PDA

View Full Version : p47 pilots accounts



histrionic
02-02-2004, 02:20 AM
some interesting stories from p47 on this site, heres one pilots testimonial for the superiority of the p47 in turn fighting vs LW planes even with engine probs.

http://www.p47pilots.com/cfm_ThereIWas.cfm?pageMode=VIEW&storyid=27

histrionic
02-02-2004, 02:20 AM
some interesting stories from p47 on this site, heres one pilots testimonial for the superiority of the p47 in turn fighting vs LW planes even with engine probs.

http://www.p47pilots.com/cfm_ThereIWas.cfm?pageMode=VIEW&storyid=27

MatuDa_
02-02-2004, 02:35 AM
"In fact, the whole enemy force was definitely panicky and not aggressive"

Maybe they were n00bs? It does take skill to perform turnfights irl, proper breathing and muscle control to withstand the G, experience of flying the aircraft "in the edge" and fear of what happens if you go past that edge.. Nice pilot account but I wouldn't draw many conclusions about plane performance. I am not saying p47 couldn't outperform the german planes so shove the torches http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Huckebein_FW
02-02-2004, 04:05 AM
[deleted cos I'm a nice guy]

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

[This message was edited by Huckebein_FW on Mon February 02 2004 at 03:16 AM.]

Cajun76
02-02-2004, 05:42 AM
Huckebein_FW! How have you been? If you want to bash someone, do it in their thread, instead of lurking over here. I would give this advice to anyone. If you're going to be an a$$hole, then do it where everyone can see. Heck, just look at my posts in the "how do I shoot down He-111" thread. Ouch! But I'll also admit when I'm wrong. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I made a mistake.

I'm sure that this pilot account was made up, all the P-47s were slaughtered, and this was just some cruel practical joke story, written by the pilot of the Me-109 that "exploded"


Since your here, I have a question for your esteemed person. I'll make this a low altitude question, since the Bf-109 would suffer from oxygen deprivation at the P-47s optimal altitudes.

The Bf-109 G-6 with the DB 605 Am engine (1,475 hp normal TO, 1,800 hp w/ MW 50 at TO), weighing 3148kg normal loaded, was capable of 590 kph at 2000m. http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/bf109g6.html

The P-47D with the PW R-2800-59W (2,535 hp, "wet"), weighing 6,800 kg (max TO weight minus 1,134 kg of bombs and rockets), was capable of 584 kph at 1500m. (Note: It's difficult to find low alt speeds for the Jug, most sources just quote max speed at optimum altitude.)http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/P-47.html

Bf-109G-6 P-47D-35
3148 kg 6800 kg (weight)
1800 hp 2535 hp (power)
0.57 0.37 (hp per kg)
590 kph 584 kph (max low alt speed)

Anyway, my question is: how is it that the sleek and deadly Bf-109, with such a low CoD as you claim it had, could only manage a mere 6 kph over the, um, "sedated cow", I believe you called it? I mean, the 109 is an inline, and the Jug has a radial. Is the Jug defying the gods with this blasphemey? Heck, it takes extra power to keep a heavier plane in the air, much less zip around with Messerschmitts. The Jug weighs over twice what the 109 does( 2.16 X 1 ) , yet has less than twice the power ( 1.4 X 1 ). How would you explain this? I await your answer with eyes shining....

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Realfire_02.gif
Have you thanked a veteran today?

TgD Thunderbolt56
02-02-2004, 07:47 AM
Hmmmm. Well, there you have it.

Definitive proof that the P47 is undermodeled! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif



http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/il2sig2.jpg

Cajun76
02-02-2004, 07:53 AM
What an idiot..... I am. I should have quoted him. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Realfire_02.gif
Have you thanked a veteran today?

Korolov
02-02-2004, 08:18 AM
Of course, turning is still a death sentence, no matter what you're flying. This ain't WW1 folks! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

Blutarski2004
02-02-2004, 11:35 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cajun76:
Anyway, my question is: how is it that the sleek and deadly Bf-109, with such a low CoD as you claim it had, could only manage a mere 6 kph over the, um, "sedated cow", I believe you called it? I mean, the 109 is an inline, and the Jug has a radial. Is the Jug defying the gods with this blasphemey?


..... Cajun, the answer to your question is simple. Huckebein is completely out to lunch in his Bf109 drag "calculations".

Do you remember the earlier discussion surrounding the article by the German aerodynamicist evaluating the drag characteristics of the Bf109G2? The author determined a value of .036 or so, compared to a Huckebein claim of .020 or so.

Huckebein and Isegrim ridiculed his results and alleged that the fellow was either incompetent, or working from totally incorrect a/c data. It turns out that the author of that article had actually been the chief aerodynamicist for Messerschmitt AG during WW2.

The article in question is still considered within the aero engineering community to be one of the important and valuable technical discussion of the topic ever written. I got this tidbit from a practicing aerodynamics engineer who presently is gainfully employed by the USAF. Based upon this, forumites are invited to draw their own conclusions about the relative value of various claims made by the twins.

BLUTARSKI

Cajun76
02-03-2004, 03:04 AM
I remember the "discusion", such as it was. And I compared the Mustang to a 109 in a similar fashion, as well. Since then, I've learned some more about the Jug, and realized I could make an even better comparision with a 109 using the Thunderbolt. The T-bolt seems to break the rules, as it was always one of the fastest fighters around, even though it's commonly held that if you want speed, an inline is required. Spitfire, Bf-109, Mustang, P-38 and such. I'm not forgetting the Focke Wulf, as it had good speed, too, but it wasn't near as hulking as a Jug.

All I'm really trying to do, is show that the Jug, does indeed, not suck, as many seem to believe. There was a reason so many were produced, and so few were lost in combat. It was *gasp* actually a good fighter, and served with distiction in just about any role it was assigned. With the possibility of getting the top 'o the line P-47N modeled, I'm trying, in my own small way, to try and reduce the predjudice the Jug seems to suffer from. Comparing it to a Bf-109 shows that, speed wise if nothing else, it was very competitive a/c, and the P-47N was better than the D series in every way. Hopefully this is all filtering in to Oleg through osmosis, since he's blocked my phone # for those 3 a.m. "reminders" about Thunderslug performance. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Realfire_02.gif
Have you thanked a veteran today?

histrionic
02-03-2004, 04:55 AM
gotta agree with u cajun, most ppl's criticisms of the jugs performance seems to revolve arnd its immense size relative to that of the smaller fighters, without considering the facts about its perfomance that seem to defy physics, but which were in fact true. like judging a book by its cover. Ive read a countless number of accounts in which p47's came out victorious in turn fights, against both nimble japanese zeros and messerschmits. In this game the p47 has neither speed nor turn capability, its acceleration is so slow, its not that much more survivable than other fighters, i'll be damned if even a skilled pilot could become an ace if this game model applied to real life, even if he strictly stuck to B&Z.

Zayets
02-03-2004, 05:09 AM
Lotta experts here , I see...
I'm just happy with the D's as they are since i don't look for a fight in the sky.Now , only if they will come with that M or N , then I can chase some jerry's!

Zayets out

MatuDa_
02-03-2004, 05:13 AM
Want some bread with that whine? P47 IS a very good plane in FB, it can remain untouchable and sustain massive amounts of damage even if you screw up and become the recieving end. The firepower is also terrific especially considering the DM on both of it's FB adversaries, the wing-los√¬*ng 190 and the oil-spilling 109. All in all a very capable fighter when flown correctly.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Ive read a countless number of accounts in which p47's came out victorious in turn fights, against both nimble japanese zeros and messerschmits <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the ones who lost didn't get written that much about since that was just plain expected when you enter a tnb fight against a zero...

Fennec_P
02-03-2004, 05:17 AM
Anatomy of the P-47 turn fight.

1. See zero to your left.
2. Turn left.
3. Shoot.
4. Paint victory mark on plane.

Cajun76
02-03-2004, 08:01 AM
Fennec_P, that's all wrong! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif



I always see Zeros on my right..... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Realfire_02.gif
Have you thanked a veteran today?

Huckebein_FW
02-03-2004, 08:06 AM
Hi Cajun and Blutarski, somebody told me that you have missed mehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Well, now I don't have the free time to spent like I had the last year, so if you want a more detailed answer you'll have to wait for week-end. Open a new thread then, our discussion is off-topic here anyway.

So let's start with the Blutarski's problem. I have no ideea if Dr. Hoerner was or wasn't an aerodynamicist at Messerschmitt AG. If he was then he should have come up with better quality data about Bf-109. Basically all the input data he uses for his calculations are wrong, so the results is inevitably wrong also.

First of all he should have remembered that production Bf109G was tested in wind tunnel and the result for Cd0 was 0.0235. He mentions a french test (which by the way was on Emil not on Gustav) and the Cd0 resulted there was 0.028, which is quite correct. Now what's with this 0.036 figure. This is not Cd0, it is Cd meaning total drag coef, which adds Cd0 and induced drag coef. Cd in itself is not useful for comparing the aerodynamic efficiency because it is influenced by angle of attack. Only Cd0 can give a good base for comparisons because is calculted an zero angle of attack (therefore zero lift). Even better than Cd0 comparisons are those base on flat plate, which multiplies Cd0 with wing area. Also important for aerodynamic qualities of ww2 fighter are Oswald factor and aspect ratio, both are involved in Cdi (coef on induced drag), very important for maneuvers (German planes had high aspect ratios, producing less induced drag in turns or climb). Actually in maneuvers induced drag can be much more important than parasite drag: in tight sustained turns induced drag is 3 times bigger than parasite drag, in sustained climb induced drag is aprox the same with parasite drag, only at max speeds induced drag can be almost ignored (it is something like 5% from parasite drag). All this happens for the standard monoplane config used in ww2 (say from '42 to '45, to exlude planes like I-16), do not apply it for other types of planes, that do not fly in the same speed range with ww2 warbirds.

Now, read Hoerner's introduction, make sure you understand it, bring the correct input data for Bf-109 in calculations (you should know them by now) and write them here in another thread this week-end. Do the same for P-51D and see if you obtain the 0.0175 Cd0.

Now for Cajun. As I said above induced drag at max speed counts for very little at max speed. This was the point of bringing more and more powerful but also heavier engines in fighters, they affect the wing loading, have worse handling and more laborious take-offs but they are also faster. What you should have noted there is that Bf-109 with a Cd0 of 0.0235 needs only 1800HP to reach 570km/h whereas P-47D with 2530HP (this is not correct for the less powerful 2300HP) reaches only 550km/h though Republic claims a Cd0 of 0.0215 for it. The weight is important at speeds where induced drag is higher than parasite drag, at max speed you can almost ignore it. So, I'm sorry but I cannot share your amazement.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

Raiden48
02-03-2004, 08:20 AM
we can brag and talk for ages about this thing but fact is that when u get cought by another plane at same altitude your dead.

Blutarski2004
02-03-2004, 09:09 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
So let's start with the Blutarski's problem. I have no ideea if Dr. Hoerner was or wasn't an aerodynamicist at Messerschmitt AG. If he was then he should have come up with better quality data about Bf-109. Basically all the input data he uses for his calculations are wrong, so the results is inevitably wrong also.


..... Huck, you are so obviously an intelligent individual, that it boggles the mind that you could make the above statement. Sighard Hoerner was the chief aerodynamicist for Messerschmitt AG during WW2. He was also an internationally recognized authority on fluid drag. For your allegation that his work was fatally flawed by incorrect initial data to be correct, it is necessary to assume that he had simply ignored the fact that his calculated results completely disagreed with the results of all the wartime test results (work with which Hoerner MUST have been physically involved at Messerschmitt). To accept this assumption, one must is forced to the further assumption that Hoerner was purposely being intellectually dishonest in the bargain - putting his name under data which he must have known was wrong. This is hard to believe. It is FAR more likely (Occam's Razor) that you are simply incorrect in your criticisms, and even perhaps grasp, of Hoerner's calculations.

BLUTARSKI

Cajun76
02-03-2004, 10:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Raiden48:
we can brag and talk for ages about this thing but fact is that when u get cought by another plane at same altitude your dead.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I would say, keep practicing, and altitude isn't everything. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif (speed is, shhhhh)


Huckbein http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif, you're one of a kind, don't ever change. I actually laughed out loud, for real, when you mention the "error" of dear Mr. Hoerner. I think I figured out your confusion, though. You state:

"Only Cd0 can give a good base for comparisons because is calculated an zero angle of attack"

This, therefore, means very little, as there are no planes that fly with a zero angle of attack. Your confusing numbers on paper with reality. Planes, of all types, fly straight and level everyday with at least some AoA. Generally, AoA is higher at lower speeds or aggressive maneuvers. AoA is generally less at high speed and docile manuevering. Induced drag was never brought up here, but that "info" is pretty much word for word, IIRC from the previous discussion.

