PDA

View Full Version : The best late war turn fighter in Europe ?



Bellator_1
10-26-2006, 11:15 AM
The Spitfire XIV, Bf-109 K-4 or the La-7 ??

Spitfire XIV
Weight: 3855 kg
Power: 2050 HP
Wing loading: 171.5 kg/m2
Span loading: 343.2 kg/m
Power loading: 1.88 kg/hp

Bf-109 K-4:
Weight: 3354 kg
Power: 2000 HP
Wing loading: 207.6 kg/m2
Span loading: 338 kg/m
Power loading: 1.67 kg/hp
(Automatic slats)

La-7
Weight: 3368 kg
Power: 1850 HP
Wing loading: 192.4 kg/m2
Span loading: 343.6 kg/m
Power loading: 1.82 kg/hp
(Automatic slats)

I'd rate them like this:

Sustained turn rate:
1: Bf-109 K-4
2: Spitfire XIV
3: La-7

Initial turn rate:
1: Spitfire XIV
2: Bf-109 K-4
3: La-7<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Brain32
10-26-2006, 11:27 AM
You are wrong, late 109's couldn't turn at all, they were droped mid air like Mistels and could only go to bomber formations in a strait line.
Be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

This is my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bellator_1
10-26-2006, 11:32 AM
LOL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Capt.LoneRanger
10-26-2006, 11:47 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

greets
Capt.LoneRanger

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v411/Arcadiac/Lone1copy.png

JG53Frankyboy
10-26-2006, 12:58 PM
till 4000m i would count on the YAK-3.

above 8000m , well, i think the P-47M.
the Ta152H............. i couldnt tell, anyway , so few saw combataction.

joeap
10-26-2006, 01:13 PM
OMG a Luftwhiner thread. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif First from red then from blue. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

and in case you didn't get it... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JtD
10-26-2006, 01:17 PM
I'd go with the 25lbs Spit IX. Same power as XIV, but almost 500kg less.

leitmotiv
10-26-2006, 01:29 PM
How about the Ta 152C we are going to get? I have been using the Shockwave C in FS2004, and have found it to be a remarkable aircraft.

JG53Frankyboy
10-26-2006, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
How about the Ta 152C we are going to get? I have been using the Shockwave C in FS2004, and have found it to be a remarkable aircraft.

1. it was not in service, otherwise i had used the YAK-3 with VK107 engine !! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
2. the topicstarter asked for a "turnfighter".

JtD
10-26-2006, 01:50 PM
Ta 152C wasn't a great turner.

DIRTY-MAC
10-26-2006, 01:53 PM
yak3 with VK-107 engine
Yak9U
La7
P-63
F6Fs
109K
Spit XIV
?
I have no idea<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Otto may have been a weirdo, but he was a dam good fighterpilot.
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c15/HOOTCHIE-MAMA/ohhbabyfinal.jpg
aka HOOTCHIE MAMA online

Zoom2136
10-26-2006, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
You are wrong, late 109's couldn't turn at all, they were droped mid air like Mistels and could only go to bomber formations in a strait line.
Be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif The 109 was an obsolete design http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"http://www.oacsquad.com/images/sigs/zoom.gif "

HayateAce
10-26-2006, 02:24 PM
Jak3 eat your lunch.

http://combatavia.info/yak3m.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<IMG SRC="http://aerofiles.com/loc

faustnik
10-26-2006, 02:26 PM
Spit IX +25.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustJumboSig.jpg
VFS (http://www.virtualfightersquadrons.com/)
Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)
The Lockheed Syndicate (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)
Hawker Haven (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)
CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7)
Magnum PCSupport our support guys! (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

VW-IceFire
10-26-2006, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
How about the Ta 152C we are going to get? I have been using the Shockwave C in FS2004, and have found it to be a remarkable aircraft.
Ta-152C is not going to be a great turner...probably not as good as the D-9. I think the chart is over on the CWOS Focke Wulf Consortium but the Ta-152C is heavier than the Ta-152H and with shorter wings. 152C just has really awesome speed and absolutely insane firepower (4x20mm cannon and 1xMK108).<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

Jaws2002
10-26-2006, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Ta-152C is not going to be a great turner...probably not as good as the D-9. I think the chart is over on the CWOS Focke Wulf Consortium but the Ta-152C is heavier than the Ta-152H and with shorter wings. 152C just has really awesome speed and absolutely insane firepower (4x20mm cannon and 1xMK108).


The 152C had one meter larger wingspan then the D9 and a heck of a lot more power at high altitude. It should outturn the D9 at high altitude.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/Shot1.jpg

TIR 4 Pro -$25 Off- From Forgotten Assassins (http://trackir.naturalpoint.com/forgottenassassins/)


Hunter 82's Uber PC Component Shop (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

AKA_TAGERT
10-26-2006, 03:47 PM
Oh turn fighter.. As in TnB? If so, too bad WWII didnt use WWI tatics.. Where that mattered.. WWII was a BnZ war.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

faustnik
10-26-2006, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Oh turn fighter.. As in TnB? If so, too bad WWII didnt use WWI tatics.. Where that mattered.. WWII was a BnZ war.

Best BnZ planes:

P47/Fw190/P51

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustJumboSig.jpg
VFS (http://www.virtualfightersquadrons.com/)
Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)
The Lockheed Syndicate (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)
Hawker Haven (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)
CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7)
Magnum PCSupport our support guys! (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

AKA_TAGERT
10-26-2006, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Best BnZ planes:

P47/Fw190/P51

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif DING! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

faustnik
10-26-2006, 03:58 PM
Oops, forgot the Me262, pretty awesome WW2 B&Z fighter.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustJumboSig.jpg
VFS (http://www.virtualfightersquadrons.com/)
Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)
The Lockheed Syndicate (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)
Hawker Haven (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)
CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7)
Magnum PCSupport our support guys! (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

Bellator_1
11-05-2006, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by Wurkeri:
The slats do not change the camber of the wing.

Some do, some don't. I fine example is Kettenhunde's last chart where the featured Handley Page slat actually does increase camber...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Wurkeri
11-05-2006, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
I fine example is Kettenhunde's last chart where the featured Handley Page slat actually does increase camber...

Could you point which one because he posted so many of them? At least the NACA chart seem to show rather linear relation between the AoA and the CL.

Kettenhunde
11-06-2006, 05:05 AM
In the sustained turn the power is allways the limiting factor

Certainly.

On because it allows the aircraft to pull more a. The fundamental turn relationship is a function of Pa to Pr.

This directly effects CLmax. If you are not comparing CLmax then you are not comparing maximum turn performance.

It is also a fundatmental fact of aeronautics that wings make the same radius turn at the same angle of bank and velocity.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1162814372_paequalspr.jpg


Notice in the development of the radius of turn equation that the weight (W) canceled out of the equation. This is a very important observation since it means that the size of the aircraft has no effect on the radius of turn. Thus, two aircraft flying at the same angle of bank and velocity will make the same radius of turn even if one is 1000 times larger than the other.

http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/Lift/Page13.html

All the best,

Crumpp<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Support the White 1 Foundation!

The White 1 Foundation was started to facilitate the museum quality conservation, display, study, restoration, and operation of the Focke Wulf FW 190 F8, known by its WWII call sign, White 1. In doing so, we are preserving parts of World history in a living memorial to all people who lost their lives in the war. We are preserving an integral part of great aerial battles which once filled the skies.

Of some, parts of this aircraft are the only traces which remain.

http://www.white1foundation.org/

Black Sheep
11-06-2006, 05:08 AM
Is this one of those 'discussions' where one picks the answer wanted in advance (e.g. Bf109 is teh 1337) and then set about proving it with selective data, rubbishing all naysayers along the way ?

Just wondered http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.photobucket.com/albums/i126/UberCougar/Spitfire.jpg

ElAurens
11-06-2006, 05:16 AM
Black Sheep, aren't they all?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/photos/ELsKi.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

Wurkeri
11-06-2006, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
This directly effects CLmax. If you are not comparing CLmax then you are not comparing maximum turn performance.


Perhaps you should read couple pages back. I just assumed that 3-4 G for sustained turning sounds realistic for world war 2 planes. According to Bellator, this assumption is ridiculous. So to prove that this assumption is not ridiculous, I calculated minimum power needed for the 4 G sustained turn.

If I want to calculate the best turn performance, all I need to change is to set the max CL value to the wanted. If I use the max CL value 1.5 for the example case, the needed power is then about 2000 hp for 4 G sustained turn (about 50 hp more), speed is then 354 km/h. Same way I can add the thrust effect on CL if it can be defined somehow.

Viper2005_
11-06-2006, 06:52 AM
Minimum sustained turn radius does not equate to maximum sustained turn rate.

Maximum sustained (Ps = 0) turn rate for power limited* aeroplanes will be achieved when CL^3/CD^2 is maximised.

*ie All WWII piston engined fighters, but not modern jets, where g limits muddy the waters...

Wurkeri
11-06-2006, 07:10 AM
Yes, but I'm not actually calculating or comparing turn performance (minimum turn circle or max turn rate). I'm just defining the speed envelope where the slats give benefits, therefore my calculations are for G loads because that way there is a direct link to the CL.

Holtzauge
11-06-2006, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
In fact I was taught that leading edge flaps act just like trailing edge flaps. The lift curve is simply raised. That is they increase lift, decrease usable a, and considerably increase drag.


Not really, the leading edge flaps do not act just like trailing edge flaps. The lift curve is not simply raised. If you introduce camber in the forward part of a wing section (basically the same as lowering a leading edge flap) you also get the benefit that the flow over the leading edge will have a tendency to remain attached to a higher AoA. This can be exemplified by the very popular 230-series wing section. This was after painstaking NACA research found to combine a low pitching moment with an improved Clmax as compared to other more conventional sections with camber further back which was in vogue before the 5 digit 230-series came along.

Now if we compare a more conventional wing section (like a NACA 4 digit) with the camber location further back we will also get a higher Clmax but without an improvement of flow properties over the leading edge meaning we will have an improvement in Clmax but this will be due to the camber and here the analogy of raising the lift curve is more appropriate.

The 230-series was used for this very reason: it improved Clmax by providing a slightly higher angle of attack due to the drooped nose. This was combined with almost no pitching moment that needs to be trimmed out. So combine better Clmax than 4-digit series and combine with much less pitching moment and you have a winner and an explanation to the popularity of the 230- series. These good properties came with the drooped nose or "fixed" LE flap if you will.

The link you provided Kettenhunde, actually supports this if you read it carefully: it says that "leading edge flaps do not delay stall as effectively as slats". Note the wording is "not as effectively" not does not delay stall. No one contests that slats allow you to go to higher AoA but to say that leading edge flaps act just as trailing edge flaps and simply raise the lift curve is an oversimplification I'm afraid http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

MLudner
11-06-2006, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
till 4000m i would count on the YAK-3.

above 8000m , well, i think the P-47M.
the Ta152H............. i couldnt tell, anyway , so few saw combataction.

According to the Luftwaffe:

The Yak-3.

LW pilots were ordered to never engage them below 5000m! The things there is:

No one flew that high on the Eastern Front. Oops. That's why the MiG-3 fell out of favor: it was a great high altitude interceptor, but get below 20,000 ft and it sucks.

Big difference between In-game and Reality where an La-7 will turn circles around the Yak without approaching stall.

The LW never issued any special orders about La's, either 5's or 7's.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

She Was Like A Bearded Rainbow, As You Said, drinking a Spoonful of a Strange Brew as she screamed "I Feel Free" while she basked in the Sunshine Of Your Love in her White Room at the Crossroads dreaming Tales Of Brave Ulysses during a Blue Condition with her Toad thinking she should Take It Back.

On Hyperlobby: 334th_PROXIMVS

Bellator_1
11-06-2006, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Wurkeri:
Could you point which one because he posted so many of them? At least the NACA chart seem to show rather linear relation between the AoA and the CL.

Its illustration nr.10 the Handley Page automatic slat. However this type of LE slat is not what was used on the 109, and is only used on Airliners as its primary goal is to massively increase both drag and lift, making it ideal for landing approaches. However Illustration Nr.9, the fixed slot, is exactly as the 109's LE slats when fully deployed, therefore its Cl and L/D values will be similar in the turn to the LE slats.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Wurkeri
11-06-2006, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:

Its illustration nr.10 the Handley Page automatic slat. However this type of LE slat is not what was used on the 109, and is only used on Airliners as its primary goal is to massively increase both drag and lift, making it ideal for landing approaches. However Illustration Nr.9, the fixed slot, is exactly as the 109's LE slats when fully deployed, therefore its Cl and L/D values will be similar in the turn to the LE slats.

Hm... there is three relevant points:

Clean wing
Fixed slots
Handley page slats

And the corresponding values are respectively:

Alpha CL
15 1.29
24 1.77
28 1.84

If you create a chart using these values, there is a rather linear relation and if something, the Handley page slot value actually drops from the trend. Same trend can be seen in the V-24 chart near stall. So nothing speaks there for camber changes with the fixed slot or the Handley Page automatic slat.

And that chart has nothing to do with the leading edge flaps.

Bellator_1
11-06-2006, 02:19 PM
Wurkeri with all due respect, you're acting abit dumb at the moment. Its very clear that the Handley Page slats on Illustration Nr.10 has increased wing camber quite significantly.

Illstartion nr.9, the fixed slot, has exactly the same profile as the LE slats when deployed found on the Bf-109, therefore the critical AoA, CL and L/D values will be similar.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Wurkeri
11-06-2006, 02:36 PM
Perhaps you should explain why that supposed camber change does not show up if the values are charted?

http://img102.imagevenue.com/loc319/th_48856_dmb_122_319lo.JPG (http://img102.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=48856_dmb_122_319lo.JPG)

Wurkeri
11-06-2006, 03:06 PM
I was able to find the report using the link Holtzauge gave so here is the chart from the report. Why the supposed camber change does not show up?

http://img144.imagevenue.com/loc521/th_50614_NACA459_122_521lo.JPG (http://img144.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=50614_NACA459_122_521lo.JPG)

Wurkeri
11-06-2006, 03:17 PM
Here is the chart from the NACA TR 427 showing the fixed slot curve among others.

http://img165.imagevenue.com/loc301/th_51282_NACA427_122_301lo.JPG (http://img165.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=51282_NACA427_122_301lo.JPG)

Could you Bellator please explain why there is no sign of the camber change?

Bellator_1
11-06-2006, 03:56 PM
No sign ??

Here is a closer look of the camber increasing slat:
http://www.desktopaero.com/appliedaero/airfoils2/images/image235.gif

As you can see the slat actually drops down when deployed, effectively increasing wing camber, just like LE flaps and trailing edge flaps.

The 109's slats however shoot straight out achieveing the results below:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-367/fig63.jpg

Bf-109 auto slats:
http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/systems/control/slats/g10.slat2.jpg
http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/systems/control/slats/g10.slat1.jpg

As you can see the slats when fully deployed look just like the Nr.9 fixed slot.


Picture #1 taken from here:
http://www.desktopaero.com/appliedaero/airfoils2/highlift.html<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Kettenhunde
11-06-2006, 05:10 PM
Not really, the leading edge flaps do not act just like trailing edge flaps. The lift curve is not simply raised. If you introduce camber in the forward part of a wing section (basically the same as lowering a leading edge flap) you also get the benefit that the flow over the leading edge will have a tendency to remain attached to a higher AoA. This can be exemplified by the very popular 230-series wing section. This was after painstaking NACA research found to combine a low pitching moment with an improved Clmax as compared to other more conventional sections with camber further back which was in vogue before the 5 digit 230-series came along.

Now if we compare a more conventional wing section (like a NACA 4 digit) with the camber location further back we will also get a higher Clmax but without an improvement of flow properties over the leading edge meaning we will have an improvement in Clmax but this will be due to the camber and here the analogy of raising the lift curve is more appropriate.

Once again in Aeronautics, situation and condition is everything.

In General...leading edge flaps act like trailing edge flaps. I believe is exactly what was put on the class.


No one contests that slats allow you to go to higher AoA but to say that leading edge flaps act just as trailing edge flaps and simply raise the lift curve is an oversimplification I'm afraid

I don't think because you have found a series of airfoils that derive more benefits from leading edge flaps than others is any reason to discount what is taught in aeronautical engineering courses.

All the best,

Crumpp

Wurkeri
11-06-2006, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
No sign ??

There is no sign of camber change effect in the lift curves for slats or slots while the curves of the flaps show the effect of camber change:

http://img129.imagevenue.com/loc482/th_75375_NACA459_1_122_482lo.jpg (http://img129.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=75375_NACA459_1_122_482lo.jpg)

The properly working leading edge flap would show the effect of camber change and the resulting curves would look something like below presented curves. The red curve is for CL and the blue for the CD:

http://img156.imagevenue.com/loc311/th_75641_NACA459_3_122_311lo.JPG (http://img156.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=75641_NACA459_3_122_311lo.JPG)

Bellator_1
11-06-2006, 11:10 PM
Well Wurkeri its quite simple then, cause then those charts don't feature the type of slats presented above. As I said some increase camber, some don't.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

MLudner
11-16-2006, 05:36 PM
I love being ignored.

It's XIV, first. "IVX" makes, just, no sense; it's not a number. 4/10, maybe?

Next: Some 109 pilots swear up and down they could out-turn Spits. They would be the source.

Of course, no Spit pilot would ever agree.

The probable answer to the conundrum I gave above:

The maximum turn of a Spit is a little tighter than a 109's maximum safe turn, but that is not the maximum potential turn radius of a 109. It can be pulled into a tighter turn, but if one mistake is made then parts can start popping off. Most 109 pilots would not do it for obvious reasons. In addition, the 109 pilot would have to use both hands on the stick to make the turn.


The answer is likely the Yak-3, as I have been laboriously trying to point out.

Do I want it to be the Yak-3?

No.

But it probably was. The Luftwaffe never gave an order never to engage a Spit in a turn fight.

They gave orders to specifically avoid any combat with Yak-3's below 5,000m.

That says something, whether we like it or not (and whether Oleg likes it or not, either).<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

She Was Like A Bearded Rainbow, As You Said, drinking a Spoonful of a Strange Brew as she screamed "I Feel Free" while she basked in the Sunshine Of Your Love in her White Room at the Crossroads dreaming Tales Of Brave Ulysses during a Blue Condition with her Toad thinking she should Take It Back.

On Hyperlobby: 334th_PROXIMVS

Brain32
11-16-2006, 05:40 PM
They gave orders to specifically avoid any combat with Yak-3's below 5,000m.
Fiction http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif or BS if you like that better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

This is my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

MLudner
11-16-2006, 05:45 PM
Really? On what basis do you make this claim?

More than one book in my possession disagrees.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

She Was Like A Bearded Rainbow, As You Said, drinking a Spoonful of a Strange Brew as she screamed "I Feel Free" while she basked in the Sunshine Of Your Love in her White Room at the Crossroads dreaming Tales Of Brave Ulysses during a Blue Condition with her Toad thinking she should Take It Back.

On Hyperlobby: 334th_PROXIMVS

faustnik
11-16-2006, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
The Luftwaffe never gave an order never to engage a Spit in a turn fight.

But, many LW pilots mention it.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustJumboSig.jpg
VFS (http://www.virtualfightersquadrons.com/)
Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)
The Lockheed Syndicate (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)
Hawker Haven (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)
CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7)
Magnum PCSupport our support guys! (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

MLudner
11-16-2006, 05:53 PM
It was advised against, but it wasn't same kind of stricture about engaging Yak-3's.

BTW: Brain, I do want to know your basis. The Soviets could have made a baseless claim.

For example: There is some reason to believe the story about Vasily Zeitsev and the SS-Scharfschutze Maior was mere propoganda.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

She Was Like A Bearded Rainbow, As You Said, drinking a Spoonful of a Strange Brew as she screamed "I Feel Free" while she basked in the Sunshine Of Your Love in her White Room at the Crossroads dreaming Tales Of Brave Ulysses during a Blue Condition with her Toad thinking she should Take It Back.

On Hyperlobby: 334th_PROXIMVS

Brain32
11-16-2006, 06:05 PM
Hey I'm not glued to my computer LOL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Anyway I yet have to see that "order" I never saw anything about it, people just talk, talk, talk, however the order does not seem to exist.
Interesting is also that I just got my hand on:
"The Russian Air Force in the Eyes of the German Commanders", by Walter Schwabedissen, edited by Edward P. Kennedy (1960)
I only "flew" through it but I see no mention of superiority of Soviet planes, merely competitive very late in the war and I even found exact quote: "FW190 was superiour to the Yak3", I have to read it in detail http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

This is my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Wtornado_439th
11-16-2006, 06:44 PM
There is a good P-51 Article In WWII fighters on ACE Robert J Goebel and how he was saddened that he was not to fly the Spitfire MK V after his Africa tour and he was converted to the Mustang.In the article he mentions that
thwe Spit was much more manuverable than the
Stang.The stang's range and speed was the only thing he had good to say about it.

Flight journals WWII fighters special issue out this month(good read)

Wtornado_439th
11-16-2006, 06:50 PM
Oh and as for the Bf-109F-G......

Any Spitfire pilot did not like to engage
a 109 and low speed turning because it was infact better in that manouver.

Bellator_1
11-17-2006, 08:20 AM
I have yet to experience I single LW ace talking about that supposed order not to engage Yak-3's at low alt. Fact is the order was never issued, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

PS: JABO pilots and alike were adviced not to engage fighters at any alt.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Bellator_1
11-17-2006, 08:25 AM
Xiolablu3,

No, the math suggests the Bf-109K to be the best turn-fighter of the two, and it is.

