Sad you couldn`t get it.




-
- - Spitfire Mk21 could do 368mph on +21lbs = +10 mph
-
-- for +200 HP. A few mph slower than K-4 even on B-4,
-- it seems.
-
- If you use your hugely optomistic figure of only
- 8mph difference between C3 and B4 fuel.

Sorry? You mean the actual results of tests?


- However, you
- still haven't explained how the Spit, which was
- bigger and heavier, gained more than 10mph from
- 140hp, and the 109K4 gained only 8mph from 150hp+


Some things cannot be explained under a certain intellectual/education levels, you know, not even for the third try it seems. So I guess I will give up on you and leave you in the state you were.


-
-- Speaking of lies, how do they call someone in
-- Brtiain who knows the truths but tells otherwise ?
-
- I think the vernacular is "Isegrim"
-
- eg somebody who posts pictures of 30mm shell hits
- and claims them as 20mm, somebody who tells you
- something, quoting paragraph 2 and 4, when 1 and 3
- contradicts him, etc.


I think it`s reasonable to call someone a manipulator who claims that the other said it`s a 20mm hit, when in reality he never said that.



-
-- "Author: hop2002
-- Rank: Lonely Postman
-- Date: 07/16/03 04:02PM
--
-- "Firstly, I've never claimed that test shows normal
-- Spit figures."
--
-- "Secondly, it doesn't show a stripped Spitfire. "
--
-- "It probably shows a Spit with the wingtips removed,
-- but that was done on 5000+ Spits in total, so was a
-- pretty common configuration."
-
- Look at the date. I haven't in the past claimed it
- was standard, I am now.


Aha. It`s kinda like you now deny that you`re attracted to boys, but you may admit that in the future ?



-- "Oh, I forgot, I posted the picture to the OnWar
-- forums, which are dead, so you can't prove it. How I
-- managed to post the picture to a text only forum I
-- still haven't been able to work out, let alone how I
-- posted it before I'd even seen it, because I left
-- OnWar before that was posted on the web."
-
- I still haven't managed to work out how I posted a
- picture to OnWar.

Some people need more time than others.
Some people are less honest than others.


-- "No, sorry, 389mph at sea level was the speed of the
-- Spitfire XIV, in standard operational conditions."
--
-- "Speed of Spitfire F XIV 389 mph at sea level. It's
-- there in black and white."
--
-- "It's based on a Spitfire XIV cleaned up to normal
-- standards."
--
- All perfectly true.


Like the story about the guy who went to a forest and "commited suicide". /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



-
- I've never seen Neil Sterling claiming that. As you
- can see from his figures above, it was very
- widespread.

Say 400 fighters in ADFU, further 500 with TAF, out of the 7-8000 planes the RAF had in 1945.

Not to mention that whole lot of Spit XIV squadrons in India. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


- As I've pointed out before, Britain
- produced more 150 octane from summer 44 onwards than
- Germany produced aviation fuel in total. And didn't
- have large ammounts destroyed in transportation and
- bombing attacks.


Pretty much irrevelant how much they produced, if it was rotting in the stores or was being used up by the USAAF.



-
-- His figures show that 150 grade fuel was used on a
-- rather limited scale even with it`s only user in
-- 1944, the ADFU/FC, at a rate of 2000-12 000 ton per
-- month.
-
- 12,000tons a month limited? Not when it's only used
- in frontline fighters. As an example of how
- "limited" that is, the RAF put their frontline
- fighters on 100 octane for the Battle of Briatin,
- and used 22,000 tons in 4 months.
-
-- You said the LW fuel situation was so bad, that they
-- were grounded for it. Why not compar that 2000 tons
-- with the smallest amount of LW consumption of
-- aviation fuel in a month, ie. 50 000 tons in
-- December 1944 ? If 50 000 tons is enough to being
-- grounded, how much 2000 tons worth
- Wasn't December 44 one of their all out efforts?
- Lets compare the entire Luftwaffe, fighting on 2
- fronts, with 150 octane consumption of 12,000 tons
- in 1 month, by Spitfires and a few Mosquitos only.

Why you keep comparing 12000 tons in July with 50000 tons in December? Say compare July with July, 12 000 tons of 150 grade consumed by the RAF, 190 000 tons of avgas by the Luftwaffe.

A better to compare November consumption of the RAF with November consumption of the LW, because by that time it was practically only fighters that were flying in the LW.

That gives 2000 tons of 150 grade by RAF fighters, and 50 000 tons of avgas by LW fighters.

I still didn`t get how could an airforce fly more fighter sorties on 4% of fuel quantity.


-
-- Alas Butch hasn`t prove that, and I only accept
-- something as fact when I see it`s proven. The rest -
-- assumptions, hypothesis, theory etc.
-
- Do you have any proof of the K4 using C3 in 1945?
- Butch has provided proof of the contrary, them only
- using B4, but you haven't yet provided any proof
- that they used C3.

Butch qouted a figure for III/JG77, a single Gruppe from the many, for the single month of Novmeber 1944.

Neil Stirling also proved that in November 1944, none of 35 Spitfire squads with 2ndTAF used 150 grade.


-
- In the abscence of any proof by you, and the
- prescence of proof by Butch, I'll leave it up to
- everyone else to make their own minds up.

In the abscence of any proof by you, and the prescence of proof by Neil Stirling, I'll leave it up to everyone else to make their own minds up.


-
-- Assuming that C-3 was on short supply, which is not
-- true.
-
- Isegrim, everybody else accepts all fuel was on
- short supply for the Luftwaffe in 1945.

Short supply of fuel does not means C-3 didn`t make up the larger part of the fuel reserves they were using up. The LW was living on it`s avgas reserves of 670 000 tons from August 1944 - production had little importance.


-
- And don't forget, according to you, the RAF had
- hardly any aircraft, whereas the Luftwaffe had
- thousands and thousands of planes to keep running in
- 1945.

True that the LW had more fighters than the RAF in 1944, 1945, I am glad you no longer deny that. Luckily for the LW, their av-engiens were no fuel hogs like Merlins and Griffons.



-
-- If there`s enough C-3 to run some 109s and the
-- 190As on it, whereas the rest of the 109s and 190Ds
-- could run on B-4 without performance loss, which is
-- to be used ?
-
- That's assuming they have enough C3 for ALL the
- 190As and 109s. In reality they didn't have enough
- fuel, full stop.

They don`t need C-3 for all 190s, only for about 2/3 of them. And they don`t need more C-3 than about 1/4 of the 109s.

There`s plenty of evidence that even those 109s runned on C-3 which didn`t require or gained from it, i.e. G-14, G-6/AS.



-
-- Do you have any documents showing the ACTUAL use of
-- 150 grade by MkXIV squadrons, ie. a doc showing the
-- actual type of fuel used a particula month.


- Neil Sterling has provided the figures showing how
- much was available, and the documents to show XIVs
- would be using it.

That`s similiar to the 12 000 would-be produced 109Ks.

According to NS, 150 grade stocks were 1/5 of 100 grade stocks. Also, what he posted says that 100 grade fuel consumption is well above expected figures.


-
- Butch has posted figures showing K4s using only B4.
-

I have seen butch arguing many times that he NEVER said that the K-4s would be using B-4 only. You can ask him.



- What I have yet to see, is a single document showing
- 150 octane unavailable, or 109K4s using C3.

I`d love to see a single document stating Spit XIVs running on 150 grade in operational service, or at +25lbs. Neil was here, why didn`t he posted such? Why did he posted fuel depot data in England, with 42nd group, and not 2nd TAF with 82nd Group, where SpitXIVs were?



-
- In other words, all the available documents support
- my position, and refute yours.
-
-- We only have the opposite. Neil Stirling showed that
-- none of the Spit XIVs were running on 150grade in
-- late 1944.

- No, he showed they couldn't use 25lbs boost in mid
- 44, some time before September. They did actually
- use 150 octane, even if they only ran at 21lbs
- boost.

In which doc did Neil showed 14s running on 150 octane? He didn`t show any.


-
-- So by your logic, that mean they never
-- used it.
--
- Unlike the 109G2, which we know was derated, the
- document that shows the Spit XIV can't use more than
- 21lbs boost says they will be able to in the future.

Unlike the SpitXIV, of which we have only evidence that it was der-rated, we have evidence that the G-2 was restored to full 1.42ata rating withing a few months. Later the same engines with mods were cleared for 1.98ata.



-- "
-- Captured Aircraft Report
-- August 1944
--
-- Me109G-14 W.Nr. 413601
-
--
-- This engine has the normal small supercharger and
-- both engine bearers are of light alloy. C-3 (100
-- octane) fuel is used but additional power for short
-- periods is obtained from an apparatus known as the
-- "MW 50", in conjunction with a boost pressure of 1.7
-- ata (equals British boost of +9.5). "
-
-
-
- That doesn't show it was using it, just that that's
- the preffered fuel.

"C-3 (100 octane) fuel is used "

No comment.



- We all know the Germans would
- have LIKED to use C3, but that doesn't mean they had
- enough of it to go around. Remember, the 190As would
- have got first call on the stuff.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/G-6-AS%20in%20Belgium%201.jpg


G-6/AS. Running on C-3 according to the label. It`s engine didn`t even required it.

-
-- Also there are pilot`s memoirs which state that even
-- some German bomber units ran on C-3 as well. Butch
-- knows those well.
-
- And yet Butch is of the opinion that C3 was in too
- short supply.

- Note I am not saying the 109K4 never ran on C3, just
- that they had to take what they could get, and that
- would normally be B4.

Just a few paras above you stated it never run on it.



- Sorry Isegrim, but all anyone else sees is documents
- showing the Spitfire XIV doing 389 mph at sea level.
- That's what it says, after all.

And everyone seen the conditions and purpose of the test, and also the ones who particpated in.


- Yes. The ministry of supply saying that the speed of
- a Spit is 389 mph at sea level. Unless you are
- suggesting they could do 389 at 21lbs boost?

I wonder who you convinced ?



--
-- According to the RAF, Grif 61 and 65 fells into the
-- same category, not being cleared for +21 lbs for the
-- same reason. They had the same construction, only
-- differing in gear ratio.
-
- Yes, and the report says there is a problem with the
- main bearing. There is also a note that lare numbers
- of Spitfire XIVs went to Hatfield for "GEM"
- modifications, that concerned engine output.

I see. So Griffons were further derated, like after the war ? Now that makes a sense, Eric Brown also confirmed that only +19 lbs was used for SpitXIVs.


-
- Now, what happens if we apply the same standards of
- proof to 109K4 performance claims? Where are the
- documents saying under what conditions, what engine
- rating, how often C3 was used etc? There aren't any,
- simply some sheets with performance numbers, that
- may well be taken from calculations, not tests.

Tests are from the same series of actual flight tests as the climbing figues.


- No, the evidence says it will be available, that
- modifications were carried out, and that the speed
- is 389mph at sea level, which fits 25lbs boost.

On a single plane, "for strictly short burst" to "catch V-1s" in a "crash program".


-
- On the other hand, there is evidence showing K4s
- using only B4, and 190s getting the available C3,
- and no evidence to the contrary. None.
-

When someone is a blinded by zealotry, sure he doesn`t see anything.


-
-- "The roll rate is very good and very positive below
-- about 250 mph. This is particularly true of the
-- Charles Church's Collection clipped wing aircraft.
-- Our round tipped aeroplane is slightly less nice to
-- feel. With the speed further back the roll rate
-- remains good, particularly with a bit of help from
-- the rudder. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to
-- heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a
-- P-51."
-
- The ADFU on the 109 vs Spit V:
-
- Rate of Roll
- 21.........Here again the Spitfire has a marked
- advantage at all speeds.
-
-
- The AFDU on the 109 vs Spit XIV
-
- Rate of Roll
- 28.........In the rolling plane the Spitfire again
- is superior at all speeds.


The Spitfire LF Mk.IX and Mk.XIV, and also Mustang III were tested against a Bf 109G-6N/U2/R6/R3, W.Nr.412951, named TP814 in British colours. The plane was captured in the summer of 1944, when it got disoriented and landed in Britain.

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/capt-luft/bf109/tp814-02.jpg


Basically that means that the "109G" was a night fighter version with night navigation equipment, equipped with a fuel drop tank/bomb shackles (some additional drag), two 20mm gun gondolas under the wings which added 215 kg extra weight and decreased climb rate and manouveribility greatly, and also caused a modest amount of speed loss (-10km/h). From other tests against the Tempest V. it is clear that British test pilots were unfamiliar with the operation of automatic leading edge slats on the 109s ("The Tempest is slightly better, the Bf.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall.") , and this resulted that they didn`t nearly pushed the plane to it`s limits in turns. I also suspect they used only limited boosts and powers to conserve the engine, which happened with other captured planes - what is certain that Capt. Eric Brown didn`t use more than 1.3ata when he flew W.Nr.412951.

In other words, the plane was some 30-35km/h slower than the clean fighter version, and turned a LOT worser because of the weight of gunpods, fusalge shackles, and the pilot`s unwillingness to pull the stick after the slats opened - which latter under normal circumstances would allow HIGHER G-loads, lower stall speed and tighter turns.

A clean Spitfire LF Mk.IX`s speed was practically identical to a clean G-6`s, and so was it`s climb rate up to around 6000m. Over that altitude, the Spit climbed a touch bit better, unless we are talking about a G-6/AS, G-14/AS, G-10 or K-4 with a high altitude engine, which was a rather common type in 1944, and was better at high altitudes.

The results of the tests should be understood by taking into account the exact conditions of the plane`s specialized (an all-wheater/night bomber destroyer, and not a daylight air superiority fighter) nature.



I do not need to post my papers again - they are in my response to Buzzsaw.



-
-
-- German document on 109G roll rate (Rollwendigkeit Me
-- 109G) gives roll rate as approx. 80 deg/sec at
-- 450kph/300mph.
-
- Stickforces? Because without knowing the stickforce,
- that's useless. Perhaps you can post the full
- document?

80 degree at 450 kph for 109G.

53 degree for SpitVA, without the bulk of Hispanos, at 450 mph.



-
-- Spitfire MkXIV Handling trials:
--
-- "...........4.21 Controls and general flying. The
-- type of fin and rudder incorporated in this aircraft
-- caused a decrease in the change of directional trim
-- with speed compared with JF.319. Rudder forces were
-- of a similar magnitude. The ailerons, despite an
-- absence of reflexing, were noticeably heavier."
-
- The next sentence is:
-
- "Variations in the weight of ailerons on Spitfire
- aircraft are common and are due to manufacturing
- differences between individual sets. This aircraft
- presumably had an inferior pair of ailerons; it is
- desirable that such ailerons should be rejected
- during production testing."
-
- First it was paragraphs we didn't need to see, now
- it's down to individual sentences. How long before
- it's just individual words we are presented with?


They noted the ailerons were heavier. They PRESUMED it`s because of inferior production quality, but factory pilots tell it was worser on all SpitXIVs. Not hard to see why, a weight increase from 7400lbs to 8500lbs won`t improve your manouveribility for sure.




-
--- (1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only
--- apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick as
--- compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had
--- more elbow room.
--
--
-- Still he could outmanouver Spits (from the same
-- test):
--
- <img
-- src="http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bank45.j
-- pg">
-
- Canvas aileron, replaced from the Spit V onwards.

Metal ailerons gave 53 deg/sec roll rate for the Spit VA at 450kph.

Just like the 109`s wing and ailerons were redesigned with the 109F, giving her 80 deg/sec at 450kph.


Still, the point is that the 109E could easily outroll the Spit I, despite your claimes it couldn`t.




-
---- "About mid-June a crash programme was initated to
---- improve the low-level performance of the Spitfire,
---- Tempest V, and Mustang III by using a specially
---- developed 150 octane aromatic fuel to give
---- abnormally high power for strictly short bursts.
---
--- The Eric Brown doesn't know everything, does he? 150
--- octane was developed in 1943, not for the V-1s, was
--- used in aircraft that never shased a V-1, and had
--- the same time limits as 100 octane fuel.
--
--
-- Of course, Hop-the-fanatic-Brit is a much better
-- source than those who participated in the tests
-- themselves..
-
- No. Eric Brown tested planes. That doesn't mean he
- knows when or why 150 octane was produced, or how
- widely it was used. He was a test pilot, and
- evaluated it's effect on aircraft.

If you hadn`t noticed, the qoute is about the conditions of tests, and not 150 octane. Eric Brown proves the condition of the Spit XIV you claimed not repr. of operational types, and later you changed your mind.



-- Than in that case you should ask to ban Hop2002. I
-- remember that no more than 2 weeks or so ago,
-- Hop2002 said that he HAD NEVER ever claimed that the
-- +25lbs stripped Spit or that it was typical for
-- squadron service.
--
-- Now he says the opposite. How do they call that in
-- Britain ? Give me an expression.
-
- I HAD NEVER claimed it was typical of squadron
- service. I am now. See the difference?


Yep. Your mental shape is worsening. And both of us know what you come up at onwar when I showed you figures for K-4.



-- Show me 5 pictures of Spit XIVs with removed mirrors
-- and wingclips.
--
-- No, it seems you cant.
--
- I can't scan and post pics. Nor do I have any desire
- to. We both know how common clipped wing Spits were,
- and claiming unbolting a mirror is "stripped" is too
- bizarre for words.

Show me 5 pictures of Spit XIVs with removed mirrors and wingclips.

No, it seems you cant.

So far the only Spit XIV I ever saw w/o wingtips and mirror was Bigg`s 3D model for Il-2.



-
--- No, I said about 5000 out of 22,000 Spitfires.
--
-- Great. You have admitted that you were trying to
-- sell other clipped wing marks as Spit XIV.
-
- No, I was pointing out how common clipped wings
- were.

By claiming a nonsense and failing to back it up...



--- Now, can we see the 109K4 document that shows level
--- speeds, please? Not the one you've drawn yourself,
--- but the original document.
---
--
-- And any reason why I should do that ? You didn`t
-- show any of your sources, why should do it more than
-- it`s absolutely neccesary to crush your myths ?
-
- You have all the sources I used, as is obvious from
- your selective quoting of them.

It`s obvious that you are making false statements again as you lack real arguements.



-
- It's fairly obvious to everyone, though, that your
- speed graph for the 109K4 is drawn by you, and not
- as yet backed up by anything. So far, it's a
- document from the minisrty of supply saying the
- Spitfire could do 389 mph at sea level, against a
- graph drawn by V101 Isegrim saying the 109K4 could
- do 378 at sea level. And you want people to believe
- the 109K4 was faster?
-

Butch already confirmed the numbers on my graph numerous times.



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
07-20-2003, 03:42 PM
Issy, here are the numbers for JG26 as of 31 Dec. 1944


a/c/Auth - Onhand - Svcble - Base , Crew/Auth - On-hand - Ready

Stab
Fw 190A-8/Fw 190D-9 4 1/2 0/1 , Fürstenau 4 4 1

I Gruppe
Fw 190A-8/Fw 190D-9 68 3/49 0/32 , Fürstenau 68 52 41

II Gruppe
Fw 190D-9 68 39 32 , Nordholm 68 50 41

III Gruppe
Bf 109G-14/Bf 109K-4/Fw 190D-9 68 14/29/1 7/13/1 , Plantlünne 68 40 29

III/JG 54
Fw 190D-9 68 49 32 , Varrelbusch 68 5 44

So of the 276 a/c authorized only 118 a/c were servicable. That is a rate of only >>> 42.75% <<<. That is a long way from your 70-80%./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Also notice that 109K-4 had only a 44.8% servicable rate.

The compliment authorized was only 67.75% full./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

from: JG 26: Top Guns of the Luftwaffe and JG 26 War Diary.

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

XyZspineZyX
07-20-2003, 04:07 PM
Briddy, maybe it`s news to you, but servicability rates are always compared to the actual a/c present. One some people are as stupid to count how much servicable is a plane that is not present.

Otherwise, we should count that out of the 1350 fighters authorized to the RAF during bob, only 550-600 were servicable during a day ? That`s around 40%, by your standards.

However, your data is usuful, if freed from your hatred-spoiled distortions.



There are 187 planes present with the Jagdgescwader 26 and III/JG 54, 118 ofthem being servicable, a rate of 63%.

Of course this is only 5 Gruppes out of the dozens. Some Gruppes were better, some were worser.

For example, on 10th January the II/JG301 had 40 planes (Fw 190), and 38 were servicable (95%).
III/JG300 had 44 (109s), 38 were servicable (86%).

etc. This is only a part of the picture, of course. We want to know the whole picture.


On 10th January , 1945, the Luftwaffe had 1937 dayllight fighter planes with the 1st Line Jagdgeschwaders, 1427 of them (73.67%) being servicable.

Out of them, 1187 were Bf 109s, 901 being servicable (75.9%).


According to Alfred Price: "Last year of the LW"




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

Message Edited on 07/20/0305:08PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
07-20-2003, 04:47 PM
JG 26 could only muster, as servicable, only 42.75% of its authorized a/c strength. Put any other twist to that fact, you want Issy.

Did you not say Issy that there was a/c sitting around that a pilot could use if his a/c went u/s? Where are all these extra a/c hiding?

Seems the JGs could not reach authorized establishment./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You did ask for numbers for JG26, did you not?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

What happened in BoB has nothing to do with JG26.

Western Germany, Luftflotte 3, JG units as of 10 Jan.'45 had a servicablity rate of a/c on-hand of 68%(745/1094). This is far from your claimed 80%./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Alfred Price. Luftwaffe Data Book, 1997


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

XyZspineZyX
07-20-2003, 04:51 PM
Too bad that your usual hysterical style and selective qouting make no doubt that this new tirade of yours is only another chapter of your well-known and infamous anti-German feelings, Milo. They just ruin all the work you put in to prove how bad the LW was.

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
07-20-2003, 05:02 PM
- hop2002 wrote:
--
-- The ADFU on the 109 vs Spit V:
--
-- Rate of Roll
-- 21.........Here again the Spitfire has a marked
-- advantage at all speeds.
--


I didn`t notice that the first time. You made a grieve mistake, Hop, while trying to forge new "evidence".

The ADFU never tested the 109G against the Spitfire Mark V. They tested their G-2 vs. the Tempest, and their G-6/R6 vs. Spit9LF and 14F, Mustang III.

It`s obviously your own text being sold as an ADFU trial.

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
07-20-2003, 05:08 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- Too bad that your usual hysterical style and
- selective qouting make no doubt that this new tirade
- of yours is only another chapter of your well-known
- and infamous anti-German feelings, Milo. They just
- ruin all the work you put in to prove how bad the LW
- was.
-
-

I had a very good teacher for selective quoting, Issy. You./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Everytime you quote an uber German stat, I will post the opposite German stat, to show up your selectivity./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


As for being hysterical and throwing an anti-German tirade./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You asked for numbers for JG26, nothing selective there, and when those facts do not conform to your UBER German mentality, you make accusations of hysterics and selective quoting.



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

XyZspineZyX
07-20-2003, 07:52 PM
-- 109Es shot down 180 odd Spits, according to your
-- figures. They lost 650 odd 109Es.
-
- Changing standards again ? You now list all 109Es
- lost, to all causes, i.e. combat and accident, from
- all reasons, ie. to Hurricanes, Defieants,
- Spitfires, AAA etc.
- That you want to compare to Spits lost to 109s,
- exluding all other reasons, like other LW planes,
- and the huge number of accidents with the untrained
- pilots of the RAF.

No, I don't. That's why I asked you to rephrase it. Your original wording claimed more Spits were shot down by 109s than were lost, and that's clearly wrong.

-- And I'd like to see the figures for October, when
-- 109 losses were high, and Spit losses low.
--
-
- According to "The Battle of Britain" by Peter G.
- Cooksley, losses in September and October (no
- breakdown:
-
- Hurricane 294 destroyed, 77 damaged
- Spitfire 195 destroyed, 76 damaged
- Total: 489 destroyed, 153 damaged
-
-
- 109: 326 destroyed, 96 damaged
-
- Ratio : 1.5 : 1 dest; 1.6:1 dam. favouring the 109

Your original figures went from July to September. We need to see the figures for Octeober, not September again.

- No wonder that British pilots started the habit of
- running away at the first sight of a 109.


ROFLOL. That's why the Germans won the BoB, isn't it?

---- Care to post the whole document?
-
- Care to post any of your documents ? Then we might
- chat about it.


Which documents? The Wright Field evaluation of the 109, that you already have, and are quoting from?

Truth is, you can't post the document, because it will prove you wrong.

-- Because Butch has already confirmed that the engine
-- in the 109F1/2 was derated twice in service, that it
-- was designed to run at 1.42 ata and in service was
-- restricted to 1.27ata.
-
- No, Butch is a bit wrong in this. Notleistung was
- reduced to 1.35ata, and it was Kamplesitung was
- reduced to 1.25 ata, not Notleistung.
-

Care to post the documents? Butch seems to think he's right. Notleistung was intended to be 1.40 or 1.42 ata, but was reduced to 1.35, then in May 41 Notleistung was banned completely, only 1.25ata was allowed.

HoHun posted the following in the same thread:

"Radinger/Schick have a comment on that on p. 112:

"In May 1941, the engine power of the DB601N had to be limited, namely to 100% = 1.25 ata manifold pressure. 2400 rpm at full throttle height, 2600 rpm above full throttle height.""

http://pub131.ezboard.com/fallboutwarfarefrm44.showMessageRange?topicID=393. topic&start=1&stop=20

- My numbers are for 1.3ata, 2800 RPM.

Care to prove that? 1.3ata seems an odd figure to run the test at, as the engine ratings were 1.4 or 1.35 or 1.25.

Still, the difference between 1.3 ata 2800rpm and 1.25ata 2600rpm is still going to slow the plane down a lot.

Glad you admit that the figures you were claiming were for an engine rating that was not used in service.


- My numbers are for 1.3ata, real life limit was 1.35
- ata.

No, Butch says the limit was 1.25 ata, Radinger/Schick say the same.

- A rather poor excuse. There are dozens of free
- webspace servers.

I looked at one of the ones you used, Xplane. However, their terms say you may only post stuff intended for XPlane. I have no wish to abuse their service.

BTW, you seem to have my main source, the Wright Field evaluation, so why are you asking me to post it? Sounds like an excuse to avoid posting your source, doesn't it?

- Good to know that now you admit the K-4 could climb
- to 8000m in 5 minutes. It also had two 15 cannons,
- and an MK103 in the nose.
-
- At least you listed Green as a reliable source on
- 109 performance.

No, I listed their sources, because their primary source is the same as mine.

-- Their "Aircraft Evaluation Report, No 110" is
-- probably the same thing, bearing in mind the
-- numbers.
-
- Then it`s no surprise why their numbers are wrong:
- they are based on an estimated performance figure
- which doesn`t even list the exact power.


Isegrim, you've claimed your source uses 1.3 ata, 2800rpm. As you can see above, the max limit was 1.25ata, 2600rpm.

