1. #21
    Xiolablu3's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    8,755
    Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


    Basically one can choose between the opinion of a lone Spitfire partisan who never respected the facts and simply strives for the highest figures or simply take what the RAF's documentation says. I wouldn't even say the RAAF's tested figures are wrong, they just probably refer to some different condition or to something different. Simple thing is that if the Spitfire VIII would realistically capable of 10 mpg it would be listed at some 1100-1200 miles range instead of 740, and the Allies would have never needed the Mustang. Comparison of the milage achieved on armed fighter versions with the unarmed, cleaned up (cannon-less, polished, streamlined canopy and shallower radiators) 20-30 mph faster PR versions is really reaching. It's perfectly reasonable that those cleaned up planes using high altitude engines and operating in thin air would reach up to 9 mpg vs. the ca 6.76 measured on fighters. Anyway, I am sure this is not the last time Hop will sell this story again, as said, for the 6 years I know him, he argues exactly the same over and over again.

    I think we shouldn't bother.


    Look at this, I just replaced a few words :-

    'Basically one can choose between the opinion of a lone BF109 partisan who never respected the facts and simply strives for the highest figures or simply take what the Luftwaffes's documentation says. I wouldn't even say the FINNISH tested figures are wrong, they just probably refer to some different condition or to something different. Simple thing is that if the BF109 would realistically capable of everything Kurfust says, and the Germans would have never needed the FW190/Me262. Comparison of the Speeds/perforamnce achieved on armed bog standard fighter versions like the 109G6 or dirsty battered planes at the end of the war which made up most of the BF109 numbers, with the , alcohol, cleaned up (amrament-less, polished, streamlined canopy, retractable tail wheel and shallower radiators) 20-30 mph faster versions is really reaching. It's perfectly reasonable that those few cleaned up planes using perfect engines and operating away from the front line would reach up to the speeds in the Finnish tests. Anyway, I am sure this is not the last time Kurfurst will sell this story again, as said, for the 6 years I know him, he argues exactly the same over and over again.

    I think we shouldn't bother. '
    Share this post

  2. #22
    Kurfurst, read the documents fully. You've neglected the reserve fuel allowance, which is 23-25 gal. This gives an MPG of 7.6 to 7.8 when averaged with take off and climb. Figures of 8-9 MPG for cruising are not unreasonable.
    Share this post

  3. #23
    Ratsack's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,772
    I'd suggest the RAAF tests of the MkVIII are particularly relevant, given that they were one of - if not the - biggest users of the type. The RAAF received nearly half the total MkVIII production.

    cheers,
    Ratsack
    Share this post

  4. #24
    luftluuver's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,004
    LOL X.

    Here are some numbers for the Bf109E-1,3 to compare to the Spit MkIs and IIs.

    Sea Level
    max continous - 2200rpm - 1.05hr - 267mi
    Max economy - 1300rpm - 2.20hr - 404mi

    9842ft
    max continous - 2200rpm - 1.00r - 280
    Max economy - 140rpm - 2.05 - 410mi

    16404ft
    max continous - 2400rpm - 0.55hr - 286mi
    Max economy - 1400rpm - 1.50hr - 413mi

    19856ft
    max continous - 2400rpm - 1.10hr - 323mi
    Max economy - 1600rpm - 1.40hr - 395mi

    One should not expect to see the 109F with much more range, dispite the lack of warts the 109E had. As for the 109G with with the DB605 engine, all one has to do is look at the mileage big engine cars get compared to what a smaller engine in the same car will get.

    Now Kurfurst like to use British reference data. Well here is another,



    Now a clean Fw190A-8 will have a range from 351 to 550mi depending on altitude flown and the boost used. This includes a 12.5% reserve and climb and decent but no combat.

    Compare these numbers to the data posted above. Both the 109 (less than the 190) and 190 have less range when combat is included. As can be seen, the range distances Kurfurst states for the 109 are 'ferry' ranges while in the Spit documents posted, the range includes combat time.