Remember:
- Span-loading
- AR
- Flat plate area
- Wetted area
- Power loading
- Automatic LE slats<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

stathem
11-17-2006, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Xiolablu3,

No, the math suggests the Bf-109K to be the best turn-fighter of the two, and it is.

Remember:
- Span-loading
- AR
- Flat plate area
- Wetted area
- Power loading
- Automatic LE slats

Only, absolutely only, if you take a huge leap and use the 2000hp figure for a 'K' running on C3.

Otherwise, if you use the more correct 1850 hp for a K-4 you get

Spitfire XIV
Weight: 3855 kg
Power: 2050 HP
Wing loading: 171.5 kg/m2
Span loading: 343.2 kg/m
Power loading: 1.88 kg/hp

Bf-109 K-4:
Weight: 3354 kg
Power: 1850 HP
Wing loading: 207.6 kg/m2
Span loading: 338 kg/m
Power loading: 1.81 kg/hp
(Automatic slats)

Don't look so good now.

When I see Butch2K say it (the K-4 at 1.98ATA on C3) was definately used operationally, then I'll believe it.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/MossiePRsig.jpg

Bellator_1
11-17-2006, 08:57 AM
Well there's actually a German report out there talking about the introduction of 1.98ata boost and its operationla use - I'll see if I can acquire it.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

HellToupee
11-17-2006, 09:04 AM
then compare it to a 21lbs boost xiv at 2200hp

Bellator_1
11-17-2006, 03:26 PM
If the Spitfire XIV runs at 21 lbs/sq.in. boost it takes back the advantage over the Bf-109K at all but the slowest speeds - however is there any evidence that 21 lbs/sq.in. boost was used before the end of the war operationally ?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Viper2005_
11-17-2006, 03:52 PM
Is this still going? Heck!

OK, for general interest value, Griffon is almost but not quite a bigger Merlin (different firing order & it turns the other way, but the concept is basically the same). As such it turns slower for the same piston speed (2750 rpm instead of 3000) but should be able to attain roughly the same knock limited boost.

As such the original intention was to rate Griffons to +25 at the same time as the Merlin 66. However gearbox issues prevented this. Therefore the Griffon suffered the indignity of being de-rated to +21 for service use. AFAIK +21 was used; otherwise why de-rate and certify?

What really matters is that it was readily available in the event of a serious Luftwaffe threat.

BTW, the RM17SM Merlin (an uprated version of the 100 series) was running at +36 psi/3100 rpm with water injection quite happily in 1944 (>2620 bhp) and was flight cleared to +30 (~2400 bhp). Can you imagine what that kind of power would do for a Spitfire or Mustang? The RM17SM had a bigger supercharger, so FTHs wouldn't have been greatly reduced when compared with the Merlin 66 at +25 for example. I'm sure that you can connect the dots.

Oh and finally, whilst I agree with you that the Ta-183 was potentially a very interesting aeroplane, as was much of the German kit, you are tending to show a certain degree of "blue bias" (especially with regard to your continual claims that the 109 could magically defeat its massive wingloading disadvantage via slats, a moderate powerloading advantage and a statistically unimportant spanloading advantage) which unfortunately tends to undermine the validity of any opinions you present. IMO it is best to strive to be hated equally by both sides http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif . Sorry for sounding patronising.

MLudner
11-17-2006, 04:05 PM
Well, if the story is apocryphal, then the Yak-3 might not rate as the best late war turn fighter. However, I'm not going to disregard it just yet because you're saying no pilot accounts you've read mention it which would not mean it's apocryphal.

I shouldn't have said, BTW, "SS Scharfschutze Maior"; that was silly! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Should have said: "SS Scharfschutze Sturmbannfuhrer" Konig/Thorwald (The name of the sniper isn't even certain!)

The order was issued after after a painful encounter with the Yak-3 when it first entered service wherein an out-numbered group of Guards Regiment pilots in Yak-3's took down something like 18 Bf-109's and FW-190's for a loss of one of their own number. I have noted that over-all VVS combat reports tend to be very compatible with LW combat reports. Such as in an incident in 1941 where a VVS Bomber Regiment was intercepted - typically for 1941, unescorted - by Bf-109's. The total claims made by the JG involved was something like 17 or 18 victories, but the VVS reported losing over 20 aircraft in the sortie and they intercepted by only aircraft from that specific JG. (The excess losses were probably a mixture of FlAK and bombers damaged by attacking 109's that the jagdflieger did not see go down)

BTW: One does have to show some care when dealing with personal accounts. You are dealing with individual biases and they can only report what they experienced from their own perspective and quite often two people witness the same event and remember it completely different from one another. This is not to say they are to be disregarded, only used with care.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

She Was Like A Bearded Rainbow, As You Said, drinking a Spoonful of a Strange Brew as she screamed "I Feel Free" while she basked in the Sunshine Of Your Love in her White Room at the Crossroads dreaming Tales Of Brave Ulysses during a Blue Condition with her Toad thinking she should Take It Back.

On Hyperlobby: 334th_PROXIMVS

Bellator_1
11-17-2006, 04:26 PM
Viper,

I'm afraid you are wrong, Span-loading, power-loading and AR are very important factors. You're also seriously underestimating the effects of the slats.

PS: I apologize for sounding biased sometimes - guess its just my very direct method of saying things.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Viper2005_
11-17-2006, 04:37 PM
I agree that span loading is important, but if you go to page 1 of this thread, you're talking about a ~ 1.6% advantage. Frankly that's not likely to be of any statistical significance.

I agree with you that power loading is important, but nothing like as important as wing loading since power required varies as speed^3; since the 109's prop doesn't have a disk loading substantially different from that of the Spitfire, and seems by inspection to have a lower solidity (3 blades vs 5) the chances are that it will only realise a useful benefit at high speed; hence the validity of the above correlation.

Slats are great, but have you actually done the sums? It's rather an uphill struggle to overcome a 21% wingloading disadvantage in this context when you put realistic thrust and drag figures into the equations.

Bellator_1
11-17-2006, 04:57 PM
Power-loading is very important, like it or not, and I have documents to show you on that as-well.

Also please don't forget how very small the 109 is compared to the Spitfire = Much less drag.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Viper2005_
11-17-2006, 05:02 PM
I agree that the Spitfire has more drag, but then again thanks to its low wing loading it can afford to fly more slowly whilst attaining a higher turn rate per g.

I would be very interested to see you go through the sums which lead you to believe that the K4 can out turn the Spitfire XIV.

Since life is frankly too short, shall we agree to stay on the deck so that the numbers are as quoted on page one?

Xiolablu3
11-20-2006, 05:46 AM
Thats funny I dont remember the word 'slightly' in Mark Hannas review of the 109 vs Spitfire dogfight capabilities.

Thats your bias addding words mate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


' The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter.'

They were the exact words.

It wont be becasue of just the Elevator authority, it will be becasue the Spitfire can turn better and doesnt bleed as much energy. He will be comparing late models of his MkIX Spit and his Very late 109K-like Buchon 109.

I do however believe that the 109F was a better fighter than the Spitfire Vb, just like it is in this game. However the Spitfire could still turn tighter than the 109. (But this really isnt useful unless both planes are willing to dogfight, something the Germans knew and avoided just like any good pilot will vs a better turner. This is why the FW190 became such a formidable opponent on the channel front)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Brain32
11-20-2006, 07:04 AM
He will be comparing late models of his MkIX Spit and his Very late 109K-like Buchon 109.
There is no such thing as "109K-like" Buchon...
Oh, and also:

The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter.'

They were the exact words.
Yes they were but there is more:
"Having said that, the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot ability would probably be the deciding factor."<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

This is my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kettenhunde
11-20-2006, 08:13 AM
This is why the FW190 became such a formidable opponent on the channel front


Actually, when the FW190 appeared the Luftwaffe pilots became much more aggressive. As one RAF pilot put it, "Jerry stayed and fought as never before."

While the "bounce" is certainly the preferred technique for all fighter pilots, even today, dog fighting is a necessary reality. All sides engaged in it with similar rates of success. The very few pilots from all sides became good at it no matter what aircraft they flew.

Statistically with any air force, it is a very small percentage of pilots who account for the vast majority of air to air combat kills. The average is about 3-5% of the fighter pilots make more than a handful of kills to become aces. The vast majority never make any kills.

The interesting thing is that these percentages line up with all forms of combat. When actual killing of human beings has to be done, only a very few find themselves capable of the act.

Great book to read on the subject is "On Killing" by Col. Blackburn. I highly recommend it to any Military or History buff.


Those who have never had the privilege of serving in America's armed forces invariably believe the Hollywood depiction of the modern soldier as a soulless killing machine. As Lt. Col. Dave Grossman shows in his groundbreaking study of killing in war, nothing could be further from the truth.
Remember the steely-eyed warriors who descended on Normandy, Anzio, Guadalcanal, and a host of other blood-soaked battlegrounds during World War II? Only one in five of these combat infantrymen were willing to fire their rifles.


During the First and Second World Wars, officers estimated that only 15-20 percent of their frontline soldiers actually fired their weapons, and there is evidence to suggest that most of those who did fire aimed their rifles harmless above the heads of their enemy.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0316330116/qid=9.../104-1614587-2282360 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0316330116/qid=973195800/104-1614587-2282360)

All the best,

Crumpp<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Support the White 1 Foundation!

The White 1 Foundation was started to facilitate the museum quality conservation, display, study, restoration, and operation of the Focke Wulf FW 190 F8, known by its WWII call sign, White 1. In doing so, we are preserving parts of World history in a living memorial to all people who lost their lives in the war. We are preserving an integral part of great aerial battles which once filled the skies.

Of some, parts of this aircraft are the only traces which remain.

http://www.white1foundation.org/

Kurfurst__
11-20-2006, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
It seems these guys outturned Bf109's easily, so where do you get your information that the 109 could turn better than the SPitfire XIV at all but the highest speeds?

IIRC Icefire quoted part from Pierre Clostermann's book :


"I tried to fire on a '109' that I spotted in the chaos. Not possible, I couldn't get the correct angle. My plane juddered on the edge of a stall. It was comforting that the Spitfire turned better than the '109'! Certainly at high speed - but not at low speed."

-Pierre Clostermann's "The Big Show"

Appears to conform what others I've read. Of course, it boils down to the exact models of aircraft but I seriously doubt the XIV was much of a turner. Too heavy and draggy for that...

Besides one needs to define 'turn' first... sustained, turn time, turning circle etc.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

LStarosta
11-20-2006, 10:43 AM
I think it was the P-38 with fowler flaps and air brakes on the L-models.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/1872/fe4ae1e074f2ea8e1878fa1kn2.gif (http://irwinnotguaranteed.ytmnd.com/)

JG7_Rall
11-20-2006, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
I think it was the P-38 with fowler flaps and air brakes on the L-models.


Yes, yes this is correct.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_______________________________

http://badge.facebook.com/badge/9130947.277.2121856952.png (http://umass.facebook.com/profile.php?id=9130947)

Thank you for contributing to this forum.

ploughman
11-20-2006, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
It seems these guys outturned Bf109's easily, so where do you get your information that the 109 could turn better than the SPitfire XIV at all but the highest speeds?

IIRC Icefire quoted part from Pierre Clostermann's book :


"I tried to fire on a '109' that I spotted in the chaos. Not possible, I couldn't get the correct angle. My plane juddered on the edge of a stall. It was comforting that the Spitfire turned better than the '109'! Certainly at high speed - but not at low speed."

-Pierre Clostermann's "The Big Show"

Appears to conform what others I've read. Of course, it boils down to the exact models of aircraft but I seriously doubt the XIV was much of a turner. Too heavy and draggy for that...

Besides one needs to define 'turn' first... sustained, turn time, turning circle etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurf. Do you have any data on the drag co-efficent for any Marks of Spitfires?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


Dum spiro, spero

ploughman
11-20-2006, 11:20 AM
This, tangentally refers to some.

Clik for link. (http://www.anycities.com/user/j22/j22/aero.htm)

Although there appears to be no increase in the 'flat plate drag' between a Mk. I and a Mk. IX, which is odd.

Col. Carson, ahem, states that the total drag coefficient at cruise was 0.021 for the
Spitfire (no model provided) (and 0.036 for the Me-109 (ditto).)

Carson. (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/breed.html)

Got anything to add to those?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


Dum spiro, spero

Kurfurst__
11-20-2006, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Kurf. Do you have any data on the drag co-efficent for any Marks of Spitfires?

I recall 0.021-22 specified for the MkV and somewhat worser for the MkIX (proto). It's in some RAE table around which I can't manage to find, along with Typhoon 190 etc. basic data.

The 109F is specified in Messerschmitt docs as cdw = 0.023, and the 109G polar curves show the same number - seems like early G1/2/3/4 as those and 109F were aerodynamically rather identical.

This works for a flat plate of

Spit
248.5 * 0.021 = 5.2 sq.ft
and
109F/G
173 x 0.023 = 3.98 sq. ft, respectively.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

ploughman
11-20-2006, 12:02 PM
Thanks.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


Dum spiro, spero

hop2002
11-20-2006, 12:31 PM
Drag coefficients from the RAE:

Vb 0.0213
Vc 0.0218
IX 0.0229

ploughman
11-20-2006, 12:42 PM
Thanks Hop.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


Dum spiro, spero

JG4_Helofly
11-20-2006, 12:43 PM
According to this page: http://www.anycities.com/user/j22/j22/aero.htm

The 109G seems to have a better sustained turn than the spit IX. Is this possible?

Xiolablu3
11-20-2006, 01:44 PM
Those calculations are calulating estimated turn performance based on one aspect fo the planes qualities, wetted wing area vs weight. There are many other factors to include to get the true turn. Its far too simplified.

For instance Elevator size, elevator authority at different speeds, are just one more aspect which affects turn..

Slats,drag etc etc, there are so many more factors to add.



Another question :-

I always thought that the Buchon was a very late 109 like the 109K?


WHy is it so different please?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

ploughman
11-20-2006, 01:50 PM
I thought it was a G2 with a Merlin 500/45.

Interesting factotum. The last production '109' was the Spanish Bouchon, the Hispano Aviacion Ha 1112 with a RR engine, the first was the 109-V1 prototype, and was powered by a RR Kestrel. Weird symetry to that huh?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


Dum spiro, spero

Xiolablu3
11-20-2006, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> He will be comparing late models of his MkIX Spit and his Very late 109K-like Buchon 109.
There is no such thing as "109K-like" Buchon...
Oh, and also:

The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter.'

They were the exact words.
Yes they were but there is more:
"Having said that, the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot ability would probably be the deciding factor." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh shut up Brain, stop spoiling my troll http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

ploughman
11-20-2006, 02:00 PM
Sorry, didn't realise you were baiting someone. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


Dum spiro, spero

Xiolablu3
11-20-2006, 02:13 PM
Not really baiting, but as Bellator would hump all things German even when they are not even a real plane (TA183), I cant help but give him a little stick for it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


I wouldnt want to tell him that even if the Spitfire has the better turn (which it does), that turning is really not worth a lot once you learn more about flying.

The FW190 is my favourite in game plane and thats the worst turner in the game.

2 planes must play for turning to be truly useful, as I htink most of the veteran pilots here already know. Getting worked up about turn rate really isnt worth too much once you are fighting real good pilots as they wont turnfight with you, its just too dangerous.


I guess its a good defensive tactic.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

ploughman
11-20-2006, 02:46 PM
Quite.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


Dum spiro, spero

Bellator_1
11-20-2006, 03:12 PM
Xiolablu3, my child, you have yet to prove your untrue claims - so perhaps you should start now ?

I'd like to know just how simplified the J-22 website calculations are.

Oh, and please explain to me the extraordinary importance elevator size has to sustained turn performance.

Thank you.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Wurkeri
11-27-2006, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
It's quite clear. If anyone goes to page 2, gripen tries to discredit factory calculations there, to quote him :

"All you need to do is find a Mtt paper (Datenblatt, errechnete werte) dated 12.5.1942 (among same set as GL/C-E data) and it claims 732 km/h at 7500m (DB 605A, Start- und Notlstg.)."

Note that he claims an outragously high figure and associtiates it with a 'Messerschmitt calculated datesheet' to disrcredit it - without noting that the plane is for much improved conditions...


Well, all I claimed that it's for the DB 605A which is true. Me and Porta agreed that the calculation is not realistic even with improvements.

So where is the manipulation?

Regarding Karnak's comments; I pointed out that I merely showing practically the same performance as the AH Bf 109G so some other people seem to share my opinion.




OTOH Porta also says that it's basically a guess on his part, going from TAS-IAS conversions.


Well, let's quote Porta again:

"The Bf 109 G-1 Kennblatt data isn't corrected for compressibility. At 10 km TAS would be ~614 km/h.

This brings some questions about the soviet test, like what kind of performance reductions the soviets used or what were the conditions of the plane (manifold pressure reached, radiator flap position, etc).
...
The Kennblat gives both Va and Vw values, and you can cheek that Vw is just Va corrected for density changes."

In addition it should be noted that without knowing the conditions, it's not possible to calculate the compressibility error.




As posted above numerous times, it's great OTOH that the "Ausführung" calculation is in great agreement with half a dozen flight tests.


None of the data which is properly corrected supports the "Ausführung" calculation at high altitude.



That's why 3 out of that 4 would be rejected and would never see service in such state.


Hm... The document says just that the values marked with "u" are not used for the second average.




You claimed the E-Stelle Rechlin Bf 109G-1 Kennblatt is without compressibilty correction.
Now you post a F-W AG paper on a FW 190 test...What does this prove, really?


That proves that the Rechlin data at that time was not corrected for compressibility. Just like Porta said about the G-1 data.



Curious, uncertainity factor because of guessworked propeller effiency values and flat wrong start data was never a concern with Horner's work...


Hoerner got similar values two different ways.



Which makes his guesswork better than Messerschmitt's own dataset of his own plane.


I can't follow your argument here; you claimed that it was written long after war, which is not true.




Yes you have a habit of mindlessly parrotting the same until your nose bleeds, but still, it has been everyone's impression that Hoerner does state 0.036. After all, he clearly written it there.


Well, you just don't get it.



Besides, if MT 215 is such a great test, then why does your buddy who gets supplied with suckiest enough tests on the 109 from you dismisses it as 'abberant'?


The MT-215 is one of those rare well documented tests of a service Bf 109G.



It's engine's rated altitude was well below avarage (6300m vs 6600m avarage and the 7000m specs)


Hm... the Rechlin tested G-1 had FTH 6.4 km so no particular problem here. None of the Erla set palnes reached 7000m the average being 6700m.



As I noted on my site :


I see mostly speculation there, basicly you are just trying to ignore Mtt data.

Xiolablu3
11-27-2006, 06:30 AM
Adolf Galland on the later Me109's :-

The Me109, which most of the Squadrons were still flying, was nicknamed by our pilots in the West 'The Bulge', and not without reason. Numerous 'improvements' to the engine, armament, and equipment that each new series received were unsuited to the basic design of the aircraft. They appeared 'bulges', maiming the outer appearance that once had been so sleak and streamlined, and affecting its characteristics and performance.


20,000 BF109G6 produced http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

If you are going to compare data, use the Spitfire IX Merlin 66 and the 109G6.


Not a 1945 109K4 vs a 1941 Spitfire V airframe.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Kettenhunde
11-27-2006, 06:33 AM
Vw is just Va corrected for density changes."

Vw is TAS. w = wahr = true. TAS is corrected for pressure and density by definition.

Va is IAS. a = angezeigt = indicated

If it is on the Kennblatt then it is corrected to Cina IAW RLM standards.

All the best,

Crumpp<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Support the White 1 Foundation!

The White 1 Foundation was started to facilitate the museum quality conservation, display, study, restoration, and operation of the Focke Wulf FW 190 F8, known by its WWII call sign, White 1. In doing so, we are preserving parts of World history in a living memorial to all people who lost their lives in the war. We are preserving an integral part of great aerial battles which once filled the skies.

Of some, parts of this aircraft are the only traces which remain.

http://www.white1foundation.org/

Wurkeri
11-27-2006, 06:47 AM
Generally there seem to be some variation in the notation systems used by the Germans. The CINA altitude means that the altitude is corrected to CINA density altitude, however, that does not mean that the temperature is the same as in the CINA atmosphere.

The notations for speed also varied and only if the speed is given as Vwkc or Vwck, it's certainly corrected for compressibility. In the most cases, the notation Vw or Vwc means that there is no compressibility correction.

Kurfurst__
11-27-2006, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by Wurkeri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
It's quite clear. If anyone goes to page 2, gripen tries to discredit factory calculations there, to quote him :

"All you need to do is find a Mtt paper (Datenblatt, errechnete werte) dated 12.5.1942 (among same set as GL/C-E data) and it claims 732 km/h at 7500m (DB 605A, Start- und Notlstg.)."

Note that he claims an outragously high figure and associtiates it with a 'Messerschmitt calculated datesheet' to disrcredit it - without noting that the plane is for much improved conditions...


Well, all I claimed that it's for the DB 605A which is true. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One can lie with both with opening and not opening his mouth. You've mastered both ways.


Me and Porta agreed that the calculation is not realistic even with improvements.

Porta seems to said it'd be part of another discussion - he's probably well aware that it's quite futile to attempt any discussion with you.

The 'properly corrected' MT 215 amongst with the Erla, Rechlin NII VVS etc. trials also support the Mtt Datenblatt figures.


So where is the manipulation?

You held relevant information back on the nature of the Mtt datasheet in order to discredit them by false presentation. That's where.


