PDA

View Full Version : On the +25lbs Spit



Daiichidoku
08-14-2006, 05:09 PM
Im curious as to more info on the +25lbs Spits, as to when (AFAIK, FB listed +25lb spits as 44?)they were in regular service, and any problems encountered with its use, after reading a small passage (pg 199) from "Invasion Without Tears", Street/Berger, ISBN#0-394-22277-6 (Random House):

(from accounts by Monty Berger, Senior Intel Officer of 126 (RCAF) Spitfire Wing, 2 TAF)
" he noted [in his day's (apr 20 '45) operational summary]as well that two pilots had walked away-"more or less"-with only slight injuries from wrecked and flaming aircraft at B 116 [Wunstorf, Germany]. actually, it was a miracle either man survived. flying officer F R Dennison of 411(sqn)-a Grizzly Bear from Buffalo, NY-crashed while taking off and broke his back. later in the day, flt leiutenant E B Mossing of 401(sqd), who also had his engine cut during take off, scraped his spitfire's belly tank over an obstacle and came down so hard the impact ripped it's wings off, broke the fuselage at the instrument panel and left what remained of the aircraft a mass of flames-yet Mossing "extricated himself with one bone broken in his leg"

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

faustnik
08-14-2006, 05:13 PM
This is where I look first for Spitfire info:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html

Daiichidoku
08-14-2006, 05:27 PM
stop making things easy, Faust!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

faustnik
08-14-2006, 05:27 PM
Ouch! Sry..........

BADroadrunner
08-14-2006, 07:53 PM
a little ot, but i herd of that guy from buffalo,ny. i live between buffalo and rochester, they just had a special on him like last year.

p1ngu666
08-14-2006, 08:06 PM
good to see u fishing here, rather than your own pond http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif wouldnt want the meatball to get dunked now would we http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


if there was a problem with the fuel, id hazzard guess at spark plug fouling, which was noted on other high boost planes, as the engine probably wouldnt of been run at high boost for awhile, ie uve probably cruised back from mission, then landed, taxied, switched off. maybe some testing of engine before its next due to fly, then u got startup, warm up (done at low revs and boost) taxi and take off.

u would probably take off at fairly low boost pressure, maybe 7lbs.

ingame ofcourse, we just slam open the throttle on most planes

luftluuver
08-14-2006, 08:21 PM
That was PEP (purple passion) fuel not 150pn fuel.

The LW fanboys have trouble differentiating between the 2. One day hopefully in the near future they will 'see the light' so that there is not another of those multi page thread, again. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

lrrp22
08-14-2006, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
That was PEP (purple passion) fuel not 150pn fuel.

The LW fanboys have trouble differentiating between the 2. One day hopefully in the near future they will 'see the light' so that there is not another of those multi page thread, again. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Luft,

2nd TAF never used PEP, it was exclusive to VIII Fighter Command during February-March '45. I'm with p1ngu- sounds like plug-fouling. I guess they missed ADGB's guidelines for avoiding the fouling!

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/31-may-44.html

LRRP

Kurfurst__
08-15-2006, 12:08 AM
Interesting. It seems all sorts of troubles are reported srping 1944, mid-1944 with backfires after which IXs were withdrawn and replaced by XIVs, documented troubles with spark plugs with Merlin 266s towards the automn that called for reduction of boost, and it seems now even as late as April 1945 there were regular, fatal and near fatal accidents.

LRRP22, you have good conctacts with Mike, why not ask him to put up to above on his site. It's part of the picture, you know.

luftluuver
08-15-2006, 05:03 AM
Well you sure don't with your vile vindictive slander. Even when Mike does make some changes you still get on his case. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif You can only blame yourself for the lack of updating on the site as Mike is dammed if he doesn't and dammed if he does by you.

Kurfurst__
08-15-2006, 05:27 AM
Well we'll never know Milo since Mike never even tried to present an objective view on anything.

Now run back to your cage, little troll.

mynameisroland
08-15-2006, 05:27 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
This is where I look first for Spitfire info:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html

Mikes for Spitfire, Kufursts for 109 thats the way I look at it. both denigrate their opponents plane and both paint favourable pictures of their chosen fanboy plane.

Needless to say Fw 190 consortium is best for Fw 190 information. If I relied on Mikes site It would have me believe that the most favourable Dora 9 performance figures saw it max out at 413 mph - this is less than a Fw 190 A3 was capable of in 1942 ?

WOLFMondo
08-15-2006, 05:43 AM
The trouble there is he only puts that one set of information up on the Dora.

Either way cherry picking wins the day. The FW forums on CWOS are a much better reference site.

luftluuver
08-15-2006, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Well we'll never know Milo since Mike never even tried to present an objective view on anything.

Now run back to your cage, little troll. Who? Your paranoia about this person is getting the better of you. Time for your meds.

Actually Mike did try to update his site but you still crapped on him Kurfurst in your K-4 article and in threads.

Your vile vindictive slander and character assination Of Mike is to blame for the lack of updates to the site.

HellToupee
08-15-2006, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
mid-1944 with backfires after which IXs were withdrawn and replaced by XIVs, documented troubles with spark plugs with Merlin 266s towards the automn that called for reduction of boost

but then the merlin 266 is a packard engine only on spitfire XVIs

Kurfurst__
08-15-2006, 05:49 AM
Anyway... are there any pilot accounts on +25 Spits? Behaviour, experiences? There are quite a few for late war planes around, but I am a bit surprised there's so little available on 150 octane Nines.

Esp. as I am sure Mike was looking for such stuff even under the rocks. Heard that Closterman had some comments on them though.

mynameisroland
08-15-2006, 05:52 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
mid-1944 with backfires after which IXs were withdrawn and replaced by XIVs, documented troubles with spark plugs with Merlin 266s towards the automn that called for reduction of boost

but then the merlin 266 is a packard engine only on spitfire XVIs </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have also have a tough time accepting that the Bf 109 G2 did not exceed 400 mph in level flight. Even in Black 6 the pilot states the G2 was faster at altitude than the Spitfire IX he had flown - no details on which IX or by how much faster the G2 was but its still another bit of anecdotal evidence which makes me think maybe the Finns the Russians and the Germans data is worth reconsidering when it comes to commenting on the G series on Mikes site.

Brain32
08-15-2006, 05:53 AM
M.Wiliams - Spitfire and allied planes data in general, puts down/cherry picks worst data for Axis planes to ridiculous levels...
Kurfurst - data provider and defender for the Me109, puts down M.W. in regards to obvious bias...
CWOS FW Consortium - BS-free FW190 resource(BEST)
Luftluver - defender of Mike Wiliams, puts down Kurfurst.

Now we have a nice categorization http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kurfurst__
08-15-2006, 05:54 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
but then the merlin 266 is a packard engine only on spitfire XVIs

Yes but they served with 2nd TAF, and the 66 had similiar problems early on, it's difficult to believe that it was free of the plug fouling troubles when all the others had suffered from to a certain extent. I was always under the impression that the 266 is unjustly described as more problematic, given it was almost the same engine as the 66, just built under licence. Probably just a US vs. UK thing.. I don't have handy what Mark the noted Sqns of 2nd TAF in the first posts were having, IXs or XVIs?

Brain32
08-15-2006, 06:00 AM
Anyway... are there any pilot accounts on +25 Spits?
"I was cruising at 50m somewhere over Normandy when I saw 2 Fw190A's. I immidiately went into a 14G turn coming on their six with very small speed loss, after that I made a tight loop, but I stalled so I decided to make another 8 or 9 very tight turns with a loop between each, then one FW190 decided to get away in a split S and dive, but I easily overtook it due to my better inital dive acceleration, I made a circle around him and PK'ed him dead six from 500m. The other one bailed immidiately and disconn....erhm well it went down. I was out of ammo because I'm a noob and I can't hit a broadside of a barn so I went home happly turning and looping." Unknown(He was ashame) Spit25 "ace".

Kurfurst__
08-15-2006, 06:03 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I have also have a tough time accepting that the Bf 109 G2 did not exceed 400 mph in level flight. Even in Black 6 the pilot states the G2 was faster at altitude than the Spitfire IX he had flown - no details on which IX or by how much faster the G2 was but its still another bit of anecdotal evidence which makes me think maybe the Finns the Russians and the Germans data is worth reconsidering when it comes to commenting on the G series on Mikes site.

OFF
Just check my site thread for that speed curve, it's plain there, and especially the scatter data on speeds by fresh manufactured planes by Erla leaves little doubt.. Also the Rechlin data for the G-1, which is said to be in good agreement with the factory scatter results from WNF and Regensburg fits perfectly in.

The official specs for the G-2 were 535 kph at SL and 660 kph at 7000m, this Mtt datasheet is the next thing coming to my site. They are bang on for the Soviet curves.

Mike basically picked WNr 14 026, which had appearantly supercharger problems and was a factory test hack used in 5-6 tests at least I can track down, with the tailwheel presumably down which slowed it down even further (new vertical tail was tested on it previously). The DB 109G test he calls a G-1 is a G-6 as a matter of fact.. and so on. The worst arguement is that G-1 tests agree so well with the - 109G-6... I wonder why is that, the cleaner plane matching the draggier one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Part I don't understand, why he is so selective, showing the very best 109G test would not make the Spit look bad at all, so whats the point?

mynameisroland
08-15-2006, 06:08 AM
Joking aside Brain32

Spitfire IX 25 lb did possess amazing performance it was IMO the best dogfighter produced on any side of WW2 including the non WW2 Bearcat because the Spit had great performance from sea level up to 40,000ft, excellent guns, good visibility on later models, and a combination of climb and turn performance that was unrivalled.

I would not want to fight a Spitfire 25 lber in a dogfight in any other piston engined plane. Energy fight one to death in a Fw 190 D9 yes but mix it up with in an angles fight no way.

mynameisroland
08-15-2006, 06:11 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I have also have a tough time accepting that the Bf 109 G2 did not exceed 400 mph in level flight. Even in Black 6 the pilot states the G2 was faster at altitude than the Spitfire IX he had flown - no details on which IX or by how much faster the G2 was but its still another bit of anecdotal evidence which makes me think maybe the Finns the Russians and the Germans data is worth reconsidering when it comes to commenting on the G series on Mikes site.

OFF
Just check my site thread for that speed curve, it's plain there, and especially the scatter data on speeds by fresh manufactured planes by Erla leaves little doubt.. Also the Rechlin data for the G-1, which is said to be in good agreement with the factory scatter results from WNF and Regensburg fits perfectly in.

The official specs for the G-2 were 535 kph at SL and 660 kph at 7000m, this Mtt datasheet is the next thing coming to my site. They are bang on for the Soviet curves.

