Official Fulqrum Publishing forum

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)
-   FM/DM threads (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=196)
-   -   Spit/109 sea level speed comparisons in 1.08 beta patch (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=34115)

Glider 09-27-2012 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JtD (Post 464143)
The chart Kurfürst posted is not a theory, it's a calculation. Physics and maths are just as relevant as tests and pilot experience. There are methods that are standard and accepted. If you use them properly, they can be more accurate than tests and pilot experience and are imho at least as valid.

This is the sort of thing that raises my doubts. I am confident that the Grippen had many thosands of calculations undertaken by some of the finest minds in aviation. Using the latest computers, many hours in a simulator and then this happened. I should add that this was being flown by a test pilot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6yVU_yYtEc

Show me any report of any 262 pilots who would go into a turning dogfight against a Mustang, Spit, La 7, whatever take your pick. The theoretical world is one thing, hard combat another.
Look at it another way, Why did the Mig 17 do so well against the F4, F105 and so on. Find any US pilot who would go into a turning combat in any of the above against an old slow Mig 17.

bongodriver 09-27-2012 03:18 PM

I love the way Kurfurst seems to think the 262 would even be in with a shot at a turning fight, at those speeds it's going to fly circles so big it's circumnavigating the globe :rolleyes:

JtD 09-27-2012 03:40 PM

It's not about turning fights, it's about the ability of a plane to sustain a turn at a given speed. That's what the chart shows. It's something else what you make of it - both here at the forum discussing it, and in the air piloting these planes.

Like with that Gripen, most accidents happen due to pilot error, not erroneous design calculations. It's rather an argument against the reliability of pilot accounts, than an argument against reliability of maths and physics - so I'm not quite sure why you posted the video.

Kurfürst 09-27-2012 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pstyle (Post 464145)
Hi kufurst, any chance you can link me to the records of the 109e maintaining 500kph in level flight at sealevel. Sorry if you've posted this before. Ta.

Edit; sorry I see you never stated sea level. My mistake. Unless SL means sea level, and not STRAIGHT Line?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 464146)
I am interested in the link you are referring to for the 109 too because I think the 109E in HSFX may be too slow, but I want a proper flight test,

Here it is. It is as proper as a flight test can get. In fact, its the most detailed performance test I have seen so far. http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...w_109V15a.html

Of particular interest, translated from the paper.

Condition of the airframe :

The surface was painted after the serial production standard. The engine cowling was still rough, exhaust manifolds (DB-type, made at BFW) were lacking top cover. 2 Cowl- and wing-MGs were installed. Antenna wire. Undercarriage retracted, tailwheel out. For air intake, see the reports drawings.

Radiator cooler flaps were 1/4 open. Coolant temperature observed as constant 90 degrees Celsius.
Oil cooler flaps were closed. Oil temperature observed as 62/82 degrees Celsius.'

Speed was measured on the four-way flight track in Haunstetten. Altiude trials were performed near Augsburg airfield.

Measured speed for 0 m was 493 kph at 1,33ata. The engine was measured on test bench, and was found to develop 45 PS less than the guaranteed nominal output at 1,35 ata, so the flight results were corrected (see Blatt 5 for calculations) to the nominal engine ratings and German Standard day : 498 km/h at 0 m (CINA) at 1.35ata..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 464146)
I have some good news for you though. 1946 HSFX patch 15 just fixed the Hurricane I and Spitfire I FM's to the speeds we talk about here. They are bang on the RAE tests using 12lbs. Fantastic news don't you think? !

It is, actually. Given that the complete lack of + 12 lbs tests, the likely farce but not unreasonable RAE "test" paper is the only source the FM modellers can use.

Quote:

not some calculation which Willie cooked his books in order to win a big fat order from his pal Hitler.
You see the problem with this kind of thought is that after Willie would have won that big fat order, he would also have to deliver some 4000 aircraft and each will be tested by the German Air Ministry for specs. If they are not capable being withing plus/minus five percent of the figures Willie promised, Willie won't get a single Pfenning, which doesn't sound like a very good deal.

Osprey 09-27-2012 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 464159)
I love the way Kurfurst seems to think the 262 would even be in with a shot at a turning fight, at those speeds it's going to fly circles so big it's circumnavigating the globe :rolleyes:

By the time it was allowed to be a fighter those pilots had little intention of being fighters what with the sheer number of escorts to deal with. No, get fast and whip through the formations with those mighty cannon.

JtD 09-27-2012 04:20 PM

Regarding level speed performance of the 109, a question raised by I think MiG-3U puzzled me, maybe you have a good explanation, I'm at a loss for now: How come the 109E is faster than the 109F at less power, if you accept the 498 km/h for the 109E at 990ish hp from the V15 test and the 495 km/h for the 109F at 1065ish hp from the 109F Kennblatt?

bongodriver 09-27-2012 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JtD (Post 464165)
It's not about turning fights.

Oh, have I misunderstood something? I just figured since the thread went OT within 7 pages or so and it turned into an argument about which aircraft had the turning advantage it 'was' about turning fights, if I'm not mistaken that is exactly what triggered the whole change of topic was a turning circle diagram and the usual suspects denying that the Spit would win in a turning fight.

Osprey 09-27-2012 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 464166)
Here it is. It is as proper as a flight test can get. In fact, its the most detailed performance test I have seen so far. http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...w_109V15a.html

Hmmm, this isn't an original document, it's some html from your website. All of the RAE stuff and other docs are originals (except the 12lbs which is measured in test then calculated/translated/projected onto the graph)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 464166)
You see the problem with this kind of thought is that after Willie would have won that big fat order, he would also have to deliver some 4000 aircraft and each will be tested by the German Air Ministry for specs. If they are not capable being withing plus/minus five percent of the figures Willie promised, Willie won't get a single Pfenning, which doesn't sound like a very good deal.

Don't be silly Kurfurst. Willy is an old pal of Goering and a few keys of Colombian marching powder and some bonus wraps he'd have been on the hotline to Herr Hitler. We've all seen how Oscar Schindler did it.

Osprey 09-27-2012 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JtD (Post 464173)
Regarding level speed performance of the 109, a question raised by I think MiG-3U puzzled me, maybe you have a good explanation, I'm at a loss for now: How come the 109E is faster than the 109F at less power, if you accept the 498 km/h for the 109E at 990ish hp from the V15 test and the 495 km/h for the 109F at 1065ish hp from the 109F Kennblatt?

I could be wrong but I think he was being sarcastic in order to question Kurfursts 498kmph figures. Glider confused me too since he dissected MiG3U's post as if it were in support of Kurfurst, when it wasn't.

Al Schlageter 09-27-2012 04:32 PM

Doesn't the V in a designation mean a prototype/test a/c?

Bf 109 V15a


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:25 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.