1. #31
    ploughman's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,487
    A wingspan of 40'2" would make it an extended wingtip Mk VIII.
    Share this post

  2. #32
    Look a me! I made the list! LMAO





    Share this post

  3. #33
    MEGILE's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    5,818
    Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

    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,
    Disagree 100%
    No one is discrediting the Finnish Data.. the point they are merely alluding to is that you are hypocritical in the extreme.

    The Finnish data is subject to all of the rather vague comments you made towards the Australian data.

    they just probably refer to some different condition or to something different
    It appears we have a regular Sherlock holmes on the board.
    Elementary, dear Kurfurst..

    Have a nice day.
    Share this post

  4. #34
    I am just asking because all this nonsense about the Finnish test emerged suddenly out of no-where by the usual suspects who can't even tell what's the problem with it, nor why they brought it up, or what the heck it proves at all apart that they had long traded away reality for conviniently living in the protection offered by self-created, in-bred conspiracy theories.

    For such a closed circle, the mere mentioning of the magic words 'Finnish tests' can be equally proof to anything about from Al-Quada operations through the origin of the Universe to a possible excuse for Australian-performed Spitifire tests. Ironically, it appears that the only ones giving special importance, literrally being hung up onto the Finnish tests are the ones who complain about it so loudly, who then they project out that great conspiracy idea to the outside world, as if it's not only them who are overly concenrned with it, but others, even if those others have never expressed such. That's the very nature of conspiracy theories, they distance themselves from the actual world, and create their own alternate universe, which always proves them right. Pardon me if I was analysing the pschychological background too deeply.

    So what's the trouble about the Finnish data if I may ask, or it's just the usual sidetracking smokescreen we've got used to always emerge instead of valid arguements on the subject ? And no, I really don't expect an actual answer.
    Share this post

  5. #35
    stathem's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,292
    Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
    That's the very nature of conspiracy theories, they distance themselves from the actual world, and create their own alternate universe, which always proves them right.
    And they would display this by, say, publicly declaring with righteous indignation that they are ignoring anyone who proves them to be an outright liar?

    I see where you're coming from Kurfurst.

    (Apologies to Bewolf)
    Share this post

  6. #36
    I think I'll be a big boy just like Kurfurst and ignore everyone who ever said something mean to me and then let everyone else know how naughty they are by putting a list of said people in my signature block. That ought to teach everyone to be nice to me and agree with everything I post.
    Share this post

  7. #37
    Originally posted by John_Wayne_:
    Look a me! I made the list! LMAO








    and



    Share this post

  8. #38
    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 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.
    </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Nevertheless, MPG is still greater than you originally thought. Not to be nit picking, but the Merlin spits would climb at a lower speed than Griffon engine spits because of their lower wing loading and would thus cover less distance in the climb. The difference in climb speed is probably 10-20 mph. I still think that 8-9 MPG is reasonable from a well maintained aircraft.
    Share this post

  9. #39
    Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 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.
    </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Nevertheless, MPG is still greater than you originally thought. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    It is not. You're comparing apples to oranges. The MPG for the whole trip (takeoff, climb, cruise) is lower than the MPG under the most economic cruise conditions alone. There's nothing amazing in that.

    Not to be nit picking, but the Merlin spits would climb at a lower speed than Griffon engine spits because of their lower wing loading and would thus cover less distance in the climb. The difference in climb speed is probably 10-20 mph.
    Which would lead to 1-2 miles difference covered in climb, if what you're saying is true.

    I still think that 8-9 MPG is reasonable from a well maintained aircraft.
    You're welcome to be entitled to your opinion, RAF datasheets however clearly and consistently show they've calculated with ca. 6.5 mp for Mk IX, and ca. 7.3 mpg on cruise for the Mk VIII with extended wingtips in the range tables. I'll stick to the hard data instead of assumptions.
    Share this post

  10. #40
    I think Kurfurst needs to be able to understand sarcasm! Not that I am bothered if he ignores me!

    The fact is Kurfurst you're always trying to discredit data on the Spitfire if it says it is anywhere near half decent. Of course the 109 is always better - in your opinion, we know that and to be honest know your agenda well. Lighten up!

    The 109 had it's good points, but come on, honestly...by the end of the war it was past it's sell by date, it had expired, it should have been pushing up the daisies, if it hadn't they wouldn't have been trying to replace it with the 209 and the 309, shame for the Luftwaffe that they needed fighters and the 109 took priority...or am I going to be told I am wrong on that and that the 109 was just better than them!

    This was about the range of Spitfires, if the Autralians could get that range out of a Spitfire then it could do it...it wasn't a document for publishing, it's marked secret, there is no point them lying to themselves. Therefore a Spitfire could do it. Just as the Finnish stuff you come up with for the G-2 may well be right, though it may differ to what the Germans said it might not actually be wrong.

    Hence the range of a Spitfire could well be what is quoted in the documents, it might not reach those figures in Europe with different atmospheric conditions but it could do it, and it clearly did it!

    OD.
    Share this post