Jump to content


Photo

Bf 109 G-2 climb data


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#41 VO101Kurfurst

VO101Kurfurst
  • Member
  • Posts: 312

Posted 18 January 2016 - 09:54

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.

 

109G-2_climbtests.png

 


Edited by VO101Kurfurst, 18 January 2016 - 10:02.

  • 1

"Vezérünk a Bátorság, Kísérőnk a Szerencse!"

www.kurfurst.org - The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site.

'I must congratulate you on your Me 109 site, I have visited it a few times and it is really a good and necessary counterweight to the Spitfire propaganda page.' - Holtzauge


#42 Holtzauge

Holtzauge
  • Member
  • Posts: 700

Posted 18 January 2016 - 21:47

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.

 

109G-2_climbtests.png

 

I think I will limit my response to the issue at hand instead of responding to your personal attacks because frankly, I think your post actually says more about your personal character than mine........

 

You keep saying I misrepresent facts but so far you have been more focused on simply discrediting the messenger rather than addressing the actual facts of what I have presented in the linked posts below:

 

First, the report on radiator drag referenced here indicates that going from fully open to half closed for a Me-109 G2 type radiator gives about 1 m/s at 2 km altitude:

 

http://forum.il2stur...ta/#entry126919

 

Note that the circa 1 m/s delta in climb rate between fully open and half closed radiator at 2 Km altitude can also be read off in this figure:

 

http://forum.il2stur...te/#entry323332

 

If you have any better number for this delta in climb rate or have some theory why this data is unrepresentative of a G2 model radiator installation then do explain.

 

Then there is the speed based calculation using the top speed report which can give an indication of the gain going from fully open to fully closed radiator which is in the order of 1.5 m/s at 2 Km altitude, i.e. adding only about an additional 0.5 m/s climb to the 1 m/s gained when going from fully open to half closed:

 

http://forum.il2stur...ta/#entry126919

 

Concerning my C++ calculations, they actually agree very well with the Finns MT-215 results with the exception of the 24 m/s climb figure: Best turn rate, turn rate at higher speed, acceleration between different speeds, top speed at sea level and rated altitude etc.:

 

http://forum.il2stur...ta/#entry125581

 

So to sum up the above, there is both historical data and calculations that indicate that the difference in climb rate between fully open and fully closed radiator on the Me-109G2 is in the order of 1.5 m/s at 2 Km altitude and not the 7.5 m/s you claim. In fact your whole argument rests on one result: A result the Finns themselves classed as unreliable but to which you cling desperately because it’s the hinge pin in your story and without it you have nothing.......


  • 0

Engineering is merely the slow, younger brother of physics. -Dr. Sheldon Cooper

 

On Kurfurst's new sig: We all say stupid things sometimes, me too. I deeply regret what I wrote then (10 years ago) because I soon realized it was actually the other way around……


#43 Holtzauge

Holtzauge
  • Member
  • Posts: 700

Posted 20 January 2016 - 13:03

 

Kurfurst really? Is that your response?

 

To update your sig to read: “ I must congratulate you on your Me 109 site, I have visited it a few times and it is really a good and necessary counterweight to the Spitfire propaganda page. – Holtzauge”?

 

I naively wrote that 10 years ago based on info provided by you about the reliability of the Spitfire page in question. Let’s just say that when I understood the true nature of things and apologized to those who maintain that page they were quite understanding since they were very aware of your activities.

 

So the conclusion from this is that when corresponding with you one risks seeing things written in private 10 years ago posted on the public internet? Nice…….

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

  • Kurfurst new BoS sig.jpg

  • 0

Engineering is merely the slow, younger brother of physics. -Dr. Sheldon Cooper

 

On Kurfurst's new sig: We all say stupid things sometimes, me too. I deeply regret what I wrote then (10 years ago) because I soon realized it was actually the other way around……


#44 III/JG52_Otto_-I-

III/JG52_Otto_-I-
  • Founder
  • Posts: 184

Posted 17 February 2016 - 02:17

 

 

...the Spitfire propaganda page ??. – Holtzauge”?