Now, the notion I can't seem to wrap my gray noodle around is the conditions these input criteria have to meet. Calculations are calculations, no matter if we're discussing a Cessna or a C-130. The rules don't change based on the aircraft involved until higher speeds are reached, like the transonic range, for example, a Cessna and a SR-71 at top speed. Otherwise, propeller a/c are subject to the same physics, regardless of formula's that are attempted to be applied. For this reason, I don't think your formula is valid, in the manner you're trying to apply it.

As for your last part, only you have calculated a Bf-109 with a CdO of 0.0235. I'll take the result's of trained aerodynamics engineers who put actual planes in the air over yours, anytime.

So, we get to the meat. When thrust = drag, and lift = gravity(the only constant), a plane is traveling at it's maximum speed for that power setting. It dosen't get any simpler than this. Drag is produced by all parts of the a/c, while lift is primarily generated by the wing, which also produces drag. More lift is needed to overcome greater weight. Lift is generated by the movement of the wing through the air at sufficient speed, which is achieved by propelling the wing (and a/c) using thrust.

Take two identical a/c of equal dimensions and power, but one with more weight. The one with more weight will accelerate slower and achieve a lower top speed than the normally loaded one. Why? Extra thrust is needed to keep the heavier a/c in the air, as well as increasing drag due to slightly higher AoA, because the wing is not traveling through the air at quite the velocity of the lighter, faster a/c. (more lift is needed, hence higher AoA)

Now, since the 109 and P-47 have some slight http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif differences in size, shape, and power, we'll need to use some constants like their relative weight, power and top speed. I didn't see any sources for your speeds, so we'll use mine. I'm using top speed as a constant, because it has been quantified in tests already. We're not calculating theoretical top speed, it has been provided.

In my comparison in the post above, I gave the Bf-109 a higher margin to succeed, believe it or not. When I started looking, I didn't realize the 2 would be so close in top speed. I fully expected the Jug to be 20-50kph slower, at least. The 109 data is taken at a slightly higher alt (~500m) than the Jug. I wanted to find low alt speed data for the D series, and compare both a/c at sea level, but I couldn't find s/l data for the D series Jug.

In simple terms, when an a/c reaches top, level speed, thrust and drag(modified by weight) become 0, relative to each other. A greater drag will slow the a/c, and a higher thrust will accelerate the a/c, until they are equaled again.

Bf-109G-6 P-47D-35
3148 kg 6800 kg (weight)
1800 hp 2535 hp (power)
0.57 0.37 (hp per kg)
590 kph 584 kph (max low alt speed)

The Jug weighs 2.16 times the 109. The Jug has 1.4 times the power of a 109. The Jug is slightly slower than the 109. The biggest factor I can see affecting this disparity in power, weight, and top speed, (top speed being when thrust equals drag) is that 1) the Jug has lower drag than the 109(which has "normal" drag characteristics) or 2) the 109 has higher drag coefficient than the "normal" Jug.


Think of it this way. Take 2 F1 racing chassis. One is normal, F1 racer. The other has a light, but bulky body (relatively speaking) fitted, like a NA SCAR body. They have the same weight, transmission, and such. Which one do you suppose is faster, though? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Please don't forget that you're the one who sent the thread OT by bashing the pilot account and an unrelated thread, while insulting American farts........ http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

And dang it, you still didn't answer my question http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif............... how have you been? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Realfire_02.gif
Have you thanked a veteran today?

Huckebein_FW
02-03-2004, 11:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:

And dang it, you still didn't answer my question http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif............... how have you been? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've been excellent, why? I'm not sure I understand your sudden interest in my person.

But to return to the discussion you still show a persistant misunderstanding: this result Cd0 0.0235 for Bf109G is not mine, it is directly from Messerschmitt AG test, a chart with a complete Cd/Cl polar for Bf109G was posted here several times. Now if dr. Hoerner had indeed technical not managerial responsabilities at Messerschimitt AG he should have know better the work of his own department.

Once again 0.0235 Cd0 is a Messerschmitt AG result. Is it clear now?

And that thing with what drag coef is useful for comparison shows again the fact that you still do not want to spend a minute to think about plane aerodynamics. Cd0 is constant for a plane, whereas Cdi is not, it depends on Cl. In general late war American fighters have good Cd0, but I can tell you don't want to compare Cdi of American fighters with that of German ones. Usually to compare parasite drag flat plate is used, if we want to compare induced drag aspect ratio is enough. Both flat plate and aspect ratio are superior on German fighters.

And please, weight has no significance at max speed, as I said in the previous post at max induced drag, produced to counter the weight in level flight, is less than 5% of the total drag, it simply doesn't matter. Please do not waste everybody's time comming with this argument once again.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

[This message was edited by Huckebein_FW on Tue February 03 2004 at 10:28 AM.]

Blutarski2004
02-03-2004, 12:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Now if dr. Hoerner had indeed technical not managerial responsabilities at Messerschimitt AG he should have know better the work of his own department.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Huck, now you are really reaching for straws. If you are at all curious to satisfy your curiosity regarding Dr Hoerner's technical credentials, just do a Google search under keywords -

Sighard Hoerner fluid dynamics

BLUTARSKI

Huckebein_FW
02-04-2004, 02:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:


..... Huck, now you are really reaching for straws. If you are at all curious to satisfy your curiosity regarding Dr Hoerner's technical credentials, just do a Google search under keywords -

BLUTARSKI
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your logic is hard to follow. So in one hand I have an original wartime document right from Messerschmitt AG showing the correct Cd/Cl polar of Bf-109G-2 and in the other hand I have Dr Hoerner blurry recollection of Bf-109 characteristics written in a textbook on fluid dynamics printed in 1965!, in which this whole thing is only a section in chapter meant to give the students an example on how they can compute drag characteristics of a piston engine plane. That section was meant to teach you the method for drag computations, not to give you correct data about Bf-109.


Here's once again the original document on Bf-109G-2 Cd. Save it, read it, learn it.
At Cl = 0 Cd is 0.0235 which means that Cd0 = 0.0235 for Bf-109G-2.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/109G_polar.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

Blutarski2004
02-04-2004, 08:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Your logic is hard to follow. So in one hand I have an original wartime document right from Messerschmitt AG showing the correct Cd/Cl polar of Bf-109G-2 and in the other hand I have Dr Hoerner blurry recollection of Bf-109 characteristics written in a textbook on fluid dynamics printed in 1965!, in which this whole thing is only a section in chapter meant to give the students an example on how they can compute drag characteristics of a piston engine plane. That section was meant to teach you the method for drag computations, not to give you correct data about Bf-109.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... "Blurry recollections"??? - One thing is for sure, Huck, you are always good for a laugh. You have no basis whatever to make such a claim, except your own irrational bias. You must be taking rhetoric lessons from Isegrim.

I've done my job, by bringing out the background and credentials of Dr Hoerner to validate the quality of his work. Professional aeronautical engineering people I know speak very highly of Dr Hoerner's skills in the field. I would venture to say that the good doctor knew more about the Bf109 than you can ever hope to in your wildest dreams. However, if you prefer to persist in your opinions, feel free to do so.

BTW, just for the record, here is the original note I received from my aerospace engineer friend, who unexpectedly brought up the subject of Dr. Hoerner whilw we were pursuing a completely different discussion -


QUOTE -

Are you familiar with Sighard Hoerner's classic _Fluid Dynamic Drag_? Herr Doktor Ingeneur Hoerner was Messerschmitt's aerodynamicist in WW II and the book uses the Bf 109G as an example, providing a very thorough drag buildup. He gives the D/q (equivalent flat-plate drag area) as 6.2 sq. ft. and the Cd-min as 0.036. His drag buildup is the classic illustration of how to do it, and very illuminating.

- UNQUOTE



BLUTARSKI

[This message was edited by Blutarski2004 on Wed February 04 2004 at 07:56 AM.]

Huckebein_FW
02-04-2004, 09:08 AM
So Blutarski, you are contesting the wartime results of tests and calculations summarized in that original Messerschmitt AG Cd/Cl chart posted in the previous message.
I suddenly lost all my interest in this discussion.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

p1ngu666
02-04-2004, 09:15 AM
back to radial thing
in aero racing the inlines had the advantage? why? cos they used evaporative cooling. the supermarine one for example, the entire plane was a radiator nearly, bare in mind they had 2000odd hp in a prewar merlinish design, fancy fuel etc http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
now for a warplane u cant have the entire plane as a radiator, so u fit a radiator and get drag from that
just like a radial http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

JG7_Rall
02-04-2004, 09:29 AM
Ok, I haven't the slightest idea who knows what in this convo, but guys, where the hell did you learn all this stuff? Sheesh, I thought I was pretty smart...

Blutarski2004
02-04-2004, 09:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
So Blutarski, you are contesting the wartime results of tests and calculations summarized in that original Messerschmitt AG Cd/Cl chart posted in the previous message.
I suddenly lost all my interest in this discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at all do I contest it. Never said a word about it. I do question your baseless ad hominem attacks upon the good Dr Hoerner, who, in his capacity as chief aerodynamicist for Messerschmitt AG during the war, may well have been in charge of the tests which actually generated the data which appear on that document.

If there is anything to contest, it is perhaps your grasp of the full intricacies of fluid dynamics. But I am not qualified to debate that matter.

BLUTARSKI

Huckebein_FW
02-04-2004, 09:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
So Blutarski, you are contesting the wartime results of tests and calculations summarized in that original Messerschmitt AG Cd/Cl chart posted in the previous message.
I suddenly lost all my interest in this discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at all do I contest it. Never said a word about it. I do question your baseless ad hominem attacks upon the good Dr Hoerner, who, in his capacity as chief aerodynamicist for Messerschmitt AG during the war, may well have been in charge of the tests which actually generated the data which appear on that document.

If there is anything to contest, it is perhaps your grasp of the full intricacies of fluid dynamics. But I am not qualified to debate that matter.

BLUTARSKI<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you don't contest the document can you read it? I will help you: can you read the 0.0235 value of Cd0 on that chart?

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

Blutarski2004
02-04-2004, 10:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
So Blutarski, you are contesting the wartime results of tests and calculations summarized in that original Messerschmitt AG Cd/Cl chart posted in the previous message.
I suddenly lost all my interest in this discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at all do I contest it. Never said a word about it. I do question your baseless ad hominem attacks upon the good Dr Hoerner, who, in his capacity as chief aerodynamicist for Messerschmitt AG during the war, may well have been in charge of the tests which actually generated the data which appear on that document.

If there is anything to contest, it is perhaps your grasp of the full intricacies of fluid dynamics. But I am not qualified to debate that matter.

BLUTARSKI<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you don't contest the document can you read it? I will help you: can you read the 0.0235 value of Cd0 on that chart?

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Huck, you persist in pursuing an argument which I am not making. I do not dispute the authenticity of your document.

To help focus the discussion, let me re-state my position - Upon what rational basis can you justify your criticism of the work, credentials, or mental acuity of Dr Hoerner?

BLUTARSKI

Huckebein_FW
02-04-2004, 10:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
If you don't contest the document can you read it? I will help you: can you read the 0.0235 value of Cd0 on that chart?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Huck, you persist in pursuing an argument which I am not making. I do not dispute the authenticity of your document.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is it then, if you do not contest the authenticity? are you contesting the result? It says there very clearly: 0.0235 Cd0 for Bf-109G.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

dizeee
02-04-2004, 10:57 AM
blutarski going down in flames id say... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Zayets
02-04-2004, 11:05 AM
Blutarski!
You're getting really boring pal!Learn to lose with some more dignity or else get a grip.I'm folowing this discussion since months(not only this thread) and didn't interfered with it because I'm not a smart man when it comes about engines.But I can read figures and that should suffice in this case.
Why don't you play the game instead of making yourself in what the song call fool of the city?
Seriously , if you have a personal problem with H then carry it elsewhere.
I have spoken.

Edit : besides , this is a thread about P-47 pilots accounts if ya know what I mean...
Zayets out

Korolov
02-04-2004, 11:21 AM
That chart is awful damn fuzzy. You got a clearer one? Tried to sharpen it myself but I can't quite make out the numbers.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

Blutarski2004
02-04-2004, 12:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
What is it then, if you do not contest the authenticity? are you contesting the result? It says there very clearly: 0.0235 Cd0 for Bf-109G.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Huck, if you are confused about what I am contesting, I recommend that you simply go back to my previous post and the second paragraph which you did NOT quote. In case you are having problems finding it, let me help you out. Here is the full text of what I wrote -

QUOTE -
..... Huck, you persist in pursuing an argument which I am not making. I do not dispute the authenticity of your document.