-- Given that what you posted seems to be factory
-- documentation, it's not much of a stretch to assume
-- it refers to 1.42ata, which the plane was designed
-- to use, is it?
-
- It refers to 1.3 ata, 2800RPM.

Care to prove it? Even if that's the case, it's still more than the plane could use in service.

- But of course. Still, 515, or even 495 kph at SL
- seems to be faster than Hop-the-fanatic-Brit`s pet
- SpitV at 470kph.

495kph is hardly faster than a Spit V on 12lbs boost. They could do 480 kp/h at 9lbs, 12lbs would be substantially faster.

-- As to the sea level speed, it goes down to 2000ft
-- and 301mph, and is clearly headed for around 297 or
-- so.
-
- That`s indeed funny, so according to you, the F-2
- was as slow as the E-3 on the very same powers ?

I don't know, do you have the figures for the E3? And at what engine rating? Was it allowed to run more than the 1.25at 2600rpm used in the F1/F2?

- German datasheets say 515 kph for F-1 and F-2. At
- 1.3ata.

Why don't you post the whole document on the 109F so we can see the full picture, rather than the tiny bit you are showing?


- Soviet evaluation at NII VVS confirmed these
- figures, though are lower at altitude than German
- figures

At what engine rating? We'vee already seen that the 109F1 was designed to run at 1.4 or 1.42 ata, and in service only used 1.25ata. There was also the 1.35ata that they were set to use, but was forbidden. If you don't know wether that plane was running at 1.25 ata or 1.35ata or 1.4ata then you don't know what the real speed was.

- Spitfire VB max. speed at SL was 470 kph according
- to British tests at the Spitfire performance site.

No, 480 kph at 9lbs, but 12lbs was allowed.

- According to NII VVS, only 450 kph.

At what rating? And was it one of the war weary Spit Vs with tropical filter?

-- I'd say the manufacturers figures. So at 1.42 ata
-- the 109F1 may well have been as fast as you claim,
-- though I suspect it was a cleaned up aircraft, in
-- perfect condition.
-
- 515 kph at 1.3ata, 2800RPM.

Care to post the document?

Even if it was 1.3ata, that's still more than the 1.25ata they were allowed to use in service.

-- However, in service, as Butch has already said, the
-- engine was derated to a max of 1.25 ata, which will
-- make a huge difference.
-
- No, 1.35 ata for Notleistung, 1.25 for
- Kampfleistung.

Read it again:

"In May 1941, the engine power of the DB601N had to be limited, namely to 100% = 1.25 ata manifold pressure. 2400 rpm at full throttle height, 2600 rpm above full throttle height."

Radinger/Schick p112

It was derated twice, the first time Notleistung was reduced from 1.4 or 1.42 ata to 1.35ata, the second time Notleistung was banned altogether, or Notleistung became 1.25ata.

-- All the Spit V performance tests were done at 9lbs
-- boost. In fact, try and find a 12lbs boost test for
-- the Spit I or II, yet they were also rated at 12lbs
-- boost.
-
- No, they had an emergency rating of +12lbs at 100
- octane, but it weren`t used in serice, because it
- shrinked engine life to ONE TENTH, to 10 hours.

It was used in service. Got a source for the 10 hour claim? 10 hours, in 5 min steps, equals 120 combat flights.

- Spit V makes 450-470 at +9lbs.

480kp/h according to the Spit tests.

- At +16, it makes 510 kph.

525km/h, according to the Spit test site.

- Obviously +12 is somewhere between, at around
- 480-490.

Garbage in, garbage out. Mid way between the actual speeds would be around 502km/h.

- F-2 makes 515 kph at 1.3 ata,

Care to post the chart? The full thing, not one corner of it.

Even then, we know that they couldn't run at 1.3 ata 2800rpm in service, only 1.25ata, 2600 rpm.

- So according to Hop, 515 kph at SL for the F-2 is
- slower than 470 kph for the Mk V.

Using the real figures, the Spit V was faster than the 109F1/F2

- Sadly we are not comparing an 1.42 ata F-2, but an
- 1.3 ata one, which is below the maximum allowed
- 1.35ata.

According to you, but you wont post the chart.

Even then, we know that 1.3 ata 2800 rpm was not allowed, only 1.25ata 2600 rpm.

- It`s seems you didn`t understand my terms. Read
- again, dumbo.

Insults again?

- Notice the term "emergency". British term for
- maximum allowed power was combat.

Early war it was called emergency. Now, pilot is in combat, needs to go faster, is he going to push the throttle all the way? Of course.

- +12 lbs was called
- emergency because it destroyed the engine very fast,
- within 10 hours the engine went

Source? It's 120 combat flights anyway, which is hardly a problem.

-- Isegrim is choosing to give you the results of
-- HE/I/T shells, which weren't used, and not the HE/I
-- shells that were.
-
- Hop is trying to evade the facts of poor Hispano
- shell performance. He starts to make up stories some
- shells were better than is written black and white
- in the test report, and they weren`t used anyways.

There's 2 types of HE shells in that test. You gave the figures for only 1, the worst one.

-- The AP/I were later replaced by
-- SAP/I and weren't in this test.
-
- ROFMALOL, you mean the VERY same shells were
- replaced by the very same shells?

Notice the S at the start of SAP/I. SAP/I is not the same thing as AP/I. S stands for semi. Semi-Armour-Piercing, as opposed to Armour Piercing.

Possibly because they found the AP penetrated too much from that test.

- "Ammunition AP/I (SAP/I)"
-
- The "two" is the same, just different names for
- them.

Lets see, the test shows the results of test on an Armour Piercing shell. It shows they penetrated too much. The shell used during the war was the Semi Armour Piercing shell. Suggest something to you?

- This type of ammunition, which replaced itself, was
- found:
-
- "Since [Hispano] API failed to function, the trials
- were repeated with various thickness of armor to
- determine the min. thickness neccesary to function
- [Hispano] API."
-
-
- "Against unarmored tanks, [Hispano] API is
- ineffective in causing fires. A 6 swg mild steel at
- rear spar is neccesary to funbction the fuse....
- From this results it is estimated that fire
- freqeuncy of API against a real Heinkel wing is
- 6%."
-
So they found AP went clean through. They adopted Semi AP, see the difference?

- So you now claim that British fighters didn`t carry
- Tracer (/T) ammunition at all ? I saw different.

I believe the tracer was in the SAP/I, but neither of the common type, the HE/I or SAP/I carried the /T designation.

-- Are you claiming the mine shell was used
-- exclusively, and not in a mix with other shells?
-
- Are you still puttin words into my mouth ? Can you
- show me where I claimed only MG was used?

I asked you a question, how is that putting words in your mouth? I asked if you were claiming mine shells were used exclusively. Judging from your answer, I'd say you are not.

- It made up
- 50% of the ammo, a similir ratio of British HE in
- Hispano belt (which was 1 API or AP, and 1 HEIT or
- HEI).

The info I have seen suggests it was usually 40%, but I won't argue such a small difference.

Hispano ammunition was a 50/50 mix of SAP/I and HE/I

- Do you think that people are as stupid to believe
- your ridiculus claim that no British fighter ever
- carried HEIT ?

Tehy didn't carry those HE/I/T shells as tested there. The problem with those shells was the fusing, not the incendiary part. The British adopted a delayed action fuse for the Hispano.

What is ridiculous is your assertion that of the 2 types of ammo, one of which frequently blew up in the gun or at the muzzle, and always detonated on the aircraft skin, against one which never blew up in the gun or muzzle, and almost always penetrated, the British would choose the first one. Why?

- So that`s why you invented stories about HEIT not
- being used,

Isegrim. They tested 2 types of HE shells. One worked very well, one very badly. You presented the results of the very bad one, and claimed that was adopted. Why?

- API and SAP being different ammunitions,
- whereas they are the same,

No, they are different. They even have different designations.

- or that Mine shells
- didn`t compose 50% of a typical German belt ?

As I said, I believe it was normally 40%, but I won't argue over such a small difference.

- You are a monument of dishonesty and double
- standards.

What is dishonest is taking the results of a trial between 2 types of HE shell, and only giving the worst results. The usuall reason for such a test is to determine which is better, and adopt that one. Not to determine the worst, and adopt it.

- It`s seems you still didn`t stop your pale faced
- lies about me claiming it was a 20mm shell, which I
- never did.

Isegrim, in both cases you used it, it was during a discussion about a 109G2 equipped with gunpods. The 109G2 didn't mount the 30mm Mk108 internally, you know it,I know it, everyone else here knows it. You used the pictures dishonestly.

- Physical impossibility. A schrapnel is just a piece
- of metal with ZERO speed, thus ZERO energy. It`s the
- explosion that gives it all it`s speed and thus
- energy.

Yes, but you don't need substantiall ammounts to get substantial ammounts of shrapnel. The shrapnel effects of the 20mm Hispano would be far greater than the 20mm mine shell, simply because there will be more shrapnel with the Hispano shell.

- A 30mm Mineshell, even if thin walled, offered a lot
- more shrapnel than a 20mm Hispano.

Possibly the 30mm would, but again we were talking about the 20mm.

- A 20mm Mineshell had less of course than a Hispano.
- That`s why the German also used conventional HEIT
- shells with smaller explsive content, for
- incendinary effect and fragmentation.

Exactly. The mine shell had advantages in some situations, disadvantages in others. The Germans still felt the need to use a standard HE shell as well.

- The latter weight 115 gr of which 4-5 gram was
- explosives. => 110 gram shrapnel weight. And the use
- of more powerful explosive types made up for the
- less amount of charge.

- A Hispano shell was 120 gram, of which 7 gram was
- explosives. => 113gram shrapnel.

No, the figures for the Hispano shell were around 130 grams, and 10 - 11 grams of explosive.

The figure for the normal German HE/T was 3.7g of explosive.

All from Tony Williams.

- All mine shells I have seen far exhibited a metal
- layer around them. Even you couldn`t seriously think
- that Mausers fired pure chulks of explosives at the
- enemy.

Thin walled. How else do you think they got more explosive in a smaller shell?

- The reliablility improved, you are right in that.
- However, the excessive recoil remained, making
- little use of a Spit as a gun platform. Hispanos
- were just to much for such a light plane.

That's right, Spits never shot anything down once they got cannons.

- According to William Green, your source, all 109Ks
- were equi pped with two 15mm cannons and a 30mm
- MK103.

How is William Green my source? The Warbirds flight model group quoted him as a secondary source for the 109F1. Presumably even Green got some facts right.

So are you admitting now that the 109 didn't have the Mk103 internally?

- More seriously, the simple fact that these models
- amounting such heavy armament easily disprove your
- claim that the 109 was unable to mount heavy
- weapons.

What models, what heavy armament? Are you claiming the 103 was used in the 109?

- But you know what? Let`s pretend that gunpods were
- standard. After all, all this little hiss from you
- comes because you can`t accept as usual that a 109
- could do anything better than a Spit. So why not
- compare an 1.42 ata (1943 standard) 109G-2 with
- gunpods vs. a MkIXLF ? You claimed high altitude
- performance is better.... Now we have 665 kph at
- 7000m (clean 109G-2 1.42ata) vs. 643 kph at 6700m
- for Spit IXLF. Now the gunpods substract 8 kph from
- the speed. Do some maths.

Because the LF was a low altitude version. Why compare the high altitude performance of a low altitude fighter, unless you want a distorted picture? Why not compare a straight F or even an HF?

- Hmm, Tony Williams, which you already qouted, seems
- to say 5-10% ROF reduction for German gears, because
- they used electric gear etc.

No, he says 15 - 25% in general, and the Mg151 may have been as low as 10%.

- You mean the shells that replaced themselves?

No, I mean the HE shells from the report that didn't blow up in the barrel, and the Semi AP that reeplaced the AP.

- More explosive charge of signifcantly lower quality
- explosive.

Source for that. Again according to Tony Williams, there was little difference between the explosive filling of British and German shells.

- Kinetic energy is kinda like nothing compared to
- chemical energy. First, KE decreases with range, CE
- remains constant.

Again according to Tony Williams, kinetic enregy made up about half the total destructive effect.

Also from Tony Williams' site, he has done a comparison of aircraft gun power, combining kinetic, explosive effect, rof, etc. He gives the mine shell about the same power as a Hispano HE shell. The Hispano of course has far more power than a normal German HE, and the SAP round has far more power than the German AP round.

Overall, he rates the Spit V with 2 20mm and 4 mgs as more than double the power of a 109 with 2 mgs and 1 MG151.

So, a 109G2, which we were comparing, has less than half the firepower of the Spit, so it really does need those gunpods that you want to wish away.

- For comparison, at 0m a Hispano HEI shell has
- 4900mkg ((2820*0.3048)^2*.05*.130)/9.8) Kinetic
- energy0, and about 3/4 of that at 300 meter
- (3675mkg), according to ballistic charts.
- Explosive load is small, 7 gram, and is composed of
- less powerful explosives, thus it`s 0.007x350 000=
- 2450 mkg.
-
- So total is 3675+2450= 6125 mkg.
-
- Also, German studies in the field concluded that a
- 1kg explosives worth 350-400 000 mkg energy, making
- about 8000 mkg in the case of a 20mm MG shell alone
- for the explosives.
- KE0 is 3000 mkg, or about 2250 mkg at 300m.
-
- Total 12 250 mkg at 300m.
-
- Double that of a Hispano HEI shell.

Again, if you use the real figures, as Tony Williams has, you come out with very different figures. Go to http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

- The Hispano HE/I shell had 7 grams of explosives,
- the rest was only incendiry material.

It was a mix, but the incendiary is only there to improve the damage, not reduce it. Fire was the biggest single killer of aircraft.

Again, Tony Williams, who has a lot of expertise in this field, has already done the calculations, and presents a very different picture to yours.

- Hence the change to nose mounted guns by the
- RAF/USAAF, and copying German cannons and shells,
- isn`t it?

Hence the increasing muzzle velocities post war. The British and Americans used German revolver cannon designs post war. They didn't go down the Mg151/Mg108 route.

- First "probably around 1000 or so".
-
- Now: "several thousand Mk Vs, and several thousand
- Mk IXs, and several thousand of the other marks"
-
- It expands like a balloon. When will it just blow
- up?

Probably around 1000 or so used 4 20mm cannon. "Several thousand Mk Vs, and several thousand Mk IXs, and several thousand of the other marks" had the C or E type wing that would have allowed them to use 4 20mm. See the difference?

-- The E wing could also carry 4 20mms.
--
-
- No, only 12.7mm instead of 7.7mms.

No, 4 20mms. The mounting points were adapted to take a 50 cal, but they could still fit a 20mm in there instead.

-- Basically the mounting points for 4 20mm cannon were
-- there on almost all Spits from the Vc onwards.
--
-
- No, as a matter of fact only MKVCs could mount
- 4x20mm, not the further models, and it remained so
- until the Mk21. MkIX C-wings were rare if any
- according to all authors I have read.

Sorry, you are wrong on this, like on the constant speed props.

The A wing had 8 303s.
The B wing had 2 20mm and 4 303s, with the 20mms initially only having 60 round drums, later 120 round boxes.
The C wing could take either 4 20mms or 2 20mms and 4 303s. The majority of C wings were fitted with 2 20mms and 4 303s
The E wing could take 4 20mms, 2 20mms and 4 303s, or 2 20mms and 2 50 cals.

C or E refers to the wing type, not the type of armament that was fitted to it.

Almost all the Spit IXs and later had C or E wings, very few had the B wing.

- All the others? Only DB605A-0 equipped ones, not
- DB605A-1 equipped G-2s, and only from end 1942 till
- mid 1943.

No, DB 605A-1s were restricted.
Read what Butch said:

"At a time or another BMW801, DB601N, DB601E, DB605A had to be derated due to various troubles. In the case of the DB605A it was not until June 1943 that the limitation was lifted."

The German order restricting them refered only to the DB605 in 109G, which covers all of them then in service.

- Glad you gave up your claim that the Brit A3 was
- running at 1.42ata.

Pardon? The British A was tested at 1.42 ata, it says so clearly in the documents. It shouldn't have been, because the Germans had banned the use of 1.42 ata. That explains why they noted it was running roughly.

- Funny, wasn`t that after VE day? Which Squadron was
- that?
During the war. The Germans might have dropped out early, but the war went on.

Some were delivered to the Far East before VE day, but they were not used in service until after it.

- List me the Squadrons of mk14s outside anywhere
- England or NW Europe. BTW, I have the list.

So why do you want me to list them?

- So what on Earth that proves? No data, no type of
- a/c.. it could well be a MKIX or XVI.

No, it relates to XIVs.

- You don`t have to take my word, I asked Mike
- Williams to list me the Mk14 Squadrons and places.

Good, then you can give us the list.

- So that`s the 5 Squads of 2ndTAF + zero. Still 5
- Squads.

So there were no squadrons in the UK? As I said, I know of at least 2 in the Far East. The war wasn't over when the Germans gave up.

- See the book "Operation Bodenplatte". It goes in
- details that quite a few Typhoon squadrons
- strenghts.

Give us the details then.

- I have already listed the K-4 Gruppes in December
- 1944. These are with II/JG2, I/JG4, III/JG4, IV/JG4,
- II./JG11, III/JG26, I/JG27, II/JG27, III/JG27,
- Stab/JG53, II/JG53, I/JG77, III/JG77 .

And what was the actual strength?

- That`s 12 x 4 x 16+6= 774 K-4s in these Gruppes.

Lets see. 774 K4s, plus all the other 109s, plus all the 190s, we already know from Isegrim the RAF were down to 1 or 2 aircraft per squadron, we know from Isegrim the Germans had unlimited fuel.

How on earth did they lose air superiority?


- But care to post YOUR sources ? I.e. what was the
- operational strenght of, say, JG26 in January 1945 ?


Ok. The first 5 units you listed as having the K4 in Dec 44. II/JG2, I/JG4, III/JG4, IV/JG4, II./JG11

Between them, they had 38 K4s at the start of the month, 56 at the end of the month.

According to your figures, they should have had 320 K4s.

That's just about 1 sixth the figures you gave.

So 774 K4s become about 130 K4s.

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bjagd.htm

- Funny, in all actual operative strenghts, even in
- 1945, I always find LW units to have 70-80%
- operational level, which is quite typical for a
- USAAF of RAF squadron.

Yes, but you also find they had no shortage of fuel, more K4s than the RAF had fighters, and probably outnumbered the USAAF as well.

- Look into the JG26`s War diary. A pilot mentions
- that there was such an abundance of reserve planes
- that they didn`t even bothered repairing damaged
- planes, they simply went to the nearest supply
- depot, and picked a brand new one. There were LOADS
- of a/c standing there. He also mentions K-4s.

Which gave them very high attrition. Any damage meant a plane was basically abandoned rather than repaired. That means operational levels are well below "on hand" totals, which is what Rich was repeatedly trying to tell you.

-- The Luftwaffe was busy evacuating airfields,
-- destroying planes which had no fuel or spares and
-- couldn't fly.
-
- In Hop`s gloriuos dreamworld.

Of course, the Germans were busy sweeping across Europe, and the British and Americans and Russians desperately retreating.

-- Sadly the picture isn't very clear, but the
-- description of the hit, on a Ju88's tail, is that it
-- blew a hole 18" by 18", and lifted the entire
-- tailfin 9", causing the plane to crash.
-
- Funny, I can`t see any half meter diameter hole on
- this pic, even if it`s bad quality. I could
- certainly notice that.

try reading the description of damage on page 1 and 2.

BTW, the Hispano tests seems
- to tell :
-
- "At 75 yards, the HE/I went through the first sheet,
-
-
- blew an 8" hole in the second sheet, and put 43
- fragments through sheet "

that's what I said.

-- 450hp total gain gets you 28mph.
--
-- 140hp gain is just under 1/3 of the total gain, so
-- will give you more than 1/3 of the total speed gain.
-
- I have told you the increase is non-linear. Sad you
- couldn`t get it.

Of course the increase is non linear. Add 140 hp and you will gain X, add another and the gain will be much less, add another 140hp and the gain will be even less again.

You seem to be suggesting that you will gain 8mph with the first 140hp, another 9mph with the next 140hp, and another 11mph with the next 140hp, which is wrong. The increase in speed will be less each time, not more.

-- If you use your hugely optomistic figure of only
-- 8mph difference between C3 and B4 fuel.
-
- Sorry? You mean the actual results of tests?

Can we see the tests? Not your hand drawn graph, but the original documents.


-- However, you
-- still haven't explained how the Spit, which was
-- bigger and heavier, gained more than 10mph from
-- 140hp, and the 109K4 gained only 8mph from 150hp+
-
-
-
- Some things cannot be explained under a certain
- intellectual/education levels, you know, not even
- for the third try it seems. So I guess I will give
- up on you and leave you in the state you were.

More insults?

I've worked it out now. In Isegrims world, EVERYTHING is the opposite of the real world.

The Germans had an abudance of fuel in 1945.

The Germans were advancing across Europe in 1945.

A 140hp increase will get you 8mph speed increase, but a 280hp increase will get you 18mph speed increase. ie, drag decrease with speed.

The 109 was a good roller

etc, etc, etc.

- I think it`s reasonable to call someone a
- manipulator who claims that the other said it`s a
- 20mm hit, when in reality he never said that.

Isegrim, we were discussing the 109G2, I said it was undergunned without pods, you posted 2 pics of damage done by 30mm shells.

Everybody knows you did, you are just making it worse by claiming you didn't.

- Aha. It`s kinda like you now deny that you`re
- attracted to boys, but you may admit that in the
- future ?

Oh, you've sunk to a new low now Isegrim.


--- "No, sorry, 389mph at sea level was the speed of the
--- Spitfire XIV, in standard operational conditions."
---
--- "Speed of Spitfire F XIV 389 mph at sea level. It's
--- there in black and white."
---
--- "It's based on a Spitfire XIV cleaned up to normal
--- standards."
---
-- All perfectly true.
-
-
- Like the story about the guy who went to a forest
- and "commited suicide". /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Huh? Are you putting up "smiley-very-happy" at Dr Kelly, who committed suicide on Friday? Tasteless, even for you.

-- Do you have any proof of the K4 using C3 in 1945?
-- Butch has provided proof of the contrary, them only
-- using B4, but you haven't yet provided any proof
-- that they used C3.
-
- Butch qouted a figure for III/JG77, a single Gruppe
- from the many, for the single month of Novmeber
- 1944.

And yet you can't quote a single figure for a single month for a single staffel, can you?

- There`s plenty of evidence that even those 109s
- runned on C-3 which didn`t require or gained from
- it, i.e. G-14, G-6/AS.


Where's the evidence?

- I have seen butch arguing many times that he NEVER
- said that the K-4s would be using B-4 only. You can
- ask him.

Where?

I never said it would be B4 ONLY, just mostly.

Here's the thread:

http://pub131.ezboard.com/fallboutwarfarefrm43.showMessage?topicID=434.topic

And here's the quote:

"C3 was necessary for the 190 equiped units whose engine could not run without. So it seems that in the last months of the war G-10 and K-4 units were delivered B4 instead and had to rely on B4+MW-50 rather than C3+MW50."

BTW, Butch also talks about MW50 shortages there, which means the Germans had to make sure there was sufficient C3 for the 190s, then make sure there was sufficient C3 for the 109s, then make sure there was sufficient MW50 as well.

-- Unlike the 109G2, which we know was derated, the
-- document that shows the Spit XIV can't use more than
-- 21lbs boost says they will be able to in the future.
-
- Unlike the SpitXIV, of which we have only evidence
- that it was der-rated, we have evidence that the G-2
- was restored to full 1.42ata rating withing a few
- months. Later the same engines with mods were
- cleared for 1.98ata.

Where's the source for the rerating of the 109G2? And how does over 1 year equal "a few months"?

-- That doesn't show it was using it, just that that's
-- the preffered fuel.
-
- "C-3 (100 octane) fuel is used "
-
- No comment.

Since when was C3 100 octane? C3 is 97 octane, isn't it?


- I see. So Griffons were further derated, like after
- the war ? Now that makes a sense, Eric Brown also
- confirmed that only +19 lbs was used for SpitXIVs.

150 octane fuel production was stopped after the war. It was expensive, difficult to handle, and a health hazard.

-- Now, what happens if we apply the same standards of
-- proof to 109K4 performance claims? Where are the
-- documents saying under what conditions, what engine
-- rating, how often C3 was used etc? There aren't any,
-- simply some sheets with performance numbers, that
-- may well be taken from calculations, not tests.
-
- Tests are from the same series of actual flight
- tests as the climbing figues.

Can we see them? And the supporting documents, giving the conditions, etc?

- On a single plane, "for strictly short burst" to
- "catch V-1s" in a "crash program".

So Britain produced 350,000 tons of 150 octane for "a single plane, for strictly short bursts, to catch V-1s in a crash program"?

-- On the other hand, there is evidence showing K4s
-- using only B4, and 190s getting the available C3,
-- and no evidence to the contrary. None.
--
-
- When someone is a blinded by zealotry, sure he
- doesn`t see anything.

Post the evidence.

- I also
- suspect they used only limited boosts and powers to
- conserve the engine, which happened with other
- captured planes

Such as the 190A3? The Luftwaffe rated it at 1.35ata, the RAF tested it at 1.42ata.

-- Stickforces? Because without knowing the stickforce,
-- that's useless. Perhaps you can post the full
-- document?
-
- 80 degree at 450 kph for 109G.

At what stickforce? Without knowing stickforces, the figures are useless.

A quick look at the Naca rollrate chart would give you 130 deg per second at the same speed for the Spit, without specifying stick force.

- They noted the ailerons were heavier. They PRESUMED
- it`s because of inferior production quality, but
- factory pilots tell it was worser on all SpitXIVs.
- Not hard to see why, a weight increase from 7400lbs
- to 8500lbs won`t improve your manouveribility for
- sure.

Then we can assume the rollrate of the 109 got worse from the E model onwards?

- If you hadn`t noticed, the qoute is about the
- conditions of tests, and not 150 octane. Eric Brown
- proves the condition of the Spit XIV you claimed not
- repr. of operational types, and later you changed
- your mind.

Sorry, the quote from Eric Brown was:

----- "About mid-June a crash programme was initated to
----- improve the low-level performance of the Spitfire,
----- Tempest V, and Mustang III by using a specially
----- developed 150 octane aromatic fuel to give
----- abnormally high power for strictly short bursts.

Where does that mention condition of the plane? Strictly short bursts equals 5 mins, which is all I have ever claimed for 25lbs boost.

- Yep. Your mental shape is worsening. And both of us
- know what you come up at onwar when I showed you
- figures for K-4.

Huh? All I remeber is you claiming the 109K4 could climb to 5000m in 3 mins, me proving to you it was actually 6 mins at reduced power, and you putting up 300 smileys in a row, like the scene from The Shining (All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. etc)

The debate then moved to Butch's board, where the picture was posted, and with the help of HoHun I proved it beyond anyone's doubt, even yours.