Regarding Karnak's comments;

... why do so many people always get the same impression on you gripen, that you cherry pick and manipulate, try to show the worst performing planes of the lot as norm? Why are you landing on ignore lists, Gripen?


I pointed out that I merely showing practically the same performance as the AH Bf 109G so some other people seem to share my opinion.

It's a pity that your arguments sinks on the reef that the thread was about curious G-14 performance (or the lack of it) and it was corrected ever since...

I am sure Mike Williams for example agrees with you about the 109 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif, but I am not sure if that helps your credibilty.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

This:



Well, let's quote Porta again:

"The Bf 109 G-1 Kennblatt data isn't corrected for compressibility. At 10 km TAS would be ~614 km/h.


And that :


In addition it should be noted that without knowing the conditions, it's not possible to calculate the compressibility error.

No comment needed, you successfully proven wrong your own claims.
Porta basically merely assumes it ain't corrected. That's as a good opinion as anyone's. His estimate is as good as anyones, but in any case, you seem to claim that the 'proper' speed is just 580 km/h, whereas porta says with compressibilty correction it's 614 km/h... Hmmm.


None of the data which is properly corrected supports the "Ausführung" calculation at high altitude.

Well of course - the ones that do 'obviously' are not 'properly' (= well down) corrected, at least according to you... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
That's why 3 out of that 4 would be rejected and would never see service in such state.


Hm... The document says just that the values marked with "u" are not used for the second average. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For what does the 'u' abbrevation stands for in German, gripen? Hmmmmmm...?



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
You claimed the E-Stelle Rechlin Bf 109G-1 Kennblatt is without compressibilty correction.
Now you post a F-W AG paper on a FW 190 test...What does this prove, really?


That proves that the Rechlin data at that time was not corrected for compressibility. Just like Porta said about the G-1 data. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How? It only says the A-3 to A-5 data on that sheet are not corrected for compressibilty.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Curious, uncertainity factor because of guessworked propeller effiency values and flat wrong start data was never a concern with Horner's work...


Hoerner got similar values two different ways. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amazing that if your base data is wrong, you'll get wrong results every time isn't it...?




Which makes his guesswork better than Messerschmitt's own dataset of his own plane.



I can't follow your argument here; you claimed that it was written long after war, which is not true.

Hoerner's work in question was written 1965; to ease your confusion, WW2 ended in 1945.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Yes you have a habit of mindlessly parrotting the same until your nose bleeds, but still, it has been everyone's impression that Hoerner does state 0.036. After all, he clearly written it there.


Well, you just don't get it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are so many thing only you get on this world, Harri.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Besides, if MT 215 is such a great test, then why does your buddy who gets supplied with suckiest enough tests on the 109 from you dismisses it as 'abberant'?


The MT-215 is one of those rare well documented tests of a service Bf 109G. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If that's the case I am glad to hear that. It's results agree closely with results from Erla, Rechlin, NII VVS and the


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
It's engine's rated altitude was well below avarage (6300m vs 6600m avarage and the 7000m specs)



Hm... the Rechlin tested G-1 had FTH 6.4 km so no particular problem here.

Leistung Fw 190 (Versuchs-Bericht Fr.M.01 L 43), dated 29.6.43 and prepeared by Messerschmitt A.G. Augsburg, in June 1943, comparing the performance of the FW 190A-5 to that of the Bf 109G-1, notes that results of 13 measurements on serial production planes at Regensburg ('Messerschmitt Regensburg') and Wiener-Neustadt ('W.N.F.') Bf 109 factories underline Rechlin's data :

'Ergebnisse aus Regensburg und der Wiener-Neustadt (ca. 13 Messungen) erhärten die Rechliner Werte,
sodaß diese als maßgebend anzusehen sind. Lediglich weicht die VDH (Mittelwert 6700m) der 13 Messungen von dem Rechliner Wert ab.'

Translated to English :
'Results from Regensburg and from Wiener-Neustadt (ca. 13 measurements) confirm the Rechlin values,
therefore these are to be to regarded as representative. Only the FTH of the 13 measurements (average : 6700m) deviates from the Rechliner values.'

Hmm, the avarage of 13 measurements was 6700m, the Rechlin example only 6400m, the Finnish MT 215 only 6300m.
Well below avarage which obviously points to supercharger problems on the plane, effecting altitude performance.


None of the Erla set palnes reached 7000m the average being 6700m.

You must be speaking of a different Erla set then, cos on mine two planes quite clearly reached :

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/erla109g.pdf

656 km/h at 6950 m
and
658 km/h at 6940 m.

Well, it's those rare occasions when I gotto thank for Mike for using his bandwidth and his copy instead of uploading my copy..


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
As I noted on my site :


I see mostly speculation there, basicly you are just trying to ignore Mtt data. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well if anyone checks just the list of the aircrafts, it's quite clear that there are few aircraft that Messerschmitt repeatedly used for all sort of tests one can think of : WNr 14 001, WNr 14 003, WNr 14 026, Wnr 16 476.

For example WNr 14 026, produced mid-1942 was through at least 5 different trials by September. It had participated in radiator trials, new tail unit trials, engine trials, etc.

Even Messerschmitt doesn't hold it much representative, and notes in Leistung Fw 190 (Versuchs-Bericht Fr.M.01 L 43), dated 29.6.43 and prepeared by Messerschmitt A.G. Augsburg, in June 1943 that WNr 14 026 is too slow and the Rechlin dataset is used for comparison which is in much better agreement of the test.

The trials of serial production aircraft all generated better values than those worn factory hacks, which tend to lower the avarage, especially as they turn up so many times.

Hard facts, I am afraid.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Kurfurst__
11-27-2006, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Adolf Galland on the later Me109's :-

The Me109, which most of the Squadrons were still flying, was nicknamed by our pilots in the West 'The Bulge', and not without reason. Numerous 'improvements' to the engine, armament, and equipment that each new series received were unsuited to the basic design of the aircraft. They appeared 'bulges', maiming the outer appearance that once had been so sleak and streamlined, and affecting its characteristics and performance.

20,000 BF109G6 produced http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

More like 12 000...
Now I wonder about those bulges... HMG bulges, costing 9 km/h.. wing upper surface teardrop-shaped ones, causing about 1 km/h maybe. Is that it ? 10 km/h loss due to those bad bulges..?


If you are going to compare data, use the Spitfire IX Merlin 66 and the 109G6.
Not a 1945 109K4 vs a 1941 Spitfire V airframe.

The models are fairly irrelevant, the IX is good because we have the Cd0 from RAE, the power and corresponding speed.

It just proves the obvious that Hoerner's Cd0s are wrong.

He list higher drag for the 109G and the Spit9 (could be anything else, if power, drag and speed are known it's just as good), but the 109G achieves higher speed or same speed with less power. It shows it has to have less drag overall, which I don't think really upset anyone, it's a fairly obvious fact given the designs, wing size for example...

But to make your day, official specs at SL:

IXLF, 530-40 variously shown at SL, achieved with 1690 HP
G-6, 528-530 variously shown at SL, achieved with 1475 PS... just shows the same.

If the G-6 would have higher drag, as Hoerner suggest, and it has much less power, it couldn't achieve nealry the same speed. Thus Hoerner's drag figures can't be correct. It's not possible for a draggier plane with less power to be just as fast.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Kurfurst__
11-27-2006, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by Wurkeri:
Generally there seem to be some variation in the notation systems used by the Germans.

I'd say the variation is in your interpretation of them, according to your momentary needs.


The CINA altitude means that the altitude is corrected to CINA density altitude, however, that does not mean that the temperature is the same as in the CINA atmosphere.

I see.

CINA altitude is not the same as CINA altitude. O
nly when gripen says so (it's generaly not for test gripen wish to dismiss).


The notations for speed also varied and only if the speed is given as Vwkc or Vwck, it's certainly corrected for compressibility. In the most cases, the notation Vw or Vwc means that there is no compressibility correction.

See above.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Brain32
11-27-2006, 07:23 AM
Perfect example is Col Carson.. they all agree with what he has to say about the 190.. no questions asked.. he is an ace and an aero engineer.. but when he says something negative about the 109.. suddenly he is a boob that does not know what he is talking about.

It would be funny.. if it was not so sad.
Tagert, what is sad is that we know you are not stupid, so that can't be the reason why you don't understand. That only leaves one option: you don't want to understand.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

This is my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bellator_1
11-27-2006, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
If you are going to compare a 1945 109K4 with 1000 odd built (Dont tell me more than 700 got off the ground), then at least pick a 1944 Spitfire XIV to compare the top speed to.

Otherwise pick the 2 most produced marks of each from the same period :

Spitfire IX (Merlin 66 - 1943) vs 109G6 (1943 version).

Remember the Spitfire IX has an ancient airframe from 1941 and was a 'stopgap', it was a 1942/43 design boosted to 25 lbs in 1944/45 to try and give it better performance. Spitfire XIV is the real 1944-45 plane to compare with the 109K4.



2200 Bf 190 F produced.

20000 Bf 109 G-6 produced (!)

Handful of 109G6 A/S produced

1000 or so 109K4 produced (most obviously destroyed on the ground)

So how about some CDO ratings for by far most produced 109 version, 'The Bulge', that is the 109G6?

How come you somehow forgot the G-10 and G-14, Xiolablu ?

But OK, lets compare it to the Spitfire XIV which was even more draggy than the Spitfire IX:

Spitfire XIV speed running at 21 lbs/sq.in. boost(2050 HP at SL, 2200 HP at 2,895 m): 589 km/h at SL - 655 km/h at 2,895 m.

Bf-109K-4 speed running at 1.98ata boost (1,975 HP at SL): 607 km/h at SL - 679 km/h at 2,895 m.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Wurkeri
11-27-2006, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Porta seems to said it'd be part of another discussion - he's probably well aware that it's quite futile to attempt any discussion with you.


Well, I had a peacefull discussion with Porta, no personal attacks etc. That might be a reason for the fact that I have not yet been banned from the AH board.



You held relevant information back on the nature of the Mtt datasheet in order to discredit them by false presentation. That's where.


Hm... That information did not change the credibility of the datasheet. As Porta noted, the problem started from the standard configuration calculation which is unrealistic at high altitude as well.



It's a pity that your arguments sinks on the reef that the thread was about curious G-14 performance (or the lack of it) and it was corrected ever since...


Last time I checked the AH G-14, it performed quite close that which I believe to be realistic.



you seem to claim that the 'proper' speed is just 580 km/h, whereas porta says with compressibilty correction it's 614 km/h... Hmmm.


Well, that is for standard conditions but we don't know what were the conditions. However, we can easily see that Va and Vw values do not match and that is what Porta says. You can do it yourself with conversion tables.



How? It only says the A-3 to A-5 data on that sheet are not corrected for compressibilty.


Well, we have the evidence that they did not correct speeds for compressibility that time and as Porta noted, the speed is given Vw. So you will have a hard work to prove otherwise.



Hoerner's work in question was written 1965; to ease your confusion, WW2 ended in 1945.


Well, the original German version was written 1945-1946 (it's noted in the Raunio's article).



Well below avarage which obviously points to supercharger problems on the plane, effecting altitude performance.


The tolerance range was 6-7km, the MT-215 engine was running slightly below the spec rpm.



You must be speaking of a different Erla set then, cos on mine two planes quite clearly reached :


6950m is not 7000m.



Well if anyone checks just the list of the aircrafts, it's quite clear...

No need to comment plain speculation. The document lists the supposed condition.



CINA altitude is not the same as CINA altitude.


Well, it's not my problem if you don't understand what I say.

Brain32
11-27-2006, 07:31 AM
Bf-109K-4 speed running at 1.98ata boost (1,975 HP at SL): 607 km/h at SL - 679 km/h at 2,895 m.
Ummmm 607kmh at SL? Are you sure? Kurfurst what do you say?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

This is my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

AKA_TAGERT
11-27-2006, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Adolf Galland on the later Me109's :-

The Me109, which most of the Squadrons were still flying, was nicknamed by our pilots in the West 'The Bulge', and not without reason. Numerous 'improvements' to the engine, armament, and equipment that each new series received were unsuited to the basic design of the aircraft. They appeared 'bulges', maiming the outer appearance that once had been so sleak and streamlined, and affecting its characteristics and performance. Really? Interesting, in that sounds just like Col. Kit Carsons assement of the 109G! Xiolablu3.. could you give me the source of that statemen by Galland? If in a book, could you give me the ISBN number? In that this is a keeper! Now for the funny stuff, in that I wonder how "they" will try and play down Galland's assement of the 109? Do you think "they" will call Galland a know nothing boob too?


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
20,000 BF109G6 produced http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

If you are going to compare data, use the Spitfire IX Merlin 66 and the 109G6.


Not a 1945 109K4 vs a 1941 Spitfire V airframe.
Agreed 100%! I mean there were more P51Ds running 150 octain than 109K4s yet we dont have one boosted P51D in the game but several versions of the 109K4.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

stathem
11-27-2006, 07:36 AM
It's a funny thing. We keep hearing that the MkXIV Spitfire was "much more draggy than the MkIX", over and over.

And in parallel 'discussions' about how drag affects Level speed for a given amount of horsepower.

And yet, if we look at the SL speeds of the Crossbow fighters, the MkXIV at +21 lbs boost is quicker than the MkIX at +25 lbs. Horsepower for the two different engines at the two different configurations is very similar at ~2050hp.

How come?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/MossiePRsig.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
11-27-2006, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Perfect example is Col Carson.. they all agree with what he has to say about the 190.. no questions asked.. he is an ace and an aero engineer.. but when he says something negative about the 109.. suddenly he is a boob that does not know what he is talking about.

It would be funny.. if it was not so sad.
Tagert, what is sad is that we know you are not stupid, so that can't be the reason why you don't understand. That only leaves one option: you don't want to understand. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No, I understand.. I also understand that it appears Galland and Carson had the same assement of the 109.. Time to discredit Galland now too?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Kurfurst__
11-27-2006, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
It's a funny thing. We keep hearing that the MkXIV Spitfire was "much more draggy than the MkIX", over and over.

And in parallel 'discussions' about how drag affects Level speed for a given amount of horsepower.

And yet, if we look at the SL speeds of the Crossbow fighters, the MkXIV at +21 lbs boost is quicker than the MkIX at +25 lbs. Horsepower for the two different engines at the two different configurations is very similar at ~2050hp.

How come?

If you read the +25 lbs trials, they note the old prop of the IX was not able to absorb all the extra power from +25 lbs.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Kurfurst__
11-27-2006, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Bf-109K-4 speed running at 1.98ata boost (1,975 HP at SL): 607 km/h at SL - 679 km/h at 2,895 m.
Ummmm 607kmh at SL? Are you sure? Kurfurst what do you say? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what the Mtt docs say at 1.98ata.. you can look the doc on my site, not hard to find, only 1 109K paper there. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

One has to consider the 109K's wide propellor blades were not so good at low altitude effiency, they were really meant for higher alts. Same stands for G-14 vs G-14/AS etc., the former was better up to about 4000m, largely due to the prop.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Bellator_1
11-27-2006, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
It's a funny thing. We keep hearing that the MkXIV Spitfire was "much more draggy than the MkIX", over and over.

And in parallel 'discussions' about how drag affects Level speed for a given amount of horsepower.

And yet, if we look at the SL speeds of the Crossbow fighters, the MkXIV at +21 lbs boost is quicker than the MkIX at +25 lbs. Horsepower for the two different engines at the two different configurations is very similar at ~2050hp.

How come?

There's a 7-8 mph difference.

Merlin 66: 2015 HP at SL
Griffon 65: 2050 HP at SL.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
11-27-2006, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Now I wonder about those bulges... HMG bulges, costing 9 km/h.. wing upper surface teardrop-shaped ones, causing about 1 km/h maybe. Is that it ? 10 km/h loss due to those bad bulges..?
Decision time.. WWII Ace Galland and WWII Ace and Aero Engineer Carson or Kurfurst?

Both Galland and Carson considered the bulges a negative, but Kurfurst wants us to belive the bulges were not a problem. Even though Messer went to great lengths to remove most of those bulges on the later model 109s.

So.. if Kurfurst is right, and Galland and Carson were no nothing boobs.. Why did Messer bother removing those bulges if they only caused a 10km/h loss?

It should be clear to anyone that you would not go to all the trouble of re-working the 109 to remove the buldges if that was the only reason for it.. Anyone that is not blinded by bias.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Brain32
11-27-2006, 07:57 AM
No, I understand.. I also understand that it appears Galland and Carson had the same assement of the 109.. Time to discredit Galland now too?

Here you go again acting like a low level politician(It really doesen't suit you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif)
Since I obviously have to write it down for you...
Yes Carson spits on the 109, interesting, and while we are spitting let's talk about his assesment of the Spitfire. Basically for him Spitfire is a God given gift to mankind but 109 sucks. That's really interesting since they basically have same flaws. Not much different at all. Also your pet hero convinienty compared results of British testing(yes he didn't actually fly one just threw in his comment of the test) of captured 109G6(maybe even with gunpods) with nothing less than a Spitfire MkXIV, gimme a feckin' break. Let's compare SpitMkV and 109G10 LOL. Very scientific of him http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
Overall if he applied same criteria for both planes I wouldn't say a word, but the way he did it bias, agenda or simple ignorance(I doubt it) is obvious.
You are however most welcome to continue with your cheap excusess there are many sheeps around to follow you no questions asked(actually it's very convinient for their own little agendas), I however am not one of them.
Now please continue the sheeps are waiting http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

This is my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kettenhunde
11-27-2006, 07:59 AM
Generally there seem to be some variation in the notation systems used by the Germans.

It is not just the Germans. All sides had to deal with same exact problems of corrections/conversions/atmosphere. Your confusing notations within a company with official reports to the buyer.


In the most cases, the notation Vw or Vwc means that there is no compressibility correction.

However in speeds reported to the RLM Vw by Rechlin it is TAS and is corrected for comparision purposes. That is whole point of a Kennblatt! These are sheets not for the engineers but the end user.

These speeds also change as the design changes and update reports are sent to the RLM. There was a contract between the buyer and the seller. The buyer is interested in the performance he is paying for and the seller is interested in keeping the buyer buying his products.

The stupidity is where one claims one country has the same corrections and intelligent comparisions can be made.

Facts are intelligent comparisions cannot be made even within the same country. Compressibility was not very well understood nor were the tabular corrections of the day meaningful.


Except for the Corsair being 20 knots faster than the Hellcat in the main, sea-level, supercharger stage, both fighters had almost exactly the same speed at the low and high blower stages from 5,000 feet altitude up to service ceiling! In essence, they had the same performance. Our formation flights showed that both airplanes (with similar power settings) were in closely stabilized formation at all altitudes tested above 5,000 feet Sometimes, the Corsair would slowly gain a lead of 100 to 200 feet after five minutes of stabilized power flight, and sometimes, the Hellcat would do the same. Considering that both airplanes had the same engine, propeller, gross weight, wingspan, etc., they should have had about the same performance. We did notice that during these runs, the Corsair always had about a 20-knot indicated airspeed (IAS) advantage! We didn't realize just how embarrassing it would be to solve that dilemma.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199812/ai_n8817082

All the best,

Crumpp<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Support the White 1 Foundation!

The White 1 Foundation was started to facilitate the museum quality conservation, display, study, restoration, and operation of the Focke Wulf FW 190 F8, known by its WWII call sign, White 1. In doing so, we are preserving parts of World history in a living memorial to all people who lost their lives in the war. We are preserving an integral part of great aerial battles which once filled the skies.

Of some, parts of this aircraft are the only traces which remain.

http://www.white1foundation.org/

Xiolablu3
11-30-2006, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I wasnt so much interested in the height figures, but the German pilots comments about the Spitfires handling compared to the 109.

Well the Spitfire in question was very light for one, and with the same power that can only mean one thing - enhanced manueverability.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But the Spitfire was more manouvrable than the 109G anyway, according to Galland, Rall etc.

Look at the quotes from Rall and Galland posted in my other thread.

Summed up they think:-

Spitfire - Very Manouvrable

109 from G model onwards, felt too heavy and hard to control at slow speeds, but fast and good climber.


Even these German pilots thought the Spitfire was incredible at turning and manouvrability, but I dont here the Allied pilots saying the same about the later 109's.

You say that the Spitfire Vb was 'very light', it was the same airframe as a MkIX, just the heavier Merlin 66 engine and the guns, just as with the heavier Daimler Benz.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Bellator_1
11-30-2006, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
But the Spitfire was more manouvrable than the 109G anyway, according to Galland, Rall etc.

Look at the quotes from Rall and Galland posted in my other thread.

Summed up they think:-

Spitfire - Very Manouvrable

109 from G model onwards, felt too heavy and hard to control at slow speeds, but fast and good climber.


Even these German pilots thought the Spitfire was incredible at turning and manouvrability, but I dont here the Allied pilots saying the same about the later 109's.

Well there are Spitfire pilots saying otherwise Xioablu3, believe it or not - pierre closterman for example. And there are MANY German vets saying the 109 could outurn the Spitfire as-well.

But I'd say a Bf-109G-6 would have a great deal of difficulty following a Spitfire Mk.V in a turn - So I can undertand why Galland would find it unpleasurable to turn with a Spitfire.

Now about Rall, well as already explained he didn't turn past the initial deployment of the slats, the reason being a rather unpleasant experience he had whilst flying a Emil. So he'd have great difficulty out-turning a Spitfire since the slats came out really early.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

stathem
11-30-2006, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I've seen Kettenhunde argue quite vehemently in the past that no WW2 aircraft (bar those few equipped with Fowler flaps, Whirlwind, P-38G?, some Japanese type?) had combat flaps.