 

 

 ummm :rolleyes:  Are you referring to this page?  http://www.spitfirep...spit9v109g.html   ;) 

From this page. ...Spitfire is the better of the best   :rolleyes:  ...propaganda?  ..What is that? :lol:  

spit9v109gspeed.jpg
 


Edited by III/JG52_Otto-I-, 17 February 2016 - 02:22.

  • 2

www.jagdgeschwader52.net iii_gruppe_jg52_round_stickers-r26e965edI was buy BoM moths ago .. Where is my tag?  bom_gold_en.png


#45 NZTyphoon

NZTyphoon
  • Member
  • Posts: 336
  • Location:EnZed/Oz

Posted 17 February 2016 - 07:31

Lots of useful Bf 190G data, with original documents, can be found here: http://www.wwiiaircr...109/me109g.html

 

While similar material for the Fw 190A-3,  A-4 and A-5 can be found here here here , and here

 

all from WWII Aircraft Performance


  • 0

WWII Aircraft Performance: Primary Source Documentation on a wide variety of WW II aircraft  I have seen several folks post their math and theory pushing it off as some kind of holy grail of absolute truth...Crump "does the math"   The foolish and the dead alone never change their opinions: James Russell Lowell

 

 


#46 RoflSeal

RoflSeal
  • Member
  • Posts: 296

Posted 17 February 2016 - 11:55

Not really a fair comparison though as the Spitfire graphs are at WEP and Bf-109 graphs at military power.


  • 2

#47 VO101Kurfurst

VO101Kurfurst
  • Member
  • Posts: 312

Posted 19 February 2016 - 14:31

Not really a fair comparison though as the Spitfire graphs are at WEP and Bf-109 graphs at military power.

 

Its also a rather selective pick of flight tests, for example the official figures tested in Rechlin and many others are ignored (the site owner considers these German sources 'Nazi propaganda'). Basically it picks the worst tests for 109G (sometimes mislabelled, too, the G-2 trial for example was stated to be a G-6 in the test paper, but it also lies about the G-6 curves which ARE from flight trials), and the best ones for Spitfires, even if some of the latter were just prototypes with known testing errors or experiment variants that never seen serial production (such as SU pumps). HF Spits did not see operational service until spring of 1944, yet compared to early 109G at their 1942 rating. And so on.

 

Its best to stay well clear of these comparison articles on wwii aircraftperformance, sadly they are not only mistaken or in error, but from my experience wantonly manipulated and cherry picked, the internet being the place it is harbours some individuals who attempt to skew the picture by deliberately manipulating the data. Note that this need not involve actual falsification of data but can be achieved more subtly by simply only making only the very worst/best data available and filtering the rest.


Edited by VO101Kurfurst, 19 February 2016 - 15:16.

  • 0

"Vezérünk a Bátorság, Kísérőnk a Szerencse!"

www.kurfurst.org - The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site.

'I must congratulate you on your Me 109 site, I have visited it a few times and it is really a good and necessary counterweight to the Spitfire propaganda page.' - Holtzauge


#48 6./ZG26_5tuka

6./ZG26_5tuka
  • Tester
  • Posts: 3932
  • Location:Germany

Posted 19 February 2016 - 14:52

One more reason to focus on primary sources rather than what sby has put in an article or history book.


  • 0

  YdcExnd.jpg Ju 87 D-3 4K Skin Template
Beta Tester Ju-52 Early Supporter Ju 52/3m g4 4K Skin Template


#49 VO101Kurfurst

VO101Kurfurst
  • Member
  • Posts: 312

Posted 19 February 2016 - 14:53

One more reason to focus on primary sources rather than what sby has put in an article or history book.

 

I agree, direct and comparative analysis of the primary sources are the best way to go.  :good:


  • 0

"Vezérünk a Bátorság, Kísérőnk a Szerencse!"

www.kurfurst.org - The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site.