To help focus the discussion, let me re-state my position - Upon what rational basis can you justify your criticism of the work, credentials, or mental acuity of Dr Hoerner?
- UNQUOTE

Simple enough, even for you. Playing stupid does not become you.

BLUTARSKI

Huckebein_FW
02-04-2004, 01:07 PM
Blutarski,

Is it clear that the Messerschmitt document says Cd0 = 0.0235 for Bf-109G?
Simple question. Yes or No?

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

Blutarski2004
02-04-2004, 01:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zayets:
Blutarski!
You're getting really boring pal!Learn to lose with some more dignity or else get a grip.I'm folowing this discussion since months(not only this thread) and didn't interfered with it because I'm not a smart man when it comes about engines.But I can read figures and that should suffice in this case.
Why don't you play the game instead of making yourself in what the song call fool of the city?
Seriously , if you have a personal problem with H then carry it elsewhere.
I have spoken.

Edit : besides , this is a thread about P-47 pilots accounts if ya know what I mean...
Zayets out<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Zayets, let me clarify my position for you.

(1) I have NEVER disputed the document which Huckebein has posted. This is just a false Potemkin Village argument behind which he tries to hide.

(2) What I do argue is the claim made by Huckebein that the .036 drag co-efficient calculation made by Dr Ing Sighard Hoerner in his published work on the Bf109G is wrong. Dr Hoerner was the chief aerodynamicist for Messerschmitt AG during the WW2 period. His department produced the document that Huckebein posted. Hoerner is still considered a leading authority on fluid dynamics and drag by the aeronautical engineering community. His manual on fluid dynamics and drag is still in print (you can buy it on the web today) since 1965. Do you think that maybe Dr Hoerner knew a little bit about the Bf109 and drag functions?

(3)When I ask Huckebein to defend his claims that the book is just "blurry recollections" (his words) and that Hoerner was not working from "correct" data and Hoerner did not know what he was doing, etc, etc, he does not give an answer. Instead he waves his report and asks me why I think it is wrong.

(4) I do not think Huckebein's document is wrong and never said I did. But, there are all sorts of different standards by which to measure drag values. Both values are probably correct and simply reflect under different evaluation standards. But Huckebein continues to insist that Hoerner's .036 calculation is wrong. To believe that, one must believe that Huckebein knows more about the Bf109 and the subject of fluid dynamics than Dr Hoerner, who actually worked on real Bf109 aerodynamics during the war in a professional capacity. I have a lot of trouble believing that. It's a good deal more likely that Huckebein knows less about aerodynamics and fluid dynamics than he thinks he does. This has been proven to be the case in the past.

If you still believe that I am completely nuts to think in such a way, then there is probably no further argument I can make to change your mind. You will have your opinion and I will continue in mine. But I am right in this case.


BLUTARSKI

[This message was edited by Blutarski2004 on Wed February 04 2004 at 12:34 PM.]

Huckebein_FW
02-04-2004, 01:40 PM
Very touching appeal for sympathy Blutarski. I especially like this part:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

(4) I do not think Huckebein's document is wrong and never said I did. But, there are all sorts of different standards by which to measure drag values. Huckebein states that Hoerner's .036 value is wrong.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again Blutarski, Cw value in the Messerschmitt document is PRECISELY the same thing with Cd from Hoerner's paper and they mean total drag coefficient. Cd0, the value we are looking for, can be found at Cl = 0, and the correct value you know it already: 0.0235.

Nice twist though.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

Huckebein_FW
02-04-2004, 01:49 PM
If you were wondering w from Cw is comming from Widerstand which means Drag and a from Ca is comming from Auftrieb which means Lift.

So Ca is Cl and Cw is Cd, and all those factors are calculated using wing area.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

Blutarski2004
02-04-2004, 03:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Very touching appeal for sympathy Blutarski. I especially like this part:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

(4) I do not think Huckebein's document is wrong and never said I did. But, there are all sorts of different standards by which to measure drag values. Huckebein states that Hoerner's .036 value is wrong.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again Blutarski, Cw value in the Messerschmitt document is _PRECISELY_ the same thing with Cd from Hoerner's paper and they mean total drag coefficient. Cd0, the value we are looking for, can be found at Cl = 0, and the correct value you know it already: 0.0235.

Nice twist though.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Huck, you are just tossing off another non-answer, again explaining in excruciatingly unnecessary detail the correctness of a drag value when the only challenge I ever delivered to you concerned your criticism of Hoerner's calculations.

I am still waiting for you to explain to me about Dr Hoerner and why his work is all wet. You take the position that Hoerner'sCd-min value of .036 is wrong.

You are breaking new ground here in the area of intellectual obtuseness. I probably should not hold my breath waiting for a straight answer from you.

BLUTARSKI

Huckebein_FW
02-04-2004, 03:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Very touching appeal for sympathy Blutarski. I especially like this part:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

(4) I do not think Huckebein's document is wrong and never said I did. But, there are all sorts of different standards by which to measure drag values. Huckebein states that Hoerner's .036 value is wrong.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again Blutarski, Cw value in the Messerschmitt document is _PRECISELY_ the same thing with Cd from Hoerner's paper and they mean total drag coefficient. Cd0, the value we are looking for, can be found at Cl = 0, and the correct value you know it already: 0.0235.

Nice twist though.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Huck, you are just tossing off another non-answer, again explaining in excruciatingly unnecessary detail the correctness of a drag value when the only challenge I ever delivered to you concerned your criticism of Hoerner's calculations.

I am still waiting for you to explain to me about Dr Hoerner and why his work is all wet. You take the position that Hoerner'sCd-min value of .036 is wrong.

You are breaking new ground here in the area of intellectual obtuseness. I probably should not hold my breath waiting for a straight answer from you.

BLUTARSKI

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blutarski, did you ever read that paper? Because hoerner says nowhere that Cd0 (or Cd min how you call it) is 0.036. He says that with the input data he has for an Bf-109G he obtaines a Cd of 0.036 (at 610km/h and 22000ft).

Read the paper Blutarski, then to prove that you understood it, do the same drag calculations for Mustang and tell us the result. Then we'll discuss more if you want.

Nevertheless Cd0 for Bf-109G remains 0.0235 and nothing else. And don't forget that Hoerner's book is not about Bf-109, it's a book on fluid dynamics, it has only a small section dealing with drag calculations for a piston engine aircraft, in this case a Bf-109. You can't compare data comming from the reasearch done by the aerodynamics department at Messerschmitt AG with the data found in a book explaining basic calculations for students. Do you understand this basic fact?

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

[This message was edited by Huckebein_FW on Wed February 04 2004 at 02:28 PM.]

Zayets
02-04-2004, 03:30 PM
Blutarski,
Not even crossing my mind yer nuts or whatsoever! Lemme show ya how i see this whole stuff (not like it counts for a second but still)

(1) I have NEVER disputed the document which Huckebein has posted. This is just a false Potemkin Village argument behind which he tries to hide.

-That is most probably true but you are very hypocrite regarding this.You claim up 'n high that you didn't contested the data presented BUT! you attack by saying "Mr.X from Me plant said that!Are ya mad? You call that man an idiot?"

(2) What I do argue is the claim made by Huckebein that the .036 drag co-efficient calculation made by Dr Ing Sighard Hoerner in his published work on the Bf109G is wrong.

-Hold yer horses right here!Which document is an official one? A paperwork does not reflect real data IMHO , but I might be wrong.

Dr Hoerner was the chief aerodynamicist for Messerschmitt AG during the WW2 period.

-All my respects to him.I found out about his name watching how you are killing each other in neverending threads.

His department produced the document that Huckebein posted.

-Here H can be hypocrite exactly like you!


-Hoerner is still considered a leading authority on fluid dynamics and drag by the aeronautical engineering community.

-I'm 101% sure that he's way smarter than I am

His manual on fluid dynamics and drag is still in print (you can buy it on the web today) since 1965. Do you think that maybe Dr Hoerner knew a little bit about the Bf109 and drag functions?

-see? Fluid dynamics& drag manual is not a test case for Bf109.Sure he knew by heart Bf109!

(3)When I ask Huckebein to defend his claims that the book is just "blurry recollections" (his words) and that Hoerner was not working from "correct" data and Hoerner did not know what he was doing, etc, etc, he does not give an answer. Instead he waves his report and asks me why I think it is wrong.

-Allow me. All I have read was that Mr. Hoerner input data was wrong,not like he was not knowing what he was doin'.Eh?


(4) I do not think Huckebein's document is wrong and never said I did. But, there are all sorts of different standards by which to measure drag values.

-See? Then I ask you , from where this fight?

Both values are probably correct and simply reflect under different evaluation standards.

-There you go!But is the first time you've said it.

But Huckebein continues to insist that Hoerner's .036 calculation is wrong.

-I have no idea if is wrong.H's calculation might be wrong as well.

To believe that, one must believe that Huckebein knows more about the Bf109 and the subject of fluid dynamics than Dr Hoerner, who actually worked on real Bf109 aerodynamics during the war in a professional capacity.

-Why do you mix them again?

I have a lot of trouble believing that. It's a good deal more likely that Huckebein knows less about aerodynamics and fluid dynamics than he thinks he does. This has been proven to be the case in the past.

-I don't know H , honestly. But I've seen he gets the boot every time he's trying to explain (logically) this subject.

If you still believe that I am completely nuts to think in such a way, then there is probably no further argument I can make to change your mind. You will have your opinion and I will continue in mine. But I am right in this case.

BLUTARSKI

Listen,Blutarski,I could care less if the Cx89 coeficient is 0.0934E2 instead of 0.00234E5. All I care is playing the darn game. This is what I know.And most probably in a very bad way.Your coeficient or H coeficient worth 0 , null , nada , nix in the game because I really doubt Oleg will read all those papers lost in the world.Why don't you enjoy the game instead of using that scientific calculator to check the 45th decimal position from a number that is already history?

Salute!

Zayets out

WWMaxGunz
02-04-2004, 03:37 PM
I hate to back Huckebein up, but right ~is~ right, if I get his point (see below).

I think Blutarski fails to understand anything here besides a name and a figure attached to that name, like just what conditions that figure is and what it means. Huck in using Cd0 is illustrating the degree of sleekness as it were of the 109.

Two planes at full speed in straight level flight. One has more twice weight and more power. Way more weight and less than half again the power. Both planes are only using a small percent of their power to stay aloft, the great majority of the power is for fighting drag other than induced. The amount of power to keep the heavier one up is twice as much but still very small compared to the power to push it forward at full speed.

At this point we can look at 1.4x power for one than the other and say that it is going a little slower for 1.4x the power; the overall drag with not only coefficient but size and all the other factors less major must be more than the lighter, less powerful and slightly faster airplane.

You want to make them turn?? In the hands of equally good pilots there is no way the P-47 will outturn the 109 very far in a flat turn unless maybe the 109 had a full bombload. I say very far because with excess speed the P-47 can trade energy for angle but even then you can only go so far. Perhaps if the P-47 was losing some alt all through the turn it could hold on a bit longer, that much weight has a load of potential energy that can be turned to kinetic energy and immediately burned off in the turn drag. And no way the P-47 will regain speed as fast as the 109 and no way the P-47 will be able to pull it's weight around endlessly in flat turns that the 109 can hold.

But any pilots can fly any planes less well than possible which is why anecdotes just like kill counts mean NOTHING when it comes to comparing planes. Does having more children mean you have a bigger d**k?

Lastly, comparing engine power between planes is like trying to talk cars. These planes have propellers, usually different. With speed and rpms increasing the props become less and less efficient. And paddle blade props were the answer to applying more engine horsepower to gain more thrust but that is not saying they are more efficient in all speeds and rpms but only they allowed more power used where thinner props failed. How many piston engine prop planes made for non-racing private use have such props since the war? If the paddle blade was more efficient in all ways then ALL these planes would have them and I don't see that out in the world.

1.4x the engine and how many times the thrust?


Neal

Blutarski2004
02-04-2004, 04:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I hate to back Huckebein up, but right ~is~ right, if I get his point (see below).

I think Blutarski fails to understand anything here besides a name and a figure attached to that name, like just what conditions that figure is and what it means. Huck in using Cd0 is illustrating the degree of sleekness as it were of the 109.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Neal, this is not complicated. Just go back and read the posts. I'm not the guy disputing data. Huckebein is the one.

Huckebein's alleges that Dr Sighard Hoerner, chief aerodynamicist for Messerschmitt AG during WW2 and author of a fluid dynamics textbook STILL in print and use today after nearly forty years, did not know what he was doing when he calculated a Cd-min value of .036 for the Bf109G.