Mike basically picked WNr 14 026, which had appearantly supercharger problems and was a factory test hack used in 5-6 tests at least I can track down, with the tailwheel presumably down which slowed it down even further (new vertical tail was tested on it previously). The DB 109G test he calls a G-1 is a G-6 as a matter of fact.. and so on. The worst arguement is that G-1 tests agree so well with the - 109G-6... I wonder why is that, the cleaner plane matching the draggier one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Part I don't understand, why he is so selective, showing the very best 109G test would not make the Spit look bad at all, so whats the point? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am very interested with Mikes 'basic' Bf 109 Generic figures. Its great how taking an average of 90 individual aircraft he comes up with figures lower than the worst performance specs he posts for any individual type. Maybe one of the '90' planes tested was one that crash landed and had snapped its wings off or maybe there were a few Jumo 211 variants thrown in the mix for some added spice.

Manu-6S
08-15-2006, 06:48 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Anyway... are there any pilot accounts on +25 Spits?
"I was cruising at 50m somewhere over Normandy when I saw 2 Fw190A's. I immidiately went into a 14G turn coming on their six with very small speed loss, after that I made a tight loop, but I stalled so I decided to make another 8 or 9 very tight turns with a loop between each, then one FW190 decided to get away in a split S and dive, but I easily overtook it due to my better inital dive acceleration, I made a circle around him and PK'ed him dead six from 500m. The other one bailed immidiately and disconn....erhm well it went down. I was out of ammo because I'm a noob and I can't hit a broadside of a barn so I went home happly turning and looping." Unknown(He was ashame) Spit25 "ace". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doh... maybe it's time to change my sig!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Kurfurst__
08-15-2006, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I am very interested with Mikes 'basic' Bf 109 Generic figures. Its great how taking an average of 90 individual aircraft he comes up with figures lower than the worst performance specs he posts for any individual type. Maybe one of the '90' planes tested was one that crash landed and had snapped its wings off or maybe there were a few Jumo 211 variants thrown in the mix for some added spice.

That's coming from Leistunzusammenstellung Bf 109, I have that report. Well... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The report lists precisly which tests are used for it. Mostly previous Mtt research (=not performance!)trials

The most of the '90 different aircraft' comes from that the report has the WNF and Regensburg factory trials listed as well which were done on some 75 or so machines, but, and here's the but, there's no performance listed for them just the avarage rated alts, which may mean their performance is not counted at all, ie. the '90 planes' is kinda BS. At best theSidenote from other reports we know the WNF and Reg. factory trials on 'underline the Rechlin figures', which I list on my site (no1586) - that one got 525/650 from the plane, so if the Reg/WNF data would be included, the 'basic 109G' should look much higher.

The rest of the reports that make up the 'basic 109G' figres are pretty much the same that Mike listed individually, ie. some true suckers like WNr 14 026 (listed three times in three different reports, which are actually the same, just partial reports), WNr 14003, which is another factory testhack used for all kind of tests, that G-6 with the gondies and trop equipment, and so on, the slowest being just some 495 kph at SL. Generally it's reports done on the same few airframes. These poorer ones naturally bring down the avarage figure like a single bad mark in school.. Also what's important that all these figures were corrected for the drag of the standard G-1 with non retractable tailhweel, which the report details as worthing -12 kph reduced speed at SL..



Oh, there they are, these make up to 'basic 109G' - all tests which were done with the standard semi-retractable tailwheel, that was the norm until early 1943 for all 109Gs, were reduced by 12 kph.

1
Bf 109 G-1 WNr. WNr. 9227
(17) Measurements from Ectherdingen, 23 January 1942.
(This one is actually a ex-109F proto for the Gustav)

2
Bf 109 G-1 WNr. 14 001
- (7) Influence on speed trials with exp. vertical stabiliser VB 109 04 L43
- (13) Level speed trials with the coolant radiators VB 109 18 L42
- (16) Air intake trials VB 109 09 L 42

3
Bf 109 G-1 WNr. 14 026
- (9) Performance trials VB 109 19 L42
- (11) Ceiling trials VB 109 07 L43
- (12) Performance comparison VB 109 14 L 42
- (15) Inlfluence of coolant radiator flap position on F-Kinem. VB 109 06 L 42

4
Bf 109 G- WNr. 15 362
- (4) Speed trials with two MK 108 gondolas -VB 109 14 L 43

5
Bf 109 G- WNr. 15 562
- (8) Drag trials with 160 liter droptank

6
Bf 109 G- WNr. 15 939
- (2) Speed trials VB 109 16 L 43,

7
Bf 109 G- WNr. 16 261
- (1), performance trials G-3 returned to units for GM-1

8
Bf 109 G- WNr. 16 476
- (3) Performance measurments with various installations VB 109 10 L 43,
- (6) Influence of engine cowling VB 109 06 L 43
- (10) Ceiling of Me 109 w. various propellers VB 109 13 L 43

9
Bf 109 G- WNr. 19 406
- (5) Speed trials w. 2 x 300 lier droptanks VB 109 09 L43,

18
(14) Influence of special surface finish on speed. VB 109 11 L 42
WNr. 13 438, 13 439, 13 440, 13 442, 13 448, 13 496, 13 506, 13 500

33
84
(18) Avarage values of measurements on 15 aircraft from Regensburg factory
(19) Avarage values of measurements on 51 aircraft from Wiener-Neustadt factory

89
(20) Measurements from Rechlin on five Bf 109 G-1s : WNr. 14 011,14 007,14 020, 14 018, 14 029

Xiolablu3
08-15-2006, 08:34 AM
Didnt Mike update his site recently with lots of Bf109 tests?

I really dont know much about this stuff as I have trouble reading the graphs, but someone told me these were pretty new, like in the last month.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/me109/me-109g1-14026.pdf
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/me109/me-109g1-grundausfuhrung.pdf
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/me109/db109g.pdf
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/me109/me-109g5.pdf
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/me109/me-109g6-16476.pdf

I am interested to know the Luft guys reactions to these tests and graphs, and whats exactly 'wrong' with them.

robban75
08-15-2006, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Anyway... are there any pilot accounts on +25 Spits?
"I was cruising at 50m somewhere over Normandy when I saw 2 Fw190A's. I immidiately went into a 14G turn coming on their six with very small speed loss, after that I made a tight loop, but I stalled so I decided to make another 8 or 9 very tight turns with a loop between each, then one FW190 decided to get away in a split S and dive, but I easily overtook it due to my better inital dive acceleration, I made a circle around him and PK'ed him dead six from 500m. The other one bailed immidiately and disconn....erhm well it went down. I was out of ammo because I'm a noob and I can't hit a broadside of a barn so I went home happly turning and looping." Unknown(He was ashame) Spit25 "ace". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Awesome! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

robban75
08-15-2006, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Joking aside Brain32

I would not want to fight a Spitfire 25 lber in a dogfight in any other piston engined plane. Energy fight one to death in a Fw 190 D9 yes but mix it up with in an angles fight no way.

Not in-game, but in real life, yes.

Even though the Fw 190 wasn't a turn fighter like the Spitfire, it wasn't as inferior in real life as it is in game. Turn time is off by several seconds.

If torque was modelled, light turnfighters would have a much harder time pitching and turning near stall. The Yak's are good examples. They are modelled really well in this regard.

faustnik
08-15-2006, 09:54 AM
Mike Williams provides a wealth of original data. If you don't like the conclusions that he draws on comparisons with Axis planes I can provide links to sites with that come to different conclusions.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spittest.html

This is a valuable resource for all of us.

Another new developing resource is:

http://www.kurfurst.bravehost.com/

For Fw190 information, unfortunately not presented in website form because somebody is too fat and stupid to put together a website, try here:

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...s&file=viewforum&f=8 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)

For P-38 information try here:

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...&file=viewforum&f=18 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)

For Hawker talk this is the spot:

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...&file=viewforum&f=19 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)

HellToupee
08-15-2006, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by robban75:


Not in-game, but in real life, yes.

Even though the Fw 190 wasn't a turn fighter like the Spitfire, it wasn't as inferior in real life as it is in game. Turn time is off by several seconds.

1-2 Seconds maybee for late antons, but then you cant really say doras off in turn.



If torque was modelled, light turnfighters would have a much harder time pitching and turning near stall. The Yak's are good examples. They are modelled really well in this regard.

maybee they could model the sudden high speed stall of the 190 to http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You would not want to mix it up with a spitfire 25lbs in real life either with a 190, its climb rate power to weight and wingloading all far superior real life 190 pilots would engage with advantage roll over and dive as soon as that advantage was threatened. Its main claim to fame was fighting tired old spitfire Vs.

faustnik
08-15-2006, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
Its main claim to fame was fighting tired old spitfire Vs.

How's that for an unbiased point of view? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Very clowny.

robban75
08-15-2006, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:


Not in-game, but in real life, yes.

Even though the Fw 190 wasn't a turn fighter like the Spitfire, it wasn't as inferior in real life as it is in game. Turn time is off by several seconds.

1-2 Seconds maybee for late antons, but then you cant really say doras off in turn.



If torque was modelled, light turnfighters would have a much harder time pitching and turning near stall. The Yak's are good examples. They are modelled really well in this regard.

maybee they could model the sudden high speed stall of the 190 to http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You would not want to mix it up with a spitfire 25lbs in real life either with a 190, its climb rate power to weight and wingloading all far superior real life 190 pilots would engage with advantage roll over and dive as soon as that advantage was threatened. Its main claim to fame was fighting tired old spitfire Vs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Turntime for the 190 in general is off by 3-4 seconds. Do the same to a Spit and it would need 21 seconds for a 360.

IMO, for a WW2 fighter, roll rate and speed is more important than turn rate.

Daiichidoku
08-15-2006, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
maybee they could model the sudden high speed stall of the 190 to http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

maybe they could model the Spit's "aileron reversal:

Page 131 of NACA Report 868, Summary of Lateral-Control Research:
For the P-41C-1-RE at 400 mph IAS, a 31% loss in aileron effectiveness. The aileron reversal speed is about 545 mph IAS.
Spitfire at 400 mph IAS, approx 65% loss in aileron effectiveness.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.cgi?method=search&limit=25&o...keywords=naca+tr+868 (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.cgi?method=search&limit=25&offset=0&mode=simple&order=DESC&keywords=naca+tr+868)

HellToupee
08-15-2006, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:


Not in-game, but in real life, yes.

Even though the Fw 190 wasn't a turn fighter like the Spitfire, it wasn't as inferior in real life as it is in game. Turn time is off by several seconds.

1-2 Seconds maybee for late antons, but then you cant really say doras off in turn.



If torque was modelled, light turnfighters would have a much harder time pitching and turning near stall. The Yak's are good examples. They are modelled really well in this regard.

maybee they could model the sudden high speed stall of the 190 to http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You would not want to mix it up with a spitfire 25lbs in real life either with a 190, its climb rate power to weight and wingloading all far superior real life 190 pilots would engage with advantage roll over and dive as soon as that advantage was threatened. Its main claim to fame was fighting tired old spitfire Vs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Turntime for the 190 in general is off by 3-4 seconds. Do the same to a Spit and it would need 21 seconds for a 360.