'I must congratulate you on your Me 109 site, I have visited it a few times and it is really a good and necessary counterweight to the Spitfire propaganda page.' - Holtzauge


#50 Holtzauge

Holtzauge
  • Member
  • Posts: 700

Posted 19 February 2016 - 16:47

Its also a rather selective pick of flight tests, for example the official figures tested in Rechlin and many others are ignored (the site owner considers these German sources 'Nazi propaganda'). Basically it picks the worst tests for 109G (sometimes mislabelled, too, the G-2 trial for example was stated to be a G-6 in the test paper, but it also lies about the G-6 curves which ARE from flight trials), and the best ones for Spitfires, even if some of the latter were just prototypes with known testing errors or experiment variants that never seen serial production (such as SU pumps). HF Spits did not see operational service until spring of 1944, yet compared to early 109G at their 1942 rating. And so on.

 

Its best to stay well clear of these comparison articles on wwii aircraftperformance, sadly they are not only mistaken or in error, but from my experience wantonly manipulated and cherry picked, the internet being the place it is harbours some individuals who attempt to skew the picture by deliberately manipulating the data. Note that this need not involve actual falsification of data but can be achieved more subtly by simply only making only the very worst/best data available and filtering the rest.

Nice to see you took such an impression from my post in the DCS Me-109 K4 speed thread as to use text from it Kurfurst! It seems we are in total agreement then about the pitfalls of relying on data from certain internet sites, albeit very different ones. ;) 

 

However, remember that if you use such large pieces of text written by another person it is good form to cite the source and since you may want to do another update to include this I include a link below for your convenience:

 

http://forums.eagle....1&postcount=196

 

Also: So glad for your edit at 15:16 Kurfurst: You see for a moment there I really thought you meant that we who had a different opinions were “Minions leading sad little lives and eager beaver students living of the social welfare system” but since you edited that part out I guess that’s not the case anymore right?


  • 1

Engineering is merely the slow, younger brother of physics. -Dr. Sheldon Cooper

 

On Kurfurst's new sig: We all say stupid things sometimes, me too. I deeply regret what I wrote then (10 years ago) because I soon realized it was actually the other way around……


#51 VO101Kurfurst

VO101Kurfurst
  • Member
  • Posts: 312

Posted 19 February 2016 - 17:00

Well I am glad that you still fully agree that it is best to avoid certain 'comparison' articles on wwiiaircraftperformance and fully sign up to that its best to do careful and comparative analysis of the primary sources instead of relying on secondary sources, which sometimes simply attempt to manipulate and misrepresent the data contained within, like the kind shady corporate salesman do when trying to sell their chosen company's manure.


  • 0

"Vezérünk a Bátorság, Kísérőnk a Szerencse!"

www.kurfurst.org - The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site.

'I must congratulate you on your Me 109 site, I have visited it a few times and it is really a good and necessary counterweight to the Spitfire propaganda page.' - Holtzauge


#52 Holtzauge

Holtzauge
  • Member
  • Posts: 700

Posted 19 February 2016 - 20:21

Well I am glad that you still fully agree that it is best to avoid certain 'comparison' articles on wwiiaircraftperformance and fully sign up to that its best to do careful and comparative analysis of the primary sources instead of relying on secondary sources, which sometimes simply attempt to manipulate and misrepresent the data contained within, like the kind shady corporate salesman do when trying to sell their chosen company's manure.

You know this is getting a bit old and repetitive by now and the only manure I see here is emmenating from you. I think it's pretty obvious we have different views so are you done now or is there something else you need to get off your chest?  :cray:


  • 1

Engineering is merely the slow, younger brother of physics. -Dr. Sheldon Cooper

 

On Kurfurst's new sig: We all say stupid things sometimes, me too. I deeply regret what I wrote then (10 years ago) because I soon realized it was actually the other way around……


#53 NZTyphoon

NZTyphoon
  • Member
  • Posts: 336
  • Location:EnZed/Oz

Posted 20 February 2016 - 06:35



One more reason to focus on primary sources rather than what sby has put in an article or history book.

