LW aircraft speed specifications

[Crumpp]

Are we really to believe that trained professional aviators and supporting aircraft technicians at the top of their game due to the intensity of war, with experience of constant life or death combat sorties, are getting IAS and TAS mixed up? I find such a thing very hard to believe.

It is a tough concept I understand to grasp the fact compressibility corrections are calculated.

It is another tough one to grasp the fact that all instruments are calibrated by machines whose scale reflects that calculation.

It is also a tough one to grasp the fact the country leading the way on compressible aerodynamics, was Germany. Of course TASGI could determine TAS from IAS but not on the same scale.

Think of it like this. The russians are calibrating their dials with a yardstick and the Germans with a meter.

1 yard = .91 meters

When the Germans reaches 300kph, the Russian instrument will show 273kph.

Using the wrong calibration equipment will slip the scale the throw off the results.

[Crumpp]

They could have used russian dials if the germans had smashed them up and or disabled/ruined the aircraft on those airfields which were over run. Crash damaged is another issue.

They would not have to change dials. It is calibrated by pressure differences.

The differences though are measured by the calibration equipment. If the calibration equipment uses a different yardstick, the results will reflect it.

[Talisman]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

No of course.. you're right! The winking face was sarcasm.

As Robtek states there are to many unknown variables.

What about the captured aircraft condition (crashed? was the propeller?)
Fuel quality used in those test?
Did they used the right boost settings? (IIRC they tested the Dora without MW50 and find it "slow" compared to their birds).
Was the German guy really honest or did he repeat what his master wanted to hear?

We can't ignore these ones, otherwise we could make a call to Luthier: please Luthier, tune down every german warbird's speed... those speed on the documents were only theorical. Listen to that interviewed guy!

I think you're smart enought to understand this... but still I wonder the reason of opening this thread... that was your target?

I started the thread because, as I said in the first post, I did not understand the situation that was being reflected in the article; I was somewhat surprised. I also found it curious and had hoped that people in the community, especially those with knowledge and experience, may be able to shed some light on what appears to be a real world historic account. As a layman with an interest in aviation, I found it interesting given discussions about aircraft performance on the forum. I thought that others might find it interesting and intriguing too. Even though people have been interested and kind enough to respond to this thread, I still find the remarks in the article a bit of a mystery.

May I say that your post gives me an unsettled feeling, as you have made me feel that I need to justify what I believe to be a perfectly reasonable post; is that what you intended?

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Talisman

I started the thread because, as I said in the first post, I did not understand the situation that was being reflected in the article; I was somewhat surprised. I also found it curious and had hoped that people in the community, especially those with knowledge and experience, may be able to shed some light on what appears to be a real world historic account. As a layman with an interest in aviation, I found it interesting given discussions about aircraft performance on the forum. I thought that others might find it interesting and intriguing too. Even though people have been interested and kind enough to respond to this thread, I still find the remarks in the article a bit of a mystery.

May I say that your post gives me an unsettled feeling, as you have made me feel that I need to justify what I believe to be a perfectly reasonable post; is that what you intended?

As Crumpp says: they will remain a mystery and IMO you should have achieve this conclusion on your own before posting here.

I mean, there's nothing wrong in asking these kind of questions in a serious message board frequented by real historians. BTW it's a good post and really interesting

The problem is that in THIS room (FM/DM) it's only gas to feed the Red vs Blue battle, raising reactions like the one of our friend =AN=Felipe, since most guys here only care to nerf the other side.

My opinion, of course. I got nothing against you personally

[Talisman]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

As Crumpp says: they will remain a mystery and IMO you should have achieve this conclusion on your own before posting here.

I mean, there's nothing wrong in asking these kind of questions in a serious message board frequented by real historians. BTW it's a good post and really interesting

The problem is that in THIS room (FM/DM) it's only gas to feed the Red vs Blue battle, raising reactions like the one of our friend =AN=Felipe, since most guys here only care to nerf the other side.

My opinion, of course. I got nothing against you personally

Nice to be told what I "should" have done. LOL, one needs a thick skin to post on this forum. 6.S.Manu questions the reason why I started the thread and then Crumpp talks down to me saying “I should have a better understanding of how airspeed is measured and that all nations did not have the same ability to express that speed” (thanks for the lesson; it would appear that I am not qualified to post on this forum and should go away then). I am beginning to feel that I am on the end of posts from people with a slightly superior attitude. I simply posted some surprising (to me) information that I had not seen before, that I thought would provide some anecdotal historical context as background to the aircraft performance debates on this forum. It would be nice if people exercised a little more common courtesy on this forum, or it will be dominated by less than polite postings.