We can all read numbers off a graph. But understanding what those numbers actually represent in the context of a very complex science is something else again. Total drag studies are developed from a number of different subordinate drag values, all of which are presumably valid within their own range of conditions and assumptions. The fact that Huckebein's chart is correct says zero about the point at hand.

Now go and ask Huckebein his opinion of Dr. Hoerner's aggregate .036 Cd-min drag value for the Bf109G. Huckebein thinks it too high. He'll tell you it is wrong, that Hoerner was just working from "blurry recollections", that Hoerner was not working with correct performance data for the 109G, that Hoerner made mistakes, etc, etc. A friend of mine who is an aerospace engineer currently working on fighter projects for the USAF tells me that Hoerner basically "wrote the book" on modern fluid dynamics and holds up his drag breakdown of the 109G2 as a perfect example of how it is supposed to be done.

Do you know enough about fluid dynamics and drag to know whether Huckebein actually enjoys a full and correct grasp of the topic as he claims to do? Sorry, but I do not. Do you remember the lengthy lectures he delivered about his calculations of high-speed roll rates? Aero engineers on this forum demonstrated that Huck was patently wrong?

Now, in order to satisfy yourself that I'm not telling stories, do your own research on Hoerner's background and credentials. Then tell me which person you think is more likely to be correct - Hoerner or Huckebein. Like I said, it's not complicated.

BLUTARSKI

Blottogg
02-04-2004, 06:15 PM
I see Huck is still practicing engineering without a license (or degree.) Once again, rather than engage in a discussion of learning, he would rather use selective information to try to promote the idea of the 109's invincibility. Huck, I don't appreciate your arrogance, but I could at least tolerate it in silence if it weren't accompanied by such ignorance and deception. A couple of points:

- The graph Huck keeps posting in these arguments is for a G2 (BTW, where did this graph come from Huck? I do not doubt its authenticity, but there's a pretty good chance Dr. Hoerner helped produce it.) Dr. Hoerner's text doesn't specify G subtype, but the diagrams show what looks like a G6, a lumpier, and thus draggier, version. Huck didn't see fit to mention this, I'm guessing because it didn't support his preconceptions. It is his MO.

- The original poster's link reinforces my distain for trying to prove aerodynamics with anecdotes. The stories are useful to spark interest in exploring performance, but are pretty poor at illuminating answers. Skimming the article, it seems the Luftwaffe pilots weren't max performing the aircraft. It's also unclear if turns were sustained or instantaneous. The Jug's wing loading wouldn't help an instantaneous turn fight (where wing loading is a primary indicator of performance.) Sustained turn performance is roughly proportional to P/W ratio though, and thus is a different comparison. "But Blotto, the Jug had a worse P/W ratio than the 109" I hear some of you cry (you masochists still following this thread.) True, but P/W ratios at altitude can be very different than those at SL. The Jug's compound turbo supercharging allowed it to hold more power at higher altitude than the simpler mechanical supercharger arrangement of the 109. At a high enough altitude, the Jug could no doubt out turn the 109 in a sustained turn contest. These turns would be closer to airliner turns than the gray-out variety though.

Blutarski and Cajun76, give up trying to convince Huck the 109 was anything other than the pinnacle of aerodynamic achievement. I know I have. I've come to the conclusion that trying to engage in a conversation with Huck participating as an open-minded participant is like beating your head against a wall: you don't learn much except that it feels so good when you stop. Huck reminds me of Vizzini from the "Princess Bride". Paraphrasing,

Wesley: "You're really that smart?"
Vizzini (Huck): "Let me put it to you this way. You ever heard of Bernoulli, Hoerner, Sikorski?"
Wesley: "Yes."
Vizzini (Huck): "Morons."

I don't doubt Huck's graph is genuine, but I'll also put a little bit of trust in Dr. Hoerner's calculations. In his example, he chose the 109 because it was an aircraft he had no small amount of experience with. There is an absence of any detailed documentation to back up his recollections, unfortunately. The end of the war produced a flurry of document burning, which is in part why I'm curious where Huck's graph came from. If it survived, maybe other stuff did, too. Dr. Hoerner's numbers and conclusion look correct however, and are supported by the P/W and speed comparisons for the 109 and the Jug (correctly observed earlier by Cajun76.)

The bottom line is that for max level speed, drag=thrust (for a thrust line aligned with the wing chord, there will actually be a slight thrust component upwards corresponding to sin[AoA], but that's pretty small.) Thrust is proportional to HP, and give or take a few percentage points for prop efficiency, HP can be used to gauge overall drag for these contemporary aircraft operating at roughly equal top speeds. Dr. Hoerner's details may be off here or there (I don't know), but his conclusion of overall Cd must agree with the (as yet uncontested) figures for HP, weight and speed he used. And it does.

Neal, nice post (as usual.)

Now, Huck would have you believe that the 109 had a relatively low drag coefficient (though the G2's Cd0=0.0235 is still nothing to crow about), but he conveniently fails to mention that its P/W ratio and top speed simply don't add up to low drag. It needed a high P/W ratio to overcome (relatively) high drag; the side benefit being good climb and sustained turn performance (at least until the supercharger reached its limit at high altitude.) Either the drag coefficient is relatively high compared to its contemporaries, or there is a vast conspiracy to malign the 109 by the world at large my miss-recording speeds, powers and weights. Guess which version I'm favoring.

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

Edit - props to Neal

Huckebein_FW
02-04-2004, 07:26 PM
blotto, there is no need to ask for my credentials every time you pop-up in here. If I remember correctly you are the college drop-out that never practiced in the aerospace field, while I'm doing fine in my graduate studies. Your last try for an interpretation of the aerodynamic qualities of Emil and an early Spit ended in comedy. If you still have the post you can paste it here to cheer-up the atmosphere a little.

If you think that you still have some basic skills in this field you can prove it by calculating the Mustang CdO using dr Hoerner method and see if you reach the correct result. I can give you the max speed and max power for Mustang at 22000ft. I proposed this to Blutarski but he won't do it in a thousand years. So how about that, prove how much dr. Hoerner's method is worth, prove that is not an oversimplified calculation. See if you can reach Mustangs Cd0.

In the mean time I'm glad to notice a slight progress in our talk. I see that you accepted the 0.0235 Cd0 for G2. Yes, you're are right when you say that G2 was one of the cleanest 109s, G6 had something like 0.025-0.026, the worst was Emil with 0.028. K4 was the slickest with 0.021-0.022, Cd0 among the best of the late war fighters (with the exception of laminar flow wings fighters). Also don't forget that flat plate area, which gives us a direct criteria to compare the parasite drag of fighters, is most probably the smallest after Yak-3.

Always if you want to make a drag comparison with 109 make sure you have the right HP ratings and max speeds (at calculation altitude), internet is certainly not a source for correct data on 109. I can provide you what you need on 109.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

Blottogg
02-04-2004, 09:43 PM
Huck, what did I tell you the last time you "contributed" engineering input to one of these threads? Just in case you "forgot" or ignored me (like you seem to do with every bit of information that blasphemes your 109 shrine) I'll remind you: I told you I wouldn't keep correcting your homework for free.

That being said, I've got to pay some bills, and get hired as an engineer (again), so I may as well put in some practice, and show the few masochists still reading this that engineering isn't slight-of-hand and wishful thinking like you'd have it be. FYI, I graduated from the Aero Engineering program at the University of Minnesota, and was employed as an engineer in the Air Force after I was medically grounded. My GPA isn't the highest, but I've got the sheepskin. Are we supposed to be impressed that you're in Grad School? I'll wager it's not for an engineering degree. If it is, go straight to your academic advisor, and slap him or her, hard. You're not getting your money's worth.

From Dr. Hoerner:

T = (eta)P/V ,where:

T = Thrust (lbf)
eta = propeller efficiency
P = power (ft lb/sec)
V = Velocity (ft/sec)

From AHT (mine's on back order, thanks to SkyChimp for previous posts)
P = 1350 HP @ 22,000 ft.,3000 RPM, 67" boost = 742,500 ft lb/sec
V = 427 mph @ 22,000 ft. = 626 ft/sec
eta = 0.85 (I'm estimating this based on the same value used by Dr. Hoerner for the 109. The Mustang has a prop with a better aspect ratio [good], but longer blades, and four blades [bad] vs. three for the 109, so I'm assuming the two are about a wash.)

T = 0.85(742,500)/626 = 1008 lbf for the Mustang, or 8 lbf more than the 109, according to Dr. Hoerner. Also from him, the 109 exhaust produces 140 lbf itself. Assuming the Merlin has similar thrust recovery, and scaling appropriately:

T = 140(1350/1200) = 158 lbf

Total Thrust = 1008 + 158 = 1166 lbf

Also from Dr. Hoerner:

D/q = Cd(S)
D = Drag (lbf)
q = dynamic pressure = 1/2(rho)V^2
rho = air density (0.001183 slugs/ft^3 @ 22,000 ft.)
Cd = total drag coefficient
S = reference surface area (wing area)

S = 235 ft^2 for the Mustang

q = 1/2(0.001183)(626)^2 = 232 lb/ft^2

D/q = Cd(S) = 1166/232 = 5.03 ft^2

Cd = 5.03/235 = 0.0214

So for the Mustang we have Cd = 0.0214, and for the Bf-109G(6?) we have Cd = 0.036. Is anyone (other than Huck) surprised by this?

Now, try to stick to the subject at hand. No Johnny Cochrane "Dream Team" slight-of-hand or distractions. This thread isn't about the Mustang, and only tangentially about the 109. What is it with you and drag coefficients anyway? You seem to heap so much importance on them, yet can't understand them correctly? Dogfights aren't won with coefficients. Engineers from opposing countries don't line up, crunch numbers and proclaim "My Cd is lower, we win!!!" Men flying planes fought WWII, not engineers with slide rules (at least not directly), and the 109 was a good weapon to fight with. That being said, even one of its engineers admits it wasn't the lowest drag fighter around. From Dr. Hoerner:

"The resulting drag coefficient (on a total wing area of 172 ft^2)

Cd = 0.036; or Cdwet = 0.0105

on total wetted area of 590 ft^2 indicates an airplane with comparatively poor aerodynamic efficiency (the Me-109 [sic] was first designed in 1935; size [i.e. weight] and output of the engine were ~ doubled between then and 1944"

If you want to discuss the subject openly and intelligently, by all means contribute. If not, read from a distance, and go light another candle for the 109.

In the mean time, how about answering my question as to the source of your G2 drag polar? And how did those torsion box calculations come out (not that they're applicible to the 109's single conventional spar wing), or the Reynolds number calcuations? I don't remember ever hearing back from you on those, either.

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

Edit - Additional Huck questions

[This message was edited by Blottogg on Wed February 04 2004 at 08:51 PM.]

J30Vader
02-04-2004, 11:14 PM
I have to wonder just what this has to do with P-47 pilot accounts.

I'd ask what the Cd or Cdwet of the 47 was, but it has nothing to do with the topic either.

Cajun76
02-05-2004, 02:02 AM
The problem, Vader, is that Huckebein heped scorn in his original post about both the article, and another thread/posters in that other thread. Basically that Jugs are incapable, in any situation, of turning with German planes. I've never said that the Jug was a stall fighter, but high speed, high alt environment is the the Jugs playground.

Huckebein dosen't believe the Jug is competetive, at all, even though it was Jugs, in the critical '43 era that bore the brunt of operations. They couldn't have sucked that bad, if they were getting the job done. On paper, where Huckebein gets confused, the 109 should whoop any Jug, but that was not the case in reality. My comparision is trying to show that the P-47 was a competitor and even a winner. Not everytime, just 4.6 times to 1. &lt;---- Which can be misleading, I know.

Hucks 'calculations' would have the 109G6 doing about 500mph, which is perposterous. He dosen't stop and think about having such a low drag coef. mated to that DB605, and the concequences. He prefers to cling to that fantasy. I have approached this problem of drag from a "results" perspective, instead of a theoretical one. I can't throw the formulas around like some of these guys, but I'm glad they're here to explain, in almost http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif laymens terms what is going on mathematiclly. My method sets it up more as a physics problem. I won't get hard, specific numbers, but the comparision speaks for itself.

Blottog, I know that I'm bashing my head agianst reinforced concrete when trying to discuss this subject with Huck. I'm mainly trying to demonstrate that the Jug is a 'player'. It's not dominating, but it can hold it's own, especially the higher it is. Pilot accounts can be misleading, but so can waving sheafs of paper over your head and claiming that the fight is won already. The pilot obviously made it back to tell his story, whether the 109 pilots had a chart for Cd0 in their cockpits or not.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Realfire_02.gif
Have you thanked a veteran today?

WWMaxGunz
02-05-2004, 09:06 AM
Thanks Blotto but you know better than I! MUCh better. I think Oryx would be here but last we communicated he was busier than a 3 legged dog trying to bury a turd on an icy lake. (got that from Larry The Cable Guy, he is insanely redneck funny!)