Indeed - the fact is that people like Mike Williams and Neil Stirling have gone to the trouble and considerable expense of making large numbers of primary source documents and pdf files freely accessible in WWII Aircraft Performance. Fortunately most people are capable of judging for themselves the value of the information provided, without needing the overly biased and spiteful "advice" of a "rival" website owner, who has been carrying out a personal vendetta for years.

 

As for history books? There are many, many high quality, thoroughly researched books available that use primary as well as secondary source material - Don Caldwell's JG 26 War Diaries, Jochen Prien's series on JG 53, or Dietmar Hermann's Focke-Wulf 190 "Long Nose" are just a few examples.


Edited by NZTyphoon, 20 February 2016 - 06:36.

  • 0

WWII Aircraft Performance: Primary Source Documentation on a wide variety of WW II aircraft  I have seen several folks post their math and theory pushing it off as some kind of holy grail of absolute truth...Crump "does the math"   The foolish and the dead alone never change their opinions: James Russell Lowell

 

 


#54 VO101Kurfurst

VO101Kurfurst
  • Member
  • Posts: 312

Posted 20 February 2016 - 09:50

You know this is getting a bit old and repetitive by now and the only manure I see here is emmenating from you. I think it's pretty obvious we have different views so are you done now or is there something else you need to get off your chest?  :cray:

 

Well I would say the above and preceeding posts show how and why your arguements lack of quality and have predestined your agenda to fail from the start of this thread, which in any case does not seem to serve any useful purpose to this community other than as a vessel of your personal ego trip. As for different opions, in that I believe we can agree, since your opinion, supported only your secretive estimates is that the "realistic" climb rate of the G-2 should be 18,7 m/sec and all historical flight trials above that should be dismissed as "flawed ones".

 

It must be pure coincidence that this 18.7 m/sec figure is the lowest ever obtained in real life, as all but one G-2 flight trial obtained higher climb rates than this. So in effect what you are arguing that the only relevant flight trial is the worst one, and all other trial results should be dismissed. This bears much reminiscence to the methods used on the wwiiaircraftperformance articles, which grew infamous for it and are generally despised in the aviation community as a prime example of historical bias and manipulation. 

 

As a matter of interest, this worst figure you are arguing for has obtained this figure with fully open radiators at maximum drag position and with the tail wheel in down position for further drag (Werknummer 14 026, Versuchs-Bericht Nr. 109 19 L 42 available at my site further details and study) and an engine that obtained 900 meter less full throttle height than it should be.

 

Picking the worst results and ignoring all the rest  - this appears to be your modus operandi and it shows that your opinion is laden with extreme bias and that it should be dissmissed without the slightest need to seriously consider it any further.


Edited by VO101Kurfurst, 20 February 2016 - 09:53.

  • 1

"Vezérünk a Bátorság, Kísérőnk a Szerencse!"

www.kurfurst.org - The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site.

'I must congratulate you on your Me 109 site, I have visited it a few times and it is really a good and necessary counterweight to the Spitfire propaganda page.' - Holtzauge


#55 Holtzauge

Holtzauge
  • Member
  • Posts: 700

Posted 20 February 2016 - 09:54

Indeed - the fact is that people like Mike Williams and Neil Stirling have gone to the trouble and considerable expense of making large numbers of primary source documents and pdf files freely accessible in WWII Aircraft Performance.

 

Yes, exactly, and the really funny part here is that the 24 m/s climb figure that I claim is an outlier showing a non-representative estimate is actually published on WWII Aircraft Performance:

 

http://www.wwiiaircr...-109g2-finn.pdf

 

......Now if this site is so biased against the Me-109 as Kurfurst claims, why would they host a very questionable sky-high climb rate figure for the Me-109 G2? :rofl:

 

Did I hear someone say the word hypocrite?


Edited by Holtzauge, 20 February 2016 - 13:16.