- So far the only Spit XIV I ever saw w/o wingtips and
- mirror was Bigg`s 3D model for Il-2.

Cool, we're getting a Spit XIV that will do 389 at sea level http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


-- You have all the sources I used, as is obvious from
-- your selective quoting of them.
-
- It`s obvious that you are making false statements
- again as you lack real arguements.

No, you asked me to post the source for the 109F1 speed, and then started quoting from it yourself. You still refuse to post anything on the 109K4 speed apart from your own hand drawn document.

--- The ADFU on the 109 vs Spit V:
---
--- Rate of Roll
--- 21.........Here again the Spitfire has a marked
--- advantage at all speeds.
---
-
-
- I didn`t notice that the first time. You made a
- grieve mistake, Hop, while trying to forge new
- "evidence".
-
- The ADFU never tested the 109G against the Spitfire
- Mark V. They tested their G-2 vs. the Tempest, and
- their G-6/R6 vs. Spit9LF and 14F, Mustang III.
-
- It`s obviously your own text being sold as an ADFU
- trial.

Sorry, should have read Spit IX. So even the heavier "worser" rolling Spit IX was better than the 109

XyZspineZyX
07-20-2003, 08:15 PM
Yes that's right, on your 6. Heres a scenario: You are at same altitude goinf head on with each other. Keep climbing you'll easily be over it b4 u go head on. The hurri is now going really slow cause its trying to get you, if it fires dont let it hit you -menuver. Now gun you bf and zoom up after you gain safe distance from it, the hurri has to stall at 0 kmh for sure, it will drop like S and ull have enough speed to menuver your plane and get it in your sites cause the hurri can't dive and it's very stiff now. Keep practicing and you'll get it right.

XyZspineZyX
07-20-2003, 08:35 PM
Salute Isegrim

Once again, you choose to ignore the facts which don't fit your argument.

So I will put it again.

Have a look at the chart again:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/42.gif


Note the rollrate for the Spitfire with clipped wings.

150 degrees per second. Far better than any figure you have put forward for ANY 109.

The Clipped wing Spitfire was introduced in the MkVb models.

NOT THE Va, used in the NACA test which you continue to insist is the be all and end all of Spitfire tests and which is mentioned in the snippets of documents which you post.

(by the way, how about posting the entire NACA Spitfire Va test please, so we can determine whether there are any other facts which you are hiding)

So clearly, the Spitfire tested by NACA was not a clipped wing version, and therefore your ENTIRE argument is fatally flawed.

Clipped wing Spitfires were in the majority for all Mk IX LF and Mk V LF. They were also in the majority for operational Mk XIV's. Only in HF models was the standard wing used solely.

Second in regards to the tested aircraft.

The G6 you mention did have gunpods, and they were left on for the tests.

However, it was not in poor condition, and was used with maximum boost during the tests. Brown was not doing an official test when he flew it, and for that reason was told not to stress the engine. The personell who flew it in tests for the RAF were members of the AFDU or Enemy Aicraft Flight as seen here:

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/mike/Me%20109%20G6-U2%20at%20Wittering.jpg


Additionally, the 109G6 was not the only aircraft tested against Spitfires, as I have mentioned many times and shown photos of many times, a 109G2, easily the most maneuverable when compared to a G6, or K4, was also used.

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/capt-luft/bf109/rn228-02.jpg

Finally the NACA report graph #898 pictured above did not use theoretical data. It used individual flight tests done previously by NACA and the AFDU for its figures.


One of these days Isegrim you will acknowledge that all aircraft have their weak and strong points and your all precious 109 wasn't the uber plane you insist it was.


Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw



Message Edited on 07/20/0307:39PM by RAF74Buzzsaw_XO

XyZspineZyX
07-20-2003, 10:38 PM
hop2002 wrote:

- No, I don't. That's why I asked you to rephrase it.
- Your original wording claimed more Spits were shot
- down by 109s than were lost, and that's clearly
- wrong.


Doesn`t matter how you twist it Spitdweeb, 109s slayed Spits en masse in BoB.


-- No wonder that British pilots started the habit of
-- running away at the first sight of a 109.
-
- ROFLOL. That's why the Germans won the BoB, isn't
- it?

No, that`s why the RAF pilots felt they fly inferior planes with inferior training.


- Truth is, you can't post the document, because it
- will prove you wrong.

No, the truth is that I don`t post documents because you don`t neither.


-
--- Because Butch has already confirmed that the engine
--- in the 109F1/2 was derated twice in service, that it
--- was designed to run at 1.42 ata and in service was
--- restricted to 1.27ata.
--
-- No, Butch is a bit wrong in this. Notleistung was
-- reduced to 1.35ata, and it was Kamplesitung was
-- reduced to 1.25 ata, not Notleistung.
-
- Care to post the documents?

For you ? What for? You don`t back anything with docs; why should I support you with information which you could twist?


- Butch seems to think
- he's right. Notleistung was intended to be 1.40 or
- 1.42 ata, but was reduced to 1.35, then in May 41
- Notleistung was banned completely, only 1.25ata was
- allowed.
-
- HoHun posted the following in the same thread:
-
- "Radinger/Schick have a comment on that on p. 112:
-
- "In May 1941, the engine power of the DB601N had to
- be limited, namely to 100% = 1.25 ata manifold
- pressure. 2400 rpm at full throttle height, 2600 rpm
- above full throttle height."

Funny, my 109F manual is date 1941, and it lists 1.35 and 1.25 ata limitations. I take that instead of R/S.


-
-- My numbers are for 1.3ata, 2800 RPM.
-
- Care to prove that?

It isn`t neccesary. It`s there in the manual, which won`t be posted until you don`t post something.


- 1.3ata seems an odd figure to
- run the test at, as the engine ratings were 1.4 or
- 1.35 or 1.25.

If an engine can run at 1.35, why could it run at 1.3? The throttle is infinitevly variable with it`s positions. It could well run at 1.329124 ata as well.

-
- Still, the difference between 1.3 ata 2800rpm and
- 1.25ata 2600rpm is still going to slow the plane
- down a lot.

And an increase to 1.35ata will boost it`s speed a lot.

-
- Glad you admit that the figures you were claiming
- were for an engine rating that was not used in
- service.

You are prevacarating when you say I admitting any such thing.


-
-- My numbers are for 1.3ata, real life limit was 1.35
-- ata.
-
- No, Butch says the limit was 1.25 ata,
- Radinger/Schick say the same.

No, limit was 1.35 ata, even according to him, and according to the 109F manual Butch used as a reference.



- I looked at one of the ones you used, Xplane.
- However, their terms say you may only post stuff
- intended for XPlane. I have no wish to abuse their
- service.

Of course, if you would, it would plain obvious how much you lack backing of sources. Alas, you can go to pbase.com, they have no such terms.



- BTW, you seem to have my main source, the Wright
- Field evaluation, so why are you asking me to post
- it? Sounds like an excuse to avoid posting your
- source, doesn't it?

If you have the Wright report, then why do you say their data is reliable, when there`s no power setting noted, and it`s labeled "estimated"?



-
-- Good to know that now you admit the K-4 could climb
-- to 8000m in 5 minutes. It also had two 15 cannons,
-- and an MK103 in the nose.
--
-- At least you listed Green as a reliable source on
-- 109 performance.
-
- No, I listed their sources, because their primary
- source is the same as mine.

So you admit that the source of those who you use as a source is unreliable. Great.

Sh*t doesn`t turns to gold, even if it goes through many hands. Green is just plain wrong, just in just about every case when it comes to a 109 (470 kph for F-1, 621 kph for G-6, 727 kph for K-4 etc.).



-
--- Their "Aircraft Evaluation Report, No 110" is
--- probably the same thing, bearing in mind the
--- numbers.
--
-- Then it`s no surprise why their numbers are wrong:
-- they are based on an estimated performance figure
-- which doesn`t even list the exact power.
-
-
- Isegrim, you've claimed your source uses 1.3 ata,
- 2800rpm. As you can see above, the max limit was
- 1.25ata, 2600rpm.

Not according to the Manual itself, and not according to Butch who said 1.35ata.

1.25ata was told as "probable" for Emils only with poorer cooling plants.



--- Given that what you posted seems to be factory
--- documentation, it's not much of a stretch to assume
--- it refers to 1.42ata, which the plane was designed
--- to use, is it?
--
-- It refers to 1.3 ata, 2800RPM.
-
- Care to prove it?
-

No. I couldn`t care less. It`s there, and that`s enough for me.


- Even if that's the case, it's
- still more than the plane could use in service.

According to Hop, 1.3 is more than 1.35.


-- But of course. Still, 515, or even 495 kph at SL
-- seems to be faster than Hop-the-fanatic-Brit`s pet
-- SpitV at 470kph.
-
- 495kph is hardly faster than a Spit V on 12lbs
- boost. They could do 480 kp/h at 9lbs, 12lbs would
- be substantially faster.

Sadly they could only do 470 or 450 on +9lbs, depending on type.
They were obviously not cleared to +12lbs at least until mid-1942. By then, it was F-4 time.


--- As to the sea level speed, it goes down to 2000ft
--- and 301mph, and is clearly headed for around 297 or
--- so.
--
-- That`s indeed funny, so according to you, the F-2
-- was as slow as the E-3 on the very same powers ?
-
- I don't know, do you have the figures for the E3?
- And at what engine rating? Was it allowed to run
- more than the 1.25at 2600rpm used in the F1/F2?

E-3 could run at 1.3 ata. E-7/N was cleared to 1.25ata, but with the new engine it was more power than 1.3ata with the old DB601A.

At 1.3ata, Emils did 470 kph at SL. Funny how the cleaner F-2 could do just the same, with more power.



-- German datasheets say 515 kph for F-1 and F-2. At
-- 1.3ata.
-
- Why don't you post the whole document on the 109F so
- we can see the full picture, rather than the tiny
- bit you are showing?


Because I couldn`t care less what a mindless zealot who doesn`t back himself up thinks on the matter.


-
-- Soviet evaluation at NII VVS confirmed these
-- figures, though are lower at altitude than German
-- figures



- At what engine rating? We'vee already seen that the
- 109F1 was designed to run at 1.4 or 1.42 ata, and in
- service only used 1.25ata. There was also the
- 1.35ata that they were set to use, but was
- forbidden. If you don't know wether that plane was
- running at 1.25 ata or 1.35ata or 1.4ata then you
- don't know what the real speed was.

So if the chart lists 515 kph at SL, we don`t know how much is it? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

515 kph at SL, Hop. According to both the Rusians, and Germans.

Mindless zealotry doesn`t help to change that.


-
-- Spitfire VB max. speed at SL was 470 kph according
-- to British tests at the Spitfire performance site.
-
- No, 480 kph at 9lbs, but 12lbs was allowed.

470 mph in all British tests at 9lbs. Twisting won`t help you.

Many sources also state 450 kph.


-
-- According to NII VVS, only 450 kph.
-
- At what rating? And was it one of the war weary Spit
- Vs with tropical filter?

450 kph, Hop. No more. 450 is a good deal slower than 515 kph.


-
--- I'd say the manufacturers figures. So at 1.42 ata
--- the 109F1 may well have been as fast as you claim,
--- though I suspect it was a cleaned up aircraft, in
--- perfect condition.
--
-- 515 kph at 1.3ata, 2800RPM.
-
- Care to post the document?
-

No. You are pretty slow on getting that you won`t get nothing until you support your claims with documents.


-
- Even if it was 1.3ata, that's still more than the
- 1.25ata they were allowed to use in service.
-

1.42 and later 1.35 ata was the limit in service for the F. 1.25 is for Emils with 601N.



--
--- All the Spit V performance tests were done at 9lbs
--- boost. In fact, try and find a 12lbs boost test for
--- the Spit I or II, yet they were also rated at 12lbs
--- boost.
--
-- No, they had an emergency rating of +12lbs at 100
-- octane, but it weren`t used in serice, because it
-- shrinked engine life to ONE TENTH, to 10 hours.
-
- It was used in service. Got a source for the 10 hour
- claim?

It was not used in service, because it greatly decreased engine life.

And of course I have a source. But why should I give it out to a zealot who never shows any source? But here`s a hint: it`s in a Chapter called "Better fitted for a fight". I believe you have that book.


- 10 hours, in 5 min steps, equals 120 combat
- flights.

No, it equals 10 one-hour flights before the engine goes to the trashcan. You don`t even know what overhaul time is.... what the heck are you arguing?



-
-- Spit V makes 450-470 at +9lbs.
-
- 480kp/h according to the Spit tests.

Which test ?

470 kph on the 4th FG site, 450 kph in Soviet tests.


-
-- At +16, it makes 510 kph.
-
- 525km/h, according to the Spit test site.
-

How much fantasy involved here.


-- Obviously +12 is somewhere between, at around
-- 480-490.
-
- Garbage in, garbage out. Mid way between the actual
- speeds would be around 502km/h.


Not according even to basic physics.


-
-- F-2 makes 515 kph at 1.3 ata,
-
- Care to post the chart? The full thing, not one
- corner of it.

Boy, you are really slow to get it.

In other words: if you don`t post your own, you don`t get sh*t.

Sorry, I wanted to be straightforward to avoid possible misunderstandings.

-
- Even then, we know that they couldn't run at 1.3 ata
- 2800rpm in service, only 1.25ata, 2600 rpm.
-

1.35 ata was the limit for 109F, no matter the amount of your zealotry.

Spits were limited to +9lbs till mid 1942, good enough for 450-470 kph.


-- So according to Hop, 515 kph at SL for the F-2 is
-- slower than 470 kph for the Mk V.
-
- Using the real figures, the Spit V was faster than
- the 109F1/F2

Using real figures, 515 kph is a good deel faster than 470kph.


-
-- Sadly we are not comparing an 1.42 ata F-2, but an
-- 1.3 ata one, which is below the maximum allowed
-- 1.35ata.
-
- According to you, but you wont post the chart.
-

I do not want to repeat myself.


-
- Even then, we know that 1.3 ata 2800 rpm was not
- allowed, only 1.25ata 2600 rpm.
-

Speak in your own name. Not everyone is so self-deluded as you.


-
-- It`s seems you didn`t understand my terms. Read
-- again, dumbo.
-
- Insults again?

Just make a rehearsal so you slowly get it.


-
-- Notice the term "emergency". British term for
-- maximum allowed power was combat.
-
- Early war it was called emergency. Now, pilot is in
- combat, needs to go faster, is he going to push the
- throttle all the way? Of course.

So you mean that 1.42 ata was officially denied, but actually used in times of need ?

-
-- +12 lbs was called
-- emergency because it destroyed the engine very fast,
-- within 10 hours the engine went
-
- Source? It's 120 combat flights anyway, which is
- hardly a problem.

According to amateur who think 10 flight hours replacement time refers to only the powers it were used on... 10 flights, Hop. Then engine replacement.


-
--- The AP/I were later replaced by
--- SAP/I and weren't in this test.
--
-- ROFMALOL, you mean the VERY same shells were
-- replaced by the very same shells?
-
- Notice the S at the start of SAP/I. SAP/I is not the
- same thing as AP/I. S stands for semi.
- Semi-Armour-Piercing, as opposed to Armour Piercing.
-
- Possibly because they found the AP penetrated too
- much from that test.


The tests list AP/I and SAP/I being the same under different names, even the dumbest can get this if they can read.

No wonder you deleted the URL to the test. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif It was so painfully clear. But here`s again:

http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/pro_hs_trials_3.jpg


AP/I (SAP/I). Same weight, same MV. What a coincindance.
The test also mentions ordinary AP.


-
-- "Ammunition AP/I (SAP/I)"
--
-- The "two" is the same, just different names for
-- them.
-
- Lets see, the test shows the results of test on an
- Armour Piercing shell. It shows they penetrated too
- much. The shell used during the war was the Semi
- Armour Piercing shell. Suggest something to you?


It suggest that you play that you are much more challanged than you are actually. Funny, the test lists "two different" AP ammo, which funnily coincides in their weight and muzzle velocity, but only list one of them in the actual tests... LOL!


-
-- This type of ammunition, which replaced itself, was
-- found:
--
-- "Since [Hispano] API failed to function, the trials
-- were repeated with various thickness of armor to
-- determine the min. thickness neccesary to function
-- [Hispano] API."
--
--
-- "Against unarmored tanks, [Hispano] API is
-- ineffective in causing fires. A 6 swg mild steel at
-- rear spar is neccesary to funbction the fuse....
-- From this results it is estimated that fire
-- freqeuncy of API against a real Heinkel wing is
-- 6%."
--
- So they found AP went clean through. They adopted
- Semi AP, see the difference?

So they adopted SAP/I, which was the same as AP/I? Very interesting. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Are you claiming that MK151/20 and MG151/20 are different guns?



-- So that`s why you invented stories about HEIT not
-- being used,
-
- Isegrim. They tested 2 types of HE shells. One
- worked very well, one very badly. You presented the
- results of the very bad one, and claimed that was
- adopted. Why?

Got any source that HEIT was not used ? Your silence means "no" to me.


-
-- API and SAP being different ammunitions,
-- whereas they are the same,
-
- No, they are different. They even have different
- designations.

They are listed in the same line with the same properties, SAP being in paranthesis behind AP/I.



-- It`s seems you still didn`t stop your pale faced
-- lies about me claiming it was a 20mm shell, which I
-- never did.


- Isegrim, in both cases you used it, it was during a
- discussion about a 109G2 equipped with gunpods. The
- 109G2 didn't mount the 30mm Mk108 internally, you
- know it,I know it, everyone else here knows it. You
- used the pictures dishonestly.

You claimed that the 109G was poorly armed and needed gunpods to make up for that.

I showed the devastating effect of a single shot from 109G armament to disprove it.

No more dishonesty in that than claiming that the 109G needed gunpods to "make up for the lack of firepower".



-
-- Physical impossibility. A schrapnel is just a piece
-- of metal with ZERO speed, thus ZERO energy. It`s the
-- explosion that gives it all it`s speed and thus
-- energy.
-
- Yes, but you don't need substantiall ammounts to get
- substantial ammounts of shrapnel. The shrapnel
- effects of the 20mm Hispano would be far greater
- than the 20mm mine shell, simply because there will
- be more shrapnel with the Hispano shell.

If you have a large body with little explosive in it, you will get a few big chunks of slow flying metal.

If you have a lighter body with a lot of explosive in it, you will get a many smaller chunks of high velocity metal pieces.



-
-- A 30mm Mineshell, even if thin walled, offered a lot
-- more shrapnel than a 20mm Hispano.
-
- Possibly the 30mm would, but again we were talking
- about the 20mm.
-
-- A 20mm Mineshell had less of course than a Hispano.
-- That`s why the German also used conventional HEIT
-- shells with smaller explsive content, for
-- incendinary effect and fragmentation.
-
- Exactly. The mine shell had advantages in some
- situations, disadvantages in others. The Germans
- still felt the need to use a standard HE shell as
- well.


-
-- The latter weight 115 gr of which 4-5 gram was
-- explosives. => 110 gram shrapnel weight. And the use
-- of more powerful explosive types made up for the
-- less amount of charge.
-
-- A Hispano shell was 120 gram, of which 7 gram was
-- explosives. => 113gram shrapnel.
-
- No, the figures for the Hispano shell were around
- 130 grams, and 10 - 11 grams of explosive.

HEI was 130 gram. Explosvies was just 7 gram, the rest were incd. materiel. That`s 119 gram of shrapnel.

-
- The figure for the normal German HE/T was 3.7g of
- explosive.

Great, than we have 115 gram shell minus 3.7gram = 112 gram.

So now you claim the Hispano had "far more" shrapnel.. by how much... 7 grams? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


-
-- The reliablility improved, you are right in that.
-- However, the excessive recoil remained, making
-- little use of a Spit as a gun platform. Hispanos
-- were just to much for such a light plane.
-
- That's right, Spits never shot anything down once
- they got cannons.

They did shot down planes. But their capability as a gun platform was poor with such oversized cannons placed far apart. Large KE comes with large kickback you know, resulting poor accuracy and large spread.



-
-- According to William Green, your source, all 109Ks
-- were equi pped with two 15mm cannons and a 30mm
-- MK103.
-
- How is William Green my source? The Warbirds flight
- model group quoted him as a secondary source for the
- 109F1. Presumably even Green got some facts right.
-
- So are you admitting now that the 109 didn't have
- the Mk103 internally?
-

Didn`t you say: "Presumably even Green got some facts right."

He says MK 103 was used. Period.


-
-- More seriously, the simple fact that these models
-- amounting such heavy armament easily disprove your
-- claim that the 109 was unable to mount heavy
-- weapons.
-
- What models, what heavy armament? Are you claiming
- the 103 was used in the 109?

No, Green says that. You said about Green: "Presumably even Green got some facts right."

So MK 103 was used.

Or you just want to use him as a source very selectively?

Do you deny that 109s were capable to be armed with MK103m or 3 MK108s ? Or 5 20mm guns if neccesary?



- Because the LF was a low altitude version. Why
- compare the high altitude performance of a low
- altitude fighter, unless you want a distorted
- picture? Why not compare a straight F or even an HF?

Well why not? Let`s compare them with a high altitude 109G with GM-1 or an 605AS engine and no gunpods.

But I am glad you admit that the IXLF couldn`t compete with the 109G at the high altitude, despite you originally claimed that.



-
-- Hmm, Tony Williams, which you already qouted, seems
-- to say 5-10% ROF reduction for German gears, because
-- they used electric gear etc.
-
- No, he says 15 - 25% in general, and the Mg151 may
- have been as low as 10%.

Great. And there was no syncronisation for MG151 on the 109.


-
-- You mean the shells that replaced themselves?
-
- No, I mean the HE shells from the report that didn't
- blow up in the barrel, and the Semi AP that
- reeplaced the AP.

Semi AP replaced AP, which was the same under different name? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


-
-- More explosive charge of signifcantly lower quality
-- explosive.
-
- Source for that. Again according to Tony Williams,
- there was little difference between the explosive
- filling of British and German shells.

I wonder if you could get a qoute for that. I wouldn`t think Tony would say such a stupid thing that tetryl is as good as RDX-Nitropenta.

Ask Tony for a Trauzl-test, for example. Nitropenta is a really ugly piece compared to tetryl.



-
-- Kinetic energy is kinda like nothing compared to
-- chemical energy. First, KE decreases with range, CE
-- remains constant.
-
- Again according to Tony Williams, kinetic enregy
- made up about half the total destructive effect.

Tony Williams simply ASSUMED for a simplistic comparison of WW2 fighter armamet, regardless of shell typeor explosive filling. He set up some general rules to make a quick comparision. He assumed that having an explosive charge simple means a 1.5x factor to kinetic energy.

I take Fritz Hahn or the detailed German studies over his quick test.



- Also from Tony Williams' site, he has done a
- comparison of aircraft gun power, combining kinetic,
- explosive effect, rof, etc. He gives the mine shell
- about the same power as a Hispano HE shell.

Which shows how simplistic his comparison is, as the 20mm Mineshell contained 3 times as much explosive as Hispano shell.

Which explains why Hispano shells went, and Mine shells replaced them in postwar British service.



- The
- Hispano of course has far more power than a normal
- German HE, and the SAP round has far more power than
- the German AP round.

Of course. Sadly this isn`t supported by any actual tests, or penetration figures. Sadly test results show that German AP penetrated the same as the "far more powerful" Hispano AP.

Hispano test list AP at 24mm and API 18mm at 200 yard.
German figures give 22mm at 200 m even for MGFF API.



-
- Overall, he rates the Spit V with 2 20mm and 4 mgs
- as more than double the power of a 109 with 2 mgs
- and 1 MG151.

Perfectly irrevelant as his comparison is flawed in too many points.



- So, a 109G2, which we were comparing, has less than
- half the firepower of the Spit, so it really does
- need those gunpods that you want to wish away.
-

Sadly the G-2 has at least as much firepower than the Spit w/o gunpods, as German studies testify.


-
-- For comparison, at 0m a Hispano HEI shell has
-- 4900mkg ((2820*0.3048)^2*.05*.130)/9.8) Kinetic
-- energy0, and about 3/4 of that at 300 meter
-- (3675mkg), according to ballistic charts.
-- Explosive load is small, 7 gram, and is composed of
-- less powerful explosives, thus it`s 0.007x350 000=
-- 2450 mkg.
--
-- So total is 3675+2450= 6125 mkg.
--
-- Also, German studies in the field concluded that a
-- 1kg explosives worth 350-400 000 mkg energy, making
-- about 8000 mkg in the case of a 20mm MG shell alone
-- for the explosives.
-- KE0 is 3000 mkg, or about 2250 mkg at 300m.
--
-- Total 12 250 mkg at 300m.
--
-- Double that of a Hispano HEI shell.
-



-- The Hispano HE/I shell had 7 grams of explosives,
-- the rest was only incendiry material.
-
- It was a mix, but the incendiary is only there to
- improve the damage, not reduce it. Fire was the
- biggest single killer of aircraft.

That doesn`t change that there was only 7 grams of less powerful explosives in British shells, not 10.



-
- Again, Tony Williams, who has a lot of expertise in
- this field, has already done the calculations, and
- presents a very different picture to yours.

And German engineers who`s study is based on detailed analysis of wartime ammo research came out very different than Tony Williams, who had made a quick and rough comparision on various board weapons while greatly underestating shell design difference and CE destruction power compared to KE.


-
-- Hence the change to nose mounted guns by the
-- RAF/USAAF, and copying German cannons and shells,
-- isn`t it?
-
- Hence the increasing muzzle velocities post war. The
- British and Americans used German revolver cannon
- designs post war. They didn't go down the
- Mg151/Mg108 route.

They did copied Mineshells and gave out "heavy fragmantation" shells.

MG 151 is still produced and used. Hispano is not. Why?

Modern day British jet fighters are armed with a Mauser, and produced by Messerschmitt. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



-
-- First "probably around 1000 or so".
--
-- Now: "several thousand Mk Vs, and several thousand
-- Mk IXs, and several thousand of the other marks"
--
-- It expands like a balloon. When will it just blow
-- up?
-
- Probably around 1000 or so used 4 20mm cannon.
- "Several thousand Mk Vs, and several thousand Mk
- IXs, and several thousand of the other marks" had
- the C or E type wing that would have allowed them to
- use 4 20mm. See the difference?


Not really. I see two unproven statements.

-
--- The E wing could also carry 4 20mms.
---
-- No, only 12.7mm instead of 7.7mms.
-
- No, 4 20mms. The mounting points were adapted to
- take a 50 cal, but they could still fit a 20mm in
- there instead.

E-wing was good for .50cals only. There`s quite a difference between an M2 Browning and Hispano in size, weight etc.



-- All the others? Only DB605A-0 equipped ones, not
-- DB605A-1 equipped G-2s, and only from end 1942 till
-- mid 1943.
-
- No, DB 605A-1s were restricted.
- Read what Butch said:
-
- "At a time or another BMW801, DB601N, DB601E, DB605A
- had to be derated due to various troubles. In the
- case of the DB605A it was not until June 1943 that
- the limitation was lifted."