I don't see why the crying from somebody. The two planes are very far apart in the areas they performed best at and to be caught playing to the other guys strengths is how to get shot down. No plane does it all better than every other. I'm sure that at very high speeds or altitudes that the 109's, any of them, are not the best choice. In climbing and turning below the upper parts of the skies I'm sure they can outdo the Jugs. Funny but the reverse applied to the 109E's vs the Hurricanes in 1940 except for climb. Down low the Hurri did outturn the 109 with low being under 8000 ft, the more lower the better. The Hurri didn't breathe well up high but the extra compressor weight hurt the 109 down low. That doesn't make either plane the better except in it's own place and speed range it has that edge which is not everything anyway. Hurris caught 109's up high and 109's caight Hurris down low. The same is true for Jugs and 109's, 190's and Yaks, etc, etc. In a doghouse chart matchup between Spitfire and Mustang done on SimHQ it was shown that if the fight stayed at high speed the Mustang had the edge but if the speeds bled too low then the Spit would have it. The high speed was to where any hard turn would be at max G's for the pilots so the Spit could not turn harder than the Mustang, 6 G's for both! How long does anybody thing that would last? The Mustang either would or would not take its' shot and either leave or be disadvantaged, which is about the same way Erich Hartmann worked!

It's not like chess. There are not fixed moves for the pieces so that one is always better. And it's not like an entire country is either good or bad or smarter or dumber or more or less advanced because a piece of equipment is suited for one application better or worse than another from another country. To think so is either egotism or some kind of persecution complex, a coin that some seem to carry for life and whichever side pops up you can be sure it may be turned to please the holder at will. This goes for many US fans especially when it comes to battlefield armor. It happened, it's over, take the pride and chew on it if you can't swallow it outright.


Neal

Blutarski2004
02-05-2004, 09:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blottogg:
Huck reminds me of Vizzini from the "Princess Bride". Paraphrasing,
Wesley: "You're really that smart?"
Vizzini (Huck): "Let me put it to you this way. You ever heard of Bernoulli, Hoerner, Sikorski?"
Wesley: "Yes."
Vizzini (Huck): "Morons."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... How perfectly apropos.

BLUTARSKI

Huckebein_FW
02-05-2004, 10:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blottogg:
Huck reminds me of Vizzini from the "Princess Bride". Paraphrasing,
Wesley: "You're really that smart?"
Vizzini (Huck): "Let me put it to you this way. You ever heard of Bernoulli, Hoerner, Sikorski?"
Wesley: "Yes."
Vizzini (Huck): "Morons."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... How perfectly apropos.

BLUTARSKI

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you swallowed your bitter pill Blutarski, now that master blotto told to the world that Cd0 for Bf-109G-2 is 0.0235? Is it clear for cajun too? tell me so that we can move to another subject.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

J30Vader
02-05-2004, 10:21 AM
Ok Cajun http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The problem is you are peeing in the wind. You and I know that the P-47 is competitive. History showed that. Huck can say this and that all he wants. Doesn't change the facts. But he will never agree with you.

The head of the Luftwaffe Technical Office, in a meeting with Willy Messerschmitt, said they needed a fighter with the same speed of the 109 plus greater range and better climb rate.

Willy's respnse, " You want a fast fighter or a barn door!! "

Two years later, after being forced to run for shelter by P-47s attacking Augsburg, he turned to WM and said " Well, there are your barn doors. "

The 47 proved itself. In the game the only people who think it is a crap plane are those who can't fly it.

Huckebein_FW
02-05-2004, 10:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blottogg:
Huck, what did I tell you the last time you "contributed" engineering input to one of these threads? Just in case you "forgot" or ignored me (like you seem to do with every bit of information that blasphemes your 109 shrine) I'll remind you: I told you I wouldn't keep correcting your homework for free.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ouch, you were ironic. Why don't you ask a fee, see what happens?
And please pardon my insolence, when was the last time you have corrected me?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
That being said, I've got to pay some bills, and get hired as an engineer (again), so I may as well put in some practice, and show the few masochists still reading this that engineering isn't slight-of-hand and wishful thinking like you'd have it be. FYI, I graduated from the Aero Engineering program at the University of Minnesota, and was employed as an engineer in the Air Force after I was medically grounded. My GPA isn't the highest, but I've got the sheepskin. Are we supposed to be impressed that you're in Grad School? I'll wager it's not for an engineering degree. If it is, go straight to your academic advisor, and slap him or her, hard. You're not getting your money's worth.[/QOUTE]

So I guess we all should be impressed with your resume? or with your engineering skill demonstrated in repeating some primary school calculations? Personally I'm stunned.

Nevertheless you computation might have a merit. It will help Blutarski understand that value 0.036 given in Hoerner's calculation is Cd not Cd0, just like your result of 0.022 is Cd not Cd0 (0.0175 for Mustang). I'm sure that after he heard it right from guru himself he'll be happy with it.

[QUOTE]
So for the Mustang we have Cd = 0.0214, and for the Bf-109G(6?) we have Cd = 0.036. Is anyone (other than Huck) surprised by this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not surprised that Mustang is better, nevertheless the value 0.036 for G6 Cd in the conditions described is incorrect; one important reason is that max speed given at 22000ft for the G6 equipped with DB605A is smaller than in reality. I suppose you realize that it affects Cd calculation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Now, try to stick to the subject at hand. No Johnny Cochrane "Dream Team" slight-of-hand or distractions. This thread isn't about the Mustang, and only tangentially about the 109. What is it with you and drag coefficients anyway?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your virtual brother in ideeas Blutarski come up with the topic very insistently, because some other aero expert he met told him that 109 Cd0 calculated in Hoerner's book is 0.036. Imagine the excitament for poor Blutarski. He could not wait a single day to tell me this stupid theory. So the first time he sees me he grabs me with it. Read the thread before accusing me of hijacking this topic.

Here's an interesting fact you might want (or not) to remember. We previously had a heated debate over Carson's ignorant "report", where he also quoted Cd0 for Bf-109 as 0.036, surely taken from Hoerner's calculation. He of course did not know how to make the difference between Cd and Cd0, for him they were the same. I'm sure you won't have troubles remember that you also supported this number as a correct Cd0 value for Bf-109. When you were corrected that this Cd0 is more likely for a bomber (though there were plenty of bombers with Cd0 better than 0.03) you choose to stand by Carson's ignorance. Now all of a sudden you want to teach us something, what? your prejudice and ignorance?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
In the mean time, how about answering my question as to the source of your G2 drag polar? And how did those torsion box calculations come out (not that they're applicible to the 109's single conventional spar wing), or the Reynolds number calcuations? I don't remember ever hearing back from you on those, either.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

G2 drag polar is a Messerschmitt AG document, as you can read in the upper corner.
With Reynolds number I corrected you right away. As for 109 wing resistance to torsion it was proven by allied engineers after the war. Or do you want to prove them wrong? how about the roll formula from NACA documents. Are you still contesting NACA's expertise?

I have a proposal, it will be a perfect opportunity to show that you can make calculations for secondary school also. I liked very much your certainty regarding Jugs ability to outturn 109G at high altitude just because they had a minor advantage in powerloading (for 109 variants earlier than those equipped with DB605AS) even though Jugs have a big disadvantage in wingloading. I'd very much like to see a calculation proving this. High school is fun.

[This message was edited by Huckebein_FW on Thu February 05 2004 at 11:34 AM.]

Blutarski2004
02-05-2004, 11:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Have you swallowed your bitter pill Blutarski, now that master blotto told to the world that Cd0 for Bf-109G-2 _is_ 0.0235? Is it clear for cajun too? tell me so that we can move to another subject.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Huckebein, in the interest of maintaining good intergalactic relations, I will make yet another attempt to transmit to your homeworld.

Please read the following carefully -

(1) THE ONLY, REPEAT ONLY, ARGUMENT I HAVE WITH YOU RELATES TO YOUR IRRATIONAL DISMISSAL OF HOERNER'S .036 DRAG WORKUP ON THE 109G.

If you are unable to understand the above statement, please ask a friend with better command of the English language for translation help.

Your smug arrogance will come back to really bite you one fine day.


BLUTARSKI

Huckebein_FW
02-05-2004, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Have you swallowed your bitter pill Blutarski, now that master blotto told to the world that Cd0 for Bf-109G-2 _is_ 0.0235? Is it clear for cajun too? tell me so that we can move to another subject.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Huckebein, in the interest of maintaining good intergalactic relations, I will make yet another attempt to transmit to your homeworld.

Please read the following carefully -

(1) THE ONLY, REPEAT ONLY, ARGUMENT I HAVE WITH YOU RELATES TO YOUR IRRATIONAL DISMISSAL OF HOERNER'S .036 DRAG WORKUP ON THE 109G.

If you are unable to understand the above statement, please ask a friend with better command of the English language for translation help.

Your smug arrogance will come back to really bite you one fine day.


BLUTARSKI
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good then, now you can throw to the garbage bin the great technical advices from Col Kit Carson meant to breath life into dated 109.
Next time we talk about this don't forget to bring the real Cd0 for Bf-109, not the one picked by Carson in his ignorance.

About Hoerner's calculations everything is good as long as you do understand that they are simplified, meant to be easily tought to students. They are not by any means correct data for Bf-109, something to use as a reference. Correct aerodynamic data for Bf-109G is given in the original Messerschmitt chart posted here.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

[This message was edited by Huckebein_FW on Thu February 05 2004 at 11:59 AM.]

Blutarski2004
02-05-2004, 12:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Have you swallowed your bitter pill Blutarski, now that master blotto told to the world that Cd0 for Bf-109G-2 _is_ 0.0235? Is it clear for cajun too? tell me so that we can move to another subject.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Huckebein, in the interest of maintaining good intergalactic relations, I will make yet another attempt to transmit to your homeworld.

Please read the following carefully -

(1) THE ONLY, REPEAT ONLY, ARGUMENT I HAVE WITH YOU RELATES TO YOUR IRRATIONAL DISMISSAL OF HOERNER'S .036 DRAG WORKUP ON THE 109G.

If you are unable to understand the above statement, please ask a friend with better command of the English language for translation help.

Your smug arrogance will come back to really bite you one fine day.


BLUTARSKI<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good then, now you can throw to the garbage bin the great technical advices from Col Kit Carson meant to breath life into dated 109.
Next time we talk about this don't forget to bring the real Cd0 for Bf-109, not the one picked by Carson in his ignorance.

About Hoerner's calculations everything is good as long as you do understand that they are simplified, meant to be easily tought to students. They are not by any means correct data for Bf-109, something to use as a reference. Correct aerodynamic data for Bf-109G is given in the original Messerschmitt chart posted here.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... So what we come down to after all this is that Hoerner's procedures are good, it is only that his results are not correct.

Whatever you say.

BLUTARSKI

Huckebein_FW
02-05-2004, 01:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

(1) THE ONLY, REPEAT ONLY, ARGUMENT I HAVE WITH YOU RELATES TO YOUR IRRATIONAL DISMISSAL OF HOERNER'S .036 DRAG WORKUP ON THE 109G.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is another proof that yelling at people does not solve anything. I simply skipped the passage because it was in caps.

Now you're trying to twist it again. You quoted your aeroguru with the following:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Are you familiar with Sighard Hoerner's classic _Fluid Dynamic Drag_? Herr Doktor Ingeneur Hoerner was Messerschmitt's aerodynamicist in WW II and the book uses the Bf 109G as an example, providing a very thorough drag buildup. He gives the D/q (equivalent flat-plate drag area) as 6.2 sq. ft. and the Cd-min as 0.036. His drag buildup is the classic illustration of how to do it, and very illuminating.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Basically he said that Cd0 is 0.036, which was incorrect, so I gave the correct value directly from an original document. Now you're saying that you were actually talking about Cd not Cd0.
Yeah, "let's do the twist.."

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

Huckebein_FW
02-05-2004, 01:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:

About Hoerner's calculations everything is good as long as you do understand that they are simplified, meant to be easily tought to students. They are not by any means correct data for Bf-109, something to use as a reference. Correct aerodynamic data for Bf-109G is given in the original Messerschmitt chart posted here.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... So what we come down to after all this is that Hoerner's procedures are good, it is only that his results are not correct.

Whatever you say.

BLUTARSKI

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hoerner's calculations are good for teaching not for getting real world results. He actually gives the Cd0 resulted in his calculations, something like 0.033 for G6 which is of course wrong. Hoerner himself will contradict this result by quoting another wartime real world test done by the French on Emil: 0.028 Cd0. Since Gustav was a vast improvement over Emil, Cd0 for Gustav resulted in Hoerner's calculations should have been better than 0.028 (the real Cd0 for G6 is 0.025-0.026, there are some aerodynamic differences between variants). 0.033 is far off, this is why this particular method is purely pedagogical, with little practical value.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

WWMaxGunz
02-05-2004, 01:20 PM
cd, cd0, cd-min...... which belong together?

cd0 + induced drag = cd???