IMO, for a WW2 fighter, roll rate and speed is more important than turn rate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well it has roll and speed ingame, so why do certian people keep going on about how its so bad and to be honest 3-4 seconds you have got to be kidding.

faustnik
08-15-2006, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:

maybee they could model the sudden high speed stall of the 190 to http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Actually, that is a great suggestion. A lot of elevator authority was taken from the Fw190s in later patches, which took away the high speed stall. PLEASE put it back it! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

robban75
08-15-2006, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
and to be honest 3-4 seconds you have got to be kidding.

How would you feel if it was the Spitfire that had a 3-4 second worse turn rate?

Kocur_
08-15-2006, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:

maybee they could model the sudden high speed stall of the 190 to http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Actually, that is a great suggestion. A lot of elevator authority was taken from the Fw190s in later patches, which took away the high speed stall. PLEASE put it back it! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah I remember those days: HtH with a Spitfire at like 10deg lower, so he felt secure, than at like 150m, i.e. fractions of second before supposedly harmless passing by, sudden pull and Spit hits wall of 20mm projectiles http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif I second Faustnik in PLEASE bring it back http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Kocur_
08-15-2006, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
and to be honest 3-4 seconds you have got to be kidding.

How would you feel if it was the Spitfire that had a 3-4 second worse turn rate? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And far more importantly sustained turn performance is a measure of E retention in any manouvering beyound certain, low AoA, is it not?

faustnik
08-15-2006, 11:13 AM
Well, that was a quick highjacking. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif

How about that 150 grade fuel...........

HellToupee
08-15-2006, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
and to be honest 3-4 seconds you have got to be kidding.

How would you feel if it was the Spitfire that had a 3-4 second worse turn rate? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i would then feel the spitfire as poorely modeled, as for 3-4 seconds for the 190 at the most i would say its 2 seconds, and i dont belive the dora is missing any seconds.

robban75
08-15-2006, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
and to be honest 3-4 seconds you have got to be kidding.

How would you feel if it was the Spitfire that had a 3-4 second worse turn rate? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i would then feel the spitfire as poorely modeled, as for 3-4 seconds for the 190 at the most i would say its 2 seconds, and i dont belive the dora is missing any seconds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

D-9 and Ta 152 turn times.

D-9 - 24.62 - 24.70 - 24.49

152 - 23.58 - 23.97 - 23.93

Oleg once wrote that the Ta 152 had a turn time similar to the La-7. Hmm.

HellToupee
08-15-2006, 11:50 AM
i was finding the d9 to me was just over 23 seconds sustained a6 using 100% pitch about the same. In general combat i find the d9 superior to the p51 in turns.

faustnik
08-15-2006, 11:50 AM
Fine, if you want to continue the hijack, turn times PF from IL-2 Compare/Soviet tests.

Fw190A4 25/22-23 <span class="ev_code_RED">2-3 slow</span>
Fw190A5 24.5/22-23 <span class="ev_code_RED">1.5-2.5 slow</span>
Fw190A8 24/21-22 <span class="ev_code_RED">2-3 slow</span>
Fw190D9 22.5/22-23 <span class="ev_code_GREEN"> Spot on</span>
SpitVb 17.8/18.8 <span class="ev_code_RED">1 fast</span>
Spit IXc 18.5/18.5 <span class="ev_code_GREEN"> Spot on</span>

If you care about turn rates that is...

Viper2005_
08-15-2006, 12:03 PM
Well, if you want to know something <span class="ev_code_red">scary</span>, the +25 psi Spitfire in game is currently undermodelled as regards top speed. Its performance is based upon that of JL.165 which had a sub-standard engine:


It will be seen that the maximum increase in speed is 24 miles per hour obtained at ground level, and at 3,200 ft. and 14,400 ft. the full throttle heights in M.S. and F.S. gear respectively. These gains gradually diminish with increase of altitude, until, at the full throttle heights for + 18 lbs. boost they entirely disappear.

It should be noted that there is no increase in the absolute speed obtained by the increase of boost, and it would appear that the efficiency of the propeller is somewhat reduced at the higher rating.

A further point of note is the full throttle height at + 18 lbs. of boost which is somewhat lower than has previously been obtained with Merlin 66 engines. A check of the air intake efficiency was taken during the tests, a minimum figure of 94% in level flight being shown at + 25 lbs. sq.inch boost pressure. It would seem therefore that the full throttle height of this engine is low.

This means that the +25 Spitfire is at least 10 mph too slow at altitude.

And of course it's got the full span wing instead of the clipped wing, which doesn't help its medium and low level performance. It could be argued that the +25 psi Spitfire in game is something of a dog... Almost brings tears to the eyes doesn't it?

I'm not sure about the Spitfire's energy retention, but that's another debate.

Daiichidoku
08-15-2006, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Well, that was a quick highjacking. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif

How about that 150 grade fuel...........


i have found, oddly, that often hijacking leads to much better dicussions, Faust http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

im sure if this started as a "porked 190" thread, f'instance, it would quickly "degenerate" into, i dunno, a "where's French flyables, Oleg" thread hijack

faustnik
08-15-2006, 01:36 PM
I really do want to see the Hawk75 as a flyable. The French need more representation in the sim. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

Richardsen
08-15-2006, 01:36 PM
Another scary thing is that Spit 25lbs climb rate is also undermodeld.
No prop fighters could keep up with the Spit 25lbs in low alt climb, just above 2minutes to 10000ft from sea level.

Daiichidoku
08-15-2006, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
I really do want to see the Hawk75 as a flyable. The French need representation, period! in the sim. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

fixed

LOL!

(btw, Hawks are imports, as you know...id rather see Dewotines, Potez's and Blochs about)

robban75
08-15-2006, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Richardsen:
Another scary thing is that Spit 25lbs climb rate is also undermodeld.
No prop fighters could keep up with the Spit 25lbs in low alt climb, just above 2minutes to 10000ft from sea level.

The Spitfire MkIX 25lbs in-game reaches 3050m in 2 minutes and 2 seconds.

faustnik
08-15-2006, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
Hawks are imports, as you know.

And they were still the best French fighters! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Kocur_
08-15-2006, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Richardsen:
Another scary thing is that Spit 25lbs climb rate is also undermodeld.
No prop fighters could keep up with the Spit 25lbs in low alt climb, just above 2minutes to 10000ft from sea level.

The Spitfire MkIX 25lbs in-game reaches 3050m in 2 minutes and 2 seconds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thus, contradictory to Richardsen claim, the in-game Spitfire 25lbs is actually overmodelled in climb time to 10kft by range of 4 to 18 seconds, depending what one belives his in-game radiator setting is.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165.html

TABLE I
Full throttle climb F.S. gear
Take-off weight 7400 lb.
Radiator flaps fully open
10000ft....2.33min

TABLE II
Full throttle climb F.S. gear
Take-off weight 7400 lb.
Radiator flaps fully closed
10000......2.10min

p1ngu666
08-15-2006, 04:42 PM
given the test was done on a testhack aircraft, im not bothered about 4-18 seconds~. it is after all slower than it should be http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

id rather have the extra speed than extra roc tbh.

i think i remmber seeing on tv/video a spitfire pilot asked what his favourite type was, i think he said spitV?, with 25lb boost http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif because u could take off and do reverse imilmens?, where u go upwards instead of down.

so he either got the V and the IX mixed up, or the boost pressure, most likely tobe a high boost Vb, if it isnt the 25lber.

on the 190 turn, i really dont find it that bad, maybe theres something going on with the engine, like when u fly against or in a zero, there actul turn advantage isnt much, plus there much more snappy than usn rides, nothing like watching a zero snapping and struggling to stay with a corsair at low speed to make u go, waitaminute..

oh and having the mega elivator would probably leave u snapping wings like mustangs.

would be a amusing fight with spits and 109s chucked in, trying to goad the stangs and 190s into the highspeed omgivelostmywingOLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEGGGGGGG http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

p1ngu666
08-15-2006, 04:47 PM
oh and whoever said the 190s claim to fame was beating old spitvb's is correct http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

not famous for jabo, or say, A8 vs XIV cw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

i guess its also partly famous for being the only lw fighter to have a chance to catch a mossie, but mossie isnt famous anymore http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

faustnik
08-15-2006, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
on the 190 turn, i really dont find it that bad

Uhhh, well that's good P1ng, as long as your happy with it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fw190s were pretty famous for knocking down B-17s, doing jabo work, and fighting all marks of Spitfires from '41 through '45.

But, go with the "only famous for killing tired old MkVs" thing, it sounds better for the Spit fans! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

MEGILE
08-15-2006, 05:00 PM
Focke Wulfs need killed spitfires. This is 100% propaganda.

faustnik
08-15-2006, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
Focke Wulfs need killed spitfires. This is 100% propaganda.

Wrong!!! It's only 97% propoganda. Got track?

MEGILE
08-15-2006, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:


Wrong!!! It's only 97% propoganda. Got track?

I got better. I have pilot anicdotes.

faustnik
08-15-2006, 05:05 PM
Well my chart is bigger than your anecdote!!! And it's multi-color! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

MEGILE
08-15-2006, 05:07 PM
Damn it and your uber graphs...

faustnik
08-15-2006, 05:10 PM
Ha!!! The uber graphs get 'em everytime. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

p1ngu666
08-15-2006, 05:14 PM
yeah, abit famous for the shootin of b17s.

jabo? naw.

MEGILE
08-15-2006, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
Focke Wulfs need killed spitfires. This is 100% propaganda.

what the hell was I thinking when i wrote that

and I screwed anecdote up aswell.

Too much crack tonight.

faustnik
08-15-2006, 05:25 PM
Let me explain your problem with this graph Megile:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/GraphVictory.gif

Viper2005_
08-15-2006, 05:27 PM
Hang on! Neither of those lines are 1:1 functions!

MEGILE
08-15-2006, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Let me explain your problem with this graph Megile:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/GraphVictory.gif

Got a source for that Graph Faustnik? AFAIK My anecdotes ran on +50 boost as of January 1932

Brain32
08-15-2006, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Fine, if you want to continue the hijack, turn times PF from IL-2 Compare/Soviet tests.

Fw190A4 25/22-23 <span class="ev_code_RED">2-3 slow</span>
Fw190A5 24.5/22-23 <span class="ev_code_RED">1.5-2.5 slow</span>
Fw190A8 24/21-22 <span class="ev_code_RED">2-3 slow</span>
Fw190D9 22.5/22-23 <span class="ev_code_GREEN"> Spot on</span>
SpitVb 17.8/18.8 <span class="ev_code_RED">1 fast</span>
Spit IXc 18.5/18.5 <span class="ev_code_GREEN"> Spot on</span>

If you care about turn rates that is...

Oh, but Faustnik, you missed to show them Robban's testing which showed this:

"FW 190 family.

