![]() |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The one with silly comments that contribute nothing is you Brain.
Quote:
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
R. Dennis:
"All our machines were fitted with Rotol airscrews when the maximum rpm were increased to 3,850 from 3,700 and boost to +13 from +11, as the DeHaviland airscrew could not absorb the added power and more than once shed a blade, with somewhat detrimental effects on the engine!" |
#33
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
There may be documents somewhere that say they did, but so far I haven't seen any quoted text in this thread that says they did. ![]() |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Reverted? I would like to see they even used +13lbs at all before we start talking about reverting LOL
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
So Brain, what other engines would not suffer detrimental damaged from loosing a prop blade. LOL, even your LW increased the prop blade size on their a/c when extra power was developed from the engines. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
He presents an August 1944 test. The test notes the poor quality of the submitted aircraft, ie. non-representative of the typical Tempest which were being re-equipped with the Sabre IIB, an engine which could use +11 boost even without 150 octane, as noted in this clearance issued by the RAF in Jan. '45. ![]() Subsequently, boost of +11 became standardized, as well as the increased RPM limit of 3850, as noted in the Aircraft chart issued to pilots and mechanics. Although it has already been seen this thread, I will post the chart again, for those who have trouble reading. ![]() Note the date on the chart: 2/2/45 Ie. many months after Kurfurst claims the Tempests reverted back to +9 boost we find the Tempest official aircraft card, which as noted: "...cancels and supercedes all previous cards issued on this aircraft.", allowing +11 boost... isn't that amazing, but of course in certain imaginary worlds we should defer to the opinion of someone who wasn't even there, instead of the technical supervisors who actually maintained the aircraft... ![]() |
#37
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
![]() Quote:
Quote:
If you continue with this kind of provocation and trolling, I will have no other options but to report you and your pitfull actions to the moderator. I'm sick and tired of this stuff |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
So in Sept 1944 to the end of the year, you were seeing both types flying, using both engine types and both boost levels, with the first 2 production batches being upgraded to meet the newer specification. The only aircraft at the point that wasn't in front line service was the Rotol prop equipped Series II with a Sabre IIB @ 13lbs. That didn't appear until the following year with the 4th production batch (AFAIK). Either way, I'd love to see the Ta152C get some love but I doubt it ever will. Last edited by mondo; 12-17-2008 at 11:37 AM. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Making things up? Lets see, Brain's quotes:
Quote:
Quote:
Brain quote: Quote:
Produce the document that the K-4 used 2.02 ata operationally. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Why should I? I don't believe that myself anyway, same way I don't believe in +13lbs Tempest used operationally |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|