If so then at full speed induced drag is less than 5% of cd0?

.0235 * 1.05 does not equal .036 by any stretch.

Some people here are just pushing words around with shovels. Not just one person either. Debate becomes like statistics, not the full truth and only a goal in mind. BS.

What is this degree you are working on Huck? how many semesters to go? You are taking AE courses for credit? I ask because you seem to have no trouble discrediting others, any others, as part of your strategy that I'd like to know your expertise.

Blutarski, can you get your friend who knows more than you to post something besides the same thing over and over?

I might as well be reading Isegrim and the Chimp go at it.

If the ceiling of the P-47 is even less than 1km higher than for the 109G in question then certainly there is a range somewhat lower than the ceiling of that 109G where the P-47 will outturn it. Count on that because the 109G will be having enough trouble just keeping alt. But I don't keep charts of these things or have them memorized, not being as obsessed as some people.


Neal

Copperhead310th
02-05-2004, 01:20 PM
the mathmatical fomuyla is really quite simple as Blottogg explaines it....Huck your an idiot. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ohh & Ummmm ......you just got
OWNED!!!!

hahahaha http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Oh & Huckie.. you ever gonna stop comming into the USAAF plane threads & trolling?

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron)

Huckebein_FW
02-05-2004, 01:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
cd, cd0, cd-min...... which belong together?

cd0 + induced drag = cd???

If so then at full speed induced drag is less than 5% of cd0?

.0235 * 1.05 does not equal .036 by any stretch.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cd = Cd0 + Cdi, Cdi (coef of induced drag) is not constant, it depends on angle of attack; at high speeds in level flight the angle of attack it much smaller than at low speeds in level flight, that's because lift, just like drag, increases with the square of speed - since the weight of the aircraft remains the same (we can assume that for a short period of time) the lift has to remain the same (otherwise the aircraft will start to climb), but the angle of attack has to be decreased with the increase of speed to keep the lift constant; a decreased angle of attack will result in a smaller Cdi (and Cd); this is why induced drag at high speed (the drag produced by lift required to counter the weight) is very small compared with parasite drag (computed from Cd0).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Some people here are just pushing words around with shovels. Not just one person either. Debate becomes like statistics, not the full truth and only a goal in mind. BS.

What is this degree you are working on Huck? how many semesters to go? You are taking AE courses for credit? I ask because you seem to have no trouble discrediting others, any others, as part of your strategy that I'd like to know your expertise.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry Neal, but I won't tell that again. But it is not engineering it's more mathematically related. I have 2 more semesters, but most probably I will continue my studies.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
If the ceiling of the P-47 is even less than 1km higher than for the 109G in question then certainly there is a range somewhat lower than the ceiling of that 109G where the P-47 will outturn it. Count on that because the 109G will be having enough trouble just keeping alt. But I don't keep charts of these things or have them memorized, not being as obsessed as some people.
Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunatelly your example is trivial. There were no fights at the max ceiling of ww2 fighters. What is usually perceived as high altitude is somewhere over 7500-8000m altitude, up to 10000m. And yes P-47D is not in advantage in terms of powerloading at 30000ft over a Bf-109G/AS (109s fitted the simple, non MW-50, DB605AS engine). P-47D wingloading disadvantage remains the same as at sea level, therefore there is no doubt that Bf-109G/AS will still turn better. Not to mention the nimble G2.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

[This message was edited by Huckebein_FW on Thu February 05 2004 at 01:12 PM.]

BSS_Goat
02-05-2004, 01:47 PM
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzz*****snork*****ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Huckebein_FW
02-05-2004, 01:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:

Oh & Huckie.. you ever gonna stop comming into the USAAF plane threads & trolling?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was actually invited http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

Cajun76
02-05-2004, 02:39 PM
Let's see, 2 posts, with no mention of you Huckebein, and you show up bashing both the article, and 'Chimp and American farts? in another thread. Nice. And so I posted:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Huckebein_FW! How have you been? If you want to bash someone, do it in their thread, instead of lurking over here. I would give this advice to anyone. If you're going to be an a$$hole, then do it where everyone can see.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess that was your invitaion. So now I'm curious. What is the calculated max speed of a Bf-109G-2 and or -6 with a Cd0 of 0.0235? I noticed in an earlier post that you claim the max speed of the 109 is undereported!?

Huckebein wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'm not surprised that Mustang is better, nevertheless the value 0.036 for G6 Cd in the conditions described is incorrect; one important reason is that max speed given at 22000ft for the G6 equipped with DB605A is smaller than in reality. I suppose you realize that it affects Cd calculation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Speed for fighters is almost always overrated, by the company, and or the government. Rarely, and I mean very rarely, is a plane's published speed slower than IRL.

But I see where you might be going with this. If your value of 0.0235 is correct, then you'll need a higher top speed for the 109, which you have convieniently created. Very nice. So not only do you have a monopoly on the 109's drag coeff, but you also are the only one with it's true, undereported top speed. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gifNo wonder we can't get though to you! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I bet you have the 'actual' max altitude for the 109 as well. Low Earth Orbit sounds a little weak to me, better make it geosynchronus.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Realfire_02.gif
Have you thanked a veteran today?

Vladimir_No2
02-05-2004, 04:19 PM
One simple question for all of you:
Does it matter?

http://www.doyle.com.au/images/scharnhorst2.JPG
"Engage the enemy more closely" -Rear Admiral Cradock

Huckebein_FW
02-05-2004, 04:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
Let's see, 2 posts, with no mention of you Huckebein, and you show up bashing both the article, and 'Chimp and American farts? in another thread. Nice. And so I posted:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Huckebein_FW! How have you been? If you want to bash someone, do it in their thread, instead of lurking over here. I would give this advice to anyone. _If you're going to be an a$$hole, then do it where everyone can see._<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My first post on this thread is a few posts below yours and blutarski's. The post you are refering to was deleted right after it was sent, though I maintain my opinion expressed there http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

On the other hand you directly addressed me questions right on the your first post. This was the invitation. Why did you asked me if you did not wanted an answer? It's hard to follow your convoluted logic.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I guess that was your invitaion. So now I'm curious. What is the calculated max speed of a Bf-109G-2 and or -6 with a Cd0 of 0.0235? I noticed in an earlier post that you claim the max speed of the 109 is _undereported_!?

Huckebein wrote:
[QUOTE]I'm not surprised that Mustang is better, nevertheless the value 0.036 for G6 Cd in the conditions described is incorrect; one important reason is that max speed given at 22000ft for the G6 equipped with DB605A is smaller than in reality. I suppose you realize that it affects Cd calculation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Speed for fighters is almost always _over_rated, by the company, and or the government. Rarely, and I mean very rarely, is a plane's published speed _slower_ than IRL.

But I see where you might be going with this. __If__ your value of 0.0235 is correct, then you'll need a higher top speed for the 109, which you have convieniently created. Very nice. So not only do you have a monopoly on the 109's drag coeff, but you also are the only one with it's true, undereported top speed. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gifNo wonder we can't get though to you! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I bet you have the 'actual' max altitude for the 109 as well. Low Earth Orbit sounds a little weak to me, better make it geosynchronus.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cajun, you have become a selfdeluded of the lowest rank. You're now the Defender of the Truth don't you? you don't believe in documents anymore.
What's that "__If__ your value of 0.0235 is correct"??? it's from an original document, idiot. Can you produce a SINGLE USAAF document (or manufacturer that had contracts for USAAF) regarding max speed or climb of an USAAF fighter? Can you do that Cajun? If you don't then why do you want me to believe any data I see posted for USAAF fighters without a single document to support it? And how do you have the nerve to contest the data I post? I always post data from original documents, and if I have the time I post also the document, to calm down idiots like you and blutarski. Yes, I have original documents with real life speed and climb test for almost all Bf-109 variants. Make sure you have the corresponding USAAF data before contesting data I post.

Now to get to the point: speed for G2 at 22000 ft is 645km/h and for G6/AS with 605AS is 645km/h and with 605ASM is 680km/h. There is no Gustav that I know which does only 610km/h (without having external loads) at 22000ft. Also 1200HP@22000ft he gives for 605A are actually PS and they are measured statically not dynamically. At over 600km/h the power rating will have around 50HP less.
Also the propeller efficiency is in the best case 0.8-0.81 at max RPM.

This is why Hoerner calculates a Cd0 of 0.033 for G6, far higher than that of Emil, which he gives in the very same paper as 0.028. That shows how far off his calculation is, Gustav was much more refined aerodynamically than Emil, so he should have obtained a smaller value than 0.028 (correct value is 0.025-0.026). You have to understand Hoerner calculations in the context they are given, a textbook for students trying to learn first basic calculations for aerodynamics of a plane. This and nothing more. It was never meant to give accurate data about Bf-109.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

tagert
02-05-2004, 05:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Cajun, you have become a selfdeluded of the lowest rank. You're now the Defender of the Truth don't you? you don't believe in documents anymore.
What's that "__If__ your value of 0.0235 is correct"??? it's from an original document, idiot. Can you produce a _SINGLE_ USAAF document (or manufacturer that had contracts for USAAF) regarding max speed or climb of an USAAF fighter? Can you do that Cajun? If you don't then why do you want me to believe any data I see posted for USAAF fighters without a single document to support it? And how do you have the nerve to contest the data I post? I always post data from original documents, and if I have the time I post also the document, to calm down idiots like you and blutarski. Yes, I have original documents with real life speed and climb test for almost all Bf-109 variants. Make sure you have the corresponding USAAF data before contesting data I post.

Now to get to the point: speed for G2 at 22000 ft is 645km/h and for G6/AS with 605AS is 645km/h and with 605ASM is 680km/h. There is no Gustav that I know which does only 610km/h (without having external loads) at 22000ft. Also 1200HP@22000ft he gives for 605A are actually PS and they are measured statically not dynamically. At over 600km/h the power rating will have around 50HP less.
Also the propeller efficiency is in the best case 0.8-0.81 at max RPM.

This is why Hoerner calculates a Cd0 of 0.033 for G6, far higher than that of Emil, which he gives in the very same paper as 0.028. That shows how far off his calculation is, Gustav was much more refined aerodynamically than Emil, so he should have obtained a smaller value than 0.028 (correct value is 0.025-0.026). You have to understand Hoerner calculations in the context they are given, a textbook for students trying to learn first basic calculations for aerodynamics of a plane. This and nothing more. It was never meant to give accurate data about Bf-109.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and just a few days ago in another thread...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
if you're still thinking of reaching the 50 posts threshold on this forum I recommend you to read the Rules of Conduct:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=226101101

A short passage from Code of Conduct:
"
*Harass, threaten, embarrass, or stalk or cause distress, unwanted attention or discomfort to another Member or Guest.

*Post content or send Communications of any form impugning someone's race, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, political beliefs, or ethnic heritage.

*Transmit or facilitate distribution of content or Communications that are harmful, abusive, racially or ethnically offensive, vulgar, sexually explicit, obscene, defamatory, infringing, invasive of personal privacy or publicity rights, or in a reasonable person's view, objectionable."

If you continue your campaign of slanderous affirmations against me or other any member of this forum I will dedicate all my efforts to see you banned. There are plenty of reasons for a ban on this thread alone.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huckie.. I think it is time you contated the mod's and turn yourself in! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

Huckebein_FW
02-05-2004, 05:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tagert:

Huckie.. I think it is time you contated the mod's and turn yourself in! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you call someone that denies original documents? I call him an idiot (though I think it's gentle).
Do you have any other suggestions?

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

tagert
02-05-2004, 05:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
If you don't then why do you want me to believe any data I see posted for USAAF fighters without a single document to support it? And how do you have the nerve to contest the data I post? I always post data from original documents, and if I have the time I post also the document, to calm down idiots like you and blutarski.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So.. instead of a document on the aircraft in question.. how about I post a picture of another airplane along with it's specs.. Would that be ok? LOL! Hope you say yes.. because it was ok for you to do in the Me262 speed of sound topic! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Sorry Huckie.. but your Hypocrisy knows no bounds!

P.S. where you said "You have to understand Hoerner calculations" that is However not Hoerner! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

tagert
02-05-2004, 05:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
How do you call someone that denies original documents? I call him an idiot (though I think it's gentle).
Do you have any other suggestions?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well do like I do and call them Huckie!