A-4 - 25.08 - 25.07 - 25.17

A-5 - 24.02 - 24.31 - 24.36

A-8 - 25.90 - 25.56 - 26.56

A-9 - 25.98 - 26.05 - 26.72

D-9 - 24.62 - 24.70 - 24.49

152 - 23.58 - 23.97 - 23.93

Spitfire

Vb - 16.73 - 16.27 - 16.42

IXc - 17.89 - 17.90 - 17.94"

So A8 is lacking 4-5 seconds(!!!), D9 is lacking 2 seconds, SpitV is 1.5 sec better, SpitMkIX is 0.5 sec better. Now the problem is that if you have 2 planes and "planeA" is a better turner than "planeB" as a fact and by a fair margin anyway, and if on top of that fact you undermodell the turn of the anyway inferiour planeB, you get abnormal difference. And you people are suprised Spitfire is being called UFO even though it really isn't?
With this minor corrections, Spits would ofcourse keep their historical vast turning advantage, they would just have to use it smartly, same way FW fliers have to use their speed.

faustnik
08-15-2006, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by Megile:

Got a source for that Graph Faustnik? AFAIK My anecdotes ran on +50 boost as of January 1932

My source is Wiener-Neustadt factory testing of influence of special graph surface finish on uberocity.

My graphs had MW50 injection as of December 1931.

MEGILE
08-15-2006, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:


My graphs had MW50 injection as of December 1931.

Introduction does NOT mean wide spread use. How about showing the actual serviceable records?

Xiolablu3
08-15-2006, 06:23 PM
I seem to remember a Volkswagon Beatle entered service with MW50 as early as 1931.

Daiichidoku
08-15-2006, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I seem to remember a Volkswagon Beatle entered service with MW50 as early as 1931.

and fully armed

cleared (see Kurfurst for more details on the term "cleared for use") for use dec 31, 1159pm, 1930
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/buggun.jpg

faustnik
08-15-2006, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Megile:

Introduction does NOT mean wide spread use. How about showing the actual serviceable records?

Fine, I don't have them , you win, for now...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

faustnik
08-15-2006, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I seem to remember a Volkswagon Beatle entered service with MW50 as early as 1931.

and fully armed

cleared (see Kurfurst for more details on the term "cleared for use") for use dec 31, 1159pm, 1930
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/buggun.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Das ist ein uber bettle! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Viper2005_
08-15-2006, 10:38 PM
I bet it would have awful oversteer if it weren't a photoshop job!

Daiichidoku
08-15-2006, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
I bet it would have awful oversteer if it weren't a photoshop job!

what!?

are you saying they didnt have GAU-8s and '66 beetles in 1930?

Kurfurst__
08-16-2006, 04:21 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Didnt Mike update his site recently with lots of Bf109 tests?

I really dont know much about this stuff as I have trouble reading the graphs, but someone told me these were pretty new, like in the last month.

These are the same tests as he selected for 'representative' 109 performance in his article, just detailed. There's really nothing new it, 90% of this stuff could be found on my site weeks before he *suddenly* decided to put up to complete things - coincidence, huh? I'd still say it's definietely an improvement, but I guess it has to do something that ever since everyone could see the details on my site, there was no more point in holding back the details like was the modus operandi for quite a long time, and there's no change in the articles themselves which remain the same. Let's give him the benefit of doubt that he wanted but did not have time, but I have doubts, every 'update' into these articles so far was just more 109 kicking and/or removal of high boost graphs.

The problem is still, these are the suckiest 109 tests, Mike has all the better ones - some of these he put up recently origantes from me actually, or from discussions... why not show all..


I am interested to know the Luft guys reactions to these tests and graphs, and whats exactly 'wrong' with them.

Well here we go:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/me109/me-109g1-14026.pdf

Short version : Cherry picking.

Long version.

Just check out the results, the DB 605 has a hundred or more horsepower available at altitude than a DB 601E, yet it's just 4 mph faster... odd isn't?
Look at the rated alt of the DB 605A, 6100m instead of the usual 6600-7000m in level flight and something like 5500 m instead of 5800m for the DB 605? Obviously the engine had some kind of problems, probably with the supercharger.
Then check out the plane conditions.. tall vertical tail (not introduced serially until late 1943), non serial slats, assymetric radiators (points to cooling tests) and from other sources it can be confirmed it's a non retractable tailwheel. Obviously this plane was used in many tests already (and later on), and was in a more draggy state that the standard 109Gs at that time. Also the curves Mike show are quite clearly not corrected yet for standardized conditions, yet he claims that.

BTW...The mid-1943 FW 190/109G comparison of which he only shows the graphs, in the text part tells refers to this very report of WNr 14 026 (can be confirmed from report no.), that


'Da nach Rechliner Messungen die bei Mtt.AG. vermessene 109 als zu langsam ist, wurde auch diese hinzugef├╝gt. Ergebnisse aus Regensburg un der Wiener-Neustadt (ca. 13 Messungen) erh├┬Ąrten die Rechliner Werte, soda├č diese als ma├čgebend anzusehen sind. Lediglich weicht die VDH (Mittelwert 6700m) der 13 Messungen von dem Rechliner Wert ab.'

or

'As Rechlin measurements show that the 109 tested at the Mtt. AG. is too slow, these [Rechlin's results] will also be shown. Results from Regensburg and from Wiener-Neustadt (ca. 13 measurements) confirm the Rechlin values,
therefore these are to be to regarded as representative. Only the FTH of the 13 measurements (average : 6700m) deviates from Rechlin's values.'


Later reports confirm that WNR 14 026 was an underperforming example, while the Rechlin figures agree very well with the measurements of many-many production airframes. They agree well with the Erla factory measurements, and official Messerschmitt datasheets specs for G-1. The Rechlin figures were issued in the official type datasheet in March 1943... Also, plotting Rechlin to the 'abberant' Finnish and Soviet 109G-2 data shows excellent agreement.. Yet Mike's choice is to show WNr 14 026, and exclude all the others - Rechlin, Soviet testing, and the Finnish one from the comparison articles.

There's a poorly performing IXLF on his site, the JL 165, curiously that's the only one he does not show (claiming it's a test hack, with no basis, it's just on the bottom end of the tolerance limit of 3%. Such rougue planes occoured in every production run.)




http://www.spitfireperformance.com/me109/me-109g1-grundausfuhrung.pdf


See in my previous post, basically he is quite misleading about the nature of the compilation, that contains all sorts of tests, including the worst ones from planes that would be rejected during production, and which bring down the avarage figures. The figures are also corrected downwards for non retractable tailwheel (-12kph correction), which was otoh retractable until 1943. I also find it odd that while the report quite clearly notes the drag differences between G-2 and G-6 (briefly, -9 kph for gun bulges, -12 kph for the tailwheel), Mike arguees in favour of the lowish 109G-1 data that it agrees so well with the official specs for the G-6 - which is supposed to be 20kph slower than the G-1/2....


http://www.spitfireperformance.com/me109/db109g.pdf

There's nothing wrong with that either, except that Mike claims that it's a G-1, based on effectively nothing (it's a 1944 report on a 'serie 109G' - G-1s were out of production for 2 years by then), esp. when it's taken into account that the weight of the aircraft, 3100kg, is obviously pointing to G-6, and if you put to official G-6 curves next to it, it's THE perfect match. It's like taking MkV figures and label them MkIX...


http://www.spitfireperformance.com/me109/me-109g5.pdf

That's a fine Bf 109G-5 tests, perfectly reasonable and all. What I find odd is that while Mike claims/makes up that 1.42ata was not released until 1944, this test, done in December 1943 clearly stated that as the engine was not completely run in yet, it was run at only 1.3 ata to preseve it. Generally the not-yet-run-in fresh engines are only used at lower powers for a few hours of operation before using the full power. That would be an odd statement in the report, had 1.42ata hasn't been cleared yet already at this date, it would make no sense to 'preserve the engine' on 1.3ata, if that would be the max authorized power the time (ie. in case 1.42ata still banned as Mike claims).

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/me109/me-109g6-16476.pdf

Hmm, a Bf 109G-6, the draggiest variant, some 20 kph slower than the G-1 even in clean state, with tropical filter chopping down some 10 kph, and gondolas chopping down -8 kph from that... Mike has very nice tests of Merlin 61 Spit9s with droptanks, why not present those as well? [sarcasm mode off]

Again it's a perfectly nice tests, when you understand what it's shows the trouble is that these are the only ones Mike's showing, why doesn't he show the Russian results which he has, the Finnish results which he has, the Rechlin report on G-1 which he obviously has on his site instead of making up piss poor excuses to exclude them ? OTOH he has no problems showing Spits with too rich mixture which artificially boost their low alt performance, and he cuts down the high alt from his chart so it would not show up (both Merlin 66 and 70 tests were repeated in BS 310 airframe with correct mixture settings, and the results appearantly become the 'final' figures on the datasheets), and tests for a IXLF proto which had a injection carb that never went into production (but the results were improved).

Instead Mike just picks those 109 tests that meet the sole criteria that they are showing slower, poorer planes, either because they are burdened with extra equipment or because the particular plane had servicing problems. And not one of them is shown at full power, only at 30-min rating. He seem to concentrate only on the G-1 because of the 1942 scenarios, yet he fails to mention GM-1 boost that was available in all G-1s, and resulted pretty scary perofrmance at high altitude when engaged, Jochen Prien notes that 680 kph was achieved at 12 000 m with it, and a ceiling was 14 000 meter. That in June 1942. Lastly it's just my nitpicking as Mike's scheme for comparison seems to be model vs. model (I wonder why there's no 109F vs. MkV comparisons yet, he didn't find enough sucky tests yet showing the 109F slower than the Emil? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif), not contemporaries which typically faced each other - that would lead to the 109G being compared to the MkV, as the MkIXs were few in numbers until late 1943 and MkVs being the norm. Which might explain why the LW top brass was not overly excited with a handful of Squadrons of Merlin 66 Spits being around in mid-43, which were say, 10 kph faster than their worst case G-6, being around in hundreds otoh...

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/MW_selection_vs_other109G.png

What is interesting that even the 3 rejected airframes from the Erla tests (orange box with black X), which fell way below the minimum acceptance standard, are slightly better the best of those 109G tests Mike is willing to show....

WOLFMondo
08-16-2006, 04:51 AM
http://www.naturalsights.com/albumsNS/cherries/1345_44Cherries2.jpg

DIRTY-MAC
08-16-2006, 05:19 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Fine, if you want to continue the hijack, turn times PF from IL-2 Compare/Soviet tests.

Fw190A4 25/22-23 <span class="ev_code_RED">2-3 slow</span>
Fw190A5 24.5/22-23 <span class="ev_code_RED">1.5-2.5 slow</span>
Fw190A8 24/21-22 <span class="ev_code_RED">2-3 slow</span>
Fw190D9 22.5/22-23 <span class="ev_code_GREEN"> Spot on</span>
SpitVb 17.8/18.8 <span class="ev_code_RED">1 fast</span>
Spit IXc 18.5/18.5 <span class="ev_code_GREEN"> Spot on</span>

If you care about turn rates that is...

