[QUOTE=NZtyphoon;423177]
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
Quote:
|
The DB 601A data charted above comes from the DB 601 A u. B Moteren-Handbuch of May 1942, which includes a 1 minute take-off rating. The Betriebs und Wartungsvorschrift zum Mercedes Benz Flugmotor, DB 601 A u. B., Ausgabe C, October 1940 also notes a 1 minute take-off rating. 23c The highest permissible values in climb and level flight were 1.3 ata and 2400 RPM. 23d A clockwork mechanisim limited take off boost to 1 minute only.23e The take-off rating was not mentioned in the Me 109 E Flugzeughandbuch; the maximum engine limits are stated as 1.3 ata, 2400 rpm.
|
Oh, its refreshing that 'lane' has revoked his earlier err, 'opinion'. At least he is no longer in denial of the 1-minute rating like he was propagating for years.
More interesting things in the article, since it has sparkled such interest, and to establish the 'credibility' of that site's articles and lane's opinion expressed them:
1, In his comparisons of engine outputs, he displays one the 1100 PS DB 601A-1 with the old type supercharger, even though the power ratings for the ones with the new supercharger are present in the very October 1940 DB 601 manual he lists as a source.
2,Similarly, he completely ignores the E-x/N models in all his comparisons, which he claims appeared 'towards' the end of the Battle, and in penny pocket numbers', when in fact they were present in July 1940 already. In contrast the Spitfire II which appeared a good month later than these and equipped only a handful Squadrons by the time the great daylight fighter engagements all but ended, received a large amount of his attention, insisted as an improved type, when in fact his own site's flight trials leave no doubt about it's indifferent performance in comparison of the badly mauled Spitfire I. Both were were inferior to the 109E with 601N engines, which is likely the cause about the silence and lies about the latter type's absence from the engine and flight performance comparisons. They would make Spitfires look bad I guess.
3, In connection, he 'forgot' to mention and list the outputs of the 1175 PS DB 601Aa, which he claims to have been never been used on any but export Emils. He even 'quotes' Olivier Lefebvre, who has clearly stated that about 1/3 of the DB 601 production was the Aa model, and that all E-7 and E-x/B models were found with the Aa. So, in short ignores one of main engine types and simply selects the lowest performance Emil in his comparisons, misquotes Olivier Lefebvre and just plain dishonest.
4, Again in connection, he 'forgot' to mention the fact that the DB 601 had an option to overrev the engine above FTH and increase engine power, a practice used and described by Steinhilper in his book, who he as usual selectively qoutes enthusiastically to prove that the Emils propeller was 'troublesome'.
5, He misquotes the WNr. 1774 trials, describing them as running over the official boost limits. In fact the said trials note the engine was measured in bench test and was found to develop about 50 HP less than the nominal figures, and the test results were corrected for the nominal powers. Needless to say, 'lane' only shows the figures which depict the WNr. 1774 down on power.
6, He 'forgot' to mention the automatic propeller system on the Bf 109 having been introduced in late 1939 (listed in the December 1939 109E short manual he used to 'prove' the 1-min rating was not cleared yet...) and tries to create the impression it was an automn 1940 thing just introduced.
7, He 'quotes' the following meeting for the 100 octane issue - at this stage of uniform disbelief, surely to be called partisan attitude:
The Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee noted in the conclusions of their 18 May 1940 meeting with regard to the "Supply of 100 Octane fuel to Blenheim and Fighter Squadrons" that Spitfire and Hurricane units "had now been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel". 35
As can be seen the actual document speaks of no 'Spitfire and Hurricane' Squadrons' (lane's brainchild) but the 'units concerned'. Obviously the actual text got in the way of the agenda.
8, Another curious way of 'quoting' (cropped) documents is this.
This is how Spitfire I limits appear in his article:
... and this is the full version:
As you can see the the normal limitations of the Merlin III in the Spitfire I got strangely 'absent' for the article's purposes.
Its no wonder that most of us who have been aware of this site's and it's owners manipulations give very little credit to his articles. We all understand how documents are being manipulated, selectively quoted and falsified on that site.
Members on my site are free to express whatever opinion. Moderation is very very conservative, and we only dump mindless troublemakers - actually only one was flushed down in the toilet in the years, who's participating in this thread and who was permbanned from ubi about seven times and from ww2aircraft.net three times
. I personally believe that Purple Fang is a bit overzelous in that, but probably he just have enough of the lies spread intentionally my some who I will not mention here (we all know who he is and his history). He is free to express his opinion as long as he respects other members.
And as for finding it 'good laughs', personally I have learned a thing or two from members who have been involved in 109 restoration a good deal. Maybe our estimeed but failed NZ student who fancies himself as a 'historian'
with a lots of spare time find it good laughs, but they apparently do not share your judgement, for all what its 'worth'. In that case I'd suggest not to visit and quote my forums, as it makes you look funny that at the same time you are so aware of its postings, and people may misjudge you as someone not to be taken too seriously, quoting from forums you claim to a good laugh, and responding to people you claimed to have put on ignore.