  • 1

Engineering is merely the slow, younger brother of physics. -Dr. Sheldon Cooper

 

On Kurfurst's new sig: We all say stupid things sometimes, me too. I deeply regret what I wrote then (10 years ago) because I soon realized it was actually the other way around……


#56 Holtzauge

Holtzauge
  • Member
  • Posts: 700

Posted 20 February 2016 - 12:52

Well I would say the above and preceeding posts show how and why your arguements lack of quality and have predestined your agenda to fail from the start of this thread, which in any case does not seem to serve any useful purpose to this community other than as a vessel of your personal ego trip. As for different opions, in that I believe we can agree, since your opinion, supported only your secretive estimates is that the "realistic" climb rate of the G-2 should be 18,7 m/sec and all historical flight trials above that should be dismissed as "flawed ones".

 

It must be pure coincidence that this 18.7 m/sec figure is the lowest ever obtained in real life, as all but one G-2 flight trial obtained higher climb rates than this. So in effect what you are arguing that the only relevant flight trial is the worst one, and all other trial results should be dismissed. This bears much reminiscence to the methods used on the wwiiaircraftperformance articles, which grew infamous for it and are generally despised in the aviation community as a prime example of historical bias and manipulation. 

 

As a matter of interest, this worst figure you are arguing for has obtained this figure with fully open radiators at maximum drag position and with the tail wheel in down position for further drag (Werknummer 14 026, Versuchs-Bericht Nr. 109 19 L 42 available at my site further details and study) and an engine that obtained 900 meter less full throttle height than it should be.

 

Picking the worst results and ignoring all the rest  - this appears to be your modus operandi and it shows that your opinion is laden with extreme bias and that it should be dissmissed without the slightest need to seriously consider it any further.

As I said before: All this is becoming rather old and it's tiring to over and over read your opinion about my person and my standing in the community. I think whoever reads this can form their own opinion without any help from you.

 

I already explained why I think the 24 m/s climb rate is way out of line and how I arrived at this conclusion. It's not so simple as you make it out to be. I use multiple data points: speed, climb, turn rate and acceleration to get a best fit to the available data. Using this I can reverse engineer performance estimates. It is by means of this method I arrive at the Me-109 G2 climb estimate I do, not by cherry-picking the highest available number like you do. I already explained my method and why I arrive at the conclusion I do in detail in this post so no need to repeat that:

 

http://forum.il2stur...e-2#entry325272

 

The fact is that I have a very good fit to the Finnish data EXCEPT for the 24 m/s climb rate estimate which as I have pointed out a number of times now the Finns themselves termed as unreliable. It is my opinion that this is a so-called outlier and is not as you claim "representative".

 

Maybe it's time to close this. It's obvious we have different opinions. I think the community can judge for themselves who is more believable so please spare me another of your tirades directed at my person.


  • 1

Engineering is merely the slow, younger brother of physics. -Dr. Sheldon Cooper

 

On Kurfurst's new sig: We all say stupid things sometimes, me too. I deeply regret what I wrote then (10 years ago) because I soon realized it was actually the other way around……


#57 NZTyphoon

NZTyphoon
  • Member
  • Posts: 336
  • Location:EnZed/Oz

Posted 20 February 2016 - 21:46



Yes, exactly, and the really funny part here is that the 24 m/s climb figure that I claim is an outlier showing a non-representative estimate is actually published on WWII Aircraft Performance:

 

http://www.wwiiaircr...-109g2-finn.pdf

 

......Now if this site is so biased against the Me-109 as Kurfurst claims, why would they host a very questionable sky-high climb rate figure for the Me-109 G2? :rofl:

 

Did I hear someone say the word hypocrite?

 

It's the same with:

 

Werknummer 14 026, Versuchs-Bericht Nr. 109 19 L 42

 

This, too, is available on WWII Aircraft Performance, with the added bonus that the entire 10 page original document can be downloaded in pdf or read using an English translation. :good:


  • 0

WWII Aircraft Performance: Primary Source Documentation on a wide variety of WW II aircraft  I have seen several folks post their math and theory pushing it off as some kind of holy grail of absolute truth...Crump "does the math"   The foolish and the dead alone never change their opinions: James Russell Lowell

 

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users