Oh, but Faustnik, you missed to show them Robban's testing which showed this:

"FW 190 family.

A-4 - 25.08 - 25.07 - 25.17

A-5 - 24.02 - 24.31 - 24.36

A-8 - 25.90 - 25.56 - 26.56

A-9 - 25.98 - 26.05 - 26.72

D-9 - 24.62 - 24.70 - 24.49

152 - 23.58 - 23.97 - 23.93

Spitfire

Vb - 16.73 - 16.27 - 16.42

IXc - 17.89 - 17.90 - 17.94"

So A8 is lacking 4-5 seconds(!!!), D9 is lacking 2 seconds, SpitV is 1.5 sec better, SpitMkIX is 0.5 sec better. Now the problem is that if you have 2 planes and "planeA" is a better turner than "planeB" as a fact and by a fair margin anyway, and if on top of that fact you undermodell the turn of the anyway inferiour planeB, you get abnormal difference. And you people are suprised Spitfire is being called UFO even though it really isn't?
With this minor corrections, Spits would ofcourse keep their historical vast turning advantage, they would just have to use it smartly, same way FW fliers have to use their speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this something thats been sent to oleg?

Cajun76
08-16-2006, 05:45 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
I really do want to see the Hawk75 as a flyable. The French need more representation in the sim. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

You want it, you got it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif


How many more French do we need? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

luftluuver
08-16-2006, 06:58 AM
The Germans restricted the boost.

Flugzeugmuster BF 109 G-1 mit motor DB 605A Kennblatt:
The figures indicated refer to combat and climbing power. n - 2600 U/min:Plade - 1,3 ata. Take-off and emergency power are not as yet approved for the 605/A. Die angegebenen Leistungen beziehen sich auf kampf und steigleistung. n - 2600 U/min :Plade - 1.3 ata. Start und notleistung ist f├╝r 605/A zurzeit noch nicht freigegeben

R.L.M. message GL/C-TT No.1374/42 of 12.6.42 as translated by British Air Intellegence.
A number of cases of breakdown in the DB 605 engine as a result of pistons burning through have occured. The following must therefore be observed.
The Take-off and emergency output with a boost pressure of 1.42 atm. and 2800 revs. may not at present by used. The climbing and combat output with 1.3 atm. and 2600 revs. may in the case of the older engines (for works numbers see below), be used only when operationally essential.

Bf109 G-2 Bedienungsvorschrift-F1 Ausgabe Juli 1942
*Note! "start and emergency power" is blocked and may not be used.
*Achtung! Die "Start und notleistung" darf nicht benutzt werden, sie ist deshalb blockiert.

DB 605 Moteren-Karte 9 October 1942
Take-off and emergency power is closed up to revocation , thus 2650 U/min (2600 U/min +2%) may not be exceeded in any flight attitude. Die Start und Notleistung ist bis auf Widerruf gesperrt, es d├╝rfen somit 2650 U/min (2600 U/min +2%) in keiner Fluglage ├╝berschritten werden.

From 109 G1, G2 and G6 Me├črief - 1942 and 1943
Take off and emergency power: Provisionally closed after VT instruction Nr.2206. Start und Notleistung: Vorl├┬Ąufig gesperrt nach VT-Anweisung Nr.2206

Bf109 G-2, G-4, G-6 Bedienungsvorschrift-F1 Ausgabe Juni 1943
"Take-off and emergency power" may not be used; this stage is blocked in order to prevent over pressure. Die Leistungsstufe 'Start -und Notleistung' darf nicht benutzt werden; um ├┼ôberdr├╝cken zu verhindern, ist diese Stufe blockiert.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Bf109 G-4/R3, G-6/R3</span> Bedienungsvorschrift-F1 Ausgabe <span class="ev_code_RED">Februar 1944</span>
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Take-off and emergency power: may not be used, is blocked. Start- und Notleistung: Darf nicht benutzt werden, ist blockiert.</span>


Mike has very nice tests of Merlin 61 Spit9s with droptanks, why not present those as well? Did the Spit enter combat with drop tanks still on? Did the the 109 jettison the gondolas? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


tests for a IXLF proto which had a injection carb that never went into production Wrong!!! The Bendix-Stromberg injection carb was used on the Spit IX.


JL 165, curiously that's the only one he does not show (claiming it's a test hack, with no basis, JL165 was originally a Mk V with a Merlin 45. It was converted to a LFIX with a Merlin 66 27-3-43. It was used for many tests, such as 25lb boost, 150 fuel, 4 blade prop.


Look at the rated alt of the DB 605A, 6100m instead of the usual 6600-7000m A DB data sheet on the DB605A has a VH of 5800m. A DB data sheet dated 1944 has the DB605AM with a VH of 5500m. DB data sheets for the DB605D has a VH of 6500m and 6800m depending on the model.

faustnik
08-16-2006, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
I really do want to see the Hawk75 as a flyable. The French need more representation in the sim. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

You want it, you got it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif


How many more French do we need? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So cruel Cajun. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Xiolablu3
08-16-2006, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


Again it's a perfectly nice tests, when you understand what it's shows the trouble is that these are the only ones Mike's showing, why doesn't he show the Russian results which he has, the Finnish results which he has, the Rechlin report on G-1 which he obviously has on his site instead of making up piss poor excuses to exclude them ?

But you already know that he doesnt test Spits in use in the USA, South Africa etc, he only tests Spitfires tested by the Official RAF testing centre, just like he will only use 109 tests from Messerschmitt AG. Are there much better tests from Messerscmitt AG which he has missed out? Could you post one if so?

I have heard him say before 'I am not interested in what could have been, or should have been, I post graphs of the 109 only from Messerschmitt AG, and I believe it was the right choice.'

p1ngu666
08-16-2006, 10:16 AM
could FTH vary abit with atmospheric conditions?

id say JL165 was a test aircraft, i know it was a spitV upgraded to IX standard, and used for testing. i dont know what else it did *shrug*

faustnik
08-16-2006, 10:40 AM
Xiolablu3,

Mike approach certainly is logical.

I like to look at other testing sources too though, particularly when the same organization tests aircraft side-by-side. I always wonder if different test agencies fly under different atmoshperic conditions and use slightly different methods? I really like the Soviet tests. You can see the influence of those tests of how the Fw190 and Bf109 are modeled in the sim.

As I always say, gather data from as many sources as possible and draw your own conclusions.

Xiolablu3
08-16-2006, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Xiolablu3,

Mike approach certainly is logical.

I like to look at other testing sources too though, particularly when the same organization tests aircraft side-by-side. I always wonder if different test agencies fly under different atmoshperic conditions and use slightly different methods? I really the Soviet tests. You can see the influence of those tests of how the Fw190 and Bf109 are modeled in the sim.

As I always say, gather data from as many sources as possible and draw your own conclusions.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif I want to hear both sides, I am hoping Kurfy will respond. I am not 'sticking up from either side' Just fishing for a response really. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Viper2005_
08-16-2006, 02:36 PM
Pingu, fth should always be a constant density altitude.

The geopotential height associated with any given density altitude will vary from day to day, but the maximum speed at fth will be largely constant (if it's really cold then prop efficiency will drop, and you'll end up flying slower - and vice versa - which is why Reno is such a good place for setting speed records with piston engined aeroplanes...).

JL.165 just had a duff engine, as Rolls-Royce themselves pointed out in their report.

A standard production Spitfire LF.IX should have been capable of 384 mph in MS gear, and 404 mph in FS gear.

JL.165 only managed 364 mph in MS gear (20 mph too slow, or about 5.2%), and 389 mph in FS gear (15 mph too slow or about 3.7%).

Rolls-Royce earlier coaxed 367 and 397 mph out of it in MS and FS gears respectively, but that's still over 4.4% down in MS gear.

At the end of the day it must be remembered that JL.165 was one of the first Spitfires operated at +25, and doubtless its engine (and airframe) was of rather an early mod state. It is therefore unsurprising that it failed to perform as advertised, and actually lost performance between October 1943 and February 1944.

Kurfurst__
08-17-2006, 04:14 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
But you already know that he doesnt test Spits in use in the USA, South Africa etc, he only tests Spitfires tested by the Official RAF testing centre, just like he will only use 109 tests from Messerschmitt AG.

That's simply not true, Mike is listing Spits from Australian tests, state test centre tests and manufacturer tests.
As for why he does not lists US, Soviet tests on Spitfires, it's understandable, they are not so flattering as British tests.

For M 109G he only lists the firms internal research trials - these were NOT performance trials but internal research which only aimed to answer questions like : how much drag gondolas are adding? is cooling satisfactory? What gains can be expected from new tail designs? Absolute figures were irrelevelant in those tests, they wanted to know the relative performance changes. Mike chooses to show Messerschmitt figures of a test hack Bf 109G-1, WNr. 14 026, which was picked out from the production line and used for years for all sorts of tests. So it seems a 109 test hack is O.K. for 'represntative performace'. So, why not also show JL 165 in the comparisons, too? It's factory test, too.. worst figures are OK to be shown for 109s, but not for Spits? Interesting.

But if Mike has so much respect for Messerschmitt AG documents, why does he ignore the line in mid-1943 Mtt AG report and comparison on FW190A/109G testing :

'As Rechlin measurements show that the 109 tested at the Mtt. AG. is too slow, these [Rechlin's results] will also be shown. Results from Regensburg and from Wiener-Neustadt (ca. 13 measurements) confirm the Rechlin values, therefore these are to be to regarded as representative. Only the FTH of the 13 measurements (average : 6700m) deviates from Rechlin's values.'

He has the full report in which this is written, but only showing the graphs without the text that reveals his stuff..

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/me109/frm1l43-190-109.pdf

BTW, I see Mike is rather busy of reading my posts, since appearantly after he seen the new stuff on my site, and lately the results of the Erla measurments depicted on my graph, he had now decided to put up the Erla speed results which rather nicely confirms those 'abberant' tests he is so happy to reject. appearantly he was well aware of that how nicely other tests agree with the Rechlin, Soviet and Finnish trials, yet he choosed to hold them back and show only the worst until he was exposed.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/me109/erla109g.pdf
A small sidenote, as our dear Mike is also reading my posts it seems, he still holds back the GM-1 graphs that are within this very same reports, I guess he does not like the altitude performance with GM-1 (and with GM1 it ain't shabby). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

He also holds back the BS 310 Merlin 66 trials, because those are quite clear why the former Merlin 66 trials on the prototype (Mike's favourite for boasting IXLF performance) were faulty measurements (mixture was too rich, that lead to improved performance at low altitudes and reduced at high altitudes. Mike came around that small 'problem' by simply not showing the characteristic falloff at altitude that is typical for mixture richness problems, the Merlin 70 trials also mention it anyway). It's seems Mike is a great fan of reading my graphs and posts - I hope he will like my new article, too - I already have all trials of BS 310, including the diving ones, thesw will be very revealing. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

You are speaking of 'Spitfires tested by the Official RAF testing centre'. The German equivalent is E-Stelle Rechlin, the state-run Rechlin Test Centre (E Stelle Tarnewitz was responsible for weapons trials). Yet it's been selectively qouted, Mike happily qoutes the part of it noting the 1.3ata limitation, but funnily enough missed the whole table showing the performance (shown also in the Mtt AG 109/190 comparison report).

