Spit/109 sea level speed comparisons in 1.08 beta patch

[IvanK]

The RAE chart shows a Spitfire sustained turn advantage across the entire speed range from the Lift limit through to the max 1G sustained speed of around 340mph.

i.e. if the "Angle of straight climb" (Ps=0) for both the Spitfire and BF109 were overlayed on the same chart the Spitfire angle of straight climb would be above the 109 line from the Lift limit through to 1G Vmax. So at any speed in this range the Spit can sustain a higher G according to the RAE .... but not according to the Crumpp plot ... at any speed.

Both aircraft in this chart having similar values of 1g Vmax at the charted altitude.

There is no mention of prop type in the AVIA report for either the Spitfire or the 109. I take your point on propeller efficiency though ... that is touched on in another AVIA report (AVIA 6/13805) in which the RAE believe the 109 and Spit prop efficiency was essentially the same at 10,000ft with the 109 around 3% better at 15,000ft.... though with caveats.

[Glider]

Just one observation. Janes gives the Merlin III with 100 octane as 1,310 hp at 9,000 ft, not 990 hp, which would make a difference

[Osprey]

All that extra power from 12 fewer litres. According to some of the logic here I conclude, mathematically, that the DB601 was rubbish.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Osprey

All that extra power from 12 fewer litres. According to some of the logic here I conclude, mathematically, that the DB601 was rubbish.

Well good for you, now would you kindly push that thing you call a flight stick forward. :p

[Crumpp]

Interesting how the Bf 109E-3 loading chart http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ladeplanes.jpg shows the weights as 2,608 kg (5,749 lbs) fully loaded for combat while, without ammunition for training flights, the weight is 2,532kg (5,582 lbs)...

I got the weights from several flight test but did not have a ladeplan. The weight I used leaves out the pilot.

I fixed it and it narrows the gap but does not eliminate it.

The RAE chart shows a Spitfire sustained turn advantage across the entire speed range

The RAE chart uses CLmax neither airplane can attain in clean configuration by any calculation or measurement, including the RAE's. Read the report you claim I have not!

In fact, the CLmax comes very close to matching full flaps for both aircraft.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

I got the weights from several flight test but did not have a ladeplan. The weight I used leaves out the pilot..

Why on earth would you leave out the pilot?

Seriously are you going to redo the numbers with the extra Merlin power, 30% will make a huge difference.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Glider

Why on earth would you leave out the pilot?

Seriously are you going to redo the numbers with the extra Merlin power, 30% will make a huge difference.

Crumpp has to be carefull...if he starts using realistic figures the results won't come out as he intends.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

I got the weights from several flight test but did not have a ladeplan. The weight I used leaves out the pilot.

I fixed it and it narrows the gap but does not eliminate it.



The RAE chart uses CLmax neither airplane can attain in clean configuration by any calculation or measurement, including the RAE's. Read the report you claim I have not!

In fact, the CLmax comes very close to matching full flaps for both aircraft.

So while Crumpp is prepared to say that maths has all the answers compromises, such as leaving out the pilot and reducing the weight of an aircraft is okay - especially if it favours one type in particular over another. "I fixed it and it narrows the gap" but no explanation as to how this was done. Instead we are told to have faith in Crumpp's genius because he knows better than everyone else, as per usual.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

So while Crumpp is prepared to say that maths has all the answers compromises, such as leaving out the pilot and reducing the weight of an aircraft is okay - especially if it favours one type in particular over another. "I fixed it and it narrows the gap" but no explanation as to how this was done. Instead we are told to have faith in Crumpp's genius because he knows better than everyone else, as per usual.

Yep, one of the main flaws of Crumpps beloved maths, put garbage in and get more garbage back.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

So while Crumpp is prepared to say that maths has all the answers compromises, such as leaving out the pilot and reducing the weight of an aircraft is okay - especially if it favours one type in particular over another.

Uhm, the weight Crumpp used for the Spitfire I doesn't include the weight of armor either. So how this - marginal - weight difference favours one type over the other, Sherlock?

"I fixed it and it narrows the gap" but no explanation as to how this was done. Instead we are told to have faith in Crumpp's genius because he knows better than everyone else, as per usual.

I see. Crumpp understands the formulae behind calculating turn radii and time, you do not, and somehow he is to be blamed for your ignorance? Or maybe it is his fault that after your never ceasing personal attacks, he is not particularly inclined to bother to explain it to you?