TAGERT

Huckebein_FW
02-05-2004, 05:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tagert:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
If you don't then why do you want me to believe any data I see posted for USAAF fighters without a single document to support it? And how do you have the nerve to contest the data I post? I always post data from original documents, and if I have the time I post also the document, to calm down idiots like you and blutarski.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So.. instead of a document on the aircraft in question.. how about I post a picture of another airplane along with it's specs.. Would that be ok? LOL! Hope you say yes.. because it was ok for you to do in the Me262 speed of sound topic! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Sorry Huckie.. but your Hypocrisy knows no bounds!

P.S. where you said "You have to understand Hoerner calculations" that is However not Hoerner! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

tagert buddy, you have serious problems with comprehension. I said on that topic hundreds of times that I do not know if Me-262 can be dived at Mach 1, what documents do I have to present if I say that?

Why I showed Yak-28 was because someone said that no plane with engines in wing nacelles can fly supersonic. I also said from the beginning that Yak-28 is more pointy, including the nacelles, but everybody seems to forget that Yak-28 was a supersonic plane, flying level at Mach 2, whereas we were interested if Me-262 could be dived to Mach 1, which is still transonic speed.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

Huckebein_FW
02-05-2004, 05:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tagert:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
If you don't then why do you want me to believe any data I see posted for USAAF fighters without a single document to support it? And how do you have the nerve to contest the data I post? I always post data from original documents, and if I have the time I post also the document, to calm down idiots like you and blutarski.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So.. instead of a document on the aircraft in question.. how about I post a picture of another airplane along with it's specs.. Would that be ok? LOL! Hope you say yes.. because it was ok for you to do in the Me262 speed of sound topic! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Sorry Huckie.. but your Hypocrisy knows no bounds!

P.S. where you said "You have to understand Hoerner calculations" that is However not Hoerner! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean you actually presented some original documents that I have denied? Then I can call you a liar. Happy now?

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

tagert
02-05-2004, 05:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Why I showed Yak-28 was because someone said that no plane with engines in wing nacelles can fly supersonic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well I dont recal anyone saying NO PLANE COULD! But I do recal they specifly said that the Me262 could not due to the inlets of the wing nacelles.. In that they are not deep enough to damp out turblent air during the shock wave formation.

TAGERT

Huckebein_FW
02-05-2004, 05:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tagert:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Why I showed Yak-28 was because someone said that no plane with engines in wing nacelles can fly supersonic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well I dont recal anyone saying NO PLANE COULD! But I do recal they specifly said that the Me262 could not due to the inlets of the wing nacelles.. In that they are not deep enough to damp out turblent air during the shock wave formation.

TAGERT<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who said that? Do we have a research center on this forum?

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

tagert
02-05-2004, 05:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Who said that?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My guess the person that you thought said no plane

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Do we have a research center on this forum?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sort of, in that we have SCHOOL TRAINED AERO ENGINEERS here in this forum

TAGERT

Huckebein_FW
02-05-2004, 05:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tagert:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Do we have a research center on this forum?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sort of, in that we have SCHOOL TRAINED AERO ENGINEERS here in this forum

TAGERT<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, plenty of them. They even moved a wind tunnel here on forum's database. Sweet!

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

tagert
02-05-2004, 05:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Yep, plenty of them. They even moved a wind tunnel here on forum's database. Sweet!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yup, but you feel your backgound is more fitting! LOL!

TAGERT

Huckebein_FW
02-05-2004, 05:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tagert:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Yep, plenty of them. They even moved a wind tunnel here on forum's database. Sweet!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yup, but you feel your backgound is more fitting! LOL!

TAGERT<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certainly, I have a database developer background http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

SkyChimp
02-05-2004, 05:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
I can give you the max speed and max power for Mustang at 22000ft.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure you can. You screwed up your interpretation of the chart in the P-51 manual so badly, you dumbfounded even the layest person in here.


BTW, I'm ashamed of all of you. How dare you. I came in here to beat up on Huck some more, and all you left me was a bloody lump http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

SkyChimp
02-05-2004, 05:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:

Yeah, "let's do the twist.."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stop, thief! That's my line for you! You're the Chubby Checker of the UBI boards.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Huckebein_FW
02-05-2004, 05:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
I can give you the max speed and max power for Mustang at 22000ft.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure you can. You screwed up your interpretation of the chart in the P-51 manual so badly, you dumbfounded even the layest person in here.


BTW, I'm ashamed of all of you. How dare you. I came in here to beat up on Huck some more, and all you left me was a bloody lump http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Skychimp, you're actually right. I screwed it up because I used poor quality sources like AHT.

How about bringing an original USAAF or manufacturer climb and max speed charts for Mustang D? So that blotto can get better results http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

SkyChimp
02-05-2004, 06:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Skychimp, you're actually right. I screwed it up because I used poor quality sources like AHT.

How about bringing an original USAAF or manufacturer climb and max speed charts for Mustang D? So that blotto can get better results http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Groucho said in the other thread that you rode the "short bus" to school.

That was funny as hell, didn't you think?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

SkyChimp
02-05-2004, 06:07 PM
BTW, the original article is great. It supports the fact, and tons of other pilots accounts, that the Bf-109 was easily outmanuvered at moderate to high speeds. No doubt due to the fact that control forces became excessively high at anything over moderate speed. Yep, the Bf-109 was "the Zero of the ETO." Great at slow speeds, outclassed otherwise.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

crazyivan1970
02-05-2004, 06:08 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

http://www.gransito.com/Immagini/Immagini%20Gallery/Immagini%20aBeautifulMind/07.jpg

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

tagert
02-05-2004, 06:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Certainly, I have a database developer background http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Pffffffffffffffft! HEHHAHHAHAHHEHAHAHAHAAA... Oh man.. thank you, I needed that!

TAGERT

Blottogg
02-05-2004, 06:28 PM
Huck, if you want to bash U.S. aircraft, start a new thread. If you want to practice creative aeronautics for the 109, start a new thread. People reading this thread's title want to read about the P-47, not your twisted aeronautical delusions of 109 grandeur.

I'm tired of correcting your errant attempts at engineering. I'm REALLY tired of you "forgetting" those corrections. I'm also tired of your slippery, lawyer-like transposition of aircraft variants and coefficients to suit your deluded "arguments". You're a good data-diver, but a crappy engineer. I'm a crappy engineer, and if I'M correcting you, guess where that puts you on the engineering food chain? Start a new thread, so we can all ignore you in peace.

As for the P-47, as I previously stated before allowing myself to be sidetracked, the P-47 could out sustained turn a 109G at high altitude, but these turns would be very gentle, as Ps (specific excess power) would be low for both, though slightly less low for the Jug. If anyone (other than Huck) wants to discuss the aero of this, I'd be happy to entertain.

My apologies to Neal, Vader, Cajun, Blutarski, et.al. for allowing myself to help hijack this thread. It wasn't intentional, and I hope some folks at least got something positive out of the resulting math. I've also got six pages or so of Dr. Hoerner's text that I could post for those interested. The math applies to all aircraft, though the example is for the 109G. I've lost the original link, but can post them on my web site.

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

Huckebein_FW
02-05-2004, 06:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
BTW, the original article is great. It supports the fact, and tons of other pilots accounts, that the Bf-109 was easily outmanuvered at moderate to high speeds. No doubt due to the fact that control forces became excessively high at anything over moderate speed. Yep, the Bf-109 was "the Zero of the ETO." Great at slow speeds, outclassed otherwise.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes, too many pieces of the puzzle fit together.
I think you should email Oleg this instant, urge him to modify the Jug. How can he claim "simulation" on the box when Jug is not up to his TRUE performance?
If Oleg does not comply you should make a strike or something. Don't forget to take tagert and copperhead with you.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

Blottogg
02-05-2004, 06:43 PM
Huck, you are annoying, unhelpful, ignorant, arrogant, combative and deceptive. Start a new thread.

As Oleg has previously mentioned, the Il-2/FB engine has problems above 10,000 meters, and possibly a bit lower than that as well. This is the realm where the P-47 would shine, so tweaking the Jugs FM would most likely not result in a true simulation in any event. I also wonder about including other high altitude types like the Me-163 and Ta-152 for this same reason.

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

SkyChimp
02-05-2004, 06:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Yes, too many pieces of the puzzle fit together.
I think you should email Oleg this instant, urge him to modify the Jug. How can he claim "simulation" on the box when Jug is not up to his TRUE performance?
If Oleg does not comply you should make a strike or something. Don't forget to take tagert and copperhead with you.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, he got the Bf-109 right, didn't he? Horribly heavy elevators, just like in real life.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Huckebein_FW
02-05-2004, 06:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Yes, too many pieces of the puzzle fit together.
I think you should email Oleg this instant, urge him to modify the Jug. How can he claim "simulation" on the box when Jug is not up to his TRUE performance?
If Oleg does not comply you should make a strike or something. Don't forget to take tagert and copperhead with you.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, he got the Bf-109 right, didn't he? Horribly heavy elevators, just like in real life.

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually in real life, Bf-109 had the best elevator response on a large speed range. In fact I have a dive test showing that Bf-109 can begin a 6G pull out at very high speed (0.7 Mach IIRC) with no stick force, just by setting the trim right (no force required for that either). That's the best pull-out you could get in a Mustang at this speed, but without any effort.

This is why North American copied Messerschmitt elevator system for Sabre A. But let me guess, you know better than North American engineers.

And when we are talking about dives please don't bring in discussion the "graveyard dive" P-47. It's a sad topic.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

[This message was edited by Huckebein_FW on Thu February 05 2004 at 06:11 PM.]

J30Vader
02-05-2004, 07:04 PM
The math kinda left me woozy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I wonder which Hoerner is correct? That can be debated to eternity. Only he knows for sure.

But as Blotto says, as Oleg says, the high alt model is broken. I doubt that adding P-47s or 51s was really thought of at the time. Hopefully, in the BoB game that will be addressed.

But I get so tired of reading about how the German machines were so much better.

Yes. They made the best rifles, tanks, warships, planes, ovens, bullets, shells.

And yet they lost.

SkyChimp
02-05-2004, 07:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Actually in real life, Bf-109 had the best elevator response on a large speed range. In fact I have a dive test showing that Bf-109 can begin a 6G pull out at very high speed (0.7 Mach IIRC) with no stick force, just by setting the trim right (no force required for that either). That's the best pull-out you could get in a Mustang at this speed, but without any effort.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huck says the Bf-109 had the best elevators, everyone else says otherwise. That clinches it for me, Huck must be right http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Huckebein_FW
02-05-2004, 07:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Actually in real life, Bf-109 had the best elevator response on a large speed range. In fact I have a dive test showing that Bf-109 can begin a 6G pull out at very high speed (0.7 Mach IIRC) with no stick force, just by setting the trim right (no force required for that either). That's the best pull-out you could get in a Mustang at this speed, but without any effort.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huck says the Bf-109 had the best elevators, everyone else says otherwise. That clinches it for me, Huck must be right http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And who's everyone else? you?
I wonder why LW aces did not want to convert to Fw-190, if Bf-109 was so difficult to control at high speeds. The favoured tactic of the experten was to dive at high speed over the target, shoot in close proximity, then avoid the target in the last moment. How can they do that if Bf-109 controls would not budge? How Hartmann could do it - have you seen him flexing his muscles?
The answer is easy, Bf-109 high speed control was excellent (for it's era).

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

Blottogg
02-05-2004, 07:40 PM
Huck, trimming nose up to recover from a dive is not indicative of good elevator response. Indeed, it is a last resort to overcome poor elevator response. Trim is a secondary flight control, elevators (or all moving stabilizers controlled with the stick and not the trim wheel) are primary flight controls. Trimming out of a dive was dangerous because it was easy to overshoot the desired g loading at high speeds.

For the last time, if you want to propagate 109 propaganda, start a new thread. The title of this thread, in case you've missed it, is "p47 pilots accounts".

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

SkyChimp
02-05-2004, 07:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
And who's everyone else? you?
I wonder why LW aces did not want to convert to Fw-190, if Bf-109 was so difficult to control at high speeds. The favoured tactic of the experten was to dive at high speed over the target, shoot in close proximity, then avoid the target in the last moment. How can they do that if Bf-109 controls would not budge? How Hartmann could do it - have you seen him flexing his muscles?
The answer is easy, Bf-109 high speed control was excellent (for it's era).