Pretty sure I am being misquoted or misunderstood here.

If you go back and read the threads I say that flaps are not miracle devices and generally only improve the turn under specific conditions of flight.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, I retract "vehmently"


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
There is really only one aircraft that has actual "combat flaps" in WWII, AFAIK.

That is the P38 with its fowler flaps. Flaps do increase lift, however this is offset by the decrease in maximum AoA and reduction of the L/D ratio. In other words they act as brakes. The improvement of a level turn is temporary as the radius decrease with speed but the rate increases with loss of speed and reduction of AoA.

Most pilots use them exactly as Oscar Boesch relates, as an emergency measure during a hard fight to gain angle or prevent the overshoot. It's the "Hail Mary" play of dog fighting.

From here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/6901077814?r=9881000424#9881000424)

I did read the rest of the thread, no need to re-explain it.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/MossiePRsig.jpg

Blutarski2004
11-30-2006, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
And that is for JUST power loading , yes Blutarski?



Exactly. Left wing loading completely out of it strictly power loading analysis. Went in two steps: [1] developed ratio comparison of max powers at the selected common altitude; [2] correct each hp ratio by the weight ratio of 1.15:1 in favot of the 109K.


re 25 lbs. Thanks.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

Xiolablu3
11-30-2006, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
But the Spitfire was more manouvrable than the 109G anyway, according to Galland, Rall etc.

Look at the quotes from Rall and Galland posted in my other thread.

Summed up they think:-

Spitfire - Very Manouvrable

109 from G model onwards, felt too heavy and hard to control at slow speeds, but fast and good climber.


Even these German pilots thought the Spitfire was incredible at turning and manouvrability, but I dont here the Allied pilots saying the same about the later 109's.

Well there are Spitfire pilots saying otherwise Xioablu3, believe it or not - pierre closterman for example. And there are MANY German vets saying the 109 could outurn the Spitfire as-well.

But I'd say a Bf-109G-6 would have a great deal of difficulty following a Spitfire Mk.V in a turn - So I can undertand why Galland would find it unpleasurable to turn with a Spitfire.

Now about Rall, well as already explained he didn't turn past the initial deployment of the slats, the reason being a rather unpleasant experience he had whilst flying a Emil. So he'd have great difficulty out-turning a Spitfire since the slats came out really early. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You obviously havent read the whole thread through.

I already wrote about Clostermann, earlier..Clostermann actually said

'It was well known that the SPitfire could outturn the 109, but this was not true at extremly low speeds.'

SO in fact he was saying the 109 was outturned by the Spitfire always except near the stall, which is what I have been saying fromt he start.

I have his book, if you want me to quote it exactly....

A 109G6 would not outturn a Spitfire IX either at combat speeds, never mind a MkV.

Read the rest of the thread since you posted, about 4 pages have been posted, you have a lot to answer...if you even want to try. But you are p*ssing into the wind.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Bellator_1
11-30-2006, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
You obviously havent read the whole thread through.

I already wrote about Clostermann, earlier..Clostermann actually said

'It was well known that the SPitfire could outturn the 109, but this was not true at extremly low speeds.'

SO in fact he was saying the 109 was outturned by the Spitfire always except near the stall, which is what I have been saying fromt he start.

I have his book, if you want me to quote it exactly....

A 109G6 would not outturn a Spitfire IX either at combat speeds, never mind a MkV.

Read the rest of the thread since you posted, about 4 pages have been posted, you have a lot to answer...if you even want to try. But you are p*ssing into the wind.

Never talked about the G-6 vs the Mk.IX Xioablu3, cause I agree the G-6 was inferior to the Mk.IX in a turnfight, however this discussion was about the Bf-109K-4 vs the Spitfire Mk.XIV.

Now on an entirely different note, the Spitfire was always "easier" to handle in high speed turn fights, where the 109 required two hands on the stick for any aggressive maneuvering.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Blutarski2004
11-30-2006, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
As far as the influence of airfoil section upon turn performance goes, it seems to me that the question is a good deal more complicated that co-efficient of lift.

Following values are interpolated from graphs, so should NOT be taken as completely precise.

(Expressed comparatively as NACA 2213/NACA 2R1.)

Angle of
Attack--------L/D Ratio--------C/Lift

0 deg----------14.0/12.0--------0.00/0.10
2 deg----------23.0/21.0--------0.30/0.25
4 deg----------24.0/23.0--------0.45/0.40
6 deg----------21.0/21.0--------0.60/0.55
8 deg----------19.0/19.0--------0.75/0.70
10 deg---------17.0/17.0--------0.90/0.85
12 deg---------15.0/15.0--------1.05/1.00
14 deg---------13.0/13.0--------1.20/1.15
16 deg---------12.0/12.0--------1.30/1.25
18 deg---------10.5/10.5--------1.40/1.40
20 deg----------9.5/10.0--------1.50/1.50
22 deg----------8.0/6.0---------1.60/1.40
24 deg----------4.0/4.5---------1.30/1.30

The Mk XIV employed a NACA 2213 root airfoil section and a NACA 2209.4 tip airfoil section. The 109K employed a NACA 2R1 14.2 root airfoil section and a NACA 2R1 11.35 tip airfoil section. The above figures compare a NACA 2213 to a NACA 2R1. IF the evaluated airfoil sections relate at all to those employed by the XIV and the 109K, then it can be seen that the 2212 has a better L/D and a higher C/Lift up to 4 deg AoA, equal L/D and better C/Lift up to 18 deg AoA, and mixed values at higher AoA.

This is strictly a suggestive and unscientific exercise. Some of the values may be off slightly due to interpolation and rounding, but I do not see a really DRAMATIC difference in values here. Do anyof our aero engineers care to elucidate? How important is a 0.5 difference in L/D ratio? Or a 0.05 difference in C/Lift?

BTW, you gentlemen may be interested in the following website - "The Incomplete Guide to Airfoil Usage".

http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html

Blutarski,

The above is assuming the exact same AR for both a/c, however we know the 109's wing has a higher AR wing = a higher L/D ratio. The 109 also has a higher tip thickness ratio, increasing the critical AoA and providing more lift.

Plus what is the thickness ratio to which the NACA 2R1 data refers ?? The reason I'm asking is because the reults are strikingly similar to those achieved with a 12% NACA 2R1 airfoil - except the L/D doesn't take a dive at 22 deg as your illustration shows. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... My language was less than completely clear. I wasn't trying to do an overall competitive analysis. This was a strictly unscientific look into airfoil relationships. A/R was indeed left unspecified. The post should have stated "other factors being equal".

Don't take my numbers as gospel. They were all interpreted from graphs. That big drop might have been the result of rounding off.

Unfortunately, the cross sectional airfoil illustration is too small and inadequately incremented to give any reliable values regarding thickness ratio.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

tigertalon
11-30-2006, 01:03 PM
Not trying to steal it, but Rall disliked turning hard also because high G usually jammed entire weapon system if gunpods were carried. This is why he always preferred only default weapons.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<span class="ev_code_BLACK"><pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">?In the size of the lie there is always contained a certain factor of credibility,

HellToupee
11-30-2006, 01:29 PM
did they state in a report spitfire XIV with 90gal drop tank on could still outturn 109.


here it is

with 90gal tank

"Turning Circle
55. The Spitfire XIV now has a definitely wider turning circle than before, but is still within those of the FW.190 (BMW.801D) and Me.109G. "

Blutarski2004
11-30-2006, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
did they state in a report spitfire XIV with 90gal drop tank on could still outturn 109.


here it is

with 90gal tank

"Turning Circle
55. The Spitfire XIV now has a definitely wider turning circle than before, but is still within those of the FW.190 (BMW.801D) and Me.109G. "


..... Clearly, the drop tank must act as a maneuvering flap as well!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

faustnik
11-30-2006, 02:03 PM
Back to the original question of the BEST 1945 turn fighter, wouldn't that depend on altitude?

So, I see two contenders, the Spit LF IX +25, the Spit XIV. Would the Griffon produce enough of a power-loading advantage at high altitude to offset it's wing-loading disadvantage?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustJumboSig.jpg
VFS (http://www.virtualfightersquadrons.com/)
Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)
The Lockheed Syndicate (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)
Hawker Haven (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)
CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7)
Magnum PCSupport our support guys! (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

Pinker15
11-30-2006, 03:18 PM
Spitfire wingloading disadvantage ? Do I understand correct. Spitfire XIV has lower wingloading than K4 and as higher get better manover performance than K4. Mark XIV suits best for high alt. Low alt was for 25 lbs. Any manovering with Spitfres for 109's ends after G2 and 1942 year.

faustnik
11-30-2006, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by Pinker15:
Spitfire wingloading disadvantage ?

Pinker,

I was talking XIV relative to IX. Spit v. Spit discussion only.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustJumboSig.jpg
VFS (http://www.virtualfightersquadrons.com/)
Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)
The Lockheed Syndicate (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)
Hawker Haven (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)
CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7)
Magnum PCSupport our support guys! (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

Ratsack
11-30-2006, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
Regarding the Bf109K / Spitfire XIV matchup, the two most important parameters are those I've noted in my last post. The others come into play but are of lower order. The single most important factor is wing loading, where the Spitfire has a very large advantage. The next is power loading where the Bf 109 picks up some of the ground.

Wingloading is not the most important factor, not by far, there are many factors that define turn overall, and you simply pick one as the single most important, coincidentally the only one that favours the Spit. However turning is dependent on lift, and wingloading doesn't tell you how much lift your wings will generate. Two huge flat planks attached to an aircraft will generate zero lift, whatever the 'wing'loading is.

Liftloading is the word you are looking for, and we all know the Spits wing has lower Cl because of it's wing design then others - in other words, it's wings develop far less lift than the wingloading suggest.

Moreover, the amount of lift and stallspeed is a factor for the turning radius - obviously, the slower the aircraft can fly in turns without stalling, the smaller the radius will be. Turn radius however is secondary importance to how fast an aircraft can turn - the rate of turn. Sustained turn rate is otoh very much defined by available thrust.


Not enough in my view. I have not seen a single credible report of any Bf 109 - much less a late model Kurfurst - turning with a Spitfire.

See Leywenkauf (sp?), Kaiser, Clostermann etc. noting 109s turning with Spitfires.

I guess is it's just a preconception of Spit-fans that the Spit had some magical rune on it preventing even biplanes to turn inside it and cause any contradictory accounts being immidiately deleted from their braincells... just like the fact that the late model XIV weights 8500 lbs, and is by far the most draggy of all Spits.

Curiously enough, 1000 lbs weight increase is a non-factor for Spit fans, it surely didn't effect the aircraft in any negative way. That's kinda as absurd as stating the IX would manouver just as happily with a full 1x500 + 2x250 lbs bombload then without.

Yeah those anti-G runes carved on it, I forgot. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


There's been all manner of speculation on this matter on this forum and others: everything from the slats through to combat flap settings and any amount of hypothesising and debate.

I don't think it's a speculation that the Spit did not have either combat flaps or leading edge slats to improve it's lift charachteristics like the 109. It's a fact easy to check.


As I said above, the numbers in the key parameters suggest the Spitfire has the turn advantage, and the record of these two in combat supports that conclusion very strongly.

Can you expand on these overwhelming evidence provided by 'key parameters' and 'combat record' ?
It all seems very vogue to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfurst,

I don't propose to get into a nitpicking debate with you on this. I am not a Spit fan as you have implied. I am an interested student of aviation history.

When I talked about speculation, I was referring to speculation about the Bf109 being able to turn with a Spitfire, as you well understood.

The very simple fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of reports, anecdotal or tests or otherwise, have the Spitfire out turning the Bf 109. In fact, I've not seen a single credible counter example, and I note that you didn't provide one.

In the face of this preponderance of professional opinion from the pilots at the time, the entire argument about slats and flaps and whatever, is just speculation. See my last post about cook-book history.

It is simply not credible that the Bf109 was a better turner than the Spitfire, and there is no systemic recording of incidents in tests or battle that supports the proposition that it was. There is only the speculation of flight sim enthusiasts.

cheers,
Ratsack

Kettenhunde
11-30-2006, 04:57 PM
It is simply not credible that the Bf109 was a better turner than the Spitfire, and there is no systemic recording of incidents in tests or battle that supports the proposition that it was.


It comes down IMHO which side you ask and under what conditions. As has been stated in this thread, the aircraft are very close.

In fact there are Bf-109 pilots who turned with Spitfires consistently and won their engagements.

Couple of points to ponder....

1. It takes considerable skill and nerve to extract maximum turning performance at low altitude from any plane. It is especially difficult in a high powered propeller driven fighter. The instruments used to coordinate the turn are not accurate due to the buffeting moments. Not being coordinated in the stall invites a spin. Even an aircraft with the reputation for recovering instantly will lose several thousand feet in the recovery. In many propeller driven aircraft, if the power is not ******ed very quickly your recovery can take 10,000 feet or more.

Stalling an aircraft at low altitude in the turn is still the leading cause of death in pilots today.

2. The performance differences are not nearly as great in the air as they are on paper. Gamers tend to see some importance to a few mph speed or a few feet turn radius. Facts are these airplanes spent very little time "at the edge" of their performance envelopes. Most airplanes never saw the edge and neither did their pilots.

You have to understand that if you take the plane to its maximum performance edge and a gust of wind comes along.....you just exceeded the planes capability. Yes...wind gust will change the AoA and can even suddenly increase airspeeds or lower airspeed depending on the angle. On most flying day?s aircraft had to operated well below their maximums just due to this fact.

So real pilots do not spend much time "at the edge" as gamers define it because in the real world you can die very quickly doing that. The "edge" was constantly defined by the conditions of flight and the immediate threat. Sometimes the plane itself becomes the immediate threat. It makes no difference if you get shot down or stall/spin/die as you are dead either way.

IMHO this is a very silly debate.

All the best,

Crumpp<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Support the White 1 Foundation!

The White 1 Foundation was started to facilitate the museum quality conservation, display, study, restoration, and operation of the Focke Wulf FW 190 F8, known by its WWII call sign, White 1. In doing so, we are preserving parts of World history in a living memorial to all people who lost their lives in the war. We are preserving an integral part of great aerial battles which once filled the skies.

Of some, parts of this aircraft are the only traces which remain.

http://www.white1foundation.org/

faustnik
11-30-2006, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

2. The performance differences are not nearly as great in the air as they are on paper.

I really discovered this when I started reproducing performance charts. You have the really narrow your focus on the graph to produce a chart with noticeable separation when comparing WW2 fighters of the same year class.

My problem then becomes, do I narrow the scale and exaggerate the differences, or leave it and have the chart be of very little value? Maybe the fact that all the charted lines are so close together has its own value?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustJumboSig.jpg
VFS (http://www.virtualfightersquadrons.com/)
Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)
The Lockheed Syndicate (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)
Hawker Haven (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)
CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7)
Magnum PCSupport our support guys! (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

Kettenhunde
11-30-2006, 06:00 PM
Maybe the fact that all the charted lines are so close together has its own value?

I very much think that has value of it's own.

All the best,

Crumpp<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Support the White 1 Foundation!

The White 1 Foundation was started to facilitate the museum quality conservation, display, study, restoration, and operation of the Focke Wulf FW 190 F8, known by its WWII call sign, White 1. In doing so, we are preserving parts of World history in a living memorial to all people who lost their lives in the war. We are preserving an integral part of great aerial battles which once filled the skies.

Of some, parts of this aircraft are the only traces which remain.

http://www.white1foundation.org/

Ratsack
11-30-2006, 11:48 PM
Amen

Pinker15
12-01-2006, 05:00 AM
For turning wing loading is one of most important factors just before power loading factor. K4 has not enougth power to patch lack of lift. Spitfire wings was thick but no laminar flow so differences in lift compare to 109 arent big.

Brain32
12-01-2006, 05:13 AM
It's funny we talk about late 109's and late Spitfire's manouvering, in game a 5-6tons heavy Tempest or P47 can turn with the G10 and possibly outturn 109K4(which for some reason turns worse of them all) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


It takes considerable skill and nerve to extract maximum turning performance at low altitude from any plane. It is especially difficult in a high powered propeller driven fighter.
Although not a real pilot I knew that for a loong time, there is no bank-and-pull-all-worries-gone outside of this game. SpitfireIX in the game can always just do it and endlessly evade attacks, it's not important at what airspeed, it's not important if the plane is properly trimmed or not, just bank and pull, as if it has "outturn everything in every condition in a blink of an eye" button. This is why when it comes to simulations I can't wait for BOB<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

This is my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

stathem
12-01-2006, 12:38 PM
Hey Kurfurst. Even YOU admit that the Spitfire IX at +25lb boost would hold the title that Bellator is so one-eyed'ly seeking. Especially since he is determined to work at SL values.

Why don't YOU put him straight?

Who knows, he might even listen to you.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/MossiePRsig.jpg

Kurfurst__
12-01-2006, 12:54 PM
Why repeat myself, I already said it, didn't I...? and as for why Sea level.. if we move away from SL, it will raise a lot issues of complexity, and it's a rather two-edged weapon. Getting higher up only makes worse for the MkIX rapidly.

The first thing it will introduce is, hmm, the 'power drop valleys' of the Merlin/Griffon.
The DB engine would be uneffected (hydraulic supercharger clutch).

Second, the +25 lbs Spit will really quickly run out of power at altitude and will become a gradually become a +18 lbs Spit above 10 000 Ft already. The XIV otoh hand will find things improving above 20k ft, quite possible beating the 109K, as it has a slight edge in output, climb, speed. Below that the 109K holds all the important cards.

Dunno, maybe Bellator should make comparisons in turning at altitude, let's say parameters shoud be, hmm, +25 lbs Spit IXLF, altitude 20 000 feet, speed 400 mph TAS. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Coincidentally, the MkIXLFs top speed happens to be just about 400mph TAS at 20 000 feet, so I am not sure how it gonna make a sustained turn. It has no excess thrust left at all...

400 mph would be kind of a leisurely cruising speed for the 109K OTOH, with about 500-600 HP worth excess thrust. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Badsight-
12-01-2006, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
To go just by wing-loading is downright wrong and decieving. who said that ?

your wings ability to generate lift for the airflow is paramount , staying aloft doesnt requier low drag or lots of power behind the prop . . . . . .

i.e. , what does it matter that your small bumpy wings produce less drag when your making a ton less lift , & give a smaller footprint on the air thru you turn . 10% better load on your power wont do cr4p :-)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/1741/shindendrawflight66os.jpg

Bellator_1
12-01-2006, 01:41 PM
Stathem,

As I've already said once in this thread, the +25 lbs/sq.in boosted Spitfire IX is the best late war turn-fighter - HOWEVER, it suffers a major speed disadvantage, which could lead to some rather unpleasant encounters if up against the later version Bf-109's.

So
No.1 = +25 lbs boost Spitfire IX
No.2 = Bf-109 K-4
No.3 = Spitfire Mk.XIV<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Badsight-
12-01-2006, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
which could lead to some rather unpleasant encounters if up against the later version Bf-109's. luckily for RAF pilots , they were next to non-existant - no C3 fuel , no pilots , no 1.98 boosted k4's

but those Spitfire pilots DID have lots of 1.80ATA k4,s to strafe :-)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/1741/shindendrawflight66os.jpg

Kurfurst__
12-01-2006, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
luckily for RAF pilots , they were next to non-existant - no C3 fuel , no pilots , no 1.98 boosted k4's

Luckily to LW pilots, those +25 lbs IXs were next to non-exitent up to April 1945.. not enough 150 grade fuel, no range I am afraid. And as Galland put it (gosh this guy is so popular in this thread), the best thing about the XIV was, that there were so few of it. Clostermann seems to had the same feeling. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Quite unluckily for the LW pilots, the RAF was pretty much a non-factor compared the ever-present threat from hordes of USAAF fighters roaming the airspace in 1944-45. Let's be honest, RAF fighters have never been a real threat after 1940 at all - Circuses, Rodeos and other funny stuff.. well... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Xiolablu3
12-01-2006, 03:04 PM
Yeah those 20,000+ RAF fighters were just a drop in the ocean weren't they http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Wonder if Rommel agrees with you after being shot up by Spitfires. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


Dunno about the engine bulges, but am I the only one who sees an incredibly sreamlined beautiful WW2 fighter here and not a big draggy dog?

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/SPITXIV1HQ.jpg


Does anyone have actual numbers for 25lbs boost Spitfires in service? I am intersted to know when they came into service and how many were converted.

Is it just a handful, as with the 109G6 A/S and 109K4 C3, or were there a few more?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Xiolablu3
12-01-2006, 03:12 PM
Bellator :-


Why are you totally disregarding Blutarskis calculations?

He worked out that even using the power loading alone of the Spitfire XIV vs 109K4, the Spitfire still came out on top at some hieghts/power.

Factor in wingloading too (In which the SPit far beats the 109) and the SPitfire is by far a better turner.

For turning only

1. Spitfire IX 25lbs
2 Spitfire XIV
3. 109K4 or P38L<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Xiolablu3
12-01-2006, 03:16 PM
Just been reading and a Spitfire IX was tested with 25lbs boost in October 1943.

Are you sure that there were very few at 25lbs boost even in 1945?

faustnik
12-01-2006, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just been reading and a Spitfire IX was tested with 25lbs boost in October 1943.

Are you sure that there were very few at 25lbs boost even in 1945?

They were operating out of the island from mid-44 and from the continent from Jan. 45 (or possibly slightly earlier?).<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustJumboSig.jpg
VFS (http://www.virtualfightersquadrons.com/)
Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)
The Lockheed Syndicate (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)
Hawker Haven (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)
CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7)
Magnum PCSupport our support guys! (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

Kurfurst__
12-01-2006, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Does anyone have actual numbers for 25lbs boost Spitfires in service? I am intersted to know when they came into service and how many were converted.