I don`t see mentioning of DB605A-1.



- The German order restricting them refered only to
- the DB605 in 109G, which covers all of them then in
- service.

What German order? Oh, another one which you won`t post and doesn`t exits.


-- Glad you gave up your claim that the Brit A3 was
-- running at 1.42ata.
-
- Pardon? The British A was tested at 1.42 ata, it
- says so clearly in the documents.

"Comparison of performance of FW 190 and Spitfire VB" , AIR 16/658, list only 1.35ata, and 2450 RPM.

The British never used 1.42ata. That`s why their test results are much lower than 1.42ata tests in US or German tests (which show 415 mph vs. 375mph in British tests).



-- Funny, wasn`t that after VE day? Which Squadron was
-- that?
-
- During the war. The Germans might have dropped out
- early, but the war went on.

"During the war"? I have never heard of such named British Squadron. I believe they gave numbers for them.


- Some were delivered to the Far East before VE day,
- but they were not used in service until after it.
-

I never heard about the "Some" Spit14 Squadron neither.


-- List me the Squadrons of mk14s outside anywhere
-- England or NW Europe. BTW, I have the list.
-
- So why do you want me to list them?
-

Because I told Mike I won`t use it to kick your butt, jsut for personal interest.


-
-- So what on Earth that proves? No data, no type of
-- a/c.. it could well be a MKIX or XVI.
-
- No, it relates to XIVs.

Which Squadron? The one named "Some" or the "During the war"?


-- You don`t have to take my word, I asked Mike
-- Williams to list me the Mk14 Squadrons and places.
-
- Good, then you can give us the list.

Now what use would that be ? Ghost Spit14 Squads would continoue to exist, wouldn`t they?



-
-- So that`s the 5 Squads of 2ndTAF + zero. Still 5
-- Squads.
-
- So there were no squadrons in the UK? As I said, I
- know of at least 2 in the Far East. The war wasn't
- over when the Germans gave up.

Yes, we know, those two were "Some" and "During the war".

No Spitfire squadrons with those names to my knowladge.



-
-- See the book "Operation Bodenplatte". It goes in
-- details that quite a few Typhoon squadrons
-- strenghts.
-
- Give us the details then.

Just read the book.



-- I have already listed the K-4 Gruppes in December
-- 1944. These are with II/JG2, I/JG4, III/JG4, IV/JG4,
-- II./JG11, III/JG26, I/JG27, II/JG27, III/JG27,
-- Stab/JG53, II/JG53, I/JG77, III/JG77 .
-
- And what was the actual strength?

Didn`t you agree to use teoretica strenght? Actual number of K-4s were 314 on 31st Jan 1945 BTW. But you insisted using theoretical strenghts.


-
-- That`s 12 x 4 x 16+6= 774 K-4s in these Gruppes.
-
- Lets see. 774 K4s, plus all the other 109s, plus all
- the 190s, we already know from Isegrim the RAF were
- down to 1 or 2 aircraft per squadron, we know from
- Isegrim the Germans had unlimited fuel.
-
- How on earth did they lose air superiority?

I don`t remember Galland ever mentioning the RAF being a reason for the decline of German airpower. Hardly could it be, with their guys sitting in Albion and having tea instead of facing the LW.

-
-
-- But care to post YOUR sources ? I.e. what was the
-- operational strenght of, say, JG26 in January 1945 ?
-
-
- Ok. The first 5 units you listed as having the K4 in
- Dec 44. II/JG2, I/JG4, III/JG4, IV/JG4, II./JG11
-
- Between them, they had 38 K4s at the start of the
- month, 56 at the end of the month.
-
- According to your figures, they should have had 320
- K4s.
-
- That's just about 1 sixth the figures you gave.
-
- So 774 K4s become about 130 K4s.



It was YOU who had refused the actual figure of 314 K-4 in Janaury, and accepted to count theoretical strenght for them. That`s how we arrived at 774 theroretical K-4s vs. 100 theoretical Spit14s, instead of the actual number of 314 K-4s vs. some 70 Spit14s.




-- Funny, in all actual operative strenghts, even in
-- 1945, I always find LW units to have 70-80%
-- operational level, which is quite typical for a
-- USAAF of RAF squadron.
-
- Yes, but you also find they had no shortage of fuel,
- more K4s than the RAF had fighters, and probably
- outnumbered the USAAF as well.

At least this is what some zealots say when it gets proven that there were four times as much K-4s than Spit14s in service.

Life is though, isn`t it?



-
-- Look into the JG26`s War diary. A pilot mentions
-- that there was such an abundance of reserve planes
-- that they didn`t even bothered repairing damaged
-- planes, they simply went to the nearest supply
-- depot, and picked a brand new one. There were LOADS
-- of a/c standing there. He also mentions K-4s.


- Which gave them very high attrition. Any damage
- meant a plane was basically abandoned rather than
- repaired. That means operational levels are well
- below "on hand" totals, which is what Rich was
- repeatedly trying to tell you.

Why to repair if you can just take a brand new plane ? A waste of money, but who cares when you have 3000 new toys each month?

Maybe that`s the reason 109 units maintained 76% operational level even in 1945.



- Of course, the Germans were busy sweeping across
- Europe, and the British and Americans and Russians
- desperately retreating.

Don`t forget to mention that the US become bancrupt after the war, and was forced into a position of a vassal to the UK. Also, the US also lost India, and paid billions of lend lease depts to the UK.


-
--- If you use your hugely optomistic figure of only
--- 8mph difference between C3 and B4 fuel.
--
-- Sorry? You mean the actual results of tests?
-
- Can we see the tests? Not your hand drawn graph, but
- the original documents.

Can we see any of your documents you claimed to exists so far?

For example, the one that bans "all 109Gs" from 1.42 ata?

Or your SpitV combat trial vs. 109G ?



- Isegrim, we were discussing the 109G2, I said it was
- undergunned without pods, you posted 2 pics of
- damage done by 30mm shells.
-
- Everybody knows you did, you are just making it
- worse by claiming you didn't.


Why did the RAF lost thousends of planes to undergunned 109s, Hop ? RAF planes were so fragile ?


-
-- Aha. It`s kinda like you now deny that you`re
-- attracted to boys, but you may admit that in the
-- future ?
-
- Oh, you've sunk to a new low now Isegrim.

Not me, you. You make pathetic excuses to explain why you tell now why a Spitfire test is represantative of operational use, even if 2 weeks ago you denied that vehemently.

As you can see, I don`t have the stomach for such pale faced lies. Oh, take this as an insult if you want, and pretend you don`t know what I am talking about.



-- Like the story about the guy who went to a forest
-- and "commited suicide". /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
- Huh? Are you putting up "smiley-very-happy" at Dr
- Kelly, who committed suicide on Friday? Tasteless,
- even for you.

No, I am putting a smily to the official version on the death of Mr. Kelly, who "commited suicede" after he`s existence become very unpleasant to Mr. Tony Blair.

Problems "solve themselves" in Britain it seems.



--- Do you have any proof of the K4 using C3 in 1945?
--- Butch has provided proof of the contrary, them only
--- using B4, but you haven't yet provided any proof
--- that they used C3.
--
-- Butch qouted a figure for III/JG77, a single Gruppe
-- from the many, for the single month of Novmeber
-- 1944.
-
- And yet you can't quote a single figure for a single
- month for a single staffel, can you?

A single Gruppe in a single month doesn`t proves C-3 wasn`t used, or wasn`t used in quantity with other units and other dates. It`s that simple.



-- There`s plenty of evidence that even those 109s
-- runned on C-3 which didn`t require or gained from
-- it, i.e. G-14, G-6/AS.
-
- Where's the evidence?


It`s ahrd to miss such a huge picture, yet you succeded in that.

Here`s again.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/G-6-AS%20in%20Belgium%201.jpg


C-3 fuel on label. G-6/AS doesn`t required C-3, yet it was used. So I wonder, it`s quite possible that K-4 units used it in large quantities. Coloured profiles also show K-4s with C-3 label.



-
-- I have seen butch arguing many times that he NEVER
-- said that the K-4s would be using B-4 only. You can
-- ask him.
-
- Where?
-

You forgot his board? How interesting.



-
- I never said it would be B4 ONLY, just mostly.

-
- And here's the quote:
-
- "C3 was necessary for the 190 equiped units whose
- engine could not run without. So it seems that in
- the last months of the war G-10 and K-4 units were
- delivered B4 instead and had to rely on B4+MW-50
- rather than C3+MW50."
-
- BTW, Butch also talks about MW50 shortages there,
- which means the Germans had to make sure there was
- sufficient C3 for the 190s, then make sure there was
- sufficient C3 for the 109s, then make sure there was
- sufficient MW50 as well.

Funny, he also says:

"MW-50 was not the only compound that could be used. Due to the increasing scarcity of Methanol, part of methanol was reduced from 50% to 30% in the MW-30.
And use of EW-30 was tolerated if nothing else was available but had some detrimental effect on the engine TBO. EW standing for Ethanol-Wasser, Ethanol being much more readily available than methanol.
So i don't think supply of MW/EW was really a problem except in the last couple of weeks of the conflict, but at this time there was so few fuel available on some airfield that it did not change things very much."



--- Unlike the 109G2, which we know was derated, the
--- document that shows the Spit XIV can't use more than
--- 21lbs boost says they will be able to in the future.
--
-- Unlike the SpitXIV, of which we have only evidence
-- that it was der-rated, we have evidence that the G-2
-- was restored to full 1.42ata rating withing a few
-- months. Later the same engines with mods were
-- cleared for 1.98ata.
-
- Where's the source for the rerating of the 109G2?
- And how does over 1 year equal "a few months"?

Didn`t Butch said their engines were cleared for 1.42 ata in June 1943?

Also, since when a period between Nov 1942 to June 1943 "over a year"? That`s half a year at best.

Of course Spitfire MkIx were derated to +15lbs to an entire year until April 1943.



-
--- That doesn't show it was using it, just that that's
--- the preffered fuel.
--
-- "C-3 (100 octane) fuel is used "
--
-- No comment.
-
- Since when was C3 100 octane? C3 is 97 octane, isn't
- it?

97 Octane according to German standards, 100 octane according to the British standards. C-3 was better than 100/130 octane, according to butch.

C-3 is C-3, in any case.



-- I see. So Griffons were further derated, like after
-- the war ? Now that makes a sense, Eric Brown also
-- confirmed that only +19 lbs was used for SpitXIVs.
-
- 150 octane fuel production was stopped after the
- war. It was expensive, difficult to handle, and a
- health hazard.

In brief, Griffons were derated, for the third time.



-
--- Now, what happens if we apply the same standards of
--- proof to 109K4 performance claims? Where are the
--- documents saying under what conditions, what engine
--- rating, how often C3 was used etc? There aren't any,
--- simply some sheets with performance numbers, that
--- may well be taken from calculations, not tests.
--
-- Tests are from the same series of actual flight
-- tests as the climbing figues.
-
- Can we see them? And the supporting documents,
- giving the conditions, etc?


You won`t need to see them until you post something of your own, wasn`t that clear enough?



-- On a single plane, "for strictly short burst" to
-- "catch V-1s" in a "crash program".
-
- So Britain produced 350,000 tons of 150 octane for
- "a single plane, for strictly short bursts, to catch
- V-1s in a crash program"?

That`s what you say. For me, it`s enough that the 389mph plane you sometimes claim as a non-operational one, then sometimes as an operational one, was a single testhack in a crash program, and nothing more.



--- On the other hand, there is evidence showing K4s
--- using only B4, and 190s getting the available C3,
--- and no evidence to the contrary. None.
---
--
-- When someone is a blinded by zealotry, sure he
-- doesn`t see anything.
-
- Post the evidence.

I have posted a report that states C-3 with plane that doesn`t even require it. I have posted evidence of a plane that has it labeled on it even if it doesn`t require it.

Post evidence of the operational use of 150 grade with MkXIVs.


-
-- I also
-- suspect they used only limited boosts and powers to
-- conserve the engine, which happened with other
-- captured planes
-
- Such as the 190A3? The Luftwaffe rated it at
- 1.35ata, the RAF tested it at 1.42ata.

"Comparison of performance of FW 190 and Spitfire VB" , AIR 16/658, list only 1.35ata, and 2450 RPM for 375mph.

The British never used 1.42ata. That`s why their test results are much lower than 1.42ata tests in US or German tests (which show 415 mph vs. 375mph in British tests).



-
- -- Stickforces? Because without knowing the
- stickforce,
-
--- that's useless. Perhaps you can post the full
--- document?
--
-- 80 degree at 450 kph for 109G.
-
- At what stickforce? Without knowing stickforces, the
- figures are useless.

Stickforce is irrelevalant if you know that the plane could ACTUALLY roll at those rates in handling trials.

80 degree/sec at 450 kph for 109G, 53 deg/sec for SpitVA.



- A quick look at the Naca rollrate chart would give
- you 130 deg per second at the same speed for the
- Spit, without specifying stick force.

Unlike the 109G chart, the NACA chart is not a result of an actual test.



-
-- They noted the ailerons were heavier. They PRESUMED
-- it`s because of inferior production quality, but
-- factory pilots tell it was worser on all SpitXIVs.
-- Not hard to see why, a weight increase from 7400lbs
-- to 8500lbs won`t improve your manouveribility for
-- sure.
-
- Then we can assume the rollrate of the 109 got worse
- from the E model onwards?

Yep. Provided the wing desing wasn`t completely new, received wooden ailerons and flattner tabs. But it was redesigned, and received new things.


-
-- Yep. Your mental shape is worsening. And both of us
-- know what you come up at onwar when I showed you
-- figures for K-4.
-
- Huh? All I remeber is you claiming the 109K4 could
- climb to 5000m in 3 mins, me proving to you it was
- actually 6 mins at reduced power, and you putting up
- 300 smileys in a row, like the scene from The
- Shining (All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
- All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. etc)
-
- The debate then moved to Butch's board, where the
- picture was posted, and with the help of HoHun I
- proved it beyond anyone's doubt, even yours.


According to William Green, who`s data you accepted, 109K can climb to 5000m in 3min, and to 8000m in 5min. It also had 2xMG151/15 + MK103.

Or do you say that Green`s data is not reliable for 109s in many cases? Say, not even the case of the 109F, which he claims as slow as the poorest 109E ?



-
-- So far the only Spit XIV I ever saw w/o wingtips and
-- mirror was Bigg`s 3D model for Il-2.
-
- Cool, we're getting a Spit XIV that will do 389 at
- sea level /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

It will be great to re-do some MK 108 tests on them. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Those big wings... so much place to aim for. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

BTW, do you have Il-2 ?


-
--- You have all the sources I used, as is obvious from
--- your selective quoting of them.
--
-- It`s obvious that you are making false statements
-- again as you lack real arguements.
-
- No, you asked me to post the source for the 109F1
- speed, and then started quoting from it yourself.
- You still refuse to post anything on the 109K4 speed
- apart from your own hand drawn document.

Just as you refuse to post anything other than your own versions of the docs. Fair, isn`t it?


-
---- The ADFU on the 109 vs Spit V:
----
---- Rate of Roll
---- 21.........Here again the Spitfire has a marked
---- advantage at all speeds.
----
--
--
-- I didn`t notice that the first time. You made a
-- grieve mistake, Hop, while trying to forge new
-- "evidence".
--
-- The ADFU never tested the 109G against the Spitfire
-- Mark V. They tested their G-2 vs. the Tempest, and
-- their G-6/R6 vs. Spit9LF and 14F, Mustang III.
--
-- It`s obviously your own text being sold as an ADFU
-- trial.
-
- Sorry, should have read Spit IX. So even the heavier
- "worser" rolling Spit IX was better than the 109

No doubt. A Spit IX could easily outroll a 109 with gunpods.

A clean 109 swept the floor with the Spit in terms of roll, however.