Actually that's my only problem, that shameless selective qouting and cherry picking of all sources in order to show the 'desired' results.

As for the official Messerschmitt figures, I already posted those, see on my graph on the previous page, the table will be soon on my website:

The official Messerschmitt figures for the Bf 109 G as of May 1942 were as follows :
at 1.3ata 2600 rpm (limitation until September 1943, when 1.42ata was released)

537 kph at SL
660 kph at 7000m
Offical specs for 1.42ata were 550 kph at SL, 685 kph at 7000m.
GM-1 is not included, this added 30 kph at 8000m, 40kph at 10 000m.

As said, any production aircraft that failed to meet these requirements withing +/- 3% tolerance were rejected by BAL (LW quality control).

You can see the same figures as the official figures in the Mtt-Erla factory trials, which Mike posted just after I started to show them in my little graph above.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/me109/erla109g.pdf


The official Rechlin trials figures for the Bf 109 G-1 as of March 1943 were as follows (after introducing the fixed tailwheel which added some drag):

at 1.3ata 2600 rpm (limitation until September 1943, when 1.42ata was released)

525 kph at SL
650 kph at 7000m


Are there much better tests from Messerscmitt AG which he has missed out? Could you post one if so?

Well there are the Mtt Regensburg, Mtt WNF, Mtt Erla (appearantly he choose to post the latter now) factory trials which were all performance checks from serial production aircraft coming out of the factory. He also misses the official Mtt specifications for the Bf 109G-1, to which all serial production airframes had to comply, withing plus-minus 3% tolerance. I doubt Mtt was doing any true performance trials (except the G-5 AS, sicne that was new) to find out what the performance was - after all that was the job of Estelle Rechlin, just as in Britian it was not Supermarine or Castle Bronwich which doing the official performance trials, but an independent state run institute for obvious reasons.



I have heard him say before 'I am not interested in what could have been, or should have been, I post graphs of the 109 only from Messerschmitt AG, and I believe it was the right choice.'

I've not seen him saying that, but he's quite a hypocrat if he says so. After all, on what grounds are Soviet trials rejected? Those were done service aircraft from the frontline in standard condition, what can be more representative than that, there's no 'what if' involved. The Finnish trials were done on a serial production aircraft that Finns just picked up and flew from Vienna to Finnland and tested right away in a professional manner, speed runs were done to four directions to eliminate error from wind for example, corrected for CINA altitude and compressibilty etc.

OTOH, he has no problems listing prototype and experimental one-of-a-kind Spitfires which never been in service with that kind of equipment, and he is showing his own estimates for Spitfire performance, LOL.

Clear double standards I'd say. Always the best for any Allied plane, always the worst for any LW plane. The funniest is the MkXII comparison which acknowladged that even the 109G-6, the worst kind at only 1.3ata boost (not to say the G-2) can be rather competitive with the MkXII in climb - so no climb curves are shown at all! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

luftluuver
08-17-2006, 05:56 AM
limitation until September 1943, when 1.42ata was released


<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">From 109 G1, G2 and G6 Me├črief - 1942 and 1943
Take off and emergency power: Provisionally closed after VT instruction Nr.2206. Start und Notleistung: Vorl├┬Ąufig gesperrt nach VT-Anweisung Nr.2206

Bf109 G-2, G-4, G-6 Bedienungsvorschrift-F1 Ausgabe Juni 1943
"Take-off and emergency power" may not be used; this stage is blocked in order to prevent over pressure. Die Leistungsstufe 'Start -und Notleistung' darf nicht benutzt werden; um ├┼ôberdr├╝cken zu verhindern, ist diese Stufe blockiert.

Bf109 G-4/R3, G-6/R3 Bedienungsvorschrift-F1 Ausgabe</span> <span class="ev_code_red">Februar 1944</span>
<span class="ev_code_yellow">Take-off and emergency power: may not be used, is blocked. Start- und Notleistung: Darf nicht benutzt werden, ist blockierta.</span>


BTW, I see Mike is rather busy of reading my posts, since appearantly after he seen the new stuff on my site,.... Actually Kurfurst, Mike had the graphs before you announced them in a thread here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif A friend (who was kind enough to share them) recieved them from Mike weeks before you put them on your site. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
08-17-2006, 06:03 AM
Kurfy,

Those 109 tests have been up on SpitfirePerformance.com for nearly 2 months now, so I dont think your site had anything to do with it.

I was told in an email froma mate about them on the 20th June, thats nearly 2 months ago. They were up before that date.

Thanks for your response.

Kurfurst__
08-17-2006, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">limitation until September 1943, when 1.42ata was released

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">From 109 G1, G2 and G6 Me├črief - 1942 and 1943
Take off and emergency power: Provisionally closed after VT instruction Nr.2206. Start und Notleistung: Vorl├┬Ąufig gesperrt nach VT-Anweisung Nr.2206

Bf109 G-2, G-4, G-6 Bedienungsvorschrift-F1 Ausgabe Juni 1943
"Take-off and emergency power" may not be used; this stage is blocked in order to prevent over pressure. Die Leistungsstufe 'Start -und Notleistung' darf nicht benutzt werden; um ├┼ôberdr├╝cken zu verhindern, ist diese Stufe blockiert.

Bf109 G-4/R3, G-6/R3 Bedienungsvorschrift-F1 Ausgabe</span> <span class="ev_code_red">Februar 1944</span>
<span class="ev_code_yellow">Take-off and emergency power: may not be used, is blocked. Start- und Notleistung: Darf nicht benutzt werden, ist blockierta.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not according to Olivier Lefebrve aka butch2k, who said it numerous times it was cleared in Sept/October 1943, it's just you and Mike who like to cherry pick qoutes from Olivier when it fits you, and forget about him when it's not. See also the qoutes from Olivier that suddenly disappeared about 1.98ata after Mike felt that even the thin yellow line on white background that depicted it was too intimidating. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The release of 1.42ata was discussed numerous times on AAW forums, in which you yourself were participating, you just being a similair hypocrite like Mike.

Meeting at the Generalluftzeugmeister office on 7 September 1943 reported very positive test results with improvements on the DB 605A,and trials were to be finished within 4 weeks. To qoute Prof. Nallinger, head of Daimler Benz on that meeting :

'Due to the most recent tests, we have the absolute confidence that, with the engineering changes I have reported, the engine is going to be allright with regard to the bearings and that take-off power is going to be cleared for use.'

Even the rival Junkers company represnetative as well as from state run test Centre's head at Rechlin agreed with that.

Both G-3 and G-2 manuals are known to have been updated in late September/October 1943 and no longer mention any limitation of 1.42ata. As for the G-4/R3 G-6/R3manual, it was probably just not updated, perhaps issued in a Deckblatt the aircraft being a long range recce and I am not sure if a G-6/R3 subvariant was produced at all. Anybody who thinks 1.42ata was not cleared before 1944 is simply out of his mind, or very dishonest in view of that by March 1944 DB605s were running at no less than 1.7ata, and that the G-5/AS tests indirectly confirm the already occured release of 1.42ata in December 1943.

1.42ata had been cleared in late September/early October, period, there's nothing to discuss on it, or what Mike wants to make up again on that, too.



Originally posted by Xiolablu3

Kurfy,

Those 109 tests have been up on SpitfirePerformance.com for nearly 2 months now, so I dont think your site had anything to do with it.

No, not the whole tests, just the graphs without any details (know to all of us for a long time, he just puts his imprint on it, as a matter of fact the WNr 14 026 trials he got from Neil Stirling, who got it from me, andit originates to George), the detailed text of the tests were only put up suddenly (just last week on the 8th August) after that now that they were publicized on my site and there was no further point of holding back those for they could read by everyone already. Most of these tests were already transscribed on my site at that time, it was an easy copy-paste job probably.

Today he quickly put up the Erla tests, strange coincidence that I was just posting my graph for you Xia of how Spitfireperfornce cherry picks between tests, and the Erla results were there on that graph... Obviously our dear Mike is fleeing forwards as the material he's hiding gets surfaced and publiced, but that's at least a change, it seems that publicity is getting very inconvinient for him http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif or perhaps it's Neil who's feeling uneasy giving his name to a site with such bad reputation for bias. Well if Mike's behaviour continoues to improve in such fashion, and he reworks his articles in a fair manner, I'll probably remove my article from my site on him. If not, I'll release a couple of more.

luftluuver
08-17-2006, 09:15 AM
Well since you keep refering to me as someone else, can I call you Barbi, for that is what you were called in old posts here Kurfurst?

Being a hypocrite and being dishonest is something you are well known for Barbi. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif You are also well know for having a comprehension problem, or maybe it would be better if you were described as the 3 monkeys. Well at least 2 out of the 3. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

http://www.kimple.com/Catalog%20FL/3_Monkeys.JPG


'Due to the most recent tests, we have the absolute confidence that, with the engineering changes I have reported, the engine is going to be allright with regard to the bearings and that take-off power is going to be cleared for use.' Is that like 1.98ata being cleared and in widespread use? It only says 'confidence', not that it was 'alright' and 'going to be cleared' We all know your intepretation of 'cleared. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Just because a manual says so does not mean it was so.

Also, Mtt was well known for being slow in introducing improvements/changes.

Got quotes from butch2k?

At least 40 G6/R3s were produced from block 20000-20800. One would think that 1.42 would come in handy for an a/c that would be flying all by itself in an unfriendly sky.

lrrp22
08-17-2006, 09:21 AM
Wow Kurfurst, just wow. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

faustnik
08-17-2006, 09:39 AM
OT:

How long have these internet wars been going on? Kurfurst vs. Mike Williams, LRRP vs. Bolillo, Crumpp vs. Kutscha, and all the others? Over on the CWOS forums we get people dropping in just to pick at other people over what must be a very old fight. Did this start the first or second day the internet was created?

Brain32
08-17-2006, 09:46 AM
Actually the question is what was first, Internet or their discussions http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif They could had exchange telegrams waaay before Internet started working so I'd say the whole thing is older than Internet itself http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Just because a manual says so does not mean it was so.
Unless we talk about Allied planes huh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

lrrp22
08-17-2006, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
OT:

How long have these internet wars been going on? Kurfurst vs. Mike Williams, LRRP vs. Bolillo, Crumpp vs. Kutscha, and all the others? Over on the CWOS forums we get people dropping in just to pick at other people over what must be a very old fight. Did this start the first or second day the internet was created?