Hmmm, unless you want to count the experimental period in mid-1944, when about a dozen IXLF were modded for diver hunting, but were continously haunted themselves with plug fouling and backfires, and the resulting engine failures, and they were withdrawn in August already and replaced by XIVs for V1 hunting. Then, after the V-1s gone, they all reverted to normal boost.


Is it just a handful, as with the 109G6 A/S and 109K4 C3, or were there a few more?

I don't think there were anywhere near as many IXLF running around the number G-6/AS produced. After all, the maximum number planned was some 25 Sqadrons or 3-500 planes. BTW 686 G-6/AS were produced. I guess that makes the IXLF +25 less than a 'handful'. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

They started converting in February 1945, with 150 grade fuel only becoming quantity use in March-April 1945 as per consumption figures, but 150 grade was so troublesome with the regular engine failures and fatal accidents that followed that pilots were relieved when they learned they ae revertingg to 130 grade fuel and the regular +18 lbs. booost in April.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Xiolablu3
12-01-2006, 03:38 PM
Thanks for the info, guys.



Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
BTW 686 G-6/AS were produced. I guess that makes the IXLF +25 less than a 'handful'. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Yes thats quite a lot of 109G6A/S actually, almost as many as Spitfire XIV's produced. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

faustnik
12-01-2006, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


They started converting in February 1945.

I thought conversion on the continent started in Dec. 44??????<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustJumboSig.jpg
VFS (http://www.virtualfightersquadrons.com/)
Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)
The Lockheed Syndicate (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)
Hawker Haven (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)
CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7)
Magnum PCSupport our support guys! (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

MEGILE
12-01-2006, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

when about a dozen IXLF were modded for diver hunting, but were continously haunted themselves with plug fouling and backfires, and the resulting engine failures,


disagree 100%

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/3734/150octaneexcerptey0.jpg


Then, after the V-1s gone, they all reverted to normal boost

Source please.


Originally posted by faustnik:

I thought conversion on the continent started in Dec. 44??????

If we are to believe the RAF, fuel was shipped to the continet in mid December, and by January Sptfires were running on 150 octane on the continent.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/7683/starostauc4.jpg
If you see this man.... it's probably too late
Oleg - I was dreaming to make Meteor, but third party didn't make it finally (left unfinished)

Xiolablu3
12-01-2006, 03:55 PM
I am going to look into exactly how many 25lbs boost Spitfires there were, I will update the thread once I have done it, it may take a while tho.

I have just been thinking, wouldnt the 109G6A/S have been a better turner than the 109K4?

I would have htought it would be lighter, still with a very good, powerful engine.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Kurfurst__
12-01-2006, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:

I thought conversion on the continent started in Dec. 44??????

The 2nd TAF was proposed to convert 25 Sqns of IXL, 5-5 Sqns of XVIs and XIVs to 150 grade, for +25, +21, +21 boost. The estimated monthly requirement for that was 15 000 tons of 150 grade per month.

Neil Stirling claims the following fuel consumption by Theatre, ie. North West Europe for the 2nd TAF :

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/theater_barrels_tons.html

January 1945 2,054
February 1945 2,328
March 1945 7,132
April 1945 12,191
May 1945 4,383

Keeping in mind that they foresaw 15000 tons/month requirement for those 25+5+5= 35 sqns, it's quite clear from the consumption figures that all these squadrons were not converted until well into April. And, before 1945, no consumption of 150 grade at all with 2nd TAF... no 150 grade consumption, no high boost.

That's basically the same timeline as the 109Ks with 1.98ata (ordered 19 March 1945 to convert 4 Wings = ca 16 Squadrons of JG 27 and 53 to 1.98ata)

Even then, 150 grade was less than satisfactory...

And this is from an ubi post



Im curious as to more info on the +25lbs Spits, as to when (AFAIK, FB listed +25lb spits as 44?)they were in regular service, and any problems encountered with its use, after reading a small passage (pg 199) from "Invasion Without Tears", Street/Berger, ISBN#0-394-22277-6 (Random House):

(from accounts by Monty Berger, Senior Intel Officer of 126 (RCAF) Spitfire Wing, 2 TAF)

" he noted [in his day's (apr 20 '45) operational summary]as well that two pilots had walked away-"more or less"-with only slight injuries from wrecked and flaming aircraft at B 116 [Wunstorf, Germany]. actually, it was a miracle either man survived. flying officer F R Dennison of 411(sqn)-a Grizzly Bear from Buffalo, NY-crashed while taking off and broke his back. later in the day, flt leiutenant E B Mossing of 401(sqd), who also had his engine cut during take off, scraped his spitfire's belly tank over an obstacle and came down so hard the impact ripped it's wings off, broke the fuselage at the instrument panel and left what remained of the aircraft a mass of flames-yet Mossing "extricated himself with one bone broken in his leg"

The incidents followed a number of engine problems that were attributed to the introduction of 150-grade fuel in early feb. pilots mistrusted it, and were no doubt relieved when the AF brass decided to revert to 130-grade. "the vast majority of pilots, im sure, were beginning to wonder if the additional seven pounds of boost they got from 150-grade fuel were worth the price being paid." the matter was being dicussed at Wunstorf when, incredibly, a spark at the petrol dump ignited and two petrol bowsers containing almost two thousand gallons of the much-despised fuel burst into flames.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110...811074274#9811074274 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=3941014274&r=9811074274#9811074274)


AFAIK the XVIs reverted earlier, as their Merlin 266s were the most troublesome.

I'd like to point out that +25 lbs Spit IXLF is pretty much the same as the Bf 109G-14 performance wise btw.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Badsight-
12-01-2006, 04:00 PM
the G6/AS was a G6 with the supercharger off the DB-603 engine for maintained boost to higher alts

at high alts where the G6 stared losing boost pressure the G6/AS lost less speed

same low alt performance

Ratsack
12-01-2006, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
We're more into tea leaves and palmistry over here. Must be some nordic vibe going down with the rune business.

Just saw this. Most sensible post in ages.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ratsack

Badsight-
12-01-2006, 04:03 PM
the deal on the 1.98ATA k4 is even more interesting

one squadron used them for testing

no proof they were used operationally in combat

maybe only 20 - 35 planes at any one time were operational (fuel , & of course a pilot to fly the thing)

unlike the Mark 14 Spitfire , the 1.98ATA K4 is a fantasy plane similer to the Go-229 :-P
(yeah both flew , so what)

so really the Mk14 should always get compared to G6 , G14 , & low speed K4's<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/1741/shindendrawflight66os.jpg

Kettenhunde
12-01-2006, 04:07 PM
I believe the source is this very same memo someone cherry picked. I don't have all the pages but you can see from the file stampings that some pages are missing. The pages are from the same report cancelling the use of 100/150 grade.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1165014218_september+44.jpg

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1165014273_summary.jpg

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1165014289_summary+2.jpg

All the best,

Crumpp<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Support the White 1 Foundation!

The White 1 Foundation was started to facilitate the museum quality conservation, display, study, restoration, and operation of the Focke Wulf FW 190 F8, known by its WWII call sign, White 1. In doing so, we are preserving parts of World history in a living memorial to all people who lost their lives in the war. We are preserving an integral part of great aerial battles which once filled the skies.

Of some, parts of this aircraft are the only traces which remain.

http://www.white1foundation.org/

Kurfurst__
12-01-2006, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

when about a dozen IXLF were modded for diver hunting, but were continously haunted themselves with plug fouling and backfires, and the resulting engine failures,


disagree 100%

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/3734/150octaneexcerptey0.jpg


Then, after the V-1s gone, they all reverted to normal boost

Source please. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I love snippets, too.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/backfire-2.jpg

It's dated 12 August 1944, and it says 'replaced by XIVs'.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Kurfurst__
12-01-2006, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
the deal on the 1.98ATA k4 is even more interesting

one squadron used them for testing

Source please.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Bellator_1
12-01-2006, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Bellator :-


Why are you totally disregarding Blutarskis calculations?

He worked out that even using the power loading alone of the Spitfire XIV vs 109K4, the Spitfire still came out on top at some hieghts/power.

Factor in wingloading too (In which the SPit far beats the 109) and the SPitfire is by far a better turner.

For turning only

1. Spitfire IX 25lbs
2 Spitfire XIV
3. 109K4 or P38L

Well firstly you totally disregard the 30% drag advantage of the Bf-109, as-well as the automatic LE slats.

And Blutarski's calculations show nothing other than the difference in power-loading, so whats your point ?

Also the P-38 isn't even a contender for the Top 10, it was a turkey in the turn compared to most single engined fighters - you can rightly compare it to the Bf-110, which has even got slats 'and' a lower wing-loading.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

MEGILE
12-01-2006, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
The pages are from the same report cancelling the use of 100/150 grade.


All the best,

Crumpp

Indeed... it may have seemed a wise decision at the time.. yet a month later 150 octane consumption increased. We know the ADGB were supplied with 2,000 tonnes of 150 octane in November, now i'm open to suggestions, but I assume they used it to power airplanes.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/7683/starostauc4.jpg
If you see this man.... it's probably too late
Oleg - I was dreaming to make Meteor, but third party didn't make it finally (left unfinished)

faustnik
12-01-2006, 04:33 PM
Thanks for pointing out Mike Williams report agian Kurfurst, I need to read it through a couple more times as I'm not clear on a couple issues.

- The 8th AF switched entirely (???) to 150 grade beginning late June 1944?

- The RAF had switch slightly before then but, then reverted to 130 grade in September 1944.

- The 8th AF continued to operate with 150 grade?

- The 2nd TAF and 9th AF operated on 130 grade on the continent, until a few 2nd TAF units started converting to 150 grade in 1945?

Sorry, I'm getting off topic, sort of. Fuel can restrict power levels, which effect power loading which effect turn rate, right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustJumboSig.jpg
VFS (http://www.virtualfightersquadrons.com/)
Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)
The Lockheed Syndicate (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)
Hawker Haven (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)
CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7)
Magnum PCSupport our support guys! (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

Bellator_1
12-01-2006, 04:36 PM
Sorry, I'm getting off topic, sort of. Fuel can restrict power levels, which effect power loading which effect turn rate, right?

You got that exactly right faustnik.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Xiolablu3
12-01-2006, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Bellator :-


Why are you totally disregarding Blutarskis calculations?

He worked out that even using the power loading alone of the Spitfire XIV vs 109K4, the Spitfire still came out on top at some hieghts/power.

Factor in wingloading too (In which the SPit far beats the 109) and the SPitfire is by far a better turner.

For turning only

1. Spitfire IX 25lbs
2 Spitfire XIV
3. 109K4 or P38L

Well firstly you totally disregard the 30% drag advantage of the Bf-109, as-well as the automatic LE slats.

And Blutarski's calculations show nothing other than the difference in power-loading, so whats your point ?

Also the P-38 isn't even a contender for the Top 10, it was a turkey in the turn compared to most single engined fighters - you can rightly compare it to the Bf-110, which has even got slats 'and' a lower wing-loading. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The point about Blutarskis calculations is that you were making such a big deal about the 109K4's power loading vs the SPitfire XIV making up for the SPitfires wingloading advantage, and he has shown that in fact it didnt always even have a powerloading advantage! Add this to wing loading, in which the Spitfire XIV has a very big advanatage, and you can see easily that the Spitfire XIV will be the better turner. You would have to be daft to dispute this.


You are talking turn rates only, yes>?

P38L had a very tight turn rate, so I have heard? Isnt it the best turner of the US fighters?, whatever you think about its other charactersitics. I agree that perhaps it wasnt the best fighter to fighter plane.

Also slats only make any sort of difference at very very slow stall speeds, and even then they cause drag when they pop out. Just the other day I heard a flight engineeer call Slats 'Aerodynamic Band aids'

EDIT: Sorry, I htought you were talking about turn rates only, I just re-read the title. I agree the P38 cant be the best turn fighter, its poor roll rate gives it a bad disadvantage. However if you are talking JUST turn, I have read that it had a really good turn rate.

(Maybe you guys can tell me your thoughts on this...I also had a hard time believing that it turned so well, but thats what I have read on this board and some sites/books)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

faustnik
12-01-2006, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
the P38 cant be the best turn fighter, its poor roll rate gives it a bad disadvantage. However if you are talking JUST turn, I have read that it had a really good turn rate.

(Maybe you guys can tell me your thoughts on this...I also had a hard time believing that it turned so well, but thats what I have read on this board and some sites/books)

The P-38 had the ability to use high power settings at low speeds because of its counter-rotating props. Single engined fighters would torque-roll when they tried this. So, a P-38 could hold a tight, high power, low-speed turn better than the competition, especially in the direction of the oponents torque rotation.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustJumboSig.jpg
VFS (http://www.virtualfightersquadrons.com/)
Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)
The Lockheed Syndicate (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)
Hawker Haven (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)
CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7)
Magnum PCSupport our support guys! (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

Bellator_1
12-01-2006, 05:15 PM
The slats work at all speeds Xiolablu3, they function by means of AoA and air-pressure - you'd have to go REALLY fast for them not to help your turn, so fast that if they deploy its a sign your wings have already dislotched themselves from the fuselage.

About the P-38, well consider the power-loading, wing-loading and ridiculously high drag from what equates to three main fuselage sections - there's simply no way this bird will turn with a single engined fighter, to think so is dreamwork.

Also here's a logical question for you; If the P-38 was able to out-turn a Zero as some say, then why shouldn't the lighter and slat equipped Bf-110 be capable of the same against a Spitfire ?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

faustnik
12-01-2006, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
If the P-38 was able to out-turn a Zero as some say, then why shouldn't the lighter and slat equipped Bf-110 be capable of the same against a Spitfire ?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

See my above post about counter-rotating props and torque effects.

(Not to say that the P-38 should out-turn a Zero, but, against a plane with similar wingloading, such as the Fw190, as speeds drop, the P-38 gains the adge. Pilot accounts describe the torque advatage being useful in turning encounters with Bf109s as well.)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustJumboSig.jpg
VFS (http://www.virtualfightersquadrons.com/)
Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)
The Lockheed Syndicate (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)
Hawker Haven (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)
CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7)
Magnum PCSupport our support guys! (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

Xiolablu3
12-01-2006, 05:23 PM
I thought that slats like the 109 had only popped out when the plane was travelling really slowly? How do they work at higher speeds then?


The Me110 was nowhere near as good a turner as the P38 because the P38 had all sorts of mechanisms to make it very good at turns manouvres right at stall speed.

In fact at the joint fighter conference the P38 did poorly in all aspects of the contest EXCEPT it came first in the category 'charateristics at 5kph above stall speed' Beating the Bearcat, Seafire III, Corsair, Mosquito etc.

I am not an advocate for the P38 (In fact I am not an advocate for any plane - I just want to find out the truth) but I gather it was a great turner.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Bellator_1
12-01-2006, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
If the P-38 was able to out-turn a Zero as some say, then why shouldn't the lighter and slat equipped Bf-110 be capable of the same against a Spitfire ?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

See my above post about counter-rotating props and torque effects. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats great, still aint enough to offset the huge disadvantage in lift to weight/drag. But sure, a P-38 pilot could try dropping his flaps in a turn-fight going slow and see what happens, it won't be pretty for the P-38 though.

Now don't forget however, the P-38 has center mounted and flat shooting guns which means its probably great at deflection shooting - acquiring an angle and quickly firing a deadly burst. (It sure doesn't lack a bunch!) This no doubt was a huge advantage if you started up behind your opponent, and I'm sure it cost allot of IJA pilots their lives.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Xiolablu3
12-01-2006, 05:30 PM
You place too much value in slats Bellator, they are not miracle workers. If a plane can do without them, its better to leave them off.



NN all its my bedtime.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Bellator_1
12-01-2006, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I thought that slats like the 109 had only popped out when the plane was travelling really slowly? How do they work at higher speeds then?


The Me110 was nowhere near as good a turner as the P38 because the P38 had all sorts of mechanisms to make it very good at turns manouvres right at stall speed.

In fact at the joint fighter conference the P38 did poorly in all aspects of the contest EXCEPT it came first in the category 'charateristics at 5kph above stall speed' Beating the Bearcat, Seafire III, Corsair, Mosquito etc.

I am not an advocate for the P38 (In fact I am not an advocate for any plane - I just want to find out the truth) but I gather it was a great turner.

Xiolablu3,

You'll be surprised at how low a stall speed a four engined bomber from the period has - still it aint worth a penny in the turn.

Never use stall and landing speed figures as a reference to how well a plane turns, its hugely decieving.

About the slats;

They work by means of AoA (Angle of Attack) and the air-pressure associated with this. You see as the AoA gradually increases the air-pressure on top of the wing gradually drops, and at a certain AoA/pressure the slats gradually start to deploy - quickly if you're making an immediate turn, slowly if you're increasing your turn little by little.

So at what speeds won't the slats deploy anymore ? The answer is the speed at which a turn with the slats deployed would damage the airframe - fortunately for the Bf-109 however it was about one of the most G resistant fighters of WWII.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
12-01-2006, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
The P-38 had the ability to use high power settings at low speeds because of its counter-rotating props. Single engined fighters would torque-roll when they tried this. So, a P-38 could hold a tight, high power, low-speed turn better than the competition, especially in the direction of the oponents torque rotation. Good Point!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Blutarski2004
12-01-2006, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
And Blutarski's calculations show nothing other than the difference in power-loading, so whats your point ?

..... Bellator, did you or did you not argue that the 10 pct power loading advantage of the 109K offset the wingloading advantage of the Spitfire XIV to produce a clear sustained turn advantage in favor of the 109K?

My calculations showed that there was a power loading advantage of about 15 pct in favor of the 109K when powered by the two very late engines (DB605DC and ASC). I further showed that the 109K with the other two engine installations (DB605DB and ASB) had NO POWER LOADING ADVANTAGE over the Spitfire XIV at the altitudes stipulated.


Bellator wrote:
-----------------
And wing-loading is by no means everything, drag is another factor hugely affecting sustained turnperformance - and the higher the AR the higher the L/D ratio, plus the smaller the a/c the less drag.

Spitfire XIV flat plate area using wing area as reference: 0.514 m^2

Bf-109K-4 flat plate area using wing area as reference: 0.370 m^2

As you can see the 109 has considerably less drag, about 30% less. Now add to the equation that the 109 has a 10.5 % power-loading advantage as-well.
---------------------
end Bellator quote



Blutarski wrote:
-----------------
Griffon/21lbs versus DB605ASB [C3 or B4+MW50] or DB605DB [C3 or B4+MW50]
@ Sea Level: approx 1.11 to 1 in favor of Griffon, divided by 1.15 = 1.04 to 1 in favor of 109K
@ 19700 ft : approx 1.16 to 1 in favor of Griffon, divided by 1.15 = 1.01 to 1 in favor of MkXIV

Griffon/21lbs versus DB605ASC [C3 or B4+MW50] or DB605DC [C3+MW50]
@ Sea Level: approx 1.02 to 1 in favor of Griffon, divided by 1.15 = 1.13 to 1 in favor of 109K
@ 16100 ft : approx 1.00 to 1 in favor of Griffon, divided by 1.15 = 1.15 to 1 in favor of 109K

The power loading advantage, at least at the altitudes compared, seems a little more complicated than first glance. Relationship trends can vary respectably due to differences in blower shift points / critical altitudes, but the 109K [DB605ASC, or DB605DC engine] actually shows a power loading advantage greater than 1.10 to 1. but the 109K [DB605ASB or DB605DB engine] generally has little or no power loading advantage. Since the 109K depends upon a power loading advantage for its sustained turn performance, the answer to the turning question with respect to the 109K versus the Spitfire Mk XIV is that each can outturn the other. It all depends upon which engine is powering the 109K, what boost the Griffon is runnng, and what altitude is under discussion.
-------------------
End Blutarski quote


Are you now arguing that power loading advantage is of no consequence and that the 109K can claim superior sustained turn performance over the Spitfire XIV on the basis of slats, aspect ratio, flat plate area, and the superior C/Lift which you allege?

I'd dearly love to see some supporting documentation from you on this C/Lift claim.

And help me out on this as well - does induced drag play any part in turning an aircraft? I thought it did, but you make no mention of it.




Also the P-38 isn't even a contender for the Top 10, it was a turkey in the turn compared to most single engined fighters - you can rightly compare it to the Bf-110, which has even got slats 'and' a lower wing-loading.

..... This statement, without a doubt, will forever stand as a testimony to the keenness of your aeronautical engineering acumen. Bravo!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

Buzzsaw-
12-01-2006, 06:08 PM
Salute

More of the usual disinformation from Kurfurst.

The best site for details regarding the use of 150 grade fuel by both the RAF and USAAF is Mike William's Spitfire Page. (which also includes a lot of information on other aircraft)

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spittest.html

Here are just a couple of excerpts from his site showing 150 Grade was approved in November '44 and in use by late December on the continent by 2nd TAF:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/2taf150_112044.gif

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/date-of-change.jpg

Ratsack
12-01-2006, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Also the P-38 isn't even a contender for the Top 10, it was a turkey in the turn compared to most single engined fighters - you can rightly compare it to the Bf-110, which has even got slats 'and' a lower wing-loading.

..... This statement, without a doubt, will forever stand as a testimony to the keenness of your aeronautical engineering acumen. Bravo! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen, again.

Ratsack

Bellator_1
12-01-2006, 06:13 PM
Blutarski,

You need to relax before you type, cause all I see is allot of accusations but no evidence.