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
07-20-2003, 10:49 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- hop2002 wrote:
-
-- No, I don't. That's why I asked you to rephrase it.
-- Your original wording claimed more Spits were shot
-- down by 109s than were lost, and that's clearly
-- wrong.
-
-
- Doesn`t matter how you twist it Spitdweeb, 109s
- slayed Spits en masse in BoB.
-
-
--- No wonder that British pilots started the habit of
--- running away at the first sight of a 109.
--
-- ROFLOL. That's why the Germans won the BoB, isn't
-- it?
-
- No, that`s why the RAF pilots felt they fly inferior
- planes with inferior training.
-
-
-- Truth is, you can't post the document, because it
-- will prove you wrong.
-
- No, the truth is that I don`t post documents because
- you don`t neither.
-
-
--
---- Because Butch has already confirmed that the engine
---- in the 109F1/2 was derated twice in service, that it
---- was designed to run at 1.42 ata and in service was
---- restricted to 1.27ata.
---
--- No, Butch is a bit wrong in this. Notleistung was
--- reduced to 1.35ata, and it was Kamplesitung was
--- reduced to 1.25 ata, not Notleistung.
--
-- Care to post the documents?
-
- For you ? What for? You don`t back anything with
- docs; why should I support you with information
- which you could twist?
-
-
-- Butch seems to think
-- he's right. Notleistung was intended to be 1.40 or
-- 1.42 ata, but was reduced to 1.35, then in May 41
-- Notleistung was banned completely, only 1.25ata was
-- allowed.
--
-- HoHun posted the following in the same thread:
--
-- "Radinger/Schick have a comment on that on p. 112:
--
-- "In May 1941, the engine power of the DB601N had to
-- be limited, namely to 100% = 1.25 ata manifold
-- pressure. 2400 rpm at full throttle height, 2600 rpm
-- above full throttle height."
-
- Funny, my 109F manual is date 1941, and it lists
- 1.35 and 1.25 ata limitations. I take that instead
- of R/S.
-
-
--
--- My numbers are for 1.3ata, 2800 RPM.
--
-- Care to prove that?
-
- It isn`t neccesary. It`s there in the manual, which
- won`t be posted until you don`t post something.
-
-
-- 1.3ata seems an odd figure to
-- run the test at, as the engine ratings were 1.4 or
-- 1.35 or 1.25.
-
- If an engine can run at 1.35, why could it run at
- 1.3? The throttle is infinitevly variable with it`s
- positions. It could well run at 1.329124 ata as
- well.
-
--
-- Still, the difference between 1.3 ata 2800rpm and
-- 1.25ata 2600rpm is still going to slow the plane
-- down a lot.
-
- And an increase to 1.35ata will boost it`s speed a
- lot.
-
--
-- Glad you admit that the figures you were claiming
-- were for an engine rating that was not used in
-- service.
-
- You are prevacarating when you say I admitting any
- such thing.
-
-
--
--- My numbers are for 1.3ata, real life limit was 1.35
--- ata.
--
-- No, Butch says the limit was 1.25 ata,
-- Radinger/Schick say the same.
-
- No, limit was 1.35 ata, even according to him, and
- according to the 109F manual Butch used as a
- reference.
-
-
-
-
-- I looked at one of the ones you used, Xplane.
-- However, their terms say you may only post stuff
-- intended for XPlane. I have no wish to abuse their
-- service.
-
- Of course, if you would, it would plain obvious how
- much you lack backing of sources. Alas, you can go
- to pbase.com, they have no such terms.
-
-
-
-- BTW, you seem to have my main source, the Wright
-- Field evaluation, so why are you asking me to post
-- it? Sounds like an excuse to avoid posting your
-- source, doesn't it?
-
- If you have the Wright report, then why do you say
- their data is reliable, when there`s no power
- setting noted, and it`s labeled "estimated"?
-
-
-
--
--- Good to know that now you admit the K-4 could climb
--- to 8000m in 5 minutes. It also had two 15 cannons,
--- and an MK103 in the nose.
---
--- At least you listed Green as a reliable source on
--- 109 performance.
--
-- No, I listed their sources, because their primary
-- source is the same as mine.
-
- So you admit that the source of those who you use as
- a source is unreliable. Great.
-
- Sh*t doesn`t turns to gold, even if it goes through
- many hands. Green is just plain wrong, just in just
- about every case when it comes to a 109 (470 kph for
- F-1, 621 kph for G-6, 727 kph for K-4 etc.).
-
-
-
--
---- Their "Aircraft Evaluation Report, No 110" is
---- probably the same thing, bearing in mind the
---- numbers.
---
--- Then it`s no surprise why their numbers are wrong:
--- they are based on an estimated performance figure
--- which doesn`t even list the exact power.
--
--
-- Isegrim, you've claimed your source uses 1.3 ata,
-- 2800rpm. As you can see above, the max limit was
-- 1.25ata, 2600rpm.
-
- Not according to the Manual itself, and not
- according to Butch who said 1.35ata.
-
- 1.25ata was told as "probable" for Emils only with
- poorer cooling plants.
-
-
-
---- Given that what you posted seems to be factory
---- documentation, it's not much of a stretch to assume
---- it refers to 1.42ata, which the plane was designed
---- to use, is it?
---
--- It refers to 1.3 ata, 2800RPM.
--
-- Care to prove it?
--
-
- No. I couldn`t care less. It`s there, and that`s
- enough for me.
-
-
-- Even if that's the case, it's
-- still more than the plane could use in service.
-
- According to Hop, 1.3 is more than 1.35.
-
-
--- But of course. Still, 515, or even 495 kph at SL
--- seems to be faster than Hop-the-fanatic-Brit`s pet
--- SpitV at 470kph.
--
-- 495kph is hardly faster than a Spit V on 12lbs
-- boost. They could do 480 kp/h at 9lbs, 12lbs would
-- be substantially faster.
-
- Sadly they could only do 470 or 450 on +9lbs,
- depending on type.
- They were obviously not cleared to +12lbs at least
- until mid-1942. By then, it was F-4 time.
-
-
---- As to the sea level speed, it goes down to 2000ft
---- and 301mph, and is clearly headed for around 297 or
---- so.
---
--- That`s indeed funny, so according to you, the F-2
--- was as slow as the E-3 on the very same powers ?
--
-- I don't know, do you have the figures for the E3?
-- And at what engine rating? Was it allowed to run
-- more than the 1.25at 2600rpm used in the F1/F2?
-
- E-3 could run at 1.3 ata. E-7/N was cleared to
- 1.25ata, but with the new engine it was more power
- than 1.3ata with the old DB601A.
-
- At 1.3ata, Emils did 470 kph at SL. Funny how the
- cleaner F-2 could do just the same, with more power.
-
-
-
--- German datasheets say 515 kph for F-1 and F-2. At
--- 1.3ata.
--
-- Why don't you post the whole document on the 109F so
-- we can see the full picture, rather than the tiny
-- bit you are showing?
-
-
- Because I couldn`t care less what a mindless zealot
- who doesn`t back himself up thinks on the matter.
-
-
--
--- Soviet evaluation at NII VVS confirmed these
--- figures, though are lower at altitude than German
--- figures
-
-
-
-- At what engine rating? We'vee already seen that the
-- 109F1 was designed to run at 1.4 or 1.42 ata, and in
-- service only used 1.25ata. There was also the
-- 1.35ata that they were set to use, but was
-- forbidden. If you don't know wether that plane was
-- running at 1.25 ata or 1.35ata or 1.4ata then you
-- don't know what the real speed was.
-
- So if the chart lists 515 kph at SL, we don`t know
- how much is it? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
- 515 kph at SL, Hop. According to both the Rusians,
- and Germans.
-
- Mindless zealotry doesn`t help to change that.
-
-
--
--- Spitfire VB max. speed at SL was 470 kph according
--- to British tests at the Spitfire performance site.
--
-- No, 480 kph at 9lbs, but 12lbs was allowed.
-
- 470 mph in all British tests at 9lbs. Twisting won`t
- help you.
-
- Many sources also state 450 kph.
-
-
-
--
--- According to NII VVS, only 450 kph.
--
-- At what rating? And was it one of the war weary Spit
-- Vs with tropical filter?
-
- 450 kph, Hop. No more. 450 is a good deal slower
- than 515 kph.
-
-
--
---- I'd say the manufacturers figures. So at 1.42 ata
---- the 109F1 may well have been as fast as you claim,
---- though I suspect it was a cleaned up aircraft, in
---- perfect condition.
---
--- 515 kph at 1.3ata, 2800RPM.
--
-- Care to post the document?
--
-
- No. You are pretty slow on getting that you won`t
- get nothing until you support your claims with
- documents.
-
-
--
-- Even if it was 1.3ata, that's still more than the
-- 1.25ata they were allowed to use in service.
--
-
- 1.42 and later 1.35 ata was the limit in service for
- the F. 1.25 is for Emils with 601N.
-
-
-
---
---- All the Spit V performance tests were done at 9lbs
---- boost. In fact, try and find a 12lbs boost test for
---- the Spit I or II, yet they were also rated at 12lbs
---- boost.
---
--- No, they had an emergency rating of +12lbs at 100
--- octane, but it weren`t used in serice, because it
--- shrinked engine life to ONE TENTH, to 10 hours.
--
-- It was used in service. Got a source for the 10 hour
-- claim?
-
- It was not used in service, because it greatly
- decreased engine life.
-
- And of course I have a source. But why should I give
- it out to a zealot who never shows any source? But
- here`s a hint: it`s in a Chapter called "Better
- fitted for a fight". I believe you have that book.
-
-
-- 10 hours, in 5 min steps, equals 120 combat
-- flights.
-
- No, it equals 10 one-hour flights before the engine
- goes to the trashcan. You don`t even know what
- overhaul time is.... what the heck are you arguing?
-
-
-
--
--- Spit V makes 450-470 at +9lbs.
--
-- 480kp/h according to the Spit tests.
-
- Which test ?
-
- 470 kph on the 4th FG site, 450 kph in Soviet tests.
-
-
--
--- At +16, it makes 510 kph.
--
-- 525km/h, according to the Spit test site.
--
-
- How much fantasy involved here.
-
-
--- Obviously +12 is somewhere between, at around
--- 480-490.
--
-- Garbage in, garbage out. Mid way between the actual
-- speeds would be around 502km/h.
-
-
- Not according even to basic physics.
-
-
--
--- F-2 makes 515 kph at 1.3 ata,
--
-- Care to post the chart? The full thing, not one
-- corner of it.
-
- Boy, you are really slow to get it.
-
- In other words: if you don`t post your own, you
- don`t get sh*t.
-
- Sorry, I wanted to be straightforward to avoid
- possible misunderstandings.
-
--
-- Even then, we know that they couldn't run at 1.3 ata
-- 2800rpm in service, only 1.25ata, 2600 rpm.
--
-
- 1.35 ata was the limit for 109F, no matter the
- amount of your zealotry.
-
- Spits were limited to +9lbs till mid 1942, good
- enough for 450-470 kph.
-
-
--- So according to Hop, 515 kph at SL for the F-2 is
--- slower than 470 kph for the Mk V.
--
-- Using the real figures, the Spit V was faster than
-- the 109F1/F2
-
- Using real figures, 515 kph is a good deel faster
- than 470kph.
-
-
--
--- Sadly we are not comparing an 1.42 ata F-2, but an
--- 1.3 ata one, which is below the maximum allowed
--- 1.35ata.
--
-- According to you, but you wont post the chart.
--
-
- I do not want to repeat myself.
-
-
-
--
-- Even then, we know that 1.3 ata 2800 rpm was not
-- allowed, only 1.25ata 2600 rpm.
--
-
- Speak in your own name. Not everyone is so
- self-deluded as you.
-
-
--
--- It`s seems you didn`t understand my terms. Read
--- again, dumbo.
--
-- Insults again?
-
- Just make a rehearsal so you slowly get it.
-
-
--
--- Notice the term "emergency". British term for
--- maximum allowed power was combat.
--
-- Early war it was called emergency. Now, pilot is in
-- combat, needs to go faster, is he going to push the
-- throttle all the way? Of course.
-
- So you mean that 1.42 ata was officially denied, but
- actually used in times of need ?
-
--
--- +12 lbs was called
--- emergency because it destroyed the engine very fast,
--- within 10 hours the engine went
--
-- Source? It's 120 combat flights anyway, which is
-- hardly a problem.
-
- According to amateur who think 10 flight hours
- replacement time refers to only the powers it were
- used on... 10 flights, Hop. Then engine replacement.
-
-
--
---- The AP/I were later replaced by
---- SAP/I and weren't in this test.
---
--- ROFMALOL, you mean the VERY same shells were
--- replaced by the very same shells?
--
-- Notice the S at the start of SAP/I. SAP/I is not the
-- same thing as AP/I. S stands for semi.
-- Semi-Armour-Piercing, as opposed to Armour Piercing.
--
-- Possibly because they found the AP penetrated too
-- much from that test.
-
-
- The tests list AP/I and SAP/I being the same under
- different names, even the dumbest can get this if
- they can read.
-
- No wonder you deleted the URL to the test. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif It was so painfully
- clear. But here`s again:
-
<img
- src="http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/pro_hs_
- trials_3.jpg">
-
-
- AP/I (SAP/I). Same weight, same MV. What a
- coincindance.
- The test also mentions ordinary AP.
-
-
--
--- "Ammunition AP/I (SAP/I)"
---
--- The "two" is the same, just different names for
--- them.
--
-- Lets see, the test shows the results of test on an
-- Armour Piercing shell. It shows they penetrated too
-- much. The shell used during the war was the Semi
-- Armour Piercing shell. Suggest something to you?
-
-
- It suggest that you play that you are much more
- challanged than you are actually. Funny, the test
- lists "two different" AP ammo, which funnily
- coincides in their weight and muzzle velocity, but
- only list one of them in the actual tests... LOL!
-
-
--
--- This type of ammunition, which replaced itself, was
--- found:
---
--- "Since [Hispano] API failed to function, the trials
--- were repeated with various thickness of armor to
--- determine the min. thickness neccesary to function
--- [Hispano] API."
---
---
--- "Against unarmored tanks, [Hispano] API is
--- ineffective in causing fires. A 6 swg mild steel at
--- rear spar is neccesary to funbction the fuse....
--- From this results it is estimated that fire
--- freqeuncy of API against a real Heinkel wing is
--- 6%."
---
-- So they found AP went clean through. They adopted
-- Semi AP, see the difference?
-
- So they adopted SAP/I, which was the same as AP/I?
- Very interesting. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
- Are you claiming that MK151/20 and MG151/20 are
- different guns?
-
-
-
--- So that`s why you invented stories about HEIT not
--- being used,
--
-- Isegrim. They tested 2 types of HE shells. One
-- worked very well, one very badly. You presented the
-- results of the very bad one, and claimed that was
-- adopted. Why?
-
- Got any source that HEIT was not used ? Your silence
- means "no" to me.
-
-
--
--- API and SAP being different ammunitions,
--- whereas they are the same,
--
-- No, they are different. They even have different
-- designations.
-
- They are listed in the same line with the same
- properties, SAP being in paranthesis behind AP/I.
-
-
-
--- It`s seems you still didn`t stop your pale faced
--- lies about me claiming it was a 20mm shell, which I
--- never did.
-
-
-- Isegrim, in both cases you used it, it was during a
-- discussion about a 109G2 equipped with gunpods. The
-- 109G2 didn't mount the 30mm Mk108 internally, you
-- know it,I know it, everyone else here knows it. You
-- used the pictures dishonestly.
-
- You claimed that the 109G was poorly armed and
- needed gunpods to make up for that.
-
- I showed the devastating effect of a single shot
- from 109G armament to disprove it.
-
- No more dishonesty in that than claiming that the
- 109G needed gunpods to "make up for the lack of
- firepower".
-
-
-
--
--- Physical impossibility. A schrapnel is just a piece
--- of metal with ZERO speed, thus ZERO energy. It`s the
--- explosion that gives it all it`s speed and thus
--- energy.
--
-- Yes, but you don't need substantiall ammounts to get
-- substantial ammounts of shrapnel. The shrapnel
-- effects of the 20mm Hispano would be far greater
-- than the 20mm mine shell, simply because there will
-- be more shrapnel with the Hispano shell.
-
- If you have a large body with little explosive in
- it, you will get a few big chunks of slow flying
- metal.
-
- If you have a lighter body with a lot of explosive
- in it, you will get a many smaller chunks of high
- velocity metal pieces.
-
-
-
--
--- A 30mm Mineshell, even if thin walled, offered a lot
--- more shrapnel than a 20mm Hispano.
--
-- Possibly the 30mm would, but again we were talking
-- about the 20mm.
--
--- A 20mm Mineshell had less of course than a Hispano.
--- That`s why the German also used conventional HEIT
--- shells with smaller explsive content, for
--- incendinary effect and fragmentation.
--
-- Exactly. The mine shell had advantages in some
-- situations, disadvantages in others. The Germans
-- still felt the need to use a standard HE shell as
-- well.
-
-
--
--- The latter weight 115 gr of which 4-5 gram was
--- explosives. => 110 gram shrapnel weight. And the use
--- of more powerful explosive types made up for the
--- less amount of charge.
--
--- A Hispano shell was 120 gram, of which 7 gram was
--- explosives. => 113gram shrapnel.
--
-- No, the figures for the Hispano shell were around
-- 130 grams, and 10 - 11 grams of explosive.
-
- HEI was 130 gram. Explosvies was just 7 gram, the
- rest were incd. materiel. That`s 119 gram of
- shrapnel.
-
--
-- The figure for the normal German HE/T was 3.7g of
-- explosive.
-
- Great, than we have 115 gram shell minus 3.7gram =
- 112 gram.
-
- So now you claim the Hispano had "far more"
- shrapnel.. by how much... 7 grams? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
-
--
--- The reliablility improved, you are right in that.
--- However, the excessive recoil remained, making
--- little use of a Spit as a gun platform. Hispanos
--- were just to much for such a light plane.
--
-- That's right, Spits never shot anything down once
-- they got cannons.
-
- They did shot down planes. But their capability as a
- gun platform was poor with such oversized cannons
- placed far apart. Large KE comes with large kickback
- you know, resulting poor accuracy and large spread.
-
-
-
--
--- According to William Green, your source, all 109Ks
--- were equi pped with two 15mm cannons and a 30mm
--- MK103.
--
-- How is William Green my source? The Warbirds flight
-- model group quoted him as a secondary source for the
-- 109F1. Presumably even Green got some facts right.
--
-- So are you admitting now that the 109 didn't have
-- the Mk103 internally?
--
-
- Didn`t you say: "Presumably even Green got some
- facts right."
-
- He says MK 103 was used. Period.
-
-
--
--- More seriously, the simple fact that these models
--- amounting such heavy armament easily disprove your
--- claim that the 109 was unable to mount heavy
--- weapons.
--
-- What models, what heavy armament? Are you claiming
-- the 103 was used in the 109?
-
- No, Green says that. You said about Green:
- "Presumably even Green got some facts right."
-
- So MK 103 was used.
-
- Or you just want to use him as a source very
- selectively?
-
- Do you deny that 109s were capable to be armed with
- MK103m or 3 MK108s ? Or 5 20mm guns if neccesary?
-
-
-
-- Because the LF was a low altitude version. Why
-- compare the high altitude performance of a low
-- altitude fighter, unless you want a distorted
-- picture? Why not compare a straight F or even an HF?
-
- Well why not? Let`s compare them with a high
- altitude 109G with GM-1 or an 605AS engine and no
- gunpods.
-
- But I am glad you admit that the IXLF couldn`t
- compete with the 109G at the high altitude, despite
- you originally claimed that.
-
-
-
--
--- Hmm, Tony Williams, which you already qouted, seems
--- to say 5-10% ROF reduction for German gears, because
--- they used electric gear etc.
--
-- No, he says 15 - 25% in general, and the Mg151 may
-- have been as low as 10%.
-
- Great. And there was no syncronisation for MG151 on
- the 109.
-
-
--
--- You mean the shells that replaced themselves?
--
-- No, I mean the HE shells from the report that didn't
-- blow up in the barrel, and the Semi AP that
-- reeplaced the AP.
-
- Semi AP replaced AP, which was the same under
- different name? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
-
--
--- More explosive charge of signifcantly lower quality
--- explosive.
--
-- Source for that. Again according to Tony Williams,
-- there was little difference between the explosive
-- filling of British and German shells.
-
- I wonder if you could get a qoute for that. I
- wouldn`t think Tony would say such a stupid thing
- that tetryl is as good as RDX-Nitropenta.
-
- Ask Tony for a Trauzl-test, for example. Nitropenta
- is a really ugly piece compared to tetryl.
-
-
-
--
--- Kinetic energy is kinda like nothing compared to
--- chemical energy. First, KE decreases with range, CE
--- remains constant.
--
-- Again according to Tony Williams, kinetic enregy
-- made up about half the total destructive effect.
-
- Tony Williams simply ASSUMED for a simplistic
- comparison of WW2 fighter armamet, regardless of
- shell typeor explosive filling. He set up some
- general rules to make a quick comparision. He
- assumed that having an explosive charge simple means
- a 1.5x factor to kinetic energy.
-
- I take Fritz Hahn or the detailed German studies
- over his quick test.
-
-
-
-
-- Also from Tony Williams' site, he has done a
-- comparison of aircraft gun power, combining kinetic,
-- explosive effect, rof, etc. He gives the mine shell
-- about the same power as a Hispano HE shell.
-
- Which shows how simplistic his comparison is, as the
- 20mm Mineshell contained 3 times as much explosive
- as Hispano shell.
-
- Which explains why Hispano shells went, and Mine
- shells replaced them in postwar British service.
-
-
-
-
-- The
-- Hispano of course has far more power than a normal
-- German HE, and the SAP round has far more power than
-- the German AP round.
-
- Of course. Sadly this isn`t supported by any actual
- tests, or penetration figures. Sadly test results
- show that German AP penetrated the same as the "far
- more powerful" Hispano AP.
-
- Hispano test list AP at 24mm and API 18mm at 200
- yard.
- German figures give 22mm at 200 m even for MGFF API.
-
-
-
-
--
-- Overall, he rates the Spit V with 2 20mm and 4 mgs
-- as more than double the power of a 109 with 2 mgs
-- and 1 MG151.
-
- Perfectly irrevelant as his comparison is flawed in
- too many points.
-
-
-
-- So, a 109G2, which we were comparing, has less than
-- half the firepower of the Spit, so it really does
-- need those gunpods that you want to wish away.
--
-
- Sadly the G-2 has at least as much firepower than
- the Spit w/o gunpods, as German studies testify.
-
-
-
--
--- For comparison, at 0m a Hispano HEI shell has
--- 4900mkg ((2820*0.3048)^2*.05*.130)/9.8) Kinetic
--- energy0, and about 3/4 of that at 300 meter
--- (3675mkg), according to ballistic charts.
--- Explosive load is small, 7 gram, and is composed of
--- less powerful explosives, thus it`s 0.007x350 000=
--- 2450 mkg.
---
--- So total is 3675+2450= 6125 mkg.
---
--- Also, German studies in the field concluded that a
--- 1kg explosives worth 350-400 000 mkg energy, making
--- about 8000 mkg in the case of a 20mm MG shell alone
--- for the explosives.
--- KE0 is 3000 mkg, or about 2250 mkg at 300m.
---
--- Total 12 250 mkg at 300m.
---
--- Double that of a Hispano HEI shell.
--
-
-
-
--- The Hispano HE/I shell had 7 grams of explosives,
--- the rest was only incendiry material.
--
-- It was a mix, but the incendiary is only there to
-- improve the damage, not reduce it. Fire was the
-- biggest single killer of aircraft.
-
- That doesn`t change that there was only 7 grams of
- less powerful explosives in British shells, not 10.
-
-
-
-
--
-- Again, Tony Williams, who has a lot of expertise in
-- this field, has already done the calculations, and
-- presents a very different picture to yours.
-
- And German engineers who`s study is based on
- detailed analysis of wartime ammo research came out
- very different than Tony Williams, who had made a
- quick and rough comparision on various board weapons
- while greatly underestating shell design difference
- and CE destruction power compared to KE.
-
-
--
--- Hence the change to nose mounted guns by the
--- RAF/USAAF, and copying German cannons and shells,
--- isn`t it?
--
-- Hence the increasing muzzle velocities post war. The
-- British and Americans used German revolver cannon
-- designs post war. They didn't go down the
-- Mg151/Mg108 route.
-
- They did copied Mineshells and gave out "heavy
- fragmantation" shells.
-
- MG 151 is still produced and used. Hispano is not.
- Why?
-
- Modern day British jet fighters are armed with a
- Mauser, and produced by Messerschmitt. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
-
-
--
--- First "probably around 1000 or so".
---
--- Now: "several thousand Mk Vs, and several thousand
--- Mk IXs, and several thousand of the other marks"
---
--- It expands like a balloon. When will it just blow
--- up?
--
-- Probably around 1000 or so used 4 20mm cannon.
-- "Several thousand Mk Vs, and several thousand Mk
-- IXs, and several thousand of the other marks" had
-- the C or E type wing that would have allowed them to
-- use 4 20mm. See the difference?
-
-
- Not really. I see two unproven statements.
-
--
---- The E wing could also carry 4 20mms.
----
--- No, only 12.7mm instead of 7.7mms.
--
-- No, 4 20mms. The mounting points were adapted to
-- take a 50 cal, but they could still fit a 20mm in
-- there instead.
-
- E-wing was good for .50cals only. There`s quite a
- difference between an M2 Browning and Hispano in
- size, weight etc.
-
-
-
--- All the others? Only DB605A-0 equipped ones, not
--- DB605A-1 equipped G-2s, and only from end 1942 till
--- mid 1943.
--
-- No, DB 605A-1s were restricted.
-- Read what Butch said:
--
-- "At a time or another BMW801, DB601N, DB601E, DB605A
-- had to be derated due to various troubles. In the
-- case of the DB605A it was not until June 1943 that
-- the limitation was lifted."
-
- I don`t see mentioning of DB605A-1.
-
-
-
-- The German order restricting them refered only to
-- the DB605 in 109G, which covers all of them then in
-- service.
-
- What German order? Oh, another one which you won`t
- post and doesn`t exits.
-
-
--- Glad you gave up your claim that the Brit A3 was
--- running at 1.42ata.
--
-- Pardon? The British A was tested at 1.42 ata, it
-- says so clearly in the documents.
-
- "Comparison of performance of FW 190 and Spitfire
- VB" , AIR 16/658, list only 1.35ata, and 2450 RPM.
-
- The British never used 1.42ata. That`s why their
- test results are much lower than 1.42ata tests in US
- or German tests (which show 415 mph vs. 375mph in
- British tests).
-
-
-
-
--- Funny, wasn`t that after VE day? Which Squadron was
--- that?
--
-- During the war. The Germans might have dropped out
-- early, but the war went on.
-
- "During the war"? I have never heard of such named
- British Squadron. I believe they gave numbers for
- them.
-
-
-- Some were delivered to the Far East before VE day,
-- but they were not used in service until after it.
--
-
- I never heard about the "Some" Spit14 Squadron
- neither.
-
-
--- List me the Squadrons of mk14s outside anywhere
--- England or NW Europe. BTW, I have the list.
--
-- So why do you want me to list them?
--
-
- Because I told Mike I won`t use it to kick your
- butt, jsut for personal interest.
-
-
--
--- So what on Earth that proves? No data, no type of
--- a/c.. it could well be a MKIX or XVI.
--
-- No, it relates to XIVs.
-
- Which Squadron? The one named "Some" or the "During
- the war"?
-
-
--- You don`t have to take my word, I asked Mike
--- Williams to list me the Mk14 Squadrons and places.
--
-- Good, then you can give us the list.
-
- Now what use would that be ? Ghost Spit14 Squads
- would continoue to exist, wouldn`t they?
-
-
-
-
--
--- So that`s the 5 Squads of 2ndTAF + zero. Still 5
--- Squads.
--
-- So there were no squadrons in the UK? As I said, I
-- know of at least 2 in the Far East. The war wasn't
-- over when the Germans gave up.
-
- Yes, we know, those two were "Some" and "During the
- war".
-
- No Spitfire squadrons with those names to my
- knowladge.
-
-
-
--
--- See the book "Operation Bodenplatte". It goes in
--- details that quite a few Typhoon squadrons
--- strenghts.
--
-- Give us the details then.
-
- Just read the book.
-
-
-
--- I have already listed the K-4 Gruppes in December
--- 1944. These are with II/JG2, I/JG4, III/JG4, IV/JG4,
--- II./JG11, III/JG26, I/JG27, II/JG27, III/JG27,
--- Stab/JG53, II/JG53, I/JG77, III/JG77 .
--
-- And what was the actual strength?
-
- Didn`t you agree to use teoretica strenght? Actual
- number of K-4s were 314 on 31st Jan 1945 BTW. But
- you insisted using theoretical strenghts.
-
-
--
--- That`s 12 x 4 x 16+6= 774 K-4s in these Gruppes.
--
-- Lets see. 774 K4s, plus all the other 109s, plus all
-- the 190s, we already know from Isegrim the RAF were
-- down to 1 or 2 aircraft per squadron, we know from
-- Isegrim the Germans had unlimited fuel.
--
-- How on earth did they lose air superiority?
-
- I don`t remember Galland ever mentioning the RAF
- being a reason for the decline of German airpower.
- Hardly could it be, with their guys sitting in
- Albion and having tea instead of facing the LW.
-
-
--
--
--- But care to post YOUR sources ? I.e. what was the
--- operational strenght of, say, JG26 in January 1945 ?
--
--
-- Ok. The first 5 units you listed as having the K4 in
-- Dec 44. II/JG2, I/JG4, III/JG4, IV/JG4, II./JG11
--
-- Between them, they had 38 K4s at the start of the
-- month, 56 at the end of the month.
--
-- According to your figures, they should have had 320
-- K4s.
--
-- That's just about 1 sixth the figures you gave.
--
-- So 774 K4s become about 130 K4s.
-
-
-
- It was YOU who had refused the actual figure of 314
- K-4 in Janaury, and accepted to count theoretical
- strenght for them. That`s how we arrived at 774
- theroretical K-4s vs. 100 theoretical Spit14s,
- instead of the actual number of 314 K-4s vs. some 70
- Spit14s.
-
-
-
-
-
--- Funny, in all actual operative strenghts, even in
--- 1945, I always find LW units to have 70-80%
--- operational level, which is quite typical for a
--- USAAF of RAF squadron.
--
-- Yes, but you also find they had no shortage of fuel,
-- more K4s than the RAF had fighters, and probably
-- outnumbered the USAAF as well.
-
- At least this is what some zealots say when it gets
- proven that there were four times as much K-4s than
- Spit14s in service.
-
- Life is though, isn`t it?
-
-
-
-
--
--- Look into the JG26`s War diary. A pilot mentions
--- that there was such an abundance of reserve planes
--- that they didn`t even bothered repairing damaged
--- planes, they simply went to the nearest supply
--- depot, and picked a brand new one. There were LOADS
--- of a/c standing there. He also mentions K-4s.
-
-
-- Which gave them very high attrition. Any damage
-- meant a plane was basically abandoned rather than
-- repaired. That means operational levels are well
-- below "on hand" totals, which is what Rich was
-- repeatedly trying to tell you.
-
- Why to repair if you can just take a brand new plane
- ? A waste of money, but who cares when you have 3000
- new toys each month?
-
- Maybe that`s the reason 109 units maintained 76%
- operational level even in 1945.
-
-
-
-- Of course, the Germans were busy sweeping across
-- Europe, and the British and Americans and Russians
-- desperately retreating.
-
- Don`t forget to mention that the US become bancrupt
- after the war, and was forced into a position of a
- vassal to the UK. Also, the US also lost India, and
- paid billions of lend lease depts to the UK.
-
-
--
---- If you use your hugely optomistic figure of only
---- 8mph difference between C3 and B4 fuel.
---
--- Sorry? You mean the actual results of tests?
--
-- Can we see the tests? Not your hand drawn graph, but
-- the original documents.
-
- Can we see any of your documents you claimed to
- exists so far?
-
- For example, the one that bans "all 109Gs" from 1.42
- ata?
-
- Or your SpitV combat trial vs. 109G ?
-
-
-
-
-
-- Isegrim, we were discussing the 109G2, I said it was
-- undergunned without pods, you posted 2 pics of
-- damage done by 30mm shells.
--
-- Everybody knows you did, you are just making it
-- worse by claiming you didn't.
-
-
- Why did the RAF lost thousends of planes to
- undergunned 109s, Hop ? RAF planes were so fragile ?
-
-
--
--- Aha. It`s kinda like you now deny that you`re
--- attracted to boys, but you may admit that in the
--- future ?
--
-- Oh, you've sunk to a new low now Isegrim.
-
- Not me, you. You make pathetic excuses to explain
- why you tell now why a Spitfire test is
- represantative of operational use, even if 2 weeks
- ago you denied that vehemently.
-
- As you can see, I don`t have the stomach for such
- pale faced lies. Oh, take this as an insult if you
- want, and pretend you don`t know what I am talking
- about.
-
-
-
--- Like the story about the guy who went to a forest
--- and "commited suicide". /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
--
-- Huh? Are you putting up "smiley-very-happy" at Dr
-- Kelly, who committed suicide on Friday? Tasteless,
-- even for you.
-
- No, I am putting a smily to the official version on
- the death of Mr. Kelly, who "commited suicede" after
- he`s existence become very unpleasant to Mr. Tony
- Blair.
-
- Problems "solve themselves" in Britain it seems.
-
-
-
---- Do you have any proof of the K4 using C3 in 1945?
---- Butch has provided proof of the contrary, them only
---- using B4, but you haven't yet provided any proof
---- that they used C3.
---
--- Butch qouted a figure for III/JG77, a single Gruppe
--- from the many, for the single month of Novmeber
--- 1944.
--
-- And yet you can't quote a single figure for a single
-- month for a single staffel, can you?
-
- A single Gruppe in a single month doesn`t proves C-3
- wasn`t used, or wasn`t used in quantity with other
- units and other dates. It`s that simple.
-
-
-
--- There`s plenty of evidence that even those 109s
--- runned on C-3 which didn`t require or gained from
--- it, i.e. G-14, G-6/AS.
--
-- Where's the evidence?
-
-
- It`s ahrd to miss such a huge picture, yet you
- succeded in that.
-
- Here`s again.
-
<img
- src="http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/G-6-AS%2
- 0in%20Belgium%201.jpg">
-
-
- C-3 fuel on label. G-6/AS doesn`t required C-3, yet
- it was used. So I wonder, it`s quite possible that
- K-4 units used it in large quantities. Coloured
- profiles also show K-4s with C-3 label.
-
-
-
-
--
--- I have seen butch arguing many times that he NEVER
--- said that the K-4s would be using B-4 only. You can
--- ask him.
--
-- Where?
--
-
- You forgot his board? How interesting.
-
-
-
--
-- I never said it would be B4 ONLY, just mostly.
-
--
-- And here's the quote:
--
-- "C3 was necessary for the 190 equiped units whose
-- engine could not run without. So it seems that in
-- the last months of the war G-10 and K-4 units were
-- delivered B4 instead and had to rely on B4+MW-50
-- rather than C3+MW50."
--
-- BTW, Butch also talks about MW50 shortages there,
-- which means the Germans had to make sure there was
-- sufficient C3 for the 190s, then make sure there was
-- sufficient C3 for the 109s, then make sure there was
-- sufficient MW50 as well.
-
- Funny, he also says:
-
- "MW-50 was not the only compound that could be used.
- Due to the increasing scarcity of Methanol, part of
- methanol was reduced from 50% to 30% in the MW-30.
- And use of EW-30 was tolerated if nothing else was
- available but had some detrimental effect on the
- engine TBO. EW standing for Ethanol-Wasser, Ethanol
- being much more readily available than methanol.
- So i don't think supply of MW/EW was really a
- problem except in the last couple of weeks of the
- conflict, but at this time there was so few fuel
- available on some airfield that it did not change
- things very much."
-
-
-
-
---- Unlike the 109G2, which we know was derated, the
---- document that shows the Spit XIV can't use more than
---- 21lbs boost says they will be able to in the future.
---
--- Unlike the SpitXIV, of which we have only evidence
--- that it was der-rated, we have evidence that the G-2
--- was restored to full 1.42ata rating withing a few
--- months. Later the same engines with mods were
--- cleared for 1.98ata.
--
-- Where's the source for the rerating of the 109G2?
-- And how does over 1 year equal "a few months"?
-
- Didn`t Butch said their engines were cleared for
- 1.42 ata in June 1943?
-
- Also, since when a period between Nov 1942 to June
- 1943 "over a year"? That`s half a year at best.
-
- Of course Spitfire MkIx were derated to +15lbs to an
- entire year until April 1943.
-
-
-
-
--
---- That doesn't show it was using it, just that that's
---- the preffered fuel.
---
--- "C-3 (100 octane) fuel is used "
---
--- No comment.
--
-- Since when was C3 100 octane? C3 is 97 octane, isn't
-- it?
-
- 97 Octane according to German standards, 100 octane
- according to the British standards. C-3 was better
- than 100/130 octane, according to butch.
-
- C-3 is C-3, in any case.
-
-
-
--- I see. So Griffons were further derated, like after
--- the war ? Now that makes a sense, Eric Brown also
--- confirmed that only +19 lbs was used for SpitXIVs.
--
-- 150 octane fuel production was stopped after the
-- war. It was expensive, difficult to handle, and a
-- health hazard.
-
- In brief, Griffons were derated, for the third time.
-
-
-
--
---- Now, what happens if we apply the same standards of
---- proof to 109K4 performance claims? Where are the
---- documents saying under what conditions, what engine
---- rating, how often C3 was used etc? There aren't any,
---- simply some sheets with performance numbers, that
---- may well be taken from calculations, not tests.
---
--- Tests are from the same series of actual flight
--- tests as the climbing figues.
--
-- Can we see them? And the supporting documents,
-- giving the conditions, etc?
-
-
- You won`t need to see them until you post something
- of your own, wasn`t that clear enough?
-
-
-
--- On a single plane, "for strictly short burst" to
--- "catch V-1s" in a "crash program".
--
-- So Britain produced 350,000 tons of 150 octane for
-- "a single plane, for strictly short bursts, to catch
-- V-1s in a crash program"?
-
- That`s what you say. For me, it`s enough that the
- 389mph plane you sometimes claim as a
- non-operational one, then sometimes as an
- operational one, was a single testhack in a crash
- program, and nothing more.
-
-
-
---- On the other hand, there is evidence showing K4s
---- using only B4, and 190s getting the available C3,
---- and no evidence to the contrary. None.
----
---
--- When someone is a blinded by zealotry, sure he
--- doesn`t see anything.
--
-- Post the evidence.
-
- I have posted a report that states C-3 with plane
- that doesn`t even require it. I have posted evidence
- of a plane that has it labeled on it even if it
- doesn`t require it.
-
- Post evidence of the operational use of 150 grade
- with MkXIVs.
-
-
--
--- I also
--- suspect they used only limited boosts and powers to
--- conserve the engine, which happened with other
--- captured planes
--
-- Such as the 190A3? The Luftwaffe rated it at
-- 1.35ata, the RAF tested it at 1.42ata.
-
- "Comparison of performance of FW 190 and Spitfire
- VB" , AIR 16/658, list only 1.35ata, and 2450 RPM
- for 375mph.
-
- The British never used 1.42ata. That`s why their
- test results are much lower than 1.42ata tests in US
- or German tests (which show 415 mph vs. 375mph in
- British tests).
-
-
-
-
--
-- -- Stickforces? Because without knowing the
-- stickforce,
--
---- that's useless. Perhaps you can post the full
---- document?
---
--- 80 degree at 450 kph for 109G.
--
-- At what stickforce? Without knowing stickforces, the
-- figures are useless.
-
- Stickforce is irrelevalant if you know that the
- plane could ACTUALLY roll at those rates in handling
- trials.
-
- 80 degree/sec at 450 kph for 109G, 53 deg/sec for
- SpitVA.
-
-
-
-- A quick look at the Naca rollrate chart would give
-- you 130 deg per second at the same speed for the
-- Spit, without specifying stick force.
-
- Unlike the 109G chart, the NACA chart is not a
- result of an actual test.
-
-
-
--
--- They noted the ailerons were heavier. They PRESUMED
--- it`s because of inferior production quality, but
--- factory pilots tell it was worser on all SpitXIVs.
--- Not hard to see why, a weight increase from 7400lbs
--- to 8500lbs won`t improve your manouveribility for
--- sure.
--
-- Then we can assume the rollrate of the 109 got worse
-- from the E model onwards?
-
- Yep. Provided the wing desing wasn`t completely new,
- received wooden ailerons and flattner tabs. But it
- was redesigned, and received new things.
-
-
--
--- Yep. Your mental shape is worsening. And both of us
--- know what you come up at onwar when I showed you
--- figures for K-4.
--
-- Huh? All I remeber is you claiming the 109K4 could
-- climb to 5000m in 3 mins, me proving to you it was
-- actually 6 mins at reduced power, and you putting up
-- 300 smileys in a row, like the scene from The
-- Shining (All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
-- All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. etc)
--
-- The debate then moved to Butch's board, where the
-- picture was posted, and with the help of HoHun I
-- proved it beyond anyone's doubt, even yours.
-
-
- According to William Green, who`s data you accepted,
- 109K can climb to 5000m in 3min, and to 8000m in
- 5min. It also had 2xMG151/15 + MK103.
-
- Or do you say that Green`s data is not reliable for
- 109s in many cases? Say, not even the case of the
- 109F, which he claims as slow as the poorest 109E ?
-
-
-
-
--
--- So far the only Spit XIV I ever saw w/o wingtips and
--- mirror was Bigg`s 3D model for Il-2.
--
-- Cool, we're getting a Spit XIV that will do 389 at
-- sea level /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
- It will be great to re-do some MK 108 tests on them.
- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
- Those big wings... so much place to aim for. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
- BTW, do you have Il-2 ?
-
-
--
---- You have all the sources I used, as is obvious from
---- your selective quoting of them.
---
--- It`s obvious that you are making false statements
--- again as you lack real arguements.
--
-- No, you asked me to post the source for the 109F1
-- speed, and then started quoting from it yourself.
-- You still refuse to post anything on the 109K4 speed
-- apart from your own hand drawn document.
-
- Just as you refuse to post anything other than your
- own versions of the docs. Fair, isn`t it?
-
-
--
----- The ADFU on the 109 vs Spit V:
-----
----- Rate of Roll
----- 21.........Here again the Spitfire has a marked
----- advantage at all speeds.
-----
---
---
--- I didn`t notice that the first time. You made a
--- grieve mistake, Hop, while trying to forge new
--- "evidence".
---
--- The ADFU never tested the 109G against the Spitfire
--- Mark V. They tested their G-2 vs. the Tempest, and
--- their G-6/R6 vs. Spit9LF and 14F, Mustang III.
---
--- It`s obviously your own text being sold as an ADFU
--- trial.
--
-- Sorry, should have read Spit IX. So even the heavier
-- "worser" rolling Spit IX was better than the 109
-
- No doubt. A Spit IX could easily outroll a 109 with
- gunpods.
-
- A clean 109 swept the floor with the Spit in terms
- of roll, however.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- <img
- src="http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-deskt
- opweb.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