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Glad you wrote this Huck, let's see what a German had to say about that:

Comparitive Flights: 190-109
Report by Hauptmann Gollob on the comparative flights between the Messerschmitt Bf-109F-4 and the Fock-Wulf Fw 190 A-2 at Rechlin

C: Dive
The comparison was flown at combat power, approximately 20% dive and a height difference of 2,000 m. The result was a lead of several hundred at all atltudes by the Fw 190 A-2. The steeper and longer the dive, the greater the lead. The tests did show, however, that the Fw 190 A-2 took longer to reach its maximum speed than the Bf 109 F-4

E: Control Forces, turns
The Fw 190 A-2's control forces were rated as low. Even at 700 km/h, the aircraft can be flown with acceptable control forces, unlike the Bf 109 F-4. Manueverability is good, and noticeably superior to that of the Bf 109 F-4, especially in reversals and at higher speeds. The Fw 190 A-2's rolling ability represents a significant advance, which will have positive effects in aerial combat. It has yet to be determined whether the Fw 190 turns tighter than the Bf 109.


Who's Gollob, Huck? I anticipate you'll say he was an unknown-noob-traitor-hack who was solely writing that to please his new Allied masters, huh?

Isn't saying can be flown with acceptable control forces, unlike the Bf 109 F-4 mean the Bf 109 F-4 had unacceptably high control forces?

So much for your Bf-109 high speed control was excellent (for it's era) crap. Unless by "era" you mean 1936.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Huckebein_FW
02-05-2004, 08:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:

Glad you wrote this Huck, let's see what a German had to say about that:

_Comparitive Flights: 190-109_
_Report by _Hauptmann Gollob_ on the comparative flights between the Messerschmitt Bf-109F-4 and the Fock-Wulf Fw 190 A-2 at Rechlin_

_C: Dive_
_The comparison was flown at combat power, approximately 20% dive and a height difference of 2,000 m. The result was a lead of several hundred at all atltudes by the Fw 190 A-2. The steeper and longer the dive, the greater the lead. The tests did show, however, that the Fw 190 A-2 took longer to reach its maximum speed than the Bf 109 F-4_

_E: Control Forces, turns_
_The Fw 190 A-2's control forces were rated as low. Even at 700 km/h, the aircraft can be flown with acceptable control forces, _unlike the Bf 109 F-4._ Manueverability is good, and noticeably superior to that of the Bf 109 F-4, especially in reversals and at higher speeds. The Fw 190 A-2's rolling ability represents a significant advance, which will have positive effects in aerial combat. It has yet to be determined whether the Fw 190 turns tighter than the Bf 109._


Who's Gollob, Huck? I anticipate you'll say he was an unknown-noob-traitor-hack who was solely writing that to please his new Allied masters, huh?

Isn't saying _can be flown with acceptable control forces, unlike the Bf 109 F-4_ mean the Bf 109 F-4 had _unacceptably high_ control forces?

So much for your _Bf-109 high speed control was excellent (for it's era)_ crap. Unless by "era" you mean 1936.

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In '42 many squads did the same test to pick the ride of their choice. Guess what, more than half of them chose Bf-109. Gollob was involved himself in the development of Bf-109 (early models had problems with tail, after removal of struts, possible reason for this report) and later flew 109 with amazing success.

So do tell the whole story, Chimp.

Also the fact that Fw-190 has better control at 700km/h is undeniable anyway. Fw-190 had better roll than any other aircraft. A difference between elevators is not noted. Bf-109 and Fw-190 shared the same solution, a movable stabilizer.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

SkyChimp
02-05-2004, 08:09 PM
Stop being moronic. Gollob, and every other pilot, flew what they were told to fly.

Again, the Bf-109F-4 had UNACCEPTABLTY HIGH control forces. Say it with me once. Sorta sticks in your craw huh?

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Huckebein_FW
02-05-2004, 08:10 PM
Also note this part:
"The comparison was flown at combat power, approximately 20% dive and a height difference of 2,000 m. The result was a lead of several hundred at all atltudes by the Fw 190 A-2. The steeper and longer the dive, the greater the lead. The tests did show, however, that the Fw 190 A-2 took longer to reach its maximum speed than the Bf 109 F-4"

This is what I said all the way, the better the powerloading the better the dive up to max speed, then the heavier aircraft dives better.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

blabla0001
02-05-2004, 08:10 PM
Now Huck, it's your turn to come forward with your claims and I really want to hear the whole story on this one too.

You avoided the topic twice already, time to step up Huck.

Your own words (claims) here so no crying it's my fault and that I don't understand.

"Kind of like your turn rate debate between the Spitfire and the Bf109.

You said that there wasn't that much difference between a Bf109 and a Spitfire and that the tests that where done in the UK was with a bad Bf109, then you come here and say that the Tempest V was a good turner and that it was only slightly worse then a Bf109 but the trails in the UK with the Tempest and the Spitfire showed clearly that the Tempest couldn't even dream to compete with a Spitfire in the turn rate department.

So with this logic I am really wondering where your info comes from.

The only thing I can come up with is that the Brits messed up their tests or sabotaged the Tempest to make the Spitfire look good.

That or your talking out of your neck."

Can I finally get an answer on how your going to validate your turn rate claim or are you really that much of a chicken?

Huckebein_FW
02-05-2004, 08:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Stop being moronic. Gollob, and every other pilot, flew what they were told to fly.

Again, the Bf-109F-4 had UNACCEPTABLTY HIGH control forces. Say it with me once. Sorta sticks in your craw huh?

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you take Fw-190 as a threshold of what is acceptable control forces for a ww2 fighter, then you remain with nothing, because no aircraft could beat it.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

Huckebein_FW
02-05-2004, 08:17 PM
Cappa do you mind if we postpone your problem a little more?
I'm sure you don't, you're a nice guy.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

SkyChimp
02-05-2004, 08:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:

In '42 many squads did the same test to pick the ride of their choice.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, here's more from that test.

From Heinrich Beauvauis, Rechlin test pilot:
Of interest was the comparison flight between the Bf 190 F-4 and the Fw 190 A-2 in the autum of 1942. I made a number of flights with Gollob as my opponent, and as usual we took turn flying both aircraft.
We instinctively preferred the Fw 190 over the Bf 109 from the very start. The reason for this were detailed in the report. The Fw 190's control forces were signifcantly lower at high speeds, and its rate of roll was mearkedly greater.

Focke-Wulf Fw 190A Hermann, Leverenz, Weber (page 84)

So much for the Bf-109 being anything like a high speed fighter, and so much for your inane argument that all pilot preferred it.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Eagle_361st
02-05-2004, 08:19 PM
I have watched this thread and I feel I must add something. I have come across one of Huck's many charts showing just how wonderful and totally uber the 109 is. As you can see from this chart there is undisputable proof that the 109 "G" was the best climber, had the best control authority at all speeds and the lowest Cdo ever concieved. It is totally earthshaking that this proof has now come to light. Thank you Huck, I am going to worship you for the rest of my life, and I will fly only 109's forever........forever cause they are the best as shown in your chart. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1038.jpg

~S!
Eagle
Commanding Officer 361st vFG
www.361stvfg.com (http://www.361stvfg.com)
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

Huckebein_FW
02-05-2004, 08:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:

In '42 many squads did the same test to pick the ride of their choice.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, here's more from that test.

From Heinrich Beauvauis, Rechlin test pilot:
_Of interest was the comparison flight between the Bf 190 F-4 and the Fw 190 A-2 in the autum of 1942. I made a number of flights with Gollob as my opponent, and as usual we took turn flying both aircraft._
_We instinctively preferred the Fw 190 over the Bf 109 from the very start. The reason for this were detailed in the report. The Fw 190's control forces were signifcantly lower at high speeds, and its rate of roll was mearkedly greater._

_Focke-Wulf Fw 190A_ _Hermann, Leverenz, Weber (page 84)_

So much for the Bf-109 being anything like a high speed fighter, and so much for your inane argument that all pilot preferred it.

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So once again they were talking about roll.
You don't have a case Chimp.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

blabla0001
02-05-2004, 08:20 PM
http://www.randomchicken.com/images/chickens/90.jpg

Huckechicken_FW

SkyChimp
02-05-2004, 08:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:

So once again they were talking about roll.
You don't have a case Chimp.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

E: Control Forces, turns

Turns, Huck, not roll. But the obvious is lost on you, huih?

Bf-109F-4 had unacceptably high control forces.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

blabla0001
02-05-2004, 08:34 PM
"The Fw 190's control forces were signifcantly lower at high speeds, and its rate of roll was mearkedly greater"

Q: What is the key word here?

A: and

J30Vader
02-05-2004, 09:50 PM
Galland, after flying the 262, made the following recommendations:

1: Stop production of the 109
2: Limit single engine fighter production to the 190.
3: All out production of the 262.

There you have it from the General of the Fighter Arm.

If the 109 was so great, why did he want its production stopped?

[This message was edited by J30Vader on Thu February 05 2004 at 09:09 PM.]

lrrp22
02-05-2004, 10:31 PM
Yet The P-51 out-rolled the Fw 190 above 350 mph. How could this be? Must have been that Olympic weight lifter/test pilot again.

BTW, do you think it possible that the Fw 190 took longer to achieve its top speed in a dive...wait for it...

BECAUSE IT HAD A HIGHER TOP SPEED???

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:

If you take Fw-190 as a threshold of what is acceptable control forces for a ww2 fighter, then you remain with nothing, because no aircraft could beat it.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

J30Vader
02-05-2004, 10:45 PM
Do you have a chart in Kurt Tank's handwriting?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cajun76
02-06-2004, 01:38 AM
LOL, seems I hit a whole nerve stem. I knew you'd snap, it's your MO. Whenever you feel backed into a corner, you lash out.

As far as your first post, I saw it, read it, and responded to it. That was your first post, whether you deleted it or not. If you took the time to realize, never did I say who you bashed or what country you bashed, and in what thread. I refrained from bringing it up, until you got silly and mentioned it like you never said it. My questions were directed at your comments about the article, since it deals with a P-47 pilots account of combat against Bf-109s. If you had any guts, you wouldn't have deleted it. It was sarcastic, insulting on several levels, and contributed nothing to the thread. I challenged your first post in mine, comparing types to show that the P-47 was a competitive fighter.

You posted a chart, you've never said here where it came from. What book? I don't have the resources or room (shipping weight limits) to own large numbers of heavy volumes. I did go through several sites, especially for the 109, and picked a LW fan site with detailed data to use.

Huckebein wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Now to get to the point: speed for G2 at 22000 ft is 645km/h and for G6/AS with 605AS is 645km/h and with 605ASM is 680km/h. There is no Gustav that I know which does only 610km/h (without having external loads) at 22000ft. Also 1200HP@22000ft he gives for 605A are actually PS and they are measured statically not dynamically. At over 600km/h the power rating will have around 50HP less.
Also the propeller efficiency is in the best case 0.8-0.81 at max RPM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Primary" source seems to be you, since you list nothing to support this. Soures are listed as data is listed, that's Sources. Also, I was comparing the speeds, weight and power of the P-47 and Bf-109 as close to sea level as I had info for, not max speeds at the a/c's optimum altitudes. That would be rather unfair to the 109, don't you think?

I do believe in documents, when they are not used out of context. This is the kind of context you use. I missed this the first time, sorry.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> First of all he should have remembered that production Bf109G was tested in wind tunnel and the result for Cd0 was 0.0235. He mentions a french test (which by the way was on Emil not on Gustav) and the Cd0 resulted there was 0.028, which is quite correct. Now what's with this 0.036 figure. This is not Cd0, it is Cd meaning total drag coef, which adds Cd0 and induced drag coef. Cd in itself is not useful for comparing the aerodynamic efficiency because it is influenced by angle of attack. Only Cd0 can give a good base for comparisons because is calculted an zero angle of attack (therefore zero lift).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, O Master of All Things Windy and Hot, you would actually state that a wing is incapable of generating lift if it possesses no angle of attack? No lift at... 100kph? how about 250kph? Even 500kph? And that would be the reason why using your value is valid? No lift, low drag. What was the TAS of this test? 50kph? After all, your current argument is based on it. Your chart is just fine, it's the lack of reasoning and logic you have applied to it that is not correct.

Your right, I don't have lots of obscure charts to manipulate to my veiw of things. I have logic, and an understanding of physics, which includes some basic aerodynamics. How you can state that(and how I missed it the first time) is beyond me. Someone who dosen't uderstand basic principles of lift and drag shouldn't call others names, it just looks silly. Try dusting off some of those books you claim to have access to, or visit your local library. Start with Aerodynamics 101, it should help. Then again, it probably won't.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Realfire_02.gif
Have you thanked a veteran today?

Cajun76
02-07-2004, 05:29 AM
Ace in a Day (http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/perdomo/perdomo.htm)

Here's another P-47 pilot account with a P-47N. One of my favorites. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Realfire_02.gif
Have you thanked a veteran today?

Snyde-Dastardly
02-08-2004, 11:52 PM
Great 1 Cajun...
P47 All the way

From this day to the end of the world, we in it shall be remembered, we band of brothers http://img21.photobucket.com/albums/v62/Vic-Whiplash/Lance.jpg