I NEVER said power-loading wasn't important ! Did you get that or shall we discuss it further ? OK, lets move on then shall we ?

However fact is power-loading just like wing-loading isn't everything, drag needs to be considered as-well - and some factors affecting drag are Span-loading, AR and wetted area.

And btw, the Bf-109 K-4 only has a 10.5% advantage in Power-loading, not 15%.

Also what do you mean by "C/lift claim" exactly ??

And regarding induced drag, well why do you think I mention span-loading and AR all the time ?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As explained earlier; CD = Cd0 + Cdi.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

B0lloX
12-02-2006, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is simply not credible that the Bf109 was a better turner than the Spitfire, and there is no systemic recording of incidents in tests or battle that supports the proposition that it was.

...

In fact there are Bf-109 pilots who turned with Spitfires consistently and won their engagements.

...

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hello Crump,

Do you mean by this that there were 109 pilots who said they could turn tighter than the Spit? Or do you mean there were 109 pilots who won their 'turning fights' with Spits? I am asking which you mean because they are not quite the same thing.

If you mean that the 109s were turning tighter than the Spitfires, do you have some sources for that?

B0llox<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

MALIM PRAEDARI

Xiolablu3
12-02-2006, 04:05 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Blutarski,

You need to relax before you type, cause all I see is allot of accusations but no evidence.

.


Ermm, all I can see is a relaxed Blustarski showing his calculations and asking the very same questions I have had in my mind since the start of this thread.

First you claimed the 109K4 could make up for its much lower wing loading with powerloading.

Now you realise this actually doesnt work, you are clinging to other ideas.

It has been shown over and over that you are clutching at straws here. When one thing is proved wrong, you move onto something else, putting all your faith in that until thats proved wrong too...

Are you really suggesting that the Spitfire XIV was so much draggier than the 109K4 that it makes up for a much lower wing loading and similar power loading too? I cannot see it...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

fighter_966
12-02-2006, 04:30 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Blutarski,

You need to relax before you type, cause all I see is allot of accusations but no evidence.

.


Ermm, all I can see is a relaxed Blustarski showing his calculations and asking the very same questions I have had in my mind since the start of this thread.

First you claimed the 109K4 could make up for its much lower wing loading with powerloading.

Now you realise this actually doesnt work, you are clinging to other ideas.

It has been shown over and over that you are clutching at straws here. When one thing is proved wrong, you move onto something else, putting all your faith in that until thats proved wrong too...

Are you really suggesting that the Spitfire XIV was so much draggier than the 109K4 that it makes up for a much lower wing loading and similar power loading too? I cannot see it... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
My opinion also is that Blutarski writes well balanced text about case ..difference between
those two planes aint so big

Kettenhunde
12-02-2006, 05:14 AM
If you mean that the 109s were turning tighter than the Spitfires, do you have some sources for that?

Yes....
I believe Kurfurst has already posted some. The particular source I am refering to is in a book entitled, "Hurricane Messerschmitt".

Additionally there are literally hundreds of kill claims such as the one Kurfurst posted.


Or do you mean there were 109 pilots who won their 'turning fights' with Spits?

Not really sure I recognize the difference here or what you're trying to imply. If the dogfight entered a turning contest, the victor flew home. The loser was obviously outturned. I think it is pretty plain which aircraft was outturned or turned tighter in a turning fight.

It is also just as obvious that neither side had the ability to read the exact circumstances the enemy pilot faced.

All the best,

Crumpp<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Support the White 1 Foundation!

The White 1 Foundation was started to facilitate the museum quality conservation, display, study, restoration, and operation of the Focke Wulf FW 190 F8, known by its WWII call sign, White 1. In doing so, we are preserving parts of World history in a living memorial to all people who lost their lives in the war. We are preserving an integral part of great aerial battles which once filled the skies.

Of some, parts of this aircraft are the only traces which remain.

http://www.white1foundation.org/

Blutarski2004
12-02-2006, 06:08 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Blutarski,

You need to relax before you type, cause all I see is allot of accusations but no evidence.

I NEVER said power-loading wasn't important ! Did you get that or shall we discuss it further ? OK, lets move on then shall we ?

However fact is power-loading just like wing-loading isn't everything, drag needs to be considered as-well - and some factors affecting drag are Span-loading, AR and wetted area.

And btw, the Bf-109 K-4 only has a 10.5% advantage in Power-loading, not 15%.

Also what do you mean by "C/lift claim" exactly ??

And regarding induced drag, well why do you think I mention span-loading and AR all the time ?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As explained earlier; CD = Cd0 + Cdi.


..... I think you need to read my previous post more closely.

[a] You ignored the evidence I presented.

[b] You did not answer the question I asked.


Please explain in detail where my power loading calculations are in error. I used Daimler Benz and R/R engine output data and your weight values.

"C/Lift" = Co-efficient of Lift.

BTW, on the topic of induced drag, do you consider the difference in wing planforms between the Spitfire and Messerchmitt 109?

In light of your arguments re Spitfire XIV versus Me-109K, your comment regarding the turning abilities of the P-38 versus Me-110 was simply fascinating. The Me-110 has a lower wing loading - just like the Spitfire XIV. The P-38 has a slightly smaller wingspan, a better AR and better power loading - just like the 109K. The 110 has slats, but the P-38 has maneuvering flaps. Yet you imply that the turn performance of the P38 should be compared to that of the 110. Perhaps you could explain this all to us in more detail.

But, please, I'd REALLY like you to clear up this 109K power loading thing for me. I used to think that I was reasonably good at high school arithmetic, but you've caused me to doubt myself .....<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

fighter_966
12-02-2006, 07:13 AM
I saw interesting title when I was at books store about Buchon (spanish version of Me109)
It was in Aeroplane Magazine December 2006 number where at the frontpage there is a picture of Buchon and text Pocket Rocket http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gifWell I read the article and there was chapter where Buchon was tested against P-51 and Spitfire with Merlin engine (Sorry I dont recall the exact mark of Spit) but Both stang pilot and Spit pilot told That Buchon pilot should slow down because they coudnt catch Buchon when chaseing it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif...Test was done in England

Bellator_1
12-02-2006, 07:14 AM
Blutarski,

With all due respect, you're quite easily confused.

But OK, if you need me to completely clarify every aspect of this once again, then for you I'll do so.


[a] You ignored the evidence I presented.


Which is ??


[b] You did not answer the question I asked.


I apologize, I thought the answer was obvious to you, but I'll solve that below then.


Please explain in detail where my power loading calculations are in error. I used Daimler Benz and R/R engine output data and your weight values.

OK.

Bf-109K-4 power-loading using 3,362 kg and 1,975 HP as reference = 1.7 kg/HP

Spitfire XIV power-loading using 3,855 kg and 2,050 HP as reference = 1.88 kg/HP

This equals a difference of 10.58 % in favor of the Bf-109.


"C/Lift" = Co-efficient of Lift.


Well then you've got to explain what claim exactly I've made about about CL, cause I'm blank.


BTW, on the topic of induced drag, do you consider the difference in wing planforms between the Spitfire and Messerchmitt 109?


Absolutely ! Thats what the Oswald efficiency factor is there for. Its all incorporated into the equation.


In light of your arguments re Spitfire XIV versus Me-109K, your comment regarding the turning abilities of the P-38 versus Me-110 was simply fascinating. The Me-110 has a lower wing loading - just like the Spitfire XIV. The P-38 has a slightly smaller wingspan, a better AR and better power loading - just like the 109K. The 110 has slats, but the P-38 has maneuvering flaps. Yet you imply that the turn performance of the P38 should be compared to that of the 110. Perhaps you could explain this all to us in more detail.


The Bf-110 has got more wing area for about the same weight. (Depending on which P-38 we're talking about) - plus the Bf-110 has got slats. About the maneuver flaps, well its gonna cost you much energy to use them, so they're unsuitable for turn fights unless close to stall speed. But, the P-38 isn't nearly quite as draggy as the Bf-110 though and has got a better power-loading, therefore its a better turn fighter than the Bf-110, although not hugely so - hence the P-38 vs Oscar/Zero & Bf-110 vs Spitfire comparison, as even a Spitfire would find it nearly impossible to shoot down a Oscar/Zero in a good old fashion dogfight.

I hope this clears it up for you. If not, please feel free to ask away.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Kettenhunde
12-02-2006, 08:03 AM
"C/Lift" = Co-efficient of Lift.


Hi Blutarski,

While I have not poured through your math in detail, at first glance it looks fine to me.

I would say good job on the analysis.

However, just using CL as the basis for a performance analysis can lead you to some erroneous conclusions about the reality in the air.

Remember, at the top of the lift curve we see a rather large selection of angles that yield a very similar CL.

If you really need to see this principle driven home, then practice some short field approaches.

The advantage of HP automatic slats is more in the fact they increase the AoA a wing can use. About twice the angle on average when compared to a wing without similar LE devices.

The other advantage is the HP automatic slats will ensure that the outboard portion of the wing always stalls last. This means the aircraft has very gentle stall behaviors and is generally difficult to spin. It is like having training wheels on your wing.

So it makes little difference in the air if the radius is larger as long as the rate is similar. Why? If the aircraft with the larger radius can pull more AoA he will get gun solution.

The pilot getting a tail/underbelly full of cannon shot could probably care less that the airplane shooting him down is turning a larger radius.

I also doubt that either pilot would say, "He could not turn as tight a radius but was able to pull more angle..."

All the best,

Crumpp<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Support the White 1 Foundation!

The White 1 Foundation was started to facilitate the museum quality conservation, display, study, restoration, and operation of the Focke Wulf FW 190 F8, known by its WWII call sign, White 1. In doing so, we are preserving parts of World history in a living memorial to all people who lost their lives in the war. We are preserving an integral part of great aerial battles which once filled the skies.

Of some, parts of this aircraft are the only traces which remain.

http://www.white1foundation.org/

Pinker15
12-02-2006, 08:24 AM
Flat plate area has small impact on low speed turning because speed is low and drag from fuselage is low too. At low speed main drag is generated by wings and deppends mostly on AOA what plane uses to turn. In those conditions 109 wings with wing slats and Higher AOA to keep same turnrate as spit generates much more drag. Flat plate area drag is important for max. speed not for turning. In turn only wingloadning and power matter. For turn U need to keep speed and Spit does that better.

Kettenhunde
12-02-2006, 09:09 AM
In those conditions 109 wings with wing slats and Higher AOA to keep same turnrate as spit generates much more drag.


That is where the Pa has to be examined in detail. Saying flat plate area is not important is not really correct either. It is a factor but is not the dominate force in drag production in the low speed realm.

All the best,

Crumpp<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Support the White 1 Foundation!

The White 1 Foundation was started to facilitate the museum quality conservation, display, study, restoration, and operation of the Focke Wulf FW 190 F8, known by its WWII call sign, White 1. In doing so, we are preserving parts of World history in a living memorial to all people who lost their lives in the war. We are preserving an integral part of great aerial battles which once filled the skies.

Of some, parts of this aircraft are the only traces which remain.

http://www.white1foundation.org/

Bellator_1
12-02-2006, 09:47 AM
Not true Pinker15.

The 109's wings are of higher AR and the span-loading is lower = better L/D ratio, meaning less drag than the Spitfire in turns. And the slats themselves don't add any drag, the extra drag is from increasing the AoA, cause with an increase in lift comes an increase in drag - the tighter the turn, the more the drag.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

B0lloX
12-02-2006, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you mean that the 109s were turning tighter than the Spitfires, do you have some sources for that?

Yes....
I believe Kurfurst has already posted some. The particular source I am refering to is in a book entitled, "Hurricane Messerschmitt".

Additionally there are literally hundreds of kill claims such as the one Kurfurst posted.


Or do you mean there were 109 pilots who won their 'turning fights' with Spits?

Not really sure I recognize the difference here or what you're trying to imply. If the dogfight entered a turning contest, the victor flew home. The loser was obviously outturned. I think it is pretty plain which aircraft was outturned or turned tighter in a turning fight.

It is also just as obvious that neither side had the ability to read the exact circumstances the enemy pilot faced.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you're referring to Galland's kill claim, it doesn't address the issue. This is why I asked if you meant turning tighter or winning a turning fight, because I think there is a very clear distinction.

If we are talking about a turing fight, then that could include flat turns, rolls, spiralling climbs, nose-down turns and so on. If the two planes are close in performance, as the Spit and 109 were, then the fight is going to be decided by any number of factors, and turn rate and radius are only two. I have no problem with 109s winning turning fights with Spits, or with FW190s winning engagements that might be described as 'turning'.

If we are talking about turning performance, then we are talking specifically about turn rate and radius. This is a much narrower discussion, naturally, and it has less relevance to the outcome of a combat between otherwise closely matched adversaries. But it is also a question that has an objective answer: at altitude X, speed Y, the 109 model A has a turn rate of C. It's a number. Under the same conditions, Spitfire Q has a turn rate of D. One of them will be better.

This is why I asked my question as to whether you had some sources that suggested the 109 did have better turning performance (in the narrow sense I described above) than the Spitfire. I would think that those sources would be quite controversial.

On the other hand if you are saying that 109s won turning fights with Spits, I understand your point and I wouldn't regard it as controversial at all.

But there is a difference, if you see what I mean.

B0llox<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

MALIM PRAEDARI

Pinker15
12-02-2006, 11:19 AM
Talking things like that opened wing slats do not indicate drag and 109's wings (what are smaler than spitfire ones) produces more lift with less drag at the same time is total ignorance. Fact that 109 need to keep higher AOA than spitfire to reach same turnrate is clear proof of that wings of 109's produce less lift. 109s better dive performance suggest the same.

Kettenhunde
12-02-2006, 11:31 AM
If we are talking about a turing fight, then that could include flat turns, rolls, spiralling climbs, nose-down turns and so on. If the two planes are close in performance, as the Spit and 109 were, then the fight is going to be decided by any number of factors, and turn rate and radius are only two. I have no problem with 109s winning turning fights with Spits, or with FW190s winning engagements that might be described as 'turning'.

I am saying the same standard has to be applied to both sides. I have never seen one single combat report from any combatant that stated:

"In a sustained steady state turn....."

But I have heard anecdotal evidence from both sides that they routinely turned with their opponents and were the victor.

Here is an example:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1165083908_109flyingtheturn.jpg

You're assumption takes things beyond what any combat claim says from either side.

Please go back and re-read my post on the reality of maximum performance turning in a real aircraft.

All the best,

Crumpp<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Support the White 1 Foundation!

The White 1 Foundation was started to facilitate the museum quality conservation, display, study, restoration, and operation of the Focke Wulf FW 190 F8, known by its WWII call sign, White 1. In doing so, we are preserving parts of World history in a living memorial to all people who lost their lives in the war. We are preserving an integral part of great aerial battles which once filled the skies.

Of some, parts of this aircraft are the only traces which remain.

http://www.white1foundation.org/

Bellator_1
12-02-2006, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Pinker15:
Talking things like that opened wing slats do not indicate drag and 109's wings (what are smaler than spitfire ones) produces more lift with less drag at the same time is total ignorance. Fact that 109 need to keep higher AOA than spitfire to reach same turnrate is clear proof of that wings of 109's produce less lift. 109s better dive performance suggest the same.

Utter nonsense.

The 109 has a higher L/D ratio than the Spitfire, the span-loading and AR more than making sure of that. And as explained the slats DO NOT add any drag, the extra drag and lift is a biproduct of the extra AoA.

The effect of AR alone;

Low AR (Around 4):
http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/Performance/Graphics/LD1.GIF

High AR (Around 9):
http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/Performance/Graphics/LD2.GIF

Is this so hard to understand ??<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Kettenhunde
12-02-2006, 12:32 PM
It's a number.

By all means, please find it.

It will solve decades of debate among Engineers, Veterans, Historians, and now Gamers.

We can finally lay this puzzle to rest.

All the best,

Crumpp<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Support the White 1 Foundation!

The White 1 Foundation was started to facilitate the museum quality conservation, display, study, restoration, and operation of the Focke Wulf FW 190 F8, known by its WWII call sign, White 1. In doing so, we are preserving parts of World history in a living memorial to all people who lost their lives in the war. We are preserving an integral part of great aerial battles which once filled the skies.

Of some, parts of this aircraft are the only traces which remain.

http://www.white1foundation.org/

Kurfurst__
12-02-2006, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Thanks for pointing out Mike Williams report agian Kurfurst, I need to read it through a couple more times as I'm not clear on a couple issues.

- The 8th AF switched entirely (???) to 150 grade beginning late June 1944?

Yes, it's a bit complex to read all the sources, thankfully, the more reports we see the clearer the picture becomes and allows less space for simple wishful thinking - from either side of the fence. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I still recall the Golden Days when that graph showing the XIV and the Tempest and at their full glory performance at +25 lbs and +11, referenced so many times, all that was missing the accompaning report that noted that all engines except in the Mustang failed at those boost and the trial's purpose is V-1 hunting options. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As for the USAAF, I am a bit lazy with the details, but as my memory serves, more or less then entire 8th AF fighter force converted to 150 grade at around the date, mostly Mustangs by that time, but they used a more conservative 72" boost and not +25 lbs (which would be 81"). Plug fouling was a maintaine problem but they accepted that, tried to solve it with different fuel blend but that was less then satisfactory.

Quite ironically, 150 grade was a British invention, but was in fact used primarly by the USAAF.


- The RAF had switch slightly before then but, then reverted to 130 grade in September 1944.

RAF - no. I believe it effected only a couple of Squadrons engaged in V-1 hunting missions listed on that page, and only until the threat existed.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/backfire-2.jpg

The time period seems to be :

Pahase 1 : March - April 1944. The boost being service trialed in single aircraft at various storages, 2nd line operational training units and such. These are just preliminary tests, to find out the problems in use, find a fix etc. Problems like plug fouling, engine vibration, and backfires were encountered. The latter seems to be particularly hard to solve, if ever solved since despite re-occuring statements that 'now it's solved', later reports again note the same problem with backfires.

The 'Interim Report ? Service Trials of Merlin 66 Engines operating at + 25lbs. Boost Pressure.' really summerized it well up to the given date, I guess it's Neil Stirling's work, given that Neil was the one interested in 150 grade and generally far more on the fairer side with true interest in the subject.. I'd just read the report itself, and forget the wishful nonsense Mike writes in his articles.. he's still chasing his holy grail, those +25 lbs XIVs.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The report sums up the

1. Early in March, 1944 Service Trials with Spitfire IX L.F aircraft operating at + 25 lbs./sq.in boost and using 150 grade fuel were commenced at Milfield. Nine aircraft were involved, six being fitted with S.U. Fuel Injection Pumps and the remaining three with standard Stromberg carburetors. The trials were extended in the first week of April to include an aircraft with an S.U. Pump at the A.F.D.U. and twelve standard Spitfire IX L.F. aircraft at No. 17 A.P.C Southend. At this time, the only plugs cleared for operation at these high boost pressures were the Lodge RS.5/5 and the K.L.G. RC.5/3 types. It was found necessary to service these types of plugs at 15-hour intervals, because of lead fouling that was experienced. Previous experience with 130 grade fuel had proved that the Lodge R.S. 5/6 type of plug was less prone to lead fouling than the types mentioned above. A request was made that the R.S. 5/6 plug should be cleared for use at + 25 lbs. boost in an endeavor to improve on the servicing period of 15 hours. This approval was given by the Ministry of Aircraft Production on the 6th April 1944 and since that time the R.S. 5/6 type of plug has been used.

In early may 1944 two Spitfire IXLF Squadrons were converted to 150 grade fuel, appearantly for operational trials now.

2. In view of the success of the trials at Milfield, Wittering and Southend, the trials were extended on the 3rd may 1944, to include all aircraft in No.1 and 165 squadrons, at Predannack. During the first week of the trials at Predannack, four cases of backfire occurred. In all cases, it was found that the fuel pressures were too low and it was assumed that this was the reason for the backfires occurring. Fuel pressures in all aircraft were adjusted to 16lbs and it was hoped that this would effect a cure. Since that time four further cases of backfires have occurred and the cause of these remains obscure. The engines have been returned to Messrs. Rolls-Royce for investigation, but bench tests have been unable to reproduce the backfires or to provide a reason for them. Messrs. Rolls Royce now propose to install some of these engines in aircraft and endeavor to reproduce the backfires and establish the cause.

Sh*t hit the fan again just 2 days before this report was written (16 June) :

In the early days of the trials [referring to the service trials in March], there was one case of an engine developing violent vibration at high boost. This engine was returned to Messrs. Rolls-Royce, but they were unable to reproduce the symptoms and the engine was returned to service and has since run satisfactorily. During the week ending the 14th June 1944, one case of backfire occurred at Southend, which resulted in excessive damage to the intercooler and air intake cowling. The cause of this backfire has been established and was due to collapse of the boost capsule.

Curious thing about the reproduction of the report, that Attachement A and B is presented, Attachment C however, is missing... - 7. The modifications necessary, and the man-hours involved, to modify aircraft to use + 25 lbs boost are shown at Attachment ?C?.

Having some experience with that site, I have the suspicion that Attachment C has something not meant for the public eyes. But that's just a thought from the back of my head. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Basically May, June and July is spent trying to find out what the reason behind backfires...

End of July, they report they found the problem.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/backfiresfixed.jpg

The 12 August snipped is rather clear : it states the problem was found, and the engines being modified. Further it makes no doubt about the area of use of 150 grade fuel : '... and all engines which are capable using this type of fuel which are being used in anti-Diver operations being modified.'