yer!

---------------------------------------



http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.bryant3/ETSigGermany.gif




under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
07-20-2003, 10:50 PM
RAF74Buzzsaw_XO wrote:
- Salute Isegrim
-
- Once again, you choose to ignore the facts which
- don't fit your argument.
-
- So I will put it again.

Repeating an argument twice won`t make it worth twice as much, quite the contrary.


-
- Have a look at the chart again:
-
- <img
- src="http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-r
- eport-868/42.gif">
-
-
- Note the rollrate for the Spitfire with clipped
- wings.
-
- 150 degrees per second. Far better than any figure
- you have put forward for ANY 109.

Yep, provided the Spit pilot could exert 50lbs stick force. He couldn`t. End of story.


-
- The Clipped wing Spitfire was introduced in the MkVb
- models.
-

LOL, how cunning! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


-
- NOT THE Va, used in the NACA test which you continue
- to insist is the be all and end all of Spitfire
- tests and which is mentioned in the snippets of
- documents which you post.

Hmm. The VA was probably the best roller of all Spitfires, it wasn`t burdened with the weight of two Hispanos.


-
- (by the way, how about posting the entire NACA
- Spitfire Va test please, so we can determine whether
- there are any other facts which you are hiding)
-

You mean you desperately want to peak into a real Spit test ? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Otherwise, I am somewhat lazy to post some 50+ pages.


- So clearly, the Spitfire tested by NACA was not a
- clipped wing version, and therefore your ENTIRE
- argument is fatally flawed.

`cos?


-
- Clipped wing Spitfires were in the majority for all
- Mk IX LF and Mk V LF. They were also in the
- majority for operational Mk XIV's. Only in HF
- models was the standard wing used solely.

Funny, at the FFG website EVERY MkIX and 14 they test had normal, un-clipped wings. And BTW, HF models used extended wings, not normal ones.


-
- Second in regards to the tested aircraft.
-
- The G6 you mention did have gunpods, and they were
- left on for the tests.



- However, it was not in poor condition, and was used
- with maximum boost during the tests.

On what do you base it used max. boost ?


-
- Additionally, the 109G6 was not the only aircraft
- tested against Spitfires, as I have mentioned many
- times and shown photos of many times, a 109G2,
- easily the most maneuverable when compared to a G6,
- or K4, was also used.

And it was noted that it could outroll a Tempest V up to 350 mph, a rather similiar figure as for the Spit. Of course, AFDU being rather vague with it`s comments.

They also noted with G-2 vs. Tempest trials that they didn`t pushed it to it`s limits during turns, the slats opening emberassed them from doing so.

BTW, the G-2 was captured in NAfrica, in damaged condition. So bad that it failed during the middle of tests. And, if you listened to Hop, under no conditions could it fly at full power because of the date.

BTW, this plane is the "Black 6".



- <img
- src="http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/capt-luft
- /bf109/rn228-02.jpg">
-
- Finally the NACA report graph #898 pictured above
- did not use theoretical data. It used individual
- flight tests done previously by NACA and the AFDU
- for its figures.

Great, then perhaps you could tell us which Spitfire variant and plane was used in those tests?


-
-
- One of these days Isegrim you will acknowledge that
- all aircraft have their weak and strong points and
- your all precious 109 wasn't the uber plane you
- insist it was.
-

I don`t know if it was an uber plane. It was one of the longest serving fighter plane in history, with the most airial kills and most aces, by far, maintaining air superiority over Europe for 4 years with only a handful avaialable of them.

And we produced them, flown them, loved them, made a dozen aces on them, and knocked Yank bombers and Russian Sturmoviks down with them.


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

Message Edited on 07/21/0312:05AM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
07-20-2003, 11:34 PM
Issy, what happened to those 36,000 109s and 22,000 190s produced?


Luftwaffe Order of Battle

9 April 1945

Serviceable Aircraft Strengths

Single-engined fighters: 1305
Night fighters: 485
Ground-attack aircraft: 712
Night harassment aircraft: 215
Multi-engined bombers: 37
Long-range reconaissance aircraft: 143
Short-range and army cooperation aircraft: 309
Coastal aircraft: 45
Transport aircraft: 10
Misc. aircraft (KG 200): 70

Total a/c: 3331


~56,700 109s and 190s un-accounted for./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

With that 3000 a/c per month you say were produced, there should be many more servicable a/c than the 3331.



Just love your cop-out in not posting data./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif You have a chance to make the "kill" but don't, so the only conclusion is that you are trying to hide facts, and/or in other words, twisting the truth.

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

XyZspineZyX
07-20-2003, 11:53 PM
Because of the insults flowing from Isegrim, I'll keep it very short.

- No, the truth is that I don`t post documents because
- you don`t neither.

You do post documents Isegrim. Well, little pieces snipped out of them, anyway. Like 30mm cannon effects posted as 20mm, corners of documents giving speed for the 109F1, and your own drawings for the speed of a 109K4.

- For you ? What for? You don`t back anything with
- docs; why should I support you with information
- which you could twist?

I have posted every doc and source I've referenced in the last few posts, apart from the Wright field tests, which you have anyway.

- Funny, my 109F manual is date 1941, and it lists
- 1.35 and 1.25 ata limitations. I take that instead
- of R/S.

Frankly I no longer believe a word you say, and I suspect that's the case for most people here.

You have the document, but we can only see a corner of it. That allows you to make up anything you like from the rest.

- If an engine can run at 1.35, why could it run at
- 1.3? The throttle is infinitevly variable with it`s
- positions. It could well run at 1.329124 ata as
- well.

Of course, but if the engine has a max rating of 1.35ata, and a normal rating of 1.25 ata, choosing an intermediate setting for speed trials is more than a bit odd.

-- No, Butch says the limit was 1.25 ata,
-- Radinger/Schick say the same.
-
- No, limit was 1.35 ata, even according to him, and
- according to the 109F manual Butch used as a
- reference.

No, Butch said the rating was 1.25ata.

Exact quote "The N seems to have suffered from teething problems, being derated two times first from 1.42 to 1.35ata and in May 1941 max boost was limited to 1.25ata."

- Not according to the Manual itself, and not
- according to Butch who said 1.35ata.

Read above.

--- It refers to 1.3 ata, 2800RPM.
--
-- Care to prove it?
--
-
- No. I couldn`t care less. It`s there, and that`s
- enough for me.

I see. Everyone else is wrong, but the source you have, and won't post, is right.

-- Even if that's the case, it's
-- still more than the plane could use in service.
-
- According to Hop, 1.3 is more than 1.35.

According to me, 1.25 is less than 1.3, and the only sources apart from your secret one say 1.25ata was the limit.

-- 495kph is hardly faster than a Spit V on 12lbs
-- boost. They could do 480 kp/h at 9lbs, 12lbs would
-- be substantially faster.
-
- Sadly they could only do 470 or 450 on +9lbs,
- depending on type.

Everyone can see the documents.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3134.html

Click on the link for speed chart, and extend the line down to sea level.

480 kp/h at sea level, on 9lbs boost.

- 1.42 and later 1.35 ata was the limit in service for
- the F. 1.25 is for Emils with 601N.

Not according to Butch, or Radinger/Schick

Balancing them against your source that you won't post, I think I'll take their word rather than yours.

-- 10 hours, in 5 min steps, equals 120 combat
-- flights.
-
- No, it equals 10 one-hour flights before the engine
- goes to the trashcan. You don`t even know what
- overhaul time is.... what the heck are you arguing?

So you have a source, but won't tell us what it is, just a little clue? Why the silly games, Isegrim?

10 hours service life , when 12lbs boost was limited to 5 min periods, equals 120 sorties.

O are you suggesting that use 9lbs and the engine can run for , say, 100 hours, use 12lbs for 5 mins and engine life is cut to 10 hours? Don't be absurd.

For example, from the uprated Bristol Centaurus documentation:

"The "life" of the engine will be until a total of 5 hours has been aggregated at special category combat flight conditions, exclusive of the hours run at normal flight conditions"

And you've got the source already.

-
- Even then, we know that 1.3 ata 2800 rpm was not
-- allowed, only 1.25ata 2600 rpm.
--
-
- Speak in your own name. Not everyone is so
- self-deluded as you.
-
Ok, everyone who believes Butch and Radinger/Schick over a chart you claim to have and won't post.

In other words, everyone rational.

- According to amateur who think 10 flight hours
- replacement time refers to only the powers it were
- used on... 10 flights, Hop. Then engine replacement

Like the Centaurus above?

But I forgot, you've got the proof, you just won't post it. Only hints, like a chapter title.

You've got no credibility, Isegrim. When confroted with it, you post childish insults, and a reapeted claim for me to post a source that you already have.

You claim to have documents to prove everything, but you won't post them, only little snippets, and your own hand drawn versions.

So far, the sourcdes for the 109K4 speed and the Spit XIV speed are:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14speedns.jpg


and

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/SPEED%20109G2andK4%20vs%20Spit9LFand14.jpg


Only a child would find your drawing more credible.

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 12:09 AM
re: 150 grade AvGas

From Issy's own web site.

http://mishuna.image.pbase.com/u6/isegrim/large/6383220.150gradeMelrins.jpg


Again from Issy's web site.

http://mishappa.image.pbase.com/u16/isegrim/large/5276382.109G1_Rechlinpage3.jpg


The G-2 deleted the pressurized cockpit and the fittings for the installation of GM-1.

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


Message Edited on 07/20/0307:12PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 12:10 AM
Salute Isegrim

More of your twisting of the facts. The little lies betray the fact that you cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

Your claim that the G2 outtrolled the Tempest, you say in your post:

"And it was noted that it could outroll a Tempest V
up to 350 mph"


Here is what the actual test says:

"...there was little to choose between the two aircraft in roll rate at speeds below 350mph, but above this speed the Tempest could out-maneuver its opponent by making a quick change of bank and direction."

So what is the conclusion?

The Tempest outrolls the 109G2 over 350 mph
and is the same under.

Not what you insinuated.

Complete test here:

http://user.tninet.se/~ytm843e/versus.htm

And that is a early prototype Tempest, tested in early January 1944, long before the model was finalized. And it was without the improved ailerons of later models, as noted in the test info at the top of page:

"Note: JN737, which was used for the tests, was a Tempest Mk. V Series I. version. I.e. without the spring-tab ailerons..."

In other words, better performance was realized in the finalized model, which would make it superior to the 109G2. Which of course, was the most maneuverable G model created, and considerably better than a K4 in a dogfight.

It is clear Isengrim, that you are not interested in examining the aircraft in question in a Scientific manner, one which fairly analyzes their performance, but rather are simply interested in putting forward any argument you can find, whether it is spurious or not. And that you would hide the truth if it ran counter to your biases.

Kinda sad and pathetic actually...

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 01:01 AM
Shrapnel:

Once you have enough power to burst the shell, the speed is set by the strength of the material and the wavefront speed of the explosive. Extra charge doesn't help.
With thin walled concussive shells the shell itself expands and balloons out before exploding, causing the shockwave in the explosive to be held in longer in terms of the speed of explosion, a VERY short but real time.
The HE shell generates more powerful and faster shockwave effect that way and for sure the thin shell fragments travel away faster. They are also white hot and burning. The shrapnel of the fragmentation shell are slower, much heavier, and white hot but not as hot all the way through in general so they will penetrate metal, plastic, glass, like those better.
HE shells are smooth outside and inside to allow as even a burst as possible, if one end goes first then much effect is lost as compared to all shattering at once. Pop a mostly full balloon with a pin and then pop another by filling it not too quickly with more air than it can take and find out which is the much louder.
Fragmentation shells have grooves or weak lines either inside or outside (inside if aerodynamics is a concern) to make sure that the shrapnel is to size and disperses in a certain pattern. The metal is thick and does not give much before the shell cracks along the weaker lines. They still make one hell of a bang, characteristic of the shell strength more than the explosive but a much faster detonating explosive will get faster shrapnel.
You can be sure that ALL shells had just a bit more explosive than was necessary for reasons of ensuring operation without wasting materials.


I don't understand something. I have heard a wav file of Adolph Galland relating that when Goering asked him what he needed to win the BoB, we said to get him Spitfires. For sure this wasn't to sneak in, was it? Really, Galland was saying it because the Spitfires were tearing up on the German planes, not being mown down en masse.
If the British planes were running away at the sight of 109's and no real threat then why did the LW target British airfields? Why didn't the Germans merely us the uber 109's as cover for the barges and get Seelowe under way?
I have read many times that the British were heavily outnumbered in the air during the BoB and yet they were not crushed. Poorly trained pilots in inferior machines versus Nazi Supermen in Uberplanes? Somehow, I don't think so.


I sure hope the hysteria ends. Words now will not change anything that happened then but perhaps there are sims where things are different. My guess is that ALL sims are so in one way or another.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 01:51 AM
hop2002 wrote:

- Frankly I no longer believe a word you say, and I
- suspect that's the case for most people here.

I certainly don't. I stopped believing anything he had to say a long time ago. It's not a new tactic that he takes snipits fromn one doc, and snipits from another and puts them creatively together to "prove" whatever point he is trying to make.

BTW, Dumbo and Spitdweeb, two of Isegrim's classier insults.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/SkyChimp.jpg



Message Edited on 07/21/0304:56AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 01:55 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
- re: 150 grade AvGas
-
- From Issy's own web site.
-
<img
- src="http://mishuna.image.pbase.com/u6/isegrim/lar
- ge/6383220.150gradeMelrins.jpg">
-
-
- Again from Issy's web site.
-
<img
- src="http://mishappa.image.pbase.com/u16/isegrim/l
- arge/5276382.109G1_Rechlinpage3.jpg">
-
-
- The G-2 deleted the pressurized cockpit and the
- fittings for the installation of GM-1.
-
- <img
- src="http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-s
- tormclouds2.jpg">
-
-
- Message Edited on 07/20/03 07:12PM by MiloMorai

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Classic! Isegrim removes images from his own website which prove him wrong.

That's the way to argue Issy!!!

I'll be laughing about that stunt for weeks!



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/SkyChimp.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 02:43 AM
Salute Hop

I found the number of the NACA Report re. the Spitfire Va.>

Measurements of the flying qualities of a Spitfire VA airplane. NACA Wartime report L-334

Unfortunately when I visit the NACA Tech reports server, it doesn't seem to be present to download:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/

Not sure whether I have the wrong location.

I already have one of the war time reports, that being:

"Measurements of the flying qualities of a Hawker Hurricane airplane."
NACA Wartime report L-565

There is also two others I'm looking for:


"Flying qualities and stalling characteristics of North American XP-51 airplane."
NACA Wartime report L-566

"Correlation of the drag characteristics of a P-51B airplane
obtained from high-speed wind-tunnel test and flight tests."
NACA Wartime report A-62.

Anyway if anybody else has more success in finding them, I'd appreciate the heads up.


Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 03:10 AM
RAF74Buzzsaw_XO wrote:

- "Correlation of the drag characteristics of a P-51B
- airplane
- obtained from high-speed wind-tunnel test and flight
- tests."
- NACA Wartime report A-62.


I have that report. Check your PM.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/SkyChimp.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 09:02 AM
SkyChimp wrote:

- That's the way to argue Issy!!!
-
- I'll be laughing about that stunt for weeks!

Dear god, something needs to be done about that boy.

As a fairly typical longtime lurker/shorttime poster I've seen a number of pathetic stunts pulled on this board. Issys 'style' is by far one of the most annoying things I've ever had the displeasure of reading through.

I don't have to read his posts, true, but it's worth it just to see him get smacked down. He seems to take it all so seriously that you just know he's sitting there, heart racing, eyelid fluttering, probably with some kind of bizarre autoerotic leg twitching going on as he extolls the virtues of the invincible master races engineering. It must hurt him a great deal to be taken down on a public forum like this. I like that.

Thanks hop and skychimp for the entertainment.

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 01:57 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- A clean Spitfire LF Mk.IX`s speed was practically
- identical to a clean G-6`s, and so was it`s climb
- rate up to around 6000m. Over that altitude, the
- Spit climbed a touch bit better, unless we are
- talking about a G-6/AS, G-14/AS, G-10 or K-4 with a
- high altitude engine, which was a rather common type
- in 1944, and was better at high altitudes.

Mind you, against a clean 109G6 the Spitfire was
better armed. Taking the rough equivalent of 1 20mm
being the worth of 3 .50s/13mm and 3 7.92/.303 being
worth 1 .50/13mm, the 109G6 with 1x20,2x13 has a firepower
of 15 .303s, and the Spitfire IX the equivalent of
22 .303s. A Tempest V would roughly have the equivalent of
36 .303s.

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 02:36 PM
The Luftwaffe on the Eve of Overlord, 31 May 44

Serviceable Aircraft Strengths

Single-engined fighters: 1063


Luftwaffe Order of Battle, 10 January 1945

Serviceable Aircraft Strengths

Single-engined fighters: 1462


That is for all the fronts./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Total production for the G-6/AS was just under 700 a/c with about 12,000 G-6s built. That is only ~5.5% G-6/AS-G-6 production. For the G-14/AS, ~1000 a/c for its production run with about 5500 G-14s built. That is only ~15% G-14/AS-G-14 production. G-10 production was about 2600 a/c from Oct. '44, or 371 a/c per month(average). Total production for the K-4 was ~ 1700 a/c from Oct.'44, or 242 a/c per month(average).

How common were these high performance a/c, really?


Spitfire climb rates

F Mk IX
Max. rate of climb in M.S. gear (radiator flaps open) 5080ft/min(25.8m/s) up to 500 feet
Max. rate of climb in F.S. gear (radiator flaps open) 4335 ft/min at 11,400 feet
Max. rate of climb in F.S. gear (radiator flaps shut) 4750 ft/min at 11,400 feet

HF Mk IX

Max. rate of climb at full throttle height in M.S. supercharger gear 4470 ft/min(22.7m/s). (at 11,200 ft.)
Max. rate of climb at full throttle height in F.S. supercharger gear 3400 ft/min. (at 22,700 ft.)

Further, to the use of 150 Avgas

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/2taf150_112044.gif



Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- A clean Spitfire LF Mk.IX`s speed was practically
- identical to a clean G-6`s, and so was it`s climb
- rate up to around 6000m. Over that altitude, the
- Spit climbed a touch bit better, unless we are
- talking about a G-6/AS, G-14/AS, G-10 or K-4 with a
- high altitude engine, which was a rather common type
- in 1944, and was better at high altitudes.
-
-

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

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 03:23 PM
AIR 25/616



http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/More+150b.JPG



Neil.

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 07:19 PM
No Text

Message Edited on 07/21/0309:23PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 07:21 PM
No Text

Message Edited on 07/21/0309:51PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 07:43 PM
You sound like a broken record Issy. Especially your last post, which is doubled./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

People would take you much more seriously if you could conduct yourself in a much more civil manner. ie. without the insults and the derogatory comments.


Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- blah, blah, blah
-
-
-
- blah, blah, blah
-

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

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 07:46 PM
MiloMorai wrote:

-
- Total production for the G-6/AS was just under 700
- a/c with about 12,000 G-6s built.

- That is only ~5.5%
- G-6/AS-G-6 production. For the G-14/AS, ~1000 a/c
- for its production run with about 5500 G-14s built.

No, 1835 out of 3000 G-14s.




- That is only ~15% G-14/AS-G-14 production. G-10
- production was about 2600 a/c from Oct. '44, or 371
- a/c per month(average). Total production for the K-4
- was ~ 1700 a/c from Oct.'44, or 242 a/c per
- month(average).
-
- How common were these high performance a/c, really?


109s in the Luftwaffe, on 31st January. 1stLine units/Reserve units:


Bf109G1/5 (0/1)
Bf109G12 (0/5)

Bf109G6 (71/328)
Bf109G14 and G14U4 (431/190)
Bf109G10, G10/U4 and G14/AS (568/3)
Bf109K4 (314/0)
Bf109G10/R6 (51/0)
----------------
Total (1435/527)

109 G-6 : 5 % of frontline 109s, 62% of reserve units.
109 G-14: 30 % of frontline 109s, 36% of reserve units.

109 G-10, G-10/U4, G-10/R6, G-14/AS : 43 % of frontline 109s, 0.5% of reserve units.
109K-4 21.88 % of frontline 109s, 0% of reserve units.


Low-medium altidue 109G-6 and G-14 with max. speed of 665 kph make up 35% of the 109 frontline force.


High altitude, "high performance" (qoute) G-10, G-14/AS, K-4 with max. speed of 680-715 kph make up 65% of the 109 frontline force.


--------------------------------------------------------



For comparision, the much hyped British 2nd Tactical airforce:

Typhoons, low altitude 1942 airplanes with 643 kph max. speed : 16 Squadrons

Tempest, low altitude improved version of the Typhoon, 1944, 700 kph max. speed: 5 Squadrons.

Spitfire MkIX and MkXVI: 1942/43 airplanes (and variations of that with imported engines), medium altitude, 643 kph max. speed. 24 Squadrons, including recce Squads.

Spitfire XI, recon : 1 Squadron.

Spitfire MkXIV, 724 kph max. speed, high altitude fighter. 5 Squadrons.



Plus two low altitude 1942 Mustang II Squadrons with a max. speed of 620 kph, one Squad mixed with recce Spit14s.

Total 53 Squadrons.

16+24+1+2= 43 Squadron out of 53, or 81% are equipped with old types from 1942/43, unable to reach any higher speed than 650kph, high altitude performance being poor.