Give Mike credit, Faustnik- he doesn't allow himself to get sucked into these ****ging matches. And in Bolillo's and my defense, I don't think we've exchanged more than a dozen posts in total! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

luftluuver
08-17-2006, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Unless we talk about Allied planes huh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Put up or shut up. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Produce them.

Actually faustnik, it is Kurfurst vs any and all who don't share his 'German is uber' mentality.

I had a PM conversation with this Milo on why Kurfurst has such a big hate on for him. He said in the old 'OnWar' board, Kurfurst lit into him like a rabid dog (refer back to old posts here by Kurfurst for examples of the rabid dog) when questioned in a CIVIL manner about his post. Milo said he was not the only one that was attacked in such a manner in that thread and in many others.

faustnik
08-17-2006, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by lrrp22:

Give Mike credit, Faustnik- he doesn't allow himself to get sucked into these ****ging matches. And in Bolillo's and my defense, I don't think we've exchanged more than a dozen posts in total! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

That's true now that I think about it (the part about Mike, not you and Bolillo http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ). Mike has his posse which hunts down them 109 lovin' varmints for him. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

Did this stuff start with another sim? CFS1 or something?

faustnik
08-17-2006, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Milo said he was not the only one that was attacked in such a manner in that thread and in many others.

Well, Milo/Kutscha? (I don't know the "old" nicks people used) came into our CWOS 190 forum with a real attitude after Crumpp. I had to explain a couple times that we don't operate like that there, we like things mellow. Seems fine now.

I see a lot of people jump on Kurfy really quick, I've done it myself. Maybe it's his terse writing style? He promotes the embodiment of evil, the Bf109, which gets him in trouble and leaves him outnumbered.

Everybody would do a lot better if they would be a little more open-minded. Maybe your favorites weren't the best at everything? Maybe the P-38 did use higher boost levels, maybe the 109 did too?

p1ngu666
08-17-2006, 10:29 AM
Kurfurst vs any and all who don't share his 'German is uber' mentality.

tobe fair to kurfy, he doesnt care much for the 190

he likes german planes, but the 109 is the one he loves most of all, and far more than any other http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

as they say, love is blind http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
/sharp exit

Brain32
08-17-2006, 10:43 AM
Actually faustnik, it is Kurfurst vs any and all who think German is inferiour in every aspect and it lost the t3h war so it couldn't possibly had some good qualities
Fixed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

luftluuver
08-17-2006, 11:53 AM
I visit your board faustnik for there is much good info/data posted.

I remember seeing a thread. I saw an attitude from Crumpp towards M/K. I would say Crumpp is not operating on all 8 cylinders of his V-8.

Noticed that you did not jump on Kurfurst when he attacked M/K.


No Brain, you is wrong. It is those that dispute Kurfurst's German unberness and almighty perfectionism. Whenever the truth is posted (by those much more knoweledgable (more than me) than Kurfurst) he turns the blind eye and turns into a rabid dog (I like that description of him).

faustnik
08-17-2006, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
I would say Crumpp is not operating on all 8 cylinders of his V-8.

Luft,

What the...

??? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif ???

Uh, now you have me wondering about your cylinders. Where did that come from?

******************

Read page 1 and 2 for my views on MW's site. I've made my views pretty clear.

For a small, close community, we can get pretty ugly around here.

Daiichidoku
08-17-2006, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Maybe your favorites weren't the best at everything? Maybe the P-38 did use higher boost levels

ah, you said the magic phrase, P 38 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

one can only imagine what the in game "late" "boosted" 38 would have, if it was correct, given that it currently only performs like a "regular" L (ty TAGERT)

scarier is the fact that the J and L in RL were essential identical, but for internal structure changes and dive rec flaps (later retro fitted to Js, natch), increasing weight of the L over the J by less then 100 lbs....yet in game they fly so completely different

oh, and that the in game J climbs like a RL J....a RL J with 100% fuel and military power (80%?)...provided your in gmae J uses max power (110%) and takes only 25% fuel (ty again TAGERT)

Brain32
08-17-2006, 12:17 PM
Yup, for some reason P38 got fingered in IL2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif but it's not the only one... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

faustnik
08-17-2006, 12:28 PM
I still say the Hawk 75 was the best French fighter. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

berg417448
08-17-2006, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
I still say the Hawk 75 was the best French fighter. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


+1!

Xiolablu3
08-17-2006, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Yup, for some reason P38 got fingered in IL2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif but it's not the only one... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

P38 is a fantastic plane in Il2, what do you think is exactly wrong with it?

I know people who love the plane and will fly it whenever its on a map, for attacking the targets with big loads of ordinance and fighting your way back there is no bettter plane in the game. Its also a pretty good fighter.

EDIT: Nevermind, if the tests are right, I just read Dalichidoku's post, I must read the whole thread before replying next time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I still stand by my comments on the P38 in game tho, its a wicked plane in the sim.

Daiichidoku
08-17-2006, 12:43 PM
i am one of those ppl who fly it whenever possible

it is not the only porked type in FB, but probably the most so

whats wrong with it?

as above, the "late" L performs as only a "regular" L

the J and L in game should have identical FM (except for when DRF deployed, of course), but they dont

in game J climbs with 25% fuel and 110% throttle as RL J did with 100% fuel and 80% throttle

stall speeds 20 mph too high

tail boom bug that allows entire tail boom assembly and/or entire elevator structure to be blown clean off, even with 303 hits

compressability stigma- only B1 rocket shares compressability in FB, no other types do
the compressability parameters are way off, CP is entered about 40 mph too early, and can also be entered from inital alts of less than 10,000ft, total horses**t

somersault flip-try zooming a 38 straight up, and when out of airspeed, it will flip *** over end several times, without control...meanwhile, magic slatted types, and other single engine types have small difficulties in this regard

Xiolablu3
08-17-2006, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:


tail boom bug that allows entire tail boom assembly and/or entire elevator structure to be blown clean off, even with 303 hits



I am not discounting your other findings, but i have NEVER seen this happen in the 4.05m patch.

I fly a LOT.

Manu-6S
08-17-2006, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Maybe your favorites weren't the best at everything? Maybe the P-38 did use higher boost levels

ah, you said the magic phrase, P 38 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

one can only imagine what the in game "late" "boosted" 38 would have, if it was correct, given that it currently only performs like a "regular" L (ty TAGERT)

scarier is the fact that the J and L in RL were essential identical, but for internal structure changes and dive rec flaps (later retro fitted to Js, natch), increasing weight of the L over the J by less then 100 lbs....yet in game they fly so completely different

oh, and that the in game J climbs like a RL J....a RL J with 100% fuel and military power (80%?)...provided your in gmae J uses max power (110%) and takes only 25% fuel (ty again TAGERT) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since the full quote is...


Originally posted by faustnik:
Maybe your favorites weren't the best at everything? Maybe the P-38 did use higher boost levels, <span class="ev_code_RED">maybe the 109 did too?</span>

... what do you think about this? (the red text)

Kurfurst__
08-17-2006, 01:37 PM
Let Ivan handle the ones needs to be handled.

Until then, you can read the official Mtt specs as of May 1942 on my site. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
This time available both in English and in original German. Make your own conclusions, that's always the best.

http://www.kurfurst.bravehost.com/index.html

Updates :

17 August 2006.
' Messerschmitt AG. Augsburg - Datenblatt f├╝r Me 109 G-1 Ausf├╝hrung. ' - new material

faustnik
08-17-2006, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:


tail boom bug that allows entire tail boom assembly and/or entire elevator structure to be blown clean off, even with 303 hits



I am not discounting your other findings, but i have NEVER seen this happen in the 4.05m patch.

I fly a LOT. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The tail boom does not come off all the time but, the large elevator surface and how it is modeled in PF results in control loss way too frequently. The big surface should absorb more damage and still function, instead it just provides a larger hit box for the same level damage.

The P-38 is THE best plane in the sim from a general operations POV. Our squad has been flying weekly P-38 COOPs against AI for the summer and we really appreciate the plane now. The tricycle gear makes it great for take-off even with the heaviest load. The attack payload is just awesome with 2x1000lb bombs and 10 rockets! Landing, even when shot up by flak is great. We used to fly a lot of Fw190 jabo missions and the P-38 is SO much better it's amazing. Take-off, acceleration with a payload, loadout, twin-engines, trimmablity, the P-38 is the king of jabos! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Xiolablu3
08-17-2006, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:

The P-38 is THE best plane in the sim from a general operations POV. Our squad has been flying weekly P-38 COOPs against AI for the summer and we really appreciate the plane now. The tricycle gear makes it great for take-off even with the heaviest load. The attack payload is just awesome with 2x1000lb bombs and 10 rockets! Landing, even when shot up by flak is great. We used to fly a lot of Fw190 jabo missions and the P-38 is SO much better it's amazing. Take-off, acceleration with a payload, loadout, twin-engines, trimmablity, the P-38 is the king of jabos! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


Totally agree Faust, maps have had to be tweaked when it has been found out that the Red side can win in 10 minutes with a mass P38 attack. Basically if 8 or 9 people took a P38 loaded up, it was possible to destroy the targets on the first visit, the plane is that awesome at Jabo work.

In the short distances in online mini-war maps, it usualy makes more sense to take a P38 than a B25 or A20, it can also hang around and cover the incoming bombers after it has struck the targets itself.

P38's escorted by Spitfires is formidable.

In fact I think I will go fly one now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Hope its a P38 map which is being played.

p1ngu666
08-17-2006, 02:26 PM
the only problem with the p38 as a jabo ride is the compressability.

otherwise its really good.

roll on a proper mossie, and a propermossie at 25lb boost for OMGHAX jabo/vulching fun http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Xiolablu3
08-17-2006, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the only problem with the p38 as a jabo ride is the compressability.

otherwise its really good.

roll on a proper mossie, and a propermossie at 25lb boost for OMGHAX jabo/vulching fun http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Can a Mossie carry rockets and bombs at the same time, Ping?

faustnik
08-17-2006, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
In the short distances in online mini-war maps, it usualy makes more sense to take a P38 than a B25 or A20, it can also hang around and cover the incoming bombers after it has struck the targets itself.

No question! The rocket loadout of the P-38 makes it the armor/gun killer.