    One must remember that Kurfurst will lie, cheat, fabricate, twist and manupulate to show that his aryan supermen are supreme.
    Share this post

  5. #25
    Luftluuver: from what rapport is this page?(seeing it's pg n?8)
    Can you show all the pages please?
    Or is this another "rapport" of the A3 that accidentaly land in britain and was then flow with fouled sparkplugs,wrong fuel,Gerrät beeing set "by feeling" and ailerons out of balance?
    Or is this just an extrapolation (in another words :a guess )of data found here and there?
    What is the date of this rapport?
    Thanks mate!
    Share this post

  6. #26
    luftluuver's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,004
    badatflyski, it is pg 2, not pg 8.

    Here are the other pages,




    As you can see the report is dated May 11 1943.

    The Brits had other 190s besides Fabers.
    Share this post

  7. #27
    Ratsack's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,772
    Although Faber's was the only fighter version they captured intact.

    cheers,
    Ratsack
    Share this post

  8. #28
    Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
    Kurfurst, read the documents fully. You've neglected the reserve fuel allowance, which is 23-25 gal. This gives an MPG of 7.6 to 7.8 when averaged with take off and climb. Figures of 8-9 MPG for cruising are not unreasonable.
    The fuel allowance is noted to be reserved for takeoff (ie. taxy, warmup, take off run) and climb.
    During takeoff the mileage is of course 0 mpg.

    Climbs is another matter. From the Spit XIV manual graph we can see during the climb (which's speed and angle, hence the distance covered is rather similiar on all Marks) something like 28 miles is being covered.



    So in the case of the Mk IX, ca 23 gallon is held for reserve for take off and climb. 0 miles is covered a takeoff, ca 28 miles on climb. The rest, 85-23= 62 gallon is available for cruise for 434-28 (that we already covered in climb) = 406 miles. That gives 406/62 = 6,54 mpg mileage for the cruise at most economic speeds.

    Ding the same for the LF Mk VIII, ca 23 gallon is held for reserve for take off and climb. 0 miles is covered a takeoff, ca 28 miles on climb. The rest, 120-23= 97 gallon is available for cruise for 740-28 (that we already covered in climb) = 712 miles. That gives 712/97 = 7,34 mpg mileage for the cruise at most economic speeds.

    This agrees extremely well what the RAAF gives as figures :



    Look at range, it notes :

    True Speed 220 mph
    Fuel consumption/hour : 30 gallon
    That would be 7,33 mpg for the IX LF.

    I presume this comes from the fact that the Mk VIII was aerodynamically cleaner, having a retractable, faired tailwheel and the entire body was flush riveted (the Mk IX had fixed tailwheel and mixed dome/flush rivet construction). Also keep in mind that initially Mk VIIIs were built with extended wingtips (a feature that Quill strongly criticized because it's implications on roll rate). This would mean that they had less span- and wing-loading than normal aircraft, much like a glider, and their drag would be lower (and hence their mileage greater) during the slow-speed ecomomic cruises, than the normal winged versions that characterized the Mk IXLFs.


    Originally posted by Ratsack :

    I'd suggest the RAAF tests of the MkVIII are particularly relevant, given that they were one of - if not the - biggest users of the type. The RAAF received nearly half the total MkVIII production.
    I doubt you'd be equally happy with the speed performance results the RAAF measured on the very same Mk VIII that's fuel consumption tests some like to cherish (or rather cherry pick) so much.

    In any case, both the RAAF's and the RAF's papers are totally consistent about Mk IX and XIV range figures.
    Share this post

  9. #29
    Of course...it's all fictional, it makes sense now.
    Guys you must realise the Spitfire was just there to make the aifrield look pretty and become a gate guard once the war was over. It never really even flew, it's just propaganda to make the Luftwaffe believe that the RAF had some super fighter which would clear them from the skies.

    Or is this just one of Kurfursts dreams?
    Share this post

  10. #30
    Ignore list was extended.

    I really wonder if someone can explain what's the problem with the Finnish tests - it's just another of the many 109G tests, in rather good agreement with others (which can't be told about Aussie Mk VIII consumption tests). Yet prominent Spitfire fans seems to hate it like mad, which is somewhat odd. Anyway, some people's fixation on that certain 109 tests need to be dismissed and ignored in a Spitfire thread is reeaally off-topic.
    Share this post