5 Squadrons or 9.4% of them equipped with new 1944 planes with very poor high altitude performance.

Another 5 Sqauadrons 9.4% of them equipped with new 1944 planes with good high altitude performance.


81% of the 2nd TAF in the end of 1944 were equipped with old types from 1942 or 1943,

90,5% of the 2nd TAF using planes with poor high altitude performance.

The 2nd TAF received all available examples of the advanced types of British Spitfire XIVs and Tempest Vs. The situation with other RAF units was even worse.




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
07-21-2003, 07:47 PM
Sericable Typhoon low altiude fighters with 2nd TAF per Squadron, on 24th December, 1944.

A fully strenght British Squadron helds 20 planes.

137th Squadron: 7
168th Squadron: 6
181st Squadron: 5
182nd Squadron: 7
247th Squadron: 6
438th Squadron: 3
439th Squadron: 9
440th Squadron: 3
-------------------
Total: 46 aircraft (out of 160 authorized) servicable: 28.75% of maximum authorized strenght.


1st January, 1945:

137th Squadron: 12
168th Squadron: 11
181st Squadron: 12
182nd Squadron: 8
247th Squadron: 12
438th Squadron: 9
439th Squadron: 5
440th Squadron: 6
-------------------
Total: 75 aircraft (out of 160 authorized) servicable: 46.875% of maximum authorized strenght.


It seems the British were not slow only in sending modern planes to the front, but also in repairing the old junk.


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

Message Edited on 07/21/0308:57PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 08:02 PM
SkyChimp wrote:

-
- BTW, D Spitdweeb, two of Isegrim's classier
- insults.
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp


Hop2002`s Sig at Aces High Forum:

"Spitdweeb, and proud of it".


You may find it at the technical helps section, where he gives advices how to make "Safety copies" of DVDs.

Good thing he has so much respect to copyright.

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
07-21-2003, 08:39 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-
-
- No, 1835 out of 3000 G-14s.
-
-

Proof. Prien/Rodeike say ~5500 G-14s.


-
-
-- That is only ~15% G-14/AS-G-14 production. G-10
-- production was about 2600 a/c from Oct. '44, or 371
-- a/c per month(average). Total production for the K-4
-- was ~ 1700 a/c from Oct.'44, or 242 a/c per
-- month(average).
--
-- How common were these high performance a/c, really?
-
-
- 109s in the Luftwaffe, on 31st January. 1stLine
- units/Reserve units:
-
-
- Bf109G1/5 (0/1)
- Bf109G12 (0/5)
-
- Bf109G6 (71/328)
- Bf109G14 and G14U4 (431/190)
- Bf109G10, G10/U4 and G14/AS (568/3)
- Bf109K4 (314/0)
- Bf109G10/R6 (51/0)
-----------------
- Total (1435/527)
-

Only 1962 109s out of 36,000 produced. auwsome/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


- 109 G-6 : 5 % of frontline 109s, 62% of reserve
- units.
- 109 G-14: 30 % of frontline 109s, 36% of reserve
- units.
-
- 109 G-10, G-10/U4, G-10/R6, G-14/AS : 43 % of
- frontline 109s, 0.5% of reserve units.
- 109K-4 21.88 % of frontline 109s, 0% of reserve
- units.
-

So, the G-6s made up 20% of available 109s. G-14s made up 32% of available 109s. Or, G-6 + G-14 = 52% of available 109s. That leaves only 48% for the /AS, G-10s and K-4s.

So, out of the 2452 G-10s, K-4s produced (using the monthly average) to Jan. 31 '45 only 355, plus what ever is in the 'G-10, G-10/U4, G-14/AS' total for the G-10. Seems they had some troubles. And you want to compare to a low altitude force(2TAF)./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


-
---------------------------------------------------------
-
-
-
- For comparision, the much hyped British 2nd Tactical
- airforce:
-
-


blah, blah, blah


-
-
- 16+24+1+2= 43 Squadron out of 53, or 81% are
- equipped with old types from 1942/43, unable to
- reach any higher speed than 650kph, high altitude
- performance being poor.
-


Why do low altitude a/c need high altitude performance?



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

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 08:48 PM
AVIA 8/434


http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/Gerbil.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 08:51 PM
hop2002 wrote:
-
-- No, the truth is that I don`t post documents because
-- you don`t neither.
-
- You do post documents Isegrim. Well, little pieces
- snipped out of them, anyway. Like 30mm cannon
- effects posted as 20mm,

Hop puts words into my mouth when he claims I posted 30mm cannon hits as 20mm hits.

But he did that all along, why except a change ?


- corners of documents giving
- speed for the 109F1, and your own drawings for the
- speed of a 109K4.

And you?

You have posted NOTHING. Yet you expect me to give you information, which we all know that you will try to twist. No, I am not as much of a fool to give you anything. You can keep crying about it like a baby, but you get nothing until you start posting things that would underline your many unfounded ideas.



-
-- Funny, my 109F manual is date 1941, and it lists
-- 1.35 and 1.25 ata limitations. I take that instead
-- of R/S.
-
- Frankly I no longer believe a word you say, and I
- suspect that's the case for most people here.
-

Frankly, why should I care wheter you believe my word or not ?

On your part, you twist your own words to make them fit what you would like to prove. You claim that the Spitfire XIV in the test is an operational one; a few weeks ago you denied and told you`re a poor victim of "being accused" with ever telling the same thing. Now you say the opposite.

You twist and turn your own words when it serves you. But it`s a shortsighted tactic, as your words now turn against you, and show how much in-credible you are:


http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvhyp&tpage=2&direction=0 ( <a href=)" target=_blank>http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvhyp&tpage=2&direction=0</a>" target=_blank>http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvhyp&tpage=2&direction=0</a>" target=_blank>http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvhyp&tpage=2&direction=0</a>" target=_blank>http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvhyp&tpage=2&direction=0</a>" target=_blank>http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvhyp&tpage=2&direction=0</a>" target=_blank>http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvhyp&tpage=2&direction=0</a>

"Author: hop2002
Rank: Lonely Postman
Date: 07/16/03 04:02PM

"Firstly, I've never claimed that test shows normal Spit figures."

"Secondly, it doesn't show a stripped Spitfire. "

"It probably shows a Spit with the wingtips removed, but that was done on 5000+ Spits in total, so was a pretty common configuration."

"It shows a Spit with the mirror removed, but that wasn't exactly uncommon either."

"Show me one instance hwere I have claimed that was representative of Spits in squadron service."

"Oh, I forgot, I posted the picture to the OnWar forums, which are dead, so you can't prove it. How I managed to post the picture to a text only forum I still haven't been able to work out, let alone how I posted it before I'd even seen it, because I left OnWar before that was posted on the web."



http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvhyp&tpage=2&direction=0

Author: hop2002
Rank: Lonely Postman
Date: 07/15/03 09:06PM

-- Those "true figures" refer to a single prototype in
-- a crash programme agaisnt V-1 raids; it never saw
-- service.

" It did, as you can see the ministry of supply are quoting it as the speed of a Spitfire XIV. "

"No, sorry, 389mph at sea level was the speed of the Spitfire XIV, in standard operational conditions."

"Speed of Spitfire F XIV 389 mph at sea level. It's there in black and white."

"It's based on a Spitfire XIV cleaned up to normal standards."



- You have the document, but we can only see a corner
- of it. That allows you to make up anything you like
- from the rest.

But, unlike you, I don`t do that. You make assumptions on others based on your own tricks. You know yourself very well it seems, and believe others have just as bad morals.


-
-- If an engine can run at 1.35, why could it run at
-- 1.3? The throttle is infinitevly variable with it`s
-- positions. It could well run at 1.329124 ata as
-- well.
-
- Of course, but if the engine has a max rating of
- 1.35ata, and a normal rating of 1.25 ata, choosing
- an intermediate setting for speed trials is more
- than a bit odd.


Why is it? Care to tell us? And who told it`s a speed trials? It`s an official Kennblatt.



--- No, Butch says the limit was 1.25 ata,
--- Radinger/Schick say the same.
--
-- No, limit was 1.35 ata, even according to him, and
-- according to the 109F manual Butch used as a
-- reference.
-
- No, Butch said the rating was 1.25ata.
-
- Exact quote "The N seems to have suffered from
- teething problems, being derated two times first
- from 1.42 to 1.35ata and in May 1941 max boost was
- limited to 1.25ata."

Genuie example of how distrotedly you present Butch`s words all the time:


Exact qoute:

http://pub131.ezboard.com/fallboutwarfarefrm44.showMessageRange?topicID=393. topic&start=1&stop=20

"DB601N data comes 109T-2 and 109E-7/N specs IIRC, the high ata values comes from the Bf 109F flight manual. The later being confirmed by a Messerschmitt F-2/Z test report.

So i believe the DB601N came in two flavors on for the 109E and another for the 109F, it was most probably a difference in cooling efficiency between the two variants. Any insight welcome."


Quite clear, even for you.

1, According to butch, the DB601N came in two boost ratings ("flavors"), the lower one (1.25ata) for the 109E-x/N with less cooling effiency, and the higher 1.35ata for the 109F-1 and F-2 with better cooling effiency.

Which is supported by their manuals: DB601N equipped 109T-2 and 109E-7/N gvies lower ata of 1.25, the 109F-1/2 gives higher ata setting of 1.35.


-
-- Not according to the Manual itself, and not
-- according to Butch who said 1.35ata.
-
- Read above.
-
---- It refers to 1.3 ata, 2800RPM.
---
--- Care to prove it?
---
--
-- No. I couldn`t care less. It`s there, and that`s
-- enough for me.
-
- I see. Everyone else is wrong, but the source you
- have, and won't post, is right.


No, you don`t see. I don`t feel to the need to prove it to you, who selectively qoute other`s words. You don`t have credbility at all, you played it off long ago. It`s below my dignity to try to prove things to people who are blind to reason, and who will always just parrot the same thing, regardless of reason and facts.


--- Even if that's the case, it's
--- still more than the plane could use in service.
--
-- According to Hop, 1.3 is more than 1.35.
-
- According to me, 1.25 is less than 1.3, and the only
- sources apart from your secret one say 1.25ata was
- the limit.

My source is F-1/F-2 Kennblatt, Berlin, 1941, and it tells values for 1.3 and 1.42 ata, and tells that they are restricted to 1.25 and 1.35 ata.

Appearantly the source as used by butch:

"DB601N data comes 109T-2 and 109E-7/N specs IIRC, the high ata values comes from the Bf 109F flight manual."



--- 495kph is hardly faster than a Spit V on 12lbs
--- boost. They could do 480 kp/h at 9lbs, 12lbs would
--- be substantially faster.
--
-- Sadly they could only do 470 or 450 on +9lbs,
-- depending on type.
-
- Everyone can see the documents.
-
- <a
- href="http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w31
- 34.html"
- target=_blank>http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/ea
- gles/w3134.html</a>
-
-
- Click on the link for speed chart, and extend the
- line down to sea level.
-
- 480 kp/h at sea level, on 9lbs boost.

Yes, everyone can see...

Somehow you have always in error to favour the Spits.

SPEED TRIALS
with Snowguard off

True Airspeed :

10,000ft = 331mph
15,000ft = 351mph

The speed linearly decreasinh towards 0 ft. In 5000ft range, the difference is exactly 20mph. Logical then, from 10 000 ft to 0ft it`s 2x5000ft, or 2x20mph=40 mph.

Maths tell (primary schools skills required!) : 331-40=291mph. 0.621mph=1kph => 291/0.621 = 468.59 kph.

468 kph, not 480 at SL.



109F-1 or F-2 Kennblatt, 1941, Berlin:

"1.3ata, 2400RPM: 495 kph.
1.42ata, 2600RPM: 515 kph"

Thus 1.35ata, 2600 RPM is approx. 505-510 kph.

"The raising of RPM to 2800RPM gives a further 10-15kph speed increase up to rated altitude".

510~ is more than 468kph. Even if his majesty Hop2002 had eye blinkers on.



-
-- 1.42 and later 1.35 ata was the limit in service for
-- the F. 1.25 is for Emils with 601N.
-
- Not according to Butch, or Radinger/Schick

So Radinger/Shick gave engine limitations for 109F in their book covering 109A, 109B, 109C, 109D and 109E ? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



-
- Balancing them against your source that you won't
- post, I think I'll take their word rather than
- yours.

Butch uses "Kennblatt für das Flugzeugmuster Bf 109 Baureihe F-1 und F2 Motor DB 601 N"

Isegrim uses "Kennblatt für das Flugzeugmuster Bf 109 Baureihe F-1 und F2 Motor DB 601 N" .

Hop uses Radinger/Schick`s book (which he obviously never read) on 109A-E to prove that the 109F was derated...



-
--- 10 hours, in 5 min steps, equals 120 combat
--- flights.
--
-- No, it equals 10 one-hour flights before the engine
-- goes to the trashcan. You don`t even know what
-- overhaul time is.... what the heck are you arguing?
-
- So you have a source, but won't tell us what it is,
- just a little clue? Why the silly games, Isegrim?
-
- 10 hours service life , when 12lbs boost was limited
- to 5 min periods, equals 120 sorties.
-
- O are you suggesting that use 9lbs and the engine
- can run for , say, 100 hours, use 12lbs for 5 mins
- and engine life is cut to 10 hours? Don't be absurd.


Blah-blah, blahblahblah, blah-blah blah....

Argue that:

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/art2.jpg




-
- For example, from the uprated Bristol Centaurus
- documentation:
-
- "The "life" of the engine will be until a total of 5
- hours has been aggregated at special category combat
- flight conditions, exclusive of the hours run at
- normal flight conditions"
-
- And you've got the source already.


OH, how typical from you ! You want to sell the a testing period as engine life. It`s for the Bristol Centaurus engine, and it says that how many test hours it had to be operated at a specificif power on the testpad before it gets cleared for it!



-
--
-- Even then, we know that 1.3 ata 2800 rpm was not
--- allowed, only 1.25ata 2600 rpm.
---
-- Speak in your own name. Not everyone is so
-- self-deluded as you.
--
- Ok, everyone who believes Butch and Radinger/Schick
- over a chart you claim to have and won't post.

Which proves exactly that 1.25 ata rating is for 109E, which is what butch says, and which is clear to everyone without your zealotry.


Hint: the Radinger/Shcik book is on the early variants of the 109, up to 109E.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/076430951X/qid=1058810014/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_3/002-7184081-2280018?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/076430951X.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg


Messerschmitt Bf 109 A-E: Development/Testing/Production
by Willy Radinger, Walter Schick



The Radinger/Otto book deals with F, G and K....

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0764310232/qid%3D1058810059/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/002-7184081-2280018

Messerschmitt Bf 109 F-K (Schiffer Military History)
by Willy Radinger, Wolfgang Otto


Now I wonder, how could Radinger/Shick in their book on 109A-E tell your claimed limits to 109F...?



Butch:

"DB601N data comes 109T-2 and 109E-7/N specs IIRC, the high ata values comes from the Bf 109F flight manual. The later being confirmed by a Messerschmitt F-2/Z test report.

So i believe the DB601N came in two flavors on for the 109E and another for the 109F, it was most probably a difference in cooling efficiency between the two variants. Any insight welcome."


Clearly everyone understands it, expect you. But you don`t really want to understand it. You just want to live in a fanasy world where the Spit-is-always-better-in-everything is one and only rule and reason has no place.


-
-- According to amateur who think 10 flight hours
-- replacement time refers to only the powers it were
-- used on... 10 flights, Hop. Then engine replacement
-
- Like the Centaurus above?
-
- But I forgot, you've got the proof, you just won't
- post it. Only hints, like a chapter title.


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/art2.jpg


10 hours.



- You've got no credibility, Isegrim. When confroted
- with it, you post childish insults, and a reapeted
- claim for me to post a source that you already have.

Yada-yada-yada. Your insult won`t change the facts, and won`t change that you are out of arguement and try to make up with insults for it.


I post proof to everything I say. You don`t.

I don`t change what I said before to fit my current needs. You do.

I don`t change topic when it comes uneasy to bear evidence. You do.

I don`t use double standards, searching the worst cases for a 109, and best figures for a Spit. You do.

Finally, I don`t say that a prototype was in widesread service today, when two weeks ago I said it was not. You do.


-
- You claim to have documents to prove everything, but
- you won't post them, only little snippets, and your
- own hand drawn versions.
-
- So far, the sourcdes for the 109K4 speed and the
- Spit XIV speed are:
-
<img
- src="http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit
- 14speedns.jpg">
-
-
- and
-
<img
- src="http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/SPEED%20
- 109G2andK4%20vs%20Spit9LFand14.jpg">
-
-
- Only a child would find your drawing more credible.

More insults won`t make up for the fact that even you admitted that this test is was for a single stripped plane in a test programme, running on non-allowed boost ratings.



http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvhyp&tpage=2&direction=0

"Author: hop2002
Rank: Lonely Postman
Date: 07/16/03 04:02PM

"Firstly, I've never claimed that test shows normal Spit figures."

"Secondly, it doesn't show a stripped Spitfire. "

"It probably shows a Spit with the wingtips removed, but that was done on 5000+ Spits in total, so was a pretty common configuration."

"It shows a Spit with the mirror removed, but that wasn't exactly uncommon either."

"Show me one instance hwere I have claimed that was representative of Spits in squadron service."

"Oh, I forgot, I posted the picture to the OnWar forums, which are dead, so you can't prove it. How I managed to post the picture to a text only forum I still haven't been able to work out, let alone how I posted it before I'd even seen it, because I left OnWar before that was posted on the web."



http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvhyp&tpage=2&direction=0

Author: hop2002
Rank: Lonely Postman
Date: 07/15/03 09:06PM

-- Those "true figures" refer to a single prototype in
-- a crash programme agaisnt V-1 raids; it never saw
-- service.

" It did, as you can see the ministry of supply are quoting it as the speed of a Spitfire XIV. "

"No, sorry, 389mph at sea level was the speed of the Spitfire XIV, in standard operational conditions."

"Speed of Spitfire F XIV 389 mph at sea level. It's there in black and white."

"It's based on a Spitfire XIV cleaned up to normal standards."




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
07-21-2003, 08:54 PM
LOL Issy, did you not chastise me including the establishment strength in the sevicablitity of the JGs a/c. Now you do the same./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif And you call others on twisting facts./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-
- Sericable Typhoon low altiude fighters with 2nd TAF
- per Squadron, on 24th December, 1944.
-
- A fully strenght British Squadron helds 20 planes.
-
- 137th Squadron: 7
- 168th Squadron: 6
- 181st Squadron: 5
- 182nd Squadron: 7
- 247th Squadron: 6
- 438th Squadron: 3
- 439th Squadron: 9
- 440th Squadron: 3
--------------------
- Total: 46 aircraft (out of 160 authorized)
- servicable: 28.75% of maximum authorized strenght.
-
-
- 1st January, 1945:
-
- 137th Squadron: 12
- 168th Squadron: 11
- 181st Squadron: 12
- 182nd Squadron: 8
- 247th Squadron: 12
- 438th Squadron: 9
- 439th Squadron: 5
- 440th Squadron: 6
--------------------
- Total: 75 aircraft (out of 160 authorized)
- servicable: 46.875% of maximum authorized strenght.
-


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

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 08:56 PM
AVIA 8/434

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/Page2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 09:03 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
--
--
--
-- No, 1835 out of 3000 G-14s.
--
- Proof. Prien/Rodeike say ~5500 G-14s.


According to Butch, 1835 G-14/AS out of 3000 G-14.


-
- Only 1962 109s out of 36,000 produced. auwsome
-

WARNING!

MILO "LOGIC" EMULATOR ON !

By 1944, only 1000 Spits remained out of 20 000 produced, and 0 Hurricane out of some 16 000 produced.

Out of 130 000 British aircraft produced, only some 7000 survived.

MILO "LOGIC" EMULATOR OFF.


-
-- 109 G-6 : 5 % of frontline 109s, 62% of reserve
-- units.
-- 109 G-14: 30 % of frontline 109s, 36% of reserve
-- units.
--
-- 109 G-10, G-10/U4, G-10/R6, G-14/AS : 43 % of
-- frontline 109s, 0.5% of reserve units.
-- 109K-4 21.88 % of frontline 109s, 0% of reserve
-- units.
--
-
- So, the G-6s made up 20% of available 109s. G-14s
- made up 32% of available 109s. Or, G-6 + G-14 = 52%
- of available 109s. That leaves only 48% for the /AS,
- G-10s and K-4s.


Too bad only 5% of the G-6s were in first line service, the rest is in reserve.

You have obviously have problems with your reading comprehension.


-
- So, out of the 2452 G-10s, K-4s produced (using the
- monthly average) to Jan. 31 '45 only 355, plus what
- ever is in the 'G-10, G-10/U4, G-14/AS' total for
- the G-10. Seems they had some troubles.

To me it seems it`s you who is troubled.


-
- Why do low altitude a/c need high altitude
- performance?
-

It`s seems the British were really stupid then, giving their handful of HA Spits to a low altitude airforce. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

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
07-21-2003, 09:05 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- hop2002 wrote:
--
--- No, the truth is that I don`t post documents because
--- you don`t neither.
--
-- You do post documents Isegrim. Well, little pieces
-- snipped out of them, anyway. Like 30mm cannon
-- effects posted as 20mm,
-
- Hop puts words into my mouth when he claims I posted
- 30mm cannon hits as 20mm hits.
-
-

Well the topic was 20mm and the next thing we see is an a/c that was tested, with a 30mm./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif What other conclusion could be reached? You tried to hood wink/put one over us./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

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

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 09:06 PM
Hop 2002 chickened out and run away.

I smell Dunkerque.

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
07-21-2003, 09:08 PM
Isegrim, I'll ignore most of what you post, because it's quite frankly not worth responding to.

However, one thing right at the start jumped out at me:


- On your part, the twist your own words to make them
- fit what you would like to prove. You claim that the
- Spitfire XIV in the test is an operational one; a
- few weeks ago you went hysterical when "being
- accused" of ever telling the same thing. You twist
- and turn your own words when it serves you. But it`s
- a shortsighted tactic, as your words now turn
- against you, and show how much in-credible you are:

- "Author: hop2002
- Rank: Lonely Postman
- Date: 07/16/03 04:02PM
-
- "Firstly, I've never claimed that test shows normal
- Spit figures."
-
- "Secondly, it doesn't show a stripped Spitfire. "
-
- "It probably shows a Spit with the wingtips removed,
- but that was done on 5000+ Spits in total, so was a
- pretty common configuration."
-
- "It shows a Spit with the mirror removed, but that
- wasn't exactly uncommon either."
-
- "Show me one instance hwere I have claimed that was
- representative of Spits in squadron service."
-
- "Oh, I forgot, I posted the picture to the OnWar
- forums, which are dead, so you can't prove it. How I
- managed to post the picture to a text only forum I
- still haven't been able to work out, let alone how I
- posted it before I'd even seen it, because I left
- OnWar before that was posted on the web."



The first line in the post Isegrim is "quoting" from me:

- "Firstly, I've never claimed that test shows normal
- Spit figures."

doesn't appear anywhere in the post I made.

The exact post is here:

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvhyp&tpage=2&direction=0

Note the date and time are adjusted to your local time, so Isegrim's

- Date: 07/16/03 04:02PM

appears as

- Date: 07/16/03 02:02PM in my time zone (UK)

Isegrim, in his quest to prove I'm a liar, has simply added a line proving it to my quote.

It's probably the most pathetic thing I've ever seen.

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 09:12 PM
Isegrim, i'm also using other documents than the Kennblatt.
For instance the 1942 F-4/R1 technical summary which precise among other things that the DB601E rating was limited to 1.3ata@2500rpm.
Problem with German engines is that they consistently had troubles at high ata, and especially so for the DB601/605 series until mid 1943.

Butch


Message Edited on 07/21/0310:14PM by butch2k

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 09:18 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-
-
- According to Butch, 1835 G-14/AS out of 3000 G-14.
-
-

Oh now it suits you to accept what Butch says. How convenient./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


-
-
-
-
- blah, blah, blah - typical Issy./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
-
-
--
--- 109 G-6 : 5 % of frontline 109s, 62% of reserve
--- units.
--- 109 G-14: 30 % of frontline 109s, 36% of reserve
--- units.
---
--- 109 G-10, G-10/U4, G-10/R6, G-14/AS : 43 % of
--- frontline 109s, 0.5% of reserve units.
--- 109K-4 21.88 % of frontline 109s, 0% of reserve
--- units.
---
--
-- So, the G-6s made up 20% of available 109s. G-14s
-- made up 32% of available 109s. Or, G-6 + G-14 = 52%
-- of available 109s. That leaves only 48% for the /AS,
-- G-10s and K-4s.
-
-
- Too bad only 5% of the G-6s were in first line
- service, the rest is in reserve.
-
- You have obviously have problems with your reading
- comprehension.
-

Nope, not me. What are reserves for but to replace all those destroyed G-10s and K-4s./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

-
--
-- So, out of the 2452 G-10s, K-4s produced (using the
-- monthly average) to Jan. 31 '45 only 355, plus what
-- ever is in the 'G-10, G-10/U4, G-14/AS' total for
-- the G-10. Seems they had some troubles.
-
- To me it seems it`s you who is troubled.
-

I see trouble for those uber G-10s and K-4s since only 14.5% (355/2452) produced were around at the end of Jan'45.

-
--
-- Why do low altitude a/c need high altitude
-- performance?
--
-
- It`s seems the British were really stupid then,
- giving their handful of HA Spits to a low altitude
- airforce.

They did???

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


Message Edited on 07/21/0304:20PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 09:36 PM
hop2002 wrote:
-
- Isegrim, I'll ignore most of what you post, because
- it's quite frankly not worth responding to.
-

Hop chickens out, the truth triumphs.

-
- However, one thing right at the start jumped out at
- me:
-
-
.....

-
- The first line in the post Isegrim is "quoting"
- from me:
-
-- "Firstly, I've never claimed that test shows normal
-- Spit figures."
-
- doesn't appear anywhere in the post I made.
-

General Discussion, "The Hawker Tempest is absolutely one of the best fighters of WWII" thread, Page 5, Last post on page:

Author: hop2002
Rank: Over 200 Postings
Date: 06/28/03 12:49AM


Second paragraph:

"- Oh, don`t be silly. The Spitfire XIV test, which you
- love to show so much, was done on a half loaded,
- cleaned up, repainted, stripped plane (aerial,
- wingtips removed etc.) running on a boost that was
- not cleared in squadron service ....

Firstly, I've never claimed that test shows normal Spit figures."

and

"Secondly, it doesn't show a stripped Spitfire.

It probably shows a Spit with the wingtips removed, but that was done on 5000+ Spits in total, so was a pretty common configuration.

