No, the MT-215 climb test is not perfectly normal. There are no other climb test results that come close to 24 m/s climb rate at 2 Km for the Me-109G2. If there were I’m sure you would have posted them on your website years ago. You also conveniently avoid mentioning what the Finns themselves said about the MT-215 tests: they classed the speed test as reliable but the climb test as unreliable due to no special test equipment used to gauge the climb rate. Ever stopped to consider that the 24 m/s may simply be a measurement error instead of arguing the result as “representative”? However, seeing your penchant for high end performance outliers when it comes to the Me-109 I’m not surprised….
No, there is absolutely nothing indicating this. What you call certainty looks more like maskirovka. In post #26 there is a calculation for the effect of going to a FULLY closed radiator also based on Messerschmitt data and this increases the climb rate when going from the half open value of 1 m/s to 1.58 m/s when fully closed at 2 Km altitude which is nowhere close to the 7.5 m/s you claim. Do you honestly believe going from fully open to half closed radiator gives you 1 m/s in climb and then when you go from half closed to fully closed you get the other 6.5 m/s you’re missing or is that just the lawyer talking?
Well that's I am afraid is still just another of your Andersen-tales still, but we got over already it with others... re-read the thread if you have any doubts. It is clear that for some odd reason you try to dismiss historical flight test results which disprove the simplified estimates you refer to as 'calculations'. Perhaps because you try to sell this stuff of many aviation boards for years, under various nicknames, but no success so far...
So lets just make that clear that for you, your own estimates have absolutely zero weight of evidence in this or any other discussion. They are absolutely useless.
Basically everything you stated about the original tests were shown to be untrue, for example you clearly distorted Messerschmitt own tests on radiator effect on climb rates, claiming they show much less drag difference in climb and between closed and open radiators, when in fact it was shown that the reference trials clearly stated open, 2/3s open and half open and the drag difference is much higher than you claimed. This way you tried to give some credibility to your own flawed figures by manipulating what the original papers said.
How crazy one has to be when he wants to prove that his estimates are correct by dismissing the original tests, the base data itself, by producing another set of his own estimates, to use that to dismiss another set of real life tests... ? Or maybe its an eyesight problem or some other problem behind the eyesight causing the problem. Anyway, it is still just yours...
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the MT 215 trials, it is in fact fairly typical of the G-2 climb trials that were done at 1.3ata manifold pressure above 2500 meters, the altitude we know from the test description that the radiator flaps began to open. Below that the radiator flaps were in closed position. Compare that figure to how much worser the other 109G, Werknummer 14 026 climbs (ca 18.5) - of this aircraft however we know the radiator flaps were fully open during most of the climb.
Edited by VO101Kurfurst, 18 January 2016 - 10:02.