Daiichidoku
08-17-2006, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
The attack payload is just awesome with 2x1000lb bombs and 10 rockets!

lets not sell the 38 short http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/bombextra.jpg

if we have an il2 sturmo torp bomber with a questionable existence, then why not
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/p38f-2.jpg
(cant find my pic of 38 with a double fish loadout tho http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif )



btw, Faust, the Arsenal VG-33 was probably the best (and native!) French fighter (that was also too late etc)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal_VG_33

(sexy french lady)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/azu_48018.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/vg33photo11gu.jpg

p1ngu666
08-17-2006, 08:16 PM
thats one cool looking fighter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Xiolablu3, yeah it can carry rockets and bombs, i forget the bombload for the FBVI, either 500lb or 1000lb internaly, plus 8 pound rockets, possibly double stacked for 16.

the main advantages over p38 would be range when bombed up (p38 could lift heavy drop tanks, its internal fuel range wasnt spectacular, but certainly good http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

plus the naviagator is a highly useful person to bring along, mossie ops where nearly on time and on target, ingame thats gonna happen as A)no one wanna be nav especialy b)we dont have the nav position or tools modeled.

the other major plus would be the 4 hispanos and 4 303s with 283/1000rpg respectivly. think thats 28seconds and 50seconds of fire http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

online and offline, itll depend on the target, for antishipping,tanks and "hard" targets the p38 is better (extra rockets and heavier bombs)

mossie with the cannon would be better for softer targets.
if u base the damage on 50cal, goinging with the rule of thumb of 3 50cal to a 20mm, then p38 has 7 50cal firepower

mossie has 12 50cals, plus 303

i dont know how many 303 there are to a 50cal http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif 2 - 4 depending on target i guess.

the main advantage of mossie would to take a bombload and consdierable firepower to a target, hit it acuratly, and be atleast as fast as the lw fighters at certain heights, with bombload.

the nav would a huge aid on long range low alt raids, cos in a p38, u the pilot would haveto fumble with the maps, while doing 250mph+ at about 3-20metres off the ground.

in the stuff i posted before, it was 366mph they where doing on the target run in at low level, i guess everyone has done 70mph on the motorway here, 366mph is slighty over 5 times faster http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

both are really good jabo rides http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

jermin122
08-17-2006, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I have also have a tough time accepting that the Bf 109 G2 did not exceed 400 mph in level flight. Even in Black 6 the pilot states the G2 was faster at altitude than the Spitfire IX he had flown - no details on which IX or by how much faster the G2 was but its still another bit of anecdotal evidence which makes me think maybe the Finns the Russians and the Germans data is worth reconsidering when it comes to commenting on the G series on Mikes site.

OFF
Just check my site thread for that speed curve, it's plain there, and especially the scatter data on speeds by fresh manufactured planes by Erla leaves little doubt.. Also the Rechlin data for the G-1, which is said to be in good agreement with the factory scatter results from WNF and Regensburg fits perfectly in.

The official specs for the G-2 were 535 kph at SL and 660 kph at 7000m, this Mtt datasheet is the next thing coming to my site. They are bang on for the Soviet curves.

Mike basically picked WNr 14 026, which had appearantly supercharger problems and was a factory test hack used in 5-6 tests at least I can track down, with the tailwheel presumably down which slowed it down even further (new vertical tail was tested on it previously). The DB 109G test he calls a G-1 is a G-6 as a matter of fact.. and so on. The worst arguement is that G-1 tests agree so well with the - 109G-6... I wonder why is that, the cleaner plane matching the draggier one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Part I don't understand, why he is so selective, showing the very best 109G test would not make the Spit look bad at all, so whats the point? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice post, Kurfust! We 109 pilots thank you very much for your great efforts and persistence. We are proud of you!

p1ngu666
08-18-2006, 04:22 PM
bump http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

ImpStarDuece
08-18-2006, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
thats one cool looking fighter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Xiolablu3, yeah it can carry rockets and bombs, i forget the bombload for the FBVI, either 500lb or 1000lb internaly, plus 8 pound rockets, possibly double stacked for 16.

the main advantages over p38 would be range when bombed up (p38 could lift heavy drop tanks, its internal fuel range wasnt spectacular, but certainly good http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

plus the naviagator is a highly useful person to bring along, mossie ops where nearly on time and on target, ingame thats gonna happen as A)no one wanna be nav especialy b)we dont have the nav position or tools modeled.

the other major plus would be the 4 hispanos and 4 303s with 283/1000rpg respectivly. think thats 28seconds and 50seconds of fire http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

online and offline, itll depend on the target, for antishipping,tanks and "hard" targets the p38 is better (extra rockets and heavier bombs)

mossie with the cannon would be better for softer targets.
if u base the damage on 50cal, goinging with the rule of thumb of 3 50cal to a 20mm, then p38 has 7 50cal firepower

mossie has 12 50cals, plus 303

i dont know how many 303 there are to a 50cal http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif 2 - 4 depending on target i guess.

the main advantage of mossie would to take a bombload and consdierable firepower to a target, hit it acuratly, and be atleast as fast as the lw fighters at certain heights, with bombload.

the nav would a huge aid on long range low alt raids, cos in a p38, u the pilot would haveto fumble with the maps, while doing 250mph+ at about 3-20metres off the ground.

in the stuff i posted before, it was 366mph they where doing on the target run in at low level, i guess everyone has done 70mph on the motorway here, 366mph is slighty over 5 times faster http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

both are really good jabo rides http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

The Mossie is now my bird of choice online Its great: fast, stable, good bombload, excellent foward vision (pretty poor to the rear though) and firepower that will just melt anything that blunders in front of it.

The only problem I've found with it is that the verdammt thing starts to shake like a leaf past 360-370 mph IAS and is almost impossible to push up to 400 mph in anything apart from a vertical dive. Not cool in an aircraft that could do 394 mph in level flight at 2,000 feet (when equipped with N02 boost) and was dive limited to 370 KNOTS (425 mph) with 2 x 500lbrs on the wings.

Anyway,

My favoured tactic with the Mossie is to climb to 6,000 feet, cruise in towards the target at 280 mph IAS, start a shallow dive about 10 km out, level off at 320-340 mph and 3000 feet, go to full power, pick a target, point the nose down and push it right down to the deck at 360-380 mph, drop my load and hightail it out of there at 50 feet and full boost hopefully without any fighters or flak chasing me.

Usually the only time I get shot down in a Mossie is if I take a flak hit or encounter fighters on my way in to the target. Or if I play silly buggers and decide to make more than one or two turns in a hot area.


Given the current context of online play (mostly seems to be Western Front betwen 1944 and 1945) the best things to have for the Mossie would be one with low alt rated Merlin 25, multiple ejector exhausts and rocket rails. Should be capable of around 360-365 mph on the deck and about 375-380 mph at 8,000 feet. RoC should be slightly better than 3000 ft/min.

This would give the RAF guys a fast, capable light bomber specalised for low alt work, which has some chance of sucessfully evading or running if a 190D-9 or 109G/K spots us and decides to give chase. Right now I just get an itch between my shoulders if I'm on the deck and doing anything less than 350 mph.

Badsight-
08-18-2006, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
somersault flip-try zooming a 38 straight up, and when out of airspeed, it will flip *** over end several times, without control...meanwhile, magic slatted types, and other single engine types have small difficulties in this regard the other things aside , i see this as a feature

it has stability at the end of the zoom & i see the twin counter rotaters as the reason you can put it into the flipping manouver (which is a cool manouver) , if you dont want to do somersaults - you dont have too

realistic ? who knows but it sure is cool to do

Daiichidoku
08-18-2006, 08:44 PM
uhhhhhhhhhhh

please tell me, aside from it being "cool", what good is it being locked in a manuver that basically keeps you stationary with enemies coming towards you?

i think it has to do with the B(e)S(ure) compressability modelling that reduces the elevator effectivness at speed to zero, and at the other end of the scalem providing "over effectivness" at lower speeds


its pretty lame, anyhow

from "hangar flying", an in-house lockheed mag, by test pilots for service pilots...i suggest you read it, Bad

http://www.jamesreese.org/hangarflying/Issue1.htm


"The'38 is a pilot's dream-come-true when it comes to the stall characteristics. They are unusually good and-although not generally used-are worthwhile investigating so that in an emergency you will know what performance to expect from your ship. We have discovered that
The power stall occurs at about 70 M.P.H. [90mph in FB http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif]with about a 50-foot loss of altitude. The counter rotating propellers eliminate torque and there is no tendency for either wing to dip or fall away.

You will find "she" is just as steady in a power off stall with gear and flaps retracted or extended.One of the finest characteristics of the '38 is the accelerated stall. Such stalls, accompanied by normal buffeting, occur on any ship when the angle of attack is increased to the point that the airflow over the wing becomes turbulent.

As you know, this can happen in sharp turns, pull-outs or other severe maneuvers. The '38 is designed to take the buffeting of the stall and has no tendency to fall off on either wing at any altitude. If combat necessitates, you can hold it in the accelerated stall as long as you can take the buffeting -- the ship will take it much longer. To get out of an accelerated stall immediately, ease up on the stick, permitting the airflow to reestablish normal lift.

ANY of that sound even remotely like the FB 38?

p1ngu666
08-18-2006, 09:01 PM
yeah i agree imp, we also need wartime ammo amounts, not the extra light postwar loadout, which was very conservative, mind theres no point hauling around extra gun weight, when theres no one to shoot.

i think our mossie is faster than 109g6 and 190a4, after that the lw fighters are faster http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

with 25lb boost the mossie would be a terror on 334th and warclouds etc at verly low alt. itll also be a terror for the pilot if the dive limits are the same http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Badsight-
08-18-2006, 11:36 PM
if your flipping after you have ended the zoom , its because you put it into a flip

i.e. you dont have to be unless you want to . . . . . i.e.x2 its not unavoidable

Daiichidoku
08-19-2006, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
if your flipping after you have ended the zoom , its because you put it into a flip

i.e. you dont have to be unless you want to . . . . . i.e.x2 its not unavoidable

you do not "put in into a flip"..it will happen automatically at low enough AS whilst maintaining a constant attitude

yes, you can avoid it by keeping enough airspeed, and very delicate control work

but its easy to go past the "point of no return"...and once it has started, your on a ride for a good two flips minimum

why dont you go and try it yourself, Badsight...point that 38 nose up, as steep as you dare, and at as high an alt as you dare, and let airspeed drop to 70mph

let me know what happens

anyhow, the point is, its ridiculous and ahistorical

Badsight-
08-19-2006, 01:27 AM
dude , i posted about it here the second day the 38 was flyable

totally unrealistic ? i dunno but its not as sure a thing as your making out

ImpStarDuece
08-19-2006, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
yeah i agree imp, we also need wartime ammo amounts, not the extra light postwar loadout, which was very conservative, mind theres no point hauling around extra gun weight, when theres no one to shoot.

i think our mossie is faster than 109g6 and 190a4, after that the lw fighters are faster http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

with 25lb boost the mossie would be a terror on 334th and warclouds etc at verly low alt. itll also be a terror for the pilot if the dive limits are the same http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Forget +25lbs Pingu, its just not worth the screaming about it. After all, a light bomber doing 374 mph on the deck would be almost uncatchable. Besides, 365 mph on the deck is about 20-25 mph faster than the current Mossie, which is already pretty damn quick.

All I want is a proper +18 lbs rated MK VI with Merlin 25s, no manifold exhausts and the ability to carry rockets.

Then we would have the most representative model of the Mossie modeled for the 1944-1945 period(although rockets weren't fitted until Nov-44 if I remember correctly).