It shows a Spit with the mirror removed, but that wasn't exactly uncommon either."



and

"Show me one instance hwere I have claimed that was representative of Spits in squadron service. Oh, I forgot, I posted the picture to the OnWar forums, which are dead, so you can't prove it. How I managed to post the picture to a text only forum I still haven't been able to work out, let alone how I posted it before I'd even seen it, because I left OnWar before that was posted on the web."



http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zspuj&tpage=5&direction=0


-
- Isegrim, in his quest to prove I'm a liar, has
- simply added a line proving it to my quote.
-
- It's probably the most pathetic thing I've ever
- seen.


Hop denies what he said, and now he wants to get out of his unpleasant situation with more accusation. No Hop, at 06/28/03 12:49AM you said that it was not representative. Then now you said it was representative. Then you said that altough you said that, you changed your mind now. Now again you say you never said that.

He would deny his own mother if that would help him.

Don`t get surprise if when you locate the topic, this post will have a "Message editied by Hop2002" sign on it, with today`s date.

But`s it`s all on my HDD now.





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
07-21-2003, 09:40 PM
butch2k wrote:
-
- Isegrim, i'm also using other documents than the
- Kennblatt.
-
- For instance the 1942 F-4/R1 technical summary which
- precise among other things that the DB601E rating
- was limited to 1.3ata@2500rpm.
- Problem with German engines is that they
- consistently had troubles at high ata, and
- especially so for the DB601/605 series until mid
- 1943.
-
- Butch


I understand that. However as I saw, you basically said 1.25ata was most likely a limitation for E-7/N due coolant troubles, whereas F-1/F-2 was limited to 1.35ata with the same engine. At least that`s what the Kennblatt states. A de-rated F-2 flies somewhere betteen 495 and 515 kp (1.3/2400 and 1.42/2600); Is that correct ?

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
07-21-2003, 09:42 PM
- General Discussion, "The Hawker Tempest is
- absolutely one of the best fighters of WWII" thread,
- Page 5, Last post on page:
-
- Author: hop2002
- Rank: Over 200 Postings
- Date: 06/28/03 12:49AM

- Second paragraph:
-
- "- Oh, don`t be silly. The Spitfire XIV test, which
- you
-- love to show so much, was done on a half loaded,
-- cleaned up, repainted, stripped plane (aerial,
-- wingtips removed etc.) running on a boost that was
-- not cleared in squadron service ....
-
- Firstly, I've never claimed that test shows normal
- Spit figures."
-
- and
-
- "Secondly, it doesn't show a stripped Spitfire.
-
- It probably shows a Spit with the wingtips removed,
- but that was done on 5000+ Spits in total, so was a
- pretty common configuration.
-
- It shows a Spit with the mirror removed, but that
- wasn't exactly uncommon either."
-
-
-
- and
-
- "Show me one instance hwere I have claimed that was
- representative of Spits in squadron service. Oh, I
- forgot, I posted the picture to the OnWar forums,
- which are dead, so you can't prove it. How I managed
- to post the picture to a text only forum I still
- haven't been able to work out, let alone how I
- posted it before I'd even seen it, because I left
- OnWar before that was posted on the web."

So I actually posted it on the 28th of June?

Why then did you insert it in a post from me on the 16th of July?

On 28th June I said I have never claimed 389mph was a normal sea level speed.

On 15th July I did claim 389mph was a normal sea level speed.

Isegrim makes up a post by me on the 17th July saying I have never claimed 389mph was a normal sea level speed.

What is the point of discussing anything with Isegrim when he makes up other people's posts?

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 09:44 PM
Oh, stupid of me, I forgot. Would you be interested in contacting Punka Gyorgy ? (George Punka). Somehow he bumped into our virtual squadron.

I`d also like to ask your help in some time, I am building a small 109K site (waiting for books at the moment), and I would like you to check it for errors when it`s complete. I`d also need some information on early 109K engines, from what I understand it had:

-605D
-605DM
-605DB/DC

The first two is a bit unclear to me (fuel types, powers, number of them used etc.). I would like to give complete picture.


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
07-21-2003, 09:50 PM
hop2002 wrote:
-
- So I actually posted it on the 28th of June?
-
- Why then did you insert it in a post from me on the
- 16th of July?
-
- On 28th June I said I have never claimed 389mph was
- a normal sea level speed.
-
- On 15th July I did claim 389mph was a normal sea
- level speed.
-
- Isegrim makes up a post by me on the 17th July
- saying I have never claimed 389mph was a normal sea
- level speed.
-
- What is the point of discussing anything with
- Isegrim when he makes up other people's posts?
-


1st version: 389mph is not for an operational Spit.

2nd version: 389mph is for an operational Spit.

3rd version: Yes he did said it`s not for an operational
Spit, but he changed his mind in the meanwhile.

4th version: Actually the whole thing is just made up, he never said anything, it`s all forgery

5th version: OK he did say that after all, but not at that date, which proves the whole thing is just made up (???)

Aren`t you dizzled a bit, with all that twist and turn?

Spitdweeb soap opera /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


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
07-21-2003, 09:57 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- A de-rated F-2 flies somewhere
- betteen 495 and 515 kp (1.3/2400 and 1.42/2600); Is
- that correct ?
-
-

That is slower than the Spitfire MkV.

W.3134: (TAS)

371(597kph) 20,100'(6126m)
331(532kph) 10,000'(3048m)

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


Message Edited on 07/21/0304:59PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 09:59 PM
- 1st version: 389mph is not for an operational Spit.
-
- 2nd version: 389mph is for an operational Spit.
-
- 3rd version: Yes he did said it`s not for an
- operational
- Spit, but he changed his mind in the meanwhile.

Yes, that's the correct version. Unfortunately, it's suit your purposes, so you simply added a line to the "quote" from me. Childish and dishonest.

- 4th version: Actually the whole thing is just made
- up, he never said anything, it`s all forgery

No, that's another of your inventions.

Here's what I said to you last time, 20th July, 1:49 British Summer Time:

"In the past, you claimed I had claimed the 389mph figure was standard. I hadn't, and you have yet to find a single case where I have.

Since then, I have claimed it was standard. See the difference? If I say I have never been to Romania, and next week I go to Romania, am I a liar? No.

If you want to call me a liar again, find where I previously claimed it was standard, before the post you are quoting, not afterwards."

Of course, you couldn't find it, so you simply made up the quote. Much like you do with most of your data, which is why you are frightened to post it.

- 5th version: OK he did say that after all, but not
- at that date, which proves the whole thing is just
- made up

Isegrim, you are not that stupid. You claim to be a lawyer, don't you?

On the 28th June I said have never claimed 389mph is standard sea level spped, I was telling the truth. At that time I never had claimed it.

By the 15th July I had changed my mind, and I did claim it.

You made up a quote from me on the 16th July, saying I had never claimed it.

You're a liar a cheat and a fraud, Isegrim. If you make up quotes from me, where everyone can check them, what's to stop you making up all the quotes and technical documents you claim to have?

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 10:04 PM
It seems that for similar reasons the DB601N was also limited to 1.35ata@2600rpm on the F-1/F-2. At least that's what i have on most of my 109F-1/F-2 documents.
I'm still investigating whether it was permanent or whether it was reduced at a later time even more.
Indeed I have some hints that a later reduction took place and reduced the permissible boost to 1.3ata@2400rpm but i still waiting for some more documents in order to conclude.
I'll let you know my conclusions when i get the necessary documents.

Butch

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 10:07 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-- A de-rated F-2 flies somewhere
-- betteen 495 and 515 kp (1.3/2400 and 1.42/2600); Is
-- that correct ?
-
- That is slower than the Spitfire MkV.
-
- W.3134: (TAS)
-
- 371(597kph) 20,100'(6126m)
- 331(532kph) 10,000'(3048m)


Comparing SL speed of F-2 to 3000 and 6000m ? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Why not like with the like?

F-2:

6000m: 594-614 kph vs. 597 w/o snowguards, 587kph w. snowguards for Spit VB
3000m: 553kph-573 kph vs 533kph for SpitVB.
0m: 495-515 kph vs. 468 kph for Spit VB.

Or for example, where the Spit has the most advantage, at high altitude (according to Hop at least):

At 330000 ft (10 058m):
109F-2: 543 kph
Spit VB: 520 kph



The SpitVB is slower on the whole range.


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
07-21-2003, 10:07 PM
The DB605DM is an evolution of the DB605D-2 with MW-50 injection like the DB605A/AM couple. I'll publish a complete article of more than eighty pages dealing with the 605 series. But i've been slowed down due to my real-life job.

Butch

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 10:19 PM
Hello Butch,

I am looking forward to your complete article with great anticipation.

Neil.

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 10:28 PM
hop2002 wrote:
-- 1st version: 389mph is not for an operational Spit.
--
-- 2nd version: 389mph is for an operational Spit.
--
-- 3rd version: Yes he did said it`s not for an
-- operational
-- Spit, but he changed his mind in the meanwhile.
-
- Yes, that's the correct version. Unfortunately, it's
- suit your purposes, so you simply added a line to
- the "quote" from me. Childish and dishonest.


Sorry, it was your words, everyone can see it here:

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zspuj&tpage=5&direction=0

"Author: hop2002
Rank: Over 200 Postings
Date: 06/28/03 12:49AM

Firstly, I've never claimed that test shows normal Spit figures.

...

Show me one instance hwere I have claimed that was representative of Spits in squadron service."

then in this thread:

"No, sorry, 389mph at sea level was the speed of the Spitfire XIV, in standard operational conditions."

"Speed of Spitfire F XIV 389 mph at sea level. It's there in black and white."

"It's based on a Spitfire XIV cleaned up to normal standards."



No line is added, it`s all your words which you twisted and got exposed now. If you deny it, OK, it`s a childish reaction and will get you deeper and deeper in the mud.


Everyone can see that you twist your words in accordance to your needs, there`s not even the slightest honesty in you about it. You are a dishonest man.


-
- Of course, you couldn't find it, so you simply made
- up the quote. Much like you do with most of your
- data, which is why you are frightened to post it.
-

Butch and many others has the same data and could simply post it if I were lying. And I know that very well.


-- 5th version: OK he did say that after all, but not
-- at that date, which proves the whole thing is just
-- made up
-
- Isegrim, you are not that stupid. You claim to be a
- lawyer, don't you?
-
- On the 28th June I said have never claimed 389mph is
- standard sea level spped, I was telling the truth.
- At that time I never had claimed it.

You tried to sell this test as standard at Onwar.com. Now you deny it, because you can, the forum is down. I learned from that, you see.

-
- By the 15th July I had changed my mind, and I did
- claim it.
-
- You made up a quote from me on the 16th July, saying
- I had never claimed it.
-

Simply the date was garbled in ubi forum, for whatever reason. Doesn`t matter, the point is that you twist your own words acording to your needs without any kind of moral.


- You're a liar a cheat and a fraud, Isegrim.

Call me a lawyer. My job is to prove how dishonest you are. And I just did that splendidly. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

-
- If you
- make up quotes from me, where everyone can check
- them, what's to stop you making up all the quotes
- and technical documents you claim to have?
-

My honor. Oh, a missing word in Hop`s vocabulary. I don`t need to cheat, because the only thing why I waste so many time on you is because I loathe when someone makes such blatant and arrogant lies. I don`t give sh*t about your person, the Spit, I am merely interested in living by my principles, which are simply that I hate lies and the people who live by them. If I would go to your level, and start making up things, then the reasons of my work here would be ruined.

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
07-21-2003, 10:30 PM
I don't see any mention of altitude Issy./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Or, did that just happen to slip your mind?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- A de-rated F-2 flies somewhere
- betteen 495 and 515 kp (1.3/2400 and 1.42/2600); Is
- that correct ?
-

Now those numbers you posted are they IAS or TAS since we all know how you like to twist facts?.

But since you want SL speed,

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/x4922speed.gif


Note the @ SL speed, 337mph(542kph)TAS


http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3134speed.gif


Note the @ SL speed, 332mph(532kph)TAS



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

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 10:31 PM
butch2k wrote:
- The DB605DM is an evolution of the DB605D-2 with
- MW-50 injection like the DB605A/AM couple. I'll
- publish a complete article of more than eighty pages
- dealing with the 605 series. But i've been slowed
- down due to my real-life job.
-
- Butch


Is that D-2 the same as C-3 fueled 605D-F in 1942? I.e. 1550P at SL, 6.5km Volldruckhohe, with MW50 added ?

I wish you good luck and more time for your work.

I will contact you in mail if I got Punka`s address. I am sure he can help you with Hungarian production more than I can. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

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
07-21-2003, 10:34 PM
Funny, on what page I see, it`s written 10 000ft and 8000 ft for the values you claim as Sea Level.

Don`t you need glasses, Milo?


"Now those numbers you posted are they IAS or TAS since we all know how you like to twist facts?."

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

615 kph IAS F-2 at 6000m. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Sounds good.

How much TAS that would be ? I reckon around 900 kph. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



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

Message Edited on 07/21/03 11:38PM by Vo101_Isegrim

Message Edited on 07/21/0311:40PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 10:40 PM
Nope the DB605D you mention is just a souped-up DB605A using higher CR which was not produced.
The DB605D-2 was an evolution of DB605 line equiped with a larger supercharger a la DB605AS with a VH of 8.0km

Butch

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 10:44 PM
I guess I should put them on./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Try this one

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3228speed.gif


325mph(523kph) @ SL

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

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 11:05 PM
Humm interesting, what about those ones.

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/aviation/ww2/germany/bf109/bf109f2-performance-data1.jpg

Notice the 1.42ata provisional curve and max estimated speed of 379mph@21000ft, max achievable ata on this aircraft was 1.36 which is correct according to the other data i have.

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/aviation/ww2/germany/bf109/bf109f2-performance-data2.jpg

Don't know where the Mk V curve comes from though /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Speed test was made with pauses between each level test so that max speed could be achieved with closed radiators (just in case someone wondered).
And of course i own a copy of the whole test...

Butch

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 11:10 PM
butch2k wrote:
- Nope the DB605D you mention is just a souped-up
- DB605A using higher CR which was not produced.
- The DB605D-2 was an evolution of DB605 line equiped
- with a larger supercharger a la DB605AS with a VH of
- 8.0km
-
- Butch
-

Sorry, so many Ds around. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


But I think this is the D-2 one in the db605varienten.pdf on page 17, ie.

Not / Kampf/ Hochs. Dauer.

1435 PS / 1275PS / 1050 at SL,


Not/Kampf/ Hochs. Dauer.
at 7.6/7.4/7.3km

1280PS / 1200 / 1040

"Wie DB605A jedoch mit groBeren Lader in ausfuhrung wie in DB603G und hohere verdichtung fur C-3 kraftstoff. - Olschleuder"

Fuel : C-3.

This changed to when converted to DM:

Notl: 1800PS / 0km and probably 1600PS at 6km static (based on 1565PS/7.5km dynamic).
Steig: 1275-0km / 1150PS-8km
Dauer: 1050-0km / 1030PS-7.7km

Fuel still only C-3.

And this latter engine is what shown on the GLC chart you posted (G-14/U4, G-14/ASM, K-4) as "DB605D", which really is a D-2 with MW, aka 605DM. Kampleistung being changed a bit at altitude like with 605AM vs. 605A.

So there`s only 605DM and 605DB/DC. 605DM and (in GLC chart) 605D being the same.

Right ?



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
07-21-2003, 11:20 PM
Yes in most german documents D-2 and DM are most of the time being refered to as DB605D. Engine data you quoted is not 100% exact but it's sound basis.

Butch

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 11:29 PM
butch2k wrote:
- Humm interesting, what about those ones.
-
- Don't know where the Mk V curve comes from though
- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
- Speed test was made with pauses between each level
- test so that max speed could be achieved with closed
- radiators (just in case someone wondered).
- And of course i own a copy of the whole test...
-
- Butch
-

It looks like X-4922 to me, the prototype SpitV.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/x4922.gif


http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/x4922.html

The weight, tested altitude, speed and climb rates are the same.

It seems the a/c was not operationally equipped, ie. the production test W3134 test a few month later tells:

"1. Introduction.

.......Brief performance trials were required of a Spitfire Mk VB fully operationally equipped for comparison with two other aircraft of the type not operationally equipped and previously tested at this establishment."

The two other is X.4922 (ie. the one on Butch`s curves) and K.9788 .




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

Message Edited on 07/22/03 12:29AM by Vo101_Isegrim

Message Edited on 07/22/0312:34AM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 11:33 PM
Just to jump in with a random comment on page 5.

The Hurricane shot down 3/4 geman planes in the battle of britain. Compared to the 109 it was slower, out climbed and out dived. The only thing a Hurri pilot could do was turn. But that alone made it hard for a 109 to shoot it down.

Many aces spent some time in the Hurri, including Tuck and Bader.

Ye Jacobites by name, lend an ear, give an ear!
Ye Jacobites by name, lend an ear,
Ye Jacobites by name,
Your fautes I will proclaim,
Your doctrines I maun blame, you shall hear!
2. What is Right, and what is wrang, by the law, by the law?
What is Right, and what is Wrang, by the law?
What is Right, and what is Wrang?
A short sword and a lang,
A weak arm and a strang, for to draw!
3. What makes heroic strife, famed afar, famed afar?
What makes heroic strife famed afar?
What makes heroic strife ?
To whet th' assassin's knife,
Or hunt a Parent's life, wi' bluidy war?
4. Then let your schemes alone, in the State, in the State!
Then let your schemes alone, in the State!
Then let your schemes alone,
Adore the rising sun,
And leave a man undone, to his fate!
Burns

<img src =http://www.unicef.ca/eng/unicef/lessons/peace/images/peace.gif>

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 12:30 AM
Notes 1 & 2 for X.4922.

1. Introduction: The performance on Spitfire V.K.9788 (Merlin XLV engine) is given in 1st part of Report No. A.A.E.E./692,i. It was desired to check the performance obtained on K.9788 on another Spitfire V. and X.4922 was chosen for these check tests. Spitfire V. X.4922 was fitted with a standard Spitfire I. De Havilland airscrew, but with the pitch settings increased to 34 deg. fine and 54 deg. coarse, the same pitch settings used in the previous tests.

2. Tests made: The aeroplane was fitted with 8 Browning guns and, operationally equipped, weighed 6,450 lb. Because this loading represented the all-up weight of the aeroplane in Service, it was decided to carry out the trials at the above load instead of 6,070 lb. to which K.9788 was loaded.

Seems X.4922 was operationally equiped.


The first Spifires fitted with the modified Merlin XX (Mk 45) were X.4334 and N.3003.

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

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 03:32 AM
Salute Butch

Since you have entered this debate with some useful information, how about a comment on the rollrate of the various 109's versus the Spitfires? Standard and clipped wing.

And perhaps some comment on the high speed aileron response of the 109.


Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw



Message Edited on 07/22/0302:33AM by RAF74Buzzsaw_XO

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 09:14 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Notes 1 & 2 for X.4922.
-
- 2. Tests made: The aeroplane was fitted with 8
- Browning guns and, operationally equipped, weighed
- 6,450 lb. Because this loading represented the
- all-up weight of the aeroplane in Service, it was
- decided to carry out the trials at the above load
- instead of 6,070 lb. to which K.9788 was loaded.
-
- Seems X.4922 was operationally equiped.



Note the crude doctoring Milo did to the paragraph. The last sentence is is missing... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif the whole one:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/x4922.html

For X.4922:

"2. Tests made: The aeroplane was fitted with 8 Browning guns and, operationally equipped, weighed 6,450 lb. Because this loading represented the all-up weight of the aeroplane in Service, it was decided to carry out the trials at the above load instead of 6,070 lb. to which K.9788 was loaded.
(Note: paragraph as corrected by corrigendum dated 18th June, 1941) "


As you can see, this paragraph is corrected in 18th June 194, which says:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3134.html

"Spitfire Mk. VB W.3134
(Merlin 45)
Brief Performance Trials

1. Introduction.

.......Brief performance trials were required of a Spitfire Mk VB fully operationally equipped for comparison with two other aircraft of the type not operationally equipped and previously tested at this establishment. "


Paragraph 3, "Comparison of results." list these two as being X.4922 and K.9788 .

It`s not hard to see why this corrected later, the first prototype was believed to be the same as later production a/c during the test under operational loading, but later with the many changes and added weight of around 100 lbs it was no longer representative of an operational a/c, this being corrected in a comparison a few months later.


Milo also tried to make some cheating with the Merlin 50 equipped Spit VB. This was the version known as "clipped, clapped and cropped", with it`s supercharger impeller cropped. This resulted better performance near SL, but performance suffered heavily at altitutude because of the weakened supercharger capacity, not to mention it didn`t saw service until mid 1943... hardly the best plane to prove that the Spit V was faster at altitude, compared to the 1941 109F-2, given it`s neither faster at alt, neither from the same period.

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
07-22-2003, 04:30 PM
LOL, Issy you are something else./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

corrigendum: an error to be corrected, ESPECIALLY A PRINTER'S ERROR.

Crude doctoring,/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif . If I did 'doctor' the statement, as you claim >rolleyes<, I guess I had better improve so that I am up to your calibre of deception./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

What don't you understand about, "The aeroplane was fitted with 8 Browning guns and, operationally equipped, weighed 6,450 lb."?

The Mk Va had a TO weight of 6416lb. The Mk Vb had a TO weight of 6622lb. As can be seen, X4922 has the weight of a Spitfire Mk Va, not operationally equiped. Do you need a lesson on Spitfire wings Issy? Also note that W3134's weight of 6525lb is less than the listed TO weight of a Mk Vb by "around 100lb" and X4922 is above the listed TO weight.

Note N3053 was also at Boscombe Down, and its TO weight was 6170lb, the same weight as K9788. X4922 did not arrive at Boscombe Down until 13 March, that is after the arrival (13 Feb) of N3053. To quote "Spitfire, the History" for X4922, "It was used for trials of a >> standard <<, completely equiped aeroplane".

6525 - 6450 = 75

Do you need a lesson in math Issy? 75 is 'around' 75% of the 'around 100lb' you say the difference was. Or is this your usual exagerating?

Butch's chart of a comparison of speed for a Spitfire Mk V and a 109F1/2 says the Spitfire was faster at all heights. Spitfire Vs with Merlin 45/50 engines were coming off the assembly lines from April 1941. Graham White says the 45 and 50 had the same hp at the same altitude.

"Tried some cheating"? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif The Merlin 45 could be had with cropped a impeller, the 45M. And the engine's Mk numbers are there in 'black and white' for all to see. I see no 'M' stated.

"clipped, clapped and cropped" refers to shortened wings, an old airframe and a smaller dia. impeller. Not bad performance for an old airframe./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Just so people understand, the Merlin 50 did not have a cropped impeller, that was the Merlin 50M engine. Now who is 'cheating' Issy?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Now 'cheating' is you trying to pass off a 109K, with a DB605L engine, performance chart since none were in any 109Ks that saw combat or was it ever fitted? Not from what I have read.

I can't be bothered to quote your post.

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

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 10:07 PM
No Text

Message Edited on 07/22/0311:22PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 10:23 PM
MiloMorai wrote:

- What don't you understand about, "The aeroplane was
- fitted with 8 Browning guns and, operationally
- equipped, weighed 6,450 lb."?


Butch showed tests for the following: Spitfire V. X.4922

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/x4922.html

"2. Tests made: The aeroplane was fitted with 8 Browning guns and, operationally equipped, weighed 6,450 lb. Because this loading represented the all-up weight of the aeroplane in Service, it was decided to carry out the trials at the above load instead of 6,070 lb. to which K.9788 was loaded.
(Note: paragraph as corrected by corrigendum dated 18th June, 1941)"

Correction to this paragraph on 18th June 1941:



". Introduction.

.......Brief performance trials were required of a Spitfire Mk VB fully operationally equipped for comparison with two other aircraft of the type not operationally equipped and previously tested at this establishment."

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3134.html

The "two other aircraft" in the report are listed as : X.4922, K.9788.

Neither was considered operationally equipped.

X4922 was not operationally equipped according to revise.

Milo had crudely doctored the paragraph, and cut off the part which gave information about the non-operational status of the tested X4922 seen on Butch`s curves, which nature given in the following test reports.


-
- Note N3053 was also at Boscombe Down, and its TO
- weight was 6170lb, the same weight as K9788. X4922
- did not arrive at Boscombe Down until 13 March, that
- is after the arrival (13 Feb) of N3053. To quote
- "Spitfire, the History" for X4922, "It was used for
- trials of a >> standard <<, completely equiped
- aeroplane".


"..with two other aircraft of the type not operationally equipped and previously tested at this establishment...."

Refers to X4922 (and K9788).

It seems it`s just another in the Spitfire books errors, of which Milo tries to make advantage of.



- The Merlin 45 could be
- had with cropped a impeller, the 45M. And the
- engine's Mk numbers are there in 'black and white'
- for all to see. I see no 'M' stated.
-
- "clipped, clapped and cropped" refers to shortened
- wings, an old airframe and a smaller dia. impeller.
- Not bad performance for an old airframe



Milo had tried to sell the cropped Spitfire`s SL performance as a normal one, then denied it`s a cropped Spit.

- Just so people - understand, the
- Merlin 50 did not have a cropped impeller, that was
- the Merlin 50M engine. Now who is 'cheating'
- Issy?


Oh yeah. Header of test plane Milo posted, and tries to sell as a "not cropped" Merlin 50:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3228.gif


Full report here:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3228.html

Considering Milo cheats all the time, and has great experience with it, he does it awfully poorly (but in his defense, even cheating has a mininium intelligence level).

Until then, I am afraid we have take the official records for operational planes. Ie. for SL speeds, 468 kph for SpitVB, and 495 to 515 kph for Me 109F-1/F-2.

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
07-23-2003, 01:01 AM
Still with the insults ISSY./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Well it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Do you know the difference between a Mk Va and a Mk Vb?

The note says an operational a/c for X4922. The TO weight of a Mk Va is almost the same as that for the X4922. X4922 is a Mk V >>a<< airframe which is stated in the detail report - "Spitfire Mk. VA X.4922".

The operational weight of a Mk V >>b<< is higher. W3134 is a Mk Vb. Mk Vs were converting to cannons from the 8 mg Mk Va, so the Mk Va was not represenative of the current operational Mk Vbs. Put your pro German/anti British biased twist to the fact anyway you want.


As for the rest of your verbal diarreha, to refresh your memory,

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/aviation/ww2/germany/bf109/bf109f2-performance-data2.jpg


Why is the Mk V curve to the right of the 109F curve? It should be to the left of the 109F curve if the Mk V was slower. You are the one being dishonest Issy, quoting theortical speed numbers for 1.42 ata boost when the a/c was not capable of operating at such boost. Butch's graph shows less than 300mph TAS at SL (project the line). The graph for W3134 (which you say is representaive of an operational Mk V) show slightly more than 320mph TAS at SL.

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/aviation/ww2/germany/bf109/bf109f2-performance-data1.jpg

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3134speed.gif



I see no mention of a 45M, niether a 50M for W3134, just a 50.

I also stated that it was the 45M/50M that had the cropped impeller, so people understood the difference from a 45/50. So where is the dishonesty?

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