Same doc also mentions the two operational trials IXLF Squadrons, just the same time as the backfire troubles were fixed are withdrawn from these operations, and replaced by XIVs.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/backfire-2.jpg

As the 18 September 1944 doc Crumpp posted shows, the fuel was withdrawn even from the previous anti-diver Squadrons after the V-1 launches ceased. The fuel's use was primarly in relation of the V-1 threat which was gone, and there was simply not enough fuel available to support the USAAF 8th FC operations AND get any reasonable amount to the continent. Therefore it was withdrawn from service use (for a time until sufficent supplies were built up to enable the 2nd TAF use it).

In the same month the XIV Squadrons one after the other were being tranferred to the 2nd TAF which finally brought them within range of the LW for their everyday tasks. But, as the 2nd TAF had no better than 100/130 grade at that time, they were again flying at +18 lbs boost (as they would in Britain after 18 Sept anyway), until the 2nd TAF were getting 150 grade as well.

In November the plans were laid down to mod the 2nd TAF IXs, XVIs and XIVs for 150 grade.
However this did not happen until the last months of war. At around the same time, there were again troubles with the Packard-Merlin (2)66 and 150 grade fuel reported (claimed 'fixed' - again).

We know from an account that an RCAF MkIX Sqn begun converting in February, and again it was not without troubles. We also know some 2000 tons of 150 grade was consumed in both January, in February 1945, and we also know they foreseen 15 000 tons consumption for 35 Squadrons of the 2nd TAF in November. This would suggest that 2000/15000= 13% of the plan was reached, ie. 4-5 Sqns converted. Or 50-60 operational fighters... The planned monthly consumption requirments of 15 000 tons were neared not until mid-April 1945(12 191 tons). It would seem reasonable to believe the older IXs were getting priority, and in fact the first February date of the RCAF Sqn supports this. The first notice of 'replacement XIVs with +21 boost' is from mid-March. As noted above, by April 1945 the number of RAF fighters using the 150 grade fuel started to reach a number that actually worth to mention. The fuel was withdrawn from the XVIs in April as it was so troublesome for the Merlin 266, so we speak about 30 Sqns, or about a maximum of about 360 RAF fighters (the vast majority Spit IX) using it, in the last month of the war.

The sad part is threefold.

1, The IX by that time needed 150 grade as badly as Cher her annual facelift. It didn't gave an advantage, all it did lessening the performance gap between the basically still 1943-ish IXLF and the 1944-45 Luftwaffe birds it faced, the regular A-9, D-9s, G-14, G-10s and K-4s. The +25 lbs Spit IX basically gave the RAF an equal plane to the methanol, low altitude 109Gs they were facing from the beginning of 1944, and it was still not an answer for the high alt machines - D-9, AS-Gustavs, G-10/K-4. The XIV is simply not availabe in numbers. If introduced in mid-1944 in numbers, it would be a timely performance boost and an answer to the Luftwaffe going 'alcholic' (ie. MW50). It's kinda like if the LW would have stuck with it's old (non MW-50 boosted) G-6s until 1945.

2, The calendar shows April 1945. Just too late.

3, And that the extra boost was still not without problems (see the RCAF Squadron, a July 1945 Mk21 test with Griffon still talk of engine failures, 1946 XIV tests i]in peacetime conditions without the high boost use tell Griffon engines regularly fail after 40 hours etc).



- The 8th AF continued to operate with 150 grade?

Yup, I believe so they did almost until the end of the war, but at ~71" as noted. They saw no real need even for that, it was a modest output boost that was realized below the usual escort mission altitude profiles anyway.

15th AF, 9th AF on the other hand - no.


- The 2nd TAF and 9th AF operated on 130 grade on the continent, until a few 2nd TAF units started converting to 150 grade in 1945?

More or less in my read, see above.

My opinion is that, strictly for the RAF, given the 'campaign' nature of 150 grade used clearly in connection to V-1 raids, ie. a limited numbers of Squadrons employing it for a limited time period for a limited operational task, we cannot really speak about the RAF fighters making use of the extra boost in day-to-day fighter vs fighter missions in meaningful numbers until about March-April 1945.

Unless of course you want to see the brigter side of the picture, only the best part and try to concentrate so much on it to forget the big picture. That will lead to two dozen 'operational' +25lbs IXLFs and two dozen 'operational' Me 262s fighting the big, decisive air battles of mid-44 against each other. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



Sorry, I'm getting off topic, sort of. Fuel can restrict power levels, which effect power loading which effect turn rate, right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Yep. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif But as improved fuel will actually improve your power levels via increased boost, it will be only realised below the rated alt. And as such, it will only improve your sustained turn time below the rated altitude.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Kurfurst__
12-02-2006, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Blutarski wrote:
-----------------
Griffon/21lbs versus DB605ASB [C3 or B4+MW50] or DB605DB [C3 or B4+MW50]
@ Sea Level: approx 1.11 to 1 in favor of Griffon, divided by 1.15 = 1.04 to 1 in favor of 109K
@ 19700 ft : approx 1.16 to 1 in favor of Griffon, divided by 1.15 = 1.01 to 1 in favor of MkXIV

Griffon/21lbs versus DB605ASC [C3 or B4+MW50] or DB605DC [C3+MW50]
@ Sea Level: approx 1.02 to 1 in favor of Griffon, divided by 1.15 = 1.13 to 1 in favor of 109K
@ 16100 ft : approx 1.00 to 1 in favor of Griffon, divided by 1.15 = 1.15 to 1 in favor of 109K

The power loading advantage, at least at the altitudes compared, seems a little more complicated than first glance. Relationship trends can vary respectably due to differences in blower shift points / critical altitudes, but the 109K [DB605ASC, or DB605DC engine] actually shows a power loading advantage greater than 1.10 to 1. but the 109K [DB605ASB or DB605DB engine] generally has little or no power loading advantage.

Hmm, there's one little thing I don't like, namely the fact that you list the XIV at only the highest approved power rating, and then compare it to both low and high powers used on the 109K. It should be more balanced to compare low vs low, high vs high (+18 vs 1.8ata, +21 vs 1.98ata), especially as the operational introduction date of the high boost for these planes was very much the same - around mid-March 1945, before which they flew their operational sorties at +18 and 1.8ata respectively.



Since the 109K depends upon a power loading advantage for its sustained turn performance, the answer to the turning question with respect to the 109K versus the Spitfire Mk XIV is that each can outturn the other. It all depends upon which engine is powering the 109K, what boost the Griffon is runnng, and what altitude is under discussion.

Fair comment - but, I wonder, in your Cl comparisons it seems you did not take into account actual designs, just airfoils ('all things equal'). I don't have deep aerodynamic studies or knowladge, but I'd believe that the large section of the wings effected by the washout on the Spit would tend to reduce lift, wouldn't it? (given the fact that due to washout, a large section of the wing actually has lower AoA then the rest).<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

JtD
12-02-2006, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
The 109 has a higher L/D ratio than the Spitfire, the span-loading and AR more than making sure of that.

Good one.

Bellator_1
12-02-2006, 02:29 PM
Care to elaborate on that JtD ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Kurfurst__
12-02-2006, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by B0lloX:
If we are talking about turning performance, then we are talking specifically about turn rate and radius. This is a much narrower discussion, naturally, and it has less relevance to the outcome of a combat between otherwise closely matched adversaries. But it is also a question that has an objective answer: at altitude X, speed Y, the 109 model A has a turn rate of C. It's a number. Under the same conditions, Spitfire Q has a turn rate of D. One of them will be better.

This is why I asked my question as to whether you had some sources that suggested the 109 did have better turning performance (in the narrow sense I described above) than the Spitfire. I would think that those sources would be quite controversial.



As for the 109E go, there are two German sources availabe, both can be considered as reliable.

The first one gives a sustained turn for the 109E at 990 PS (ie. normal 5-min WEP of DB601A ) at SL as follows :

Turn radius = 203 meter
Turn time = 18.92 seconds

The above from a Messerschmitt technical report from August 1940.

The second is titled 'Construction Details of the Messerschmitt 109E'. It appears to be parts of a manual (the same papers I've seen issued for the Yugoslavian export version, but in cyrillic).

In Chapter V, 'Performance Sheets', as 'smallest turn radiuses' (engste Kurvenradien), the following is given.

Without use of flaps :
at 0 meter alt = 170 meter
at 6000 m alt. = 320 meter

With use of flaps :
at 0 meter alt = 125 meter
at 6000 m alt. = 230 meter


Now all you have to find is compatible Spitfire I data, and that will be the end of it I guess.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Blutarski2004
12-02-2006, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
While I have not poured through your math in detail, at first glance it looks fine to me.
I would say good job on the analysis. [QUOTE]

..... Thanks for saying so. There is no agenda on my part except the identification, if at all possible, of some sort of objective historical reality.



[QUOTE] However, just using CL as the basis for a performance analysis can lead you to some erroneous conclusions about the reality in the air.

..... My posts have actually had nothing at all to do with co-efficients of lift, Lift/Drag ratios, or aspect ratios, or slats, or airfoils, or any lift calculations at all. IMO, without precise c/l, C/l, L/D data on each wing (Spitfire and Me-109) as a complete aerodyamic structural unit in hand, such efforts are not useful. Lacking such information, I simply do not see how any sort of doctrinaire pronouncement can possibly be made about the superiority of one wing structure over another.

My position has addressed strictly the question of comparative power loadings of the two a/c. Certain claims were made, in connection with this SpitXIV/109K turning performance issue, that the 109K had 10 percent power loading advantage over the SpitXIV. In turn, it was argued that this 10 pct advantage served to counterbalance the better wingloading enjoyed by the Spitfire, ... which in turn enabled the 109K to claim better sustained turn performance by virtue of superior aspect ratio, superior co-efficient of lift values, slats, etc.

My investigation into the subject led me to discover that the claimed 109K power loading advantage was not truly representative of the overall situtaion. By the Daimler-Benz values of max horsepower @ SL and at max hp output at altitude, a different picture emerged. In short, it was that the 109K fitted with DB605DB & DB605ASB engines had no power loading advantage (at least at the altitudes analyzed) over the 21-lb Spitfire XIV, but that when fitted with the DB605DC or DR605ASC engines there wa a power loading superiority, not of 10 pct, but of 18 percent at the stated altitudes.

It was, and still is, that simple on my side of this.

The conclusion that I drew from this small analysis was that the blanket claim for 109K sustained turning superiority over the Spitfire XIV was not true across the board. If a 109K power loading advantage was indeed necessary to offset better SpitXIV wing loading, as asserted by the claimant, then a 109K fitted with either B-series engine could not have better turn performance than the 21-lb SpitXIV.




The advantage of HP automatic slats is more in the fact they increase the AoA a wing can use. About twice the angle on average when compared to a wing without similar LE devices.

The other advantage is the HP automatic slats will ensure that the outboard portion of the wing always stalls last. This means the aircraft has very gentle stall behaviors and is generally difficult to spin. It is like having training wheels on your wing.

..... You will get no argument from me over the value of LE slats in extending the effective AoA range of wing. Nor would I dispute the gentle stall characteristics of the 109, (although I'm not in a position to judge to what degree LE slats contributed to that gentleness.




So it makes little difference in the air if the radius is larger as long as the rate is similar. Why? If the aircraft with the larger radius can pull more AoA he will get gun solution.

..... Classic von Richtofen vs Hawker. But issues of turn radii, entry roll rates, turn rates, relative speeds in turns, etc. can get VERY complicated - especially so when varying the start positions of the opposing a/c. I could, for example, also visualize the reverse case.



The pilot getting a tail/underbelly full of cannon shot could probably care less that the airplane shooting him down is turning a larger radius.

I also doubt that either pilot would say, "He could not turn as tight a radius but was able to pull more angle..."


..... I quite agree.

Blutarski2004
12-02-2006, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Blutarski,

With all due respect, you're quite easily confused.


..... Yes, but it is the correspondent, not the topic.





But OK, if you need me to completely clarify every aspect of this once again, then for you I'll do so.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">[a] You ignored the evidence I presented.


Which is ??
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Pretending stupidity does not become you, Bellator. And you have clarified nothing.




<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">[b] You did not answer the question I asked.


I apologize, I thought the answer was obvious to you, but I'll solve that below then.


Please explain in detail where my power loading calculations are in error. I used Daimler Benz and R/R engine output data and your weight values.

OK.

Bf-109K-4 power-loading using 3,362 kg and 1,975 HP as reference = 1.7 kg/HP
Spitfire XIV power-loading using 3,855 kg and 2,050 HP as reference = 1.88 kg/HP

This equals a difference of 10.58 % in favor of the Bf-109.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... You again fail or refuse to answer my question.




<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"C/Lift" = Co-efficient of Lift.


Well then you've got to explain what claim exactly I've made about about CL, cause I'm blank.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... You have represented a 109K superiority in C/lift value over that of the SpitXIV.




<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">BTW, on the topic of induced drag, do you consider the difference in wing planforms between the Spitfire and Messerchmitt 109?


Absolutely ! Thats what the Oswald efficiency factor is there for. Its all incorporated into the equation.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... I'm relieved.




<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In light of your arguments re Spitfire XIV versus Me-109K, your comment regarding the turning abilities of the P-38 versus Me-110 was simply fascinating. The Me-110 has a lower wing loading - just like the Spitfire XIV. The P-38 has a slightly smaller wingspan, a better AR and better power loading - just like the 109K. The 110 has slats, but the P-38 has maneuvering flaps. Yet you imply that the turn performance of the P38 should be compared to that of the 110. Perhaps you could explain this all to us in more detail.


The Bf-110 has got more wing area for about the same weight. (Depending on which P-38 we're talking about) - plus the Bf-110 has got slats. About the maneuver flaps, well its gonna cost you much energy to use them, so they're unsuitable for turn fights unless close to stall speed. But, the P-38 isn't nearly quite as draggy as the Bf-110 though and has got a better power-loading, therefore its a better turn fighter than the Bf-110, although not hugely so - hence the P-38 vs Oscar/Zero & Bf-110 vs Spitfire comparison, as even a Spitfire would find it nearly impossible to shoot down a Oscar/Zero in a good old fashion dogfight.

I hope this clears it up for you. If not, please feel free to ask away. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Excellent. So we have migrated from:

Bellator quote
--------------
Also the P-38 isn't even a contender for the Top 10, it was a turkey in the turn compared to most single engined fighters - you can rightly compare it to the Bf-110, which has even got slats 'and' a lower wing-loading.
----------
End quote

to ...

Bellator quote
--------------
...the P-38 isn't nearly quite as draggy as the Bf-110 though and has got a better power-loading, therefore its a better turn fighter than the Bf-110, although not hugely so...
----------
End quote

I suppose we can call that progress of some sort.

Bellator_1
12-02-2006, 06:28 PM
Oh please Blutarski, spare me that stuck up type attitude !

What evidence exactly have you presented ?? If you're refering to your NACA 2213 and NACA 2R1 airfoil comparison then I can tell you its useless. First of all you don't provide the thickness ratio of the NACA 2R1 airfoil, secondly there is no speak of AR - without any of this those Cl values are no more than worthless.

Now about CL, well it just so happens that the higher the thickness ratio the higher the CL, and the Bf-109 has a considerably higher average wing thickness ratio than the Spitfire. And AR besides increasing the L/D ratio also has the effect of increasing CLmax as-well btw.

And finally about the P-38, well note what I said: "Also the P-38 isn't even a contender for the Top 10, it was a turkey in the turn compared to most single engined fighters "

Never claimed the Bf-110 was better, only that it was more comparable to the P-38 than most single engined fighters.

So how about cutting this nitpicking game now ? Its tiring and childish.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Blutarski2004
12-02-2006, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Blutarski wrote:
-----------------
Griffon/21lbs versus DB605ASB [C3 or B4+MW50] or DB605DB [C3 or B4+MW50]
@ Sea Level: approx 1.11 to 1 in favor of Griffon, divided by 1.15 = 1.04 to 1 in favor of 109K
@ 19700 ft : approx 1.16 to 1 in favor of Griffon, divided by 1.15 = 1.01 to 1 in favor of MkXIV

Griffon/21lbs versus DB605ASC [C3 or B4+MW50] or DB605DC [C3+MW50]
@ Sea Level: approx 1.02 to 1 in favor of Griffon, divided by 1.15 = 1.13 to 1 in favor of 109K
@ 16100 ft : approx 1.00 to 1 in favor of Griffon, divided by 1.15 = 1.15 to 1 in favor of 109K

The power loading advantage, at least at the altitudes compared, seems a little more complicated than first glance. Relationship trends can vary respectably due to differences in blower shift points / critical altitudes, but the 109K [DB605ASC, or DB605DC engine] actually shows a power loading advantage greater than 1.10 to 1. but the 109K [DB605ASB or DB605DB engine] generally has little or no power loading advantage.

Hmm, there's one little thing I don't like, namely the fact that you list the XIV at only the highest approved power rating, and then compare it to both low and high powers used on the 109K. It should be more balanced to compare low vs low, high vs high (+18 vs 1.8ata, +21 vs 1.98ata), especially as the operational introduction date of the high boost for these planes was very much the same - around mid-March 1945, before which they flew their operational sorties at +18 and 1.8ata respectively. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Fair comment, but my focus was upon that particular comparison. I have not looked into combat introduction dates for the XIV @ +21 lbs boost, so cannot discuss that point. I'm having a bit of trouble getting reliably confirmed hp output figures for the Griffon @ +18 lbs.

As far as actual 1.98ata combat use (beyond limited war end field testing) is concerned, I remain unconvinced by the evidence so far submitted.



Fair comment - but, I wonder, in your Cl comparisons it seems you did not take into account actual designs, just airfoils ('all things equal'). I don't have deep aerodynamic studies or knowladge, but I'd believe that the large section of the wings effected by the washout on the Spit would tend to reduce lift, wouldn't it? (given the fact that due to washout, a large section of the wing actually has lower AoA then the rest).

..... I never entered into wing lift calculations at all. My post was concerned strictly with the power loading question as it related to the sustained turn performance argument at hand. It seems both fruitless and unrealistic to make any such claims without actual comparative data in hand. Aeronautics is too complicated a subject about which to toss around offhanded and unsubstantiated claims.

Blutarski2004
12-02-2006, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Oh please Blutarski, spare me that stuck up type attitude !

..... I do admit to an annoying habit of expecting people to support their pronouncements with something more substantial than repetition - especially when they represent them as divine truth. It also irritates me when any who dispute such said "truths" are blithely dismissed as nothing more than ignorant tossers. Perhaps you mistake that for a "stuck-up attitude".



What evidence exactly have you presented ?? If you're refering to your NACA 2213 and NACA 2R1 airfoil comparison then I can tell you its useless. First of all you don't provide the thickness ratio of the NACA 2R1 airfoil, secondly there is no speak of AR - without any of this those Cl values are no more than worthless.

..... Perhaps you missed this in the post to which you refer:

Byron quote
-----------
This is strictly a suggestive and unscientific exercise. Some of the values may be off slightly due to interpolation and rounding, but I do not see a really DRAMATIC difference in values here. Do any of our aero engineers care to elucidate? How important is a 0.5 difference in L/D ratio? Or a 0.05 difference in C/Lift?
----------
End quote

I thought I was reasonably clear about my post being "strictly a suggestive and unscientific exercise".

You actually replied to the post in question, as follows:

Bellator quote
--------------
Blutarski,

The above is assuming the exact same AR for both a/c, however we know the 109's wing has a higher AR wing = a higher L/D ratio. The 109 also has a higher tip thickness ratio, increasing the critical AoA and providing more lift.

Plus what is the thickness ratio to which the NACA 2R1 data refers ?? The reason I'm asking is because the reults are strikingly similar to those achieved with a 12% NACA 2R1 airfoil - except the L/D doesn't take a dive at 22 deg as your illustration shows.
--------
End quote

and I responded:

Byron quote
-----------
My language was less than completely clear. I wasn't trying to do an overall competitive analysis. This was a strictly unscientific look into airfoil relationships. A/R was indeed left unspecified. The post should have stated "other factors being equal".
---------
End quote

..... You must have also missed the part where I stated that "I wasn't trying to do an overall competitive analysis. This was a strictly unscientific look into airfoil relationships."



Now about CL, well it just so happens that the higher the thickness ratio the higher the CL, and the Bf-109 has a considerably higher average wing thickness ratio than the Spitfire. And AR besides increasing the L/D ratio also has the effect of increasing CLmax as-well btw.

..... That's all fine and well. But they are nothing more than the broadest of generalities. Can you claim a proper understanding as to what degree one factor affects another under what particular flight conditions? Do you have actual and comparative Spitfire and Me-109 lift and drag data in your possession to substantiate your claims? If so, I, and no doubt most other forum members, would be ecstatic to see it.



And finally about the P-38, well note what I said: "Also the P-38 isn't even a contender for the Top 10, it was a turkey in the turn compared to most single engined fighters "

Never claimed the Bf-110 was better, only that it was more comparable to the P-38 than most single engined fighters.

..... Here is the balance of the statement from which you excerpt the above:

Bellator quote
--------------
- you can rightly compare it to the Bf-110, which has even got slats 'and' a lower wing-loading.
---------
End quote

..... You apparently miss the sly implication of your words. Consider being more precise in your language.



So how about cutting this nitpicking game now ? Its tiring and childish.

..... This all may be tiring for you, but it's not a game. Nor is it childish. It's a matter of expecting some degree of intellectual rigor on your part. If you support the claims you make with some sort of real proof, then I have no problem.

