Throwing some light on rates of turn

[Holtzauge]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

So what's your point?

Brag about some C++ analysis of yours of which nobody gives a flying frak...?
Generic harassment of Crumpp because a long time ago he dared to disagree with your opinion?
Assuming a hypothetical identity on the internet as an engineer who have been supposedly intimately involved with the design of Gripen?

This sounds like just a perfectly ordinary internet troll to me.

Troll huh?

I think that criteria fits better on you yourself than anyone else here:

First of all both you posts are totally devoid of any content other than personal attacks. Secondly, you twist words: I have said I have worked on the Gripen, you inserted the word "intimately" to make it seem like I said something else.

And secondly, I'm not assuming any engineering identity or bragging: I responded to a claim by your 100 octane wingman that I "lacked formal education".

I like the psycological assessement in your last post BTW,"is originated in one party's personal frustration and an acute desire for attention and approval"

Talk about pot calling kettle black.......

What Kurfurst neglects to mention is that he holds a grudge since I after several fruitless attempts to him personally was forced to contacted his ISP provider to remove my research material which he without my permission had marked with his own watermark and published on his site.

Now if you have anything constructive to contribute to the issue of 21 versus 31 s turn time for the Spitfire at 20,000ft then add that otherwize you can just bug off and leave the discussion to the grownups.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Holtzauge

And secondly, I'm not assuming any engineering identity or bragging: I responded to a claim by your 100 octane wingman that I "lacked formal education".

Let's see your diploma then.

Originally Posted by Holtzauge

What Kurfurst neglects to mention is that he holds a grudge since I after several fruitless attempts to him personally was forced to contacted his ISP provider to remove my research material which he without my permission had marked with his own watermark and published on his site.

I don't neglect anything at all, you don't own anything of that paper, and I simply get a feeling of puke when I see posts motivated by your most primitive feelings, the very grudge you wish to attribute to me and your perceivable frustration with life. Grudge can only exist between equals, and so in your case, its despise what I feel.

The papers you have mentioned belong to Stockholm Technical School and you have made unauthorized copies of them from without permission, as you have made it clear in your e-mails (and the fact that later despite numerous request, you refused to name the source), which holds them in their collection. You had become very nervous when I suggested to inquire the place about your activities there and your claim of copyright.

Of your character, it tells me a lot that well until that, you were busy kissing my underside in hope that I'd buy it and fetch some bones for your from my collection. We have traded a few items, and thankfully that's where our contact ended before I would begin to feel filthy.

When that cooperation ended, and your ego was hurt by my posts pointing out your immoral behaviour, you have reacted in the exact manner any dishonest freak would do: attempts at slander at various boards, about your allaged rights to certain papers you took photos off without the permission of their holding archieves.

You have tried to sell that story at various respected aviation communities, at allaboutwarfare.com etc. and other serious aviation sites/forums, where people quickly realized who you are and laughed, in distaste. You then disappeared from all these places, having successfully destroyed your own credibility once and for all. I think the most civilized comment you have received was that your behaviour reveals 'seriously bad taste'.

Your pitiful motive was that I stood up against your constant underhand attack on Crumpp, similar to that behaviour you display here. Your post history reveals that you have only registered here to 'get back' at Crumpp for the humiliating education you have received at his hands previously.

You see, that's exactly what motivates you, an overblown ego of the usual internet troll/nerd, wrapped in pompous sentences, and a made up identity.

Now if you have anything constructive to contribute to the issue of 21 versus 31 s turn time for the Spitfire at 20,000ft then add that otherwize you can just bug off and leave the discussion to the grownups.

Or else what happens you big big grown-up?

[Ernst]

I just remembered this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94

[IvanK]

I think this "G" is in fact a Buchon.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by IvanK

I think this "G" is in fact a Buchon.

It's a bit offtopic, but I never quite understood this 'Buchon' thing. Sure the Buchon handles slightly differently (from what I gather, directional stability was worse than on the 109, which already exhibited low directional stability characteristics), but in essence it was just a German built G-series airframe, with a very similar Merlin/HS engine wrapped onto it.

[IvanK]

A Merlin installation v a DB605 installation is significantly different though.

Though I havent seen any Specfic excess power differences between the two I am sure they would be significant thus affecting sustained turn and climb performance. My Gut feeling is the DB605 variant would be the lesser performing aeroplane.

[Holtzauge]

The additional data posted by IvanK now gives the engine power as well and the turn time at 20,000 ft can as MIG-3U points out be read out of that figure to be in then order of 30 s. In fact the same report contains an even more precise figure of radius 1045 ft, bank angle 51 degrees and turn time 31.5 s in table 4 on page 4.

While we are waiting for Crummps 21 s 68 degree bank proof here are some C++ simulation results showing the relative performance between the 1.3 ata Me109E and Spitfire Mk1 at +6.25 boost:

As expected the Spitfire is somewhat better at 20,000 ft due to the lower wing loading. However, the interesting thing is however that at low level (1 km) my simulations show that while the Spitfire turn better at low speeds, the Me109E turns better than the +6.25 boost Spitfire Mk1 at TAS speeds over 290 Km/h. However, if one assumes the +12 boost then it is of course no contest, either at low or higher speeds.

Originally Posted by Ernst

I just remembered this:

This video which claims to "proof" that the 109 was equivalent in turn to the spit is pretty much useless. The first interviewed guy never flew a spit as he admitted himself. The second guy we don't learn about his flight experiences. We therefore just learn that the 109 was a good turner (perhaps better than ingame but that's another discussion) and better turner than the P51. Now that is nothing new at all.

Fun to watch but not even anecdotical evidence on how close the Spit and the 109 were.