Let's put it a different way. Kurfurst and I have enjoyed a marvellously long and often disputatious relationship here at the Ubizoo. I don't agree with many positions that Kurfurst holds. I will quite often disagree or argue with him about his interpretations of data or language, but I respect him for at least putting some proof on the table to back up his arguments.

That's the difference, Bellator. That's why your arrogant posts and attitude irritate me.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

Kurfurst__
12-03-2006, 05:54 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... Fair comment, but my focus was upon that particular comparison. I have not looked into combat introduction dates for the XIV @ +21 lbs boost, so cannot discuss that point. I'm having a bit of trouble getting reliably confirmed hp output figures for the Griffon @ +18 lbs.

Indeed it's a bit troublesome - available DB figures are for static power, available Griffon figures are for rammed power, for example.


As far as actual 1.98ata combat use (beyond limited war end field testing) is concerned, I remain unconvinced by the evidence so far submitted.

Hmm, the way I see it, the evidence overall is pretty similiar for +21/1.98ata.

- we have orders issued for it's use (issued end November 1944 for 2nd TAF +21 and mid March 1945 for 1.98ata of the LwKdo West)

- we have documented evidence of small scale/non operational use (a couple of Squadrons of RAF XIVS for a few months for V-1 hunting, and the LW Fighter Wing II/JG 11 in early 1945 for operational testing, plus possible individual Aufklärer.)

- we have evidence in both cases for the fuel being available (150 octane in the 2nd TAF, C3 fuel in LWKdo West reported April 1945)

There's no direct evidence for the use of either in 1945, but I'd say the indirect evidence is good enough to make it very likely. However, either we apply the same rules both ways or not. Either we accept a very good amount of indirect evidence as proof of use for both sides, without any paper saying it's actually used in 1945, or we don't accept for either side.




..... I never entered into wing lift calculations at all. My post was concerned strictly with the power loading question as it related to the sustained turn performance argument at hand. It seems both fruitless and unrealistic to make any such claims without actual comparative data in hand. Aeronautics is too complicated a subject about which to toss around offhanded and unsubstantiated claims.

Pretty much agree. It's a pity we don't have sustained turn test for late war planes, but perhaps it is possible to extrapolate Bf 109G-2 tested results to the later 109s, taking note of extra weight and power, and leaving all other things equal, for the sake of simplicity...? At least it would provide us with some 'guesswork' for orientation.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Xiolablu3
12-03-2006, 06:19 AM
Wouldnt a proper match with the 1945 late 109K4 C3 be the Spitfire 21 which was in production before the wars end, but never saw combat?

Had Britain been in the same situation Germany was in in 1945, its would throw everything up in a last desperate attempt, as with the 109K4 C3.

Number 91 Squadron took delivery of Spitfire XXI's in January 1945. No doubt if they were about to be overun by another country they would be put straight into combat, as was (maybe) the desperate case with the last 109K4's at 1.98ATA.

This would mean that the SPitfire XXI and the 109K4 C3 would be contemporary enemies.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Kurfurst__
12-03-2006, 06:41 AM
Mk 21, why not.... plus 700 lbs and a pretty much inferior plane to the precedessor XIV is fine with me if it's for you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BTW, repeating the Mike Williams mantra about 1.98ata just makes you look silly as him when he re-writes his article for the umphteenth time with an ever new version :

- Quoting 'noted authority on the Bf 109, Olivier Lefebrve' says 1.98ata was introduced in March 1945, with an 1.98ata graph
drawn with a thin yellow line on a white background
- But, and here's the but, 1.98ata was just desperate pissing into the wind
- The above quote suddenly disappears from the article, as does the graph. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
- 1.98ata was not used because at least according to him, there was no C-3 around.
- 1.98ata was not even cleared
- 1.98ata was cleared, but it was 'only proposed' (ie. his description of written orders for the 4 Gruppen increasing boost
to 1.98ata)and maybe, just maybe it was even used

I wonder what the next version will be. Yeah, the 109K didn't even exists, and so 1.98ata could not possibly ever exist either ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The only one looking desperate here is your buddy Mike. As for 1.98ata goes, the documentation is rather clear, DB did tests and were positive, but Rechlins test were negative in January and they decided for further testing. Feburary 1945 ocs show the spark plug problem was solved, and something must happened between February and March as in March 19 1945 the boost was cleared for use for 4 Luftwaffe fighter wings, which are documented to possess the neccesary fuel in April 1945.

The rest can be pretty much described self-dillusion of a few desperate partisans who can't get out of the woods.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

JtD
12-03-2006, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Care to elaborate on that JtD ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

No, not really. But you could amuse me be exactly stating what span loading of which Spitfire with what wing you are comparing with what span loading of which 109. Oh, and which loadout you a referring to.

And you also don't think that the lower lift coefficient/drag coefficient ratio in the ranges where sustained turns take place of the Spitfire caused by it's lower wing loading has any effect, do you? It's all about the 2-3% gain from the better aspect ratio, right?

Xiolablu3
12-03-2006, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Mk 21, why not.... plus 700 lbs and a pretty much inferior plane to the precedessor XIV is fine with me if it's for you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BTW, repeating the Mike Williams mantra about 1.98ata just makes you look silly as him when he re-writes his article for the umphteenth time with an ever new version :

- Quoting 'noted authority on the Bf 109, Olivier Lefebrve' says 1.98ata was introduced in March 1945, with an 1.98ata graph
drawn with a thin yellow line on a white background
- But, and here's the but, 1.98ata was just desperate pissing into the wind
- The above quote suddenly disappears from the article, as does the graph. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
- 1.98ata was not used because at least according to him, there was no C-3 around.
- 1.98ata was not even cleared
- 1.98ata was cleared, but it was 'only proposed' (ie. his description of written orders for the 4 Gruppen increasing boost
to 1.98ata)and maybe, just maybe it was even used

I wonder what the next version will be. Yeah, the 109K didn't even exists, and so 1.98ata could not possibly ever exist either ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The only one looking desperate here is your buddy Mike. As for 1.98ata goes, the documentation is rather clear, DB did tests and were positive, but Rechlins test were negative in January and they decided for further testing. Feburary 1945 ocs show the spark plug problem was solved, and something must happened between February and March as in March 19 1945 the boost was cleared for use for 4 Luftwaffe fighter wings, which are documented to possess the neccesary fuel in April 1945.

The rest can be pretty much described self-dillusion of a few desperate partisans who can't get out of the woods.


Is this directed at me?!!? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif


Whether the MXXI is better or worse than the mkXIV does not even matter, if that was the contemporary plane then use it. You agenda seems very obvious when you say thigs like

'Well it wasnt as good, so yeah lets have it!' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif


If the above post was directed at me, then just a few things from an impartial observer...


You say Mike Williams looks 'stupid' for updating his site when he finds new evidence? Errm forgive me but that sounds like a historion.


I hardly ever visit the SpitfirePerformance site, but it is great to look around once in a while if you need to find info on stuff from official docs. I browse it now and again when I need to find some info or pilot/veteran quotes, thats all, I am no mega historian and I have no agenda other than to pick up on obvious BS.

I have no idea on SpitPerformance stance on 109K4 C3 use, I am guessing from your tone that he thinks it was barely used at all.

From a balanced view you have to admit that in March 1945 when most German fighters where destroyed on the ground, there really cant have been more than a few dozen at the most flying around if any at that time in the war. Even then they would be target pracitice for the thousands of Allied planes in the air.

You really could listen to a saying Pot-Kettle-Black when talking about bias http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


If the above post wasnt directed at me, then I apologise.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Kurfurst__
12-03-2006, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Is this directed at me?!!? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif


Nope, just generally at people who close eyes on evidence.



Whether the MXXI is better or worse than the mkXIV does not even matter, if that was the contemporary plane then use it. You agenda seems very obvious when you say thigs like

'Well it wasnt as good, so yeah lets have it!' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I merely noted that if anything, that the Mk 21 you suggested, will show worse turning results than the Mk14.


You say Mike Williams looks 'stupid' for updating his site when he finds new evidence? Errm forgive me but that sounds like a historion.

The fact that he removes sources, like the one from butch2k he previously praised for authority, basically cherry picking qoutes when it disproves his agenda tells me otherwise. The fact that he selectively quotes from documents tells me otherwise. The fact that he even falsified translations from documents tells me otherwise.



From a balanced view you have to admit that in March 1945 when most German fighters where destroyed on the ground, there really cant have been more than a few dozen at the most flying around if any at that time in the war. Even then they would be target pracitice for the thousands of Allied planes in the air.

On April 9 the Luftwaffe still had 1310 servicable fighters ready, and I won't bother count the unservicable ones, reserved now. See Alfred Price.

On April 9, counting the four Jagdgruppen (fighter wings) only that were cleared for 1.98ata on 19 March 1945, had :

unit / on hand / servicable

I./JG 27 29 13
III./JG 27 19 15
III./JG 53 40 24
IV./JG 53 54 27
--------------------------
Total 142 79

(That's pretty much the same as the total number of XIVs in the entire RAF, btw.)

JG 27 and JG 53 were sub-ordinated to Luftwaffenkommando West at the time.

On April 22 1945 Luftwaffenkommando West reported the following fuel stocks on airfields in Bavaria:

B-4 = 350,000 liters
C-3 = 284,000 liters
J-2 = 1,897,000 liters

That's two weeks before the end of the war. There's C-3 fuel, on the airfields of the units that were cleared a month before for the 1.98ata boost that requires C-3 fuel.

In March 1945, new production Bf 109s totalled :

107 G-8s
383 G-10s (of all kind)
58 G-14s (of all kind)
168 K-4s
Total 716 fighters.


Yup, conditions were rough, extremely tough with myriad of problems.
Were they overwhelmed by the sheer number of Soviet and American aircraft in the air - yep.
Did fighting, combat flying cease? Nope. If you read any accounts, those units kept fighting until the very last days.

Check the USAAF's loss records for 1945, for example.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Blutarski2004
12-03-2006, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... Fair comment, but my focus was upon that particular comparison. I have not looked into combat introduction dates for the XIV @ +21 lbs boost, so cannot discuss that point. I'm having a bit of trouble getting reliably confirmed hp output figures for the Griffon @ +18 lbs.

Indeed it's a bit troublesome - available DB figures are for static power, available Griffon figures are for rammed power, for example. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Comparing apples to apples is important.




Hmm, the way I see it, the evidence overall is pretty similiar for +21/1.98ata.

..... Can't comment either way. Insufficient data, as Mr Spock would say. Perhaps the answer is to do a spedial "Fighters of the Gotterdaemmerung" module, where all such very late models can play. One step short of the "1946" module logic, if you take my meaning.



..... It's a pity we don't have sustained turn test for late war planes, but perhaps it is possible to extrapolate Bf 109G-2 tested results to the later 109s, taking note of extra weight and power, and leaving all other things equal, for the sake of simplicity...? At least it would provide us with some 'guesswork' for orientation.

..... I think that such an exercise might provide a reasonable result.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

Bellator_1
12-03-2006, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Care to elaborate on that JtD ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

No, not really. But you could amuse me be exactly stating what span loading of which Spitfire with what wing you are comparing with what span loading of which 109. Oh, and which loadout you a referring to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read the thread JtD, then you'll find out which 109 and Spit I'm comparing.

Just a hint:
Bf-109 = 338 kg/m.
Spitfire = 343 kg/m.


And you also don't think that the lower lift coefficient/drag coefficient ratio in the ranges where sustained turns take place of the Spitfire caused by it's lower wing loading has any effect, do you? It's all about the 2-3% gain from the better aspect ratio, right?

Forget wing-loading when talking induced drag at any AoA, the only things that matter here is Span-loading and AR. (Plus wetted area ofcourse)

And btw, the advantage in AR is a little more than just 2-3%, try with 8.5%.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Xiolablu3
12-03-2006, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


On April 9 the Luftwaffe still had 1310 servicable fighters ready, and I won't bother count the unservicable ones, reserved now. See Alfred Price.

.


If this is true then I apologise for what I wrote above.

I thought they would have very few fighters left at this time, being after Boddenplatte, which I read was the 'Last throw of the dice for the Luftwaffe'

As for the C3 thing, I really know nothing about it mate, but I will now pay attention to anything I read about it, whereas I would have skimmed over it before, not knowing what it meant. (Good thing about these discusions, I learn http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

Did any other German planes except the 109K4 C3 use Cs fuel?

I do believe however that there were at least some Spitfire XIV's in service from mid 1944. This is not disputed. I am guessing they were mostly 18lbs boost. Do you guys know when 21lbs boost was used? I read that the first sparklugs caused fowling but this was rectified quite quickly, and some existing plugs were good enough to use in the meantime.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Kurfurst__
12-03-2006, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


On April 9 the Luftwaffe still had 1310 servicable fighters ready, and I won't bother count the unservicable ones, reserved now. See Alfred Price.

.


If this is true then I apologise for what I wrote above. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good to see we have discussion then - I appreciate that you're open minded and that I am not talking to the wall..


I thought they would have very few fighters left at this time, being after Boddenplatte, which I read was the 'Last throw of the dice for the Luftwaffe'

Popular literature I am afraid, altough it was the last major offensive operation of the LW on the west.
They would replace losses, the factories pumped out wagonloads of planes, but in 1945, the Luftwaffe, much like the rest of the Army, concentrated on the East and russkies. The units that stayed on the west were the jets and a few piston engined units, JG 27 and 53 first and foremost. OTOH, I am not sure who much validity is there to speak of 'East' and 'West' by March 1945...


As for the C3 thing, I really know nothing about it mate, but I will now pay attention to anything I read about it, whereas I would have skimmed over it before, not knowing what it meant. (Good thing about these discusions, I learn http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

Did any other German planes except the 109K4 C3 use Cs fuel?

Quite a few. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The thing is that C3 is not a late war development like 150 grade, as a matter of fact it was already around from the war start. The first 109s used it in the BoB 1940, the 601N engined Emils and 109F-1, F-2! All the FW 190As , and everything with a BMW 801D run on C-3 (bombers!).. it was a major production fuel, the Fischer-Tropsch institute estimated some 2/3s of the wartime avgas produced in Germany was C3.. Initially the 'C3' specification was roughly 96/130 grade fuel, but in the second half of 1942, the composition was changed and it actually rated at 96/143 grade fuel (so I am a bit puzzled when seeing comments about superior Allied aviation fuels - 150 grade came much later, and in less quantities).

In 1944, initially when MW50 was introduced, all 109s equipped with with MW50 (and of course, all Fw 190As) would run on C-3 grade. Butch2k says that later in 1944 it was found that B-4 in conjunction with MW50 boost could produce the same boost and power, so most 109s again used the poorer 87 octane B-4, as there was no advantage from C3.

The 605D engines could use both fuels. The D came in two models, the 605 DB, with B4 fuel, they could develop 1850 PS max, and the DC, with C-3 fuel, could run up to 1.98ata and 2000 PS. Actually the DB/DC are the same engine with a few parts different and could be (and were) converted into each other depending on available fuel quickly.

Here should be noted that we are bit fixated on '1.98ata K4s'. The DB 605D was also used by the 109G-10, and could run the same boost, and some G-14/AS were appearantly fitted with the DB 605ASC, which could do the same. The ASC merely seems to be an up-dated old DB 605A, to the newest standards, but there's little info on the engine, except it's outputs were practically the same as the DB 605D's.

As matter of fact, the Bf 109G-14/ASC, G-10, K-4 could all use 1.98ata and 2000 HP. Some 4300 G-10s/K-4s were built in the last ca3/4 year of the war, these engines were definietely no rare things, but it seems only the planes belonging to JG 11, JG 27 and JG 53 used the high boost, so it's not a case that all of them would be running at high boost either.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

JtD
12-03-2006, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:

Forget wing-loading when talking induced drag at any AoA, the only things that matter here is Span-loading and AR.

Too bad you weren't around when all these aerodynamic thingies were researched. All these profile studies...all in vain.

And you seriously suggest cutting the rear half of the 109's wing would actually do something good for it's sustained turn? Twice the AR, same span loading, must be a real turner.

Think again. You'd need insane AoA's going with insane drag to produce the same lift.

Oh, and what span do you use? I hope I don't have to remind you of the fuselage in the middle that actually, may it be wide or not, does not produce any lift as such. Which fuselage was wider, Spit or 109? Or were they the same?


And btw, the advantage in AR is a little more than just 2-3%, try with 8.5%.

I happened to miss your calculation for that. Can you please point me there? From my experience, you'd need an about 50% better AR to get into that region and I honestly don't think the Spit is that fat.

When you posted your engine power figures in post one, did you take into account the various differences between the numbers? Or is it just 1 HP=1 HP whereas it should be 1HP = 1.02 PS in addition to the mentioned ram effects?

MEGILE
12-03-2006, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

I do believe however that there were at least some Spitfire XIV's in service from mid 1944. This is not disputed. I am guessing they were mostly 18lbs boost

610 sqn received Spitfire XIV's in early 44, but was not fully equipped untill the end of March. They were all initially +18 Boost AFAIK.


Do you guys know when 21lbs boost was used?

21lbs Boost was introduced to 610 sqn in mid July of '44.


I read that the first sparklugs caused fowling but this was rectified quite quickly

It's possible, but I believe this problem effected the mark IX's more.
According to the ADGB, from 2,000 hours of flight testing in mid '44, no failiures were experienced by Spitfire XIV's, which could be attributed to the increased boost.

As to how many Spitfire XIV's used 150 octane during 1944.... ADGB reported in September that just over half of the flying hours using 21 lbs Boost were accumulated by 610 squadron.
It is reasonable to assume then, that at the most two Spitfire XIV squadrons were operating on 150 octane in the Summer of 1944.

Consider Mustang III and Spitfire IXs flew 7,000 and 9,000 hours using 150 octane for the same period<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/7683/starostauc4.jpg
If you see this man.... it's probably too late
Oleg - I was dreaming to make Meteor, but third party didn't make it finally (left unfinished)

Bellator_1
12-03-2006, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Too bad you weren't around when all these aerodynamic thingies were researched. All these profile studies...all in vain.

And you seriously suggest cutting the rear half of the 109's wing would actually do something good for it's sustained turn? Twice the AR, same span loading, must be a real turner.

You love to generalize don't you ?

No, cutting the 109's wing in half won't prove too beneficial other than speed is drastically increased because of the vast decrease in drag. However, completely oblivous to you I bet, the L/D ratio actually goes up, and so does the CLmax - so pr. area the wing actually becomes more efficient, yeah.

The goal is to hit somewhere in between, not to little wing area + high AR, not too much wing + low AR, but medium wing area and AR.


Think again. You'd need insane AoA's going with insane drag to produce the same lift.

For a wing with less than half the area and no decrease in weight, yes.


Oh, and what span do you use? I hope I don't have to remind you of the fuselage in the middle that actually, may it be wide or not, does not produce any lift as such. Which fuselage was wider, Spit or 109? Or were they the same?

Ha ! How ridiculous ! Span-loading is pretty much completely unaffected by the fuselage !

But if you want to discuss fuselage width, I can tell you the Spitfire's fuselage is a good deal wider than the Bf-109's. (Hence the so roomy Spit cockpit)

Bf-109 = 9.92m
Spitfire = 11.23m


I happened to miss your calculation for that. Can you please point me there? From my experience, you'd need an about 50% better AR to get into that region and I honestly don't think the Spit is that fat.

50% !!! Dream on !


When you posted your engine power figures in post one, did you take into account the various differences between the numbers? Or is it just 1 HP=1 HP whereas it should be 1HP = 1.02 PS in addition to the mentioned ram effects?

Again read the thread !

Bf-109 K-4 = 2,000 PS (1,975 HP)
Spitfire XIV = 2,050 HP


Got anything else you want to ***** about ??<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Xiolablu3
12-03-2006, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

I do believe however that there were at least some Spitfire XIV's in service from mid 1944. This is not disputed. I am guessing they were mostly 18lbs boost

610 sqn received Spitfire XIV's in early 44, but was not fully equipped untill the end of March. They were all initially +18 Boost AFAIK.


Do you guys know when 21lbs boost was used?

21lbs Boost was introduced to 610 sqn in mid July of '44.


I read that the first sparklugs caused fowling but this was rectified quite quickly

It's possible, but I believe this problem effected the mark IX's more.
According to the ADGB, from 2,000 hours of flight testing in mid '44, no failiures were experienced by Spitfire XIV's, which could be attributed to the increased boost.

As to how many Spitfire XIV's used 150 octane during 1944.... ADGB reported in September that just over half of the flying hours using 21 lbs Boost were accumulated by 610 squadron.
It is reasonable to assume then, that at the most two Spitfire XIV squadrons were operating on 150 octane in the Summer of 1944.

Consider Mustang III and Spitfire IXs flew 7,000 and 9,000 hours using 150 octane for the same period </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thanks for this info Megile http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

JtD
12-03-2006, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:

The goal is to hit somewhere in between, not to little wing area + high AR, not too much wing + low AR, but medium wing area and AR.

Yes, absolutely. But how do you know which planes wing was better "medium sized" for the corresponding weight, the Spitfires or the 109s'?


Ha ! How ridiculous ! Span-loading is pretty much completely unaffected by the fuselage !

If you argue x.y% this and a.b% that, than at least for y and b you need to consider fuselage width.


But if you want to discuss fuselage width, I can tell you the Spitfire's fuselage is a good deal wider than the Bf-109's. (Hence the so roomy Spit cockpit)

Pilot doesn't sit at the wing root.

JG52Uther
12-06-2006, 04:43 PM
All the info is that yes you will be able to download,using boontybox,probably next week,and for less than that $70 in Japan<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/JG52Uther/Uther_Do17_3.jpg
2.(K)/JG52 -(Bombergroup)