Best Messerschmitt Bf109 subtype

kool kitty89 said:

...

I think the first problem was the argument over the term "suction" soren used, which dodn't match the terminology Bill was using. (Soren reffering to lower pressure, as in the same context to the vacuum in the bullet anology -translating to a net drag-, Bill referring to the qualty airfow over wetted surfaces I think)

Click to expand...

Actually KK, Lednicer used the term "Suction" when referencing the P-51D canopy model results. What Soren did not understand is that Lednicer been redundant he would have described the flow over wing as "Suction" also - as they are pressure 'forces' in a vertical plane to the free stream.

Anybody that had a rough clue of Fluid Mechanics or the enxt extension, Aerodynamics, would have recognized this immediately whether he had ever seen a computer model like this before, or not.

When he kept up the argument, he never stopped and recognized his limits in understanding what he saw, did not acknowledge that he didn't understand the context and further went on to make the anology of pressure (or wake) Drag which is In Line with the free stream flow but a force retarding the bullet's sustained flight.

I only pushed him on this because he missed the theory behind slats, he kept claiming that it was 'obvious' that a 109 out turned a Spitfire (model for model) and always out turned a Mustang despite flight tests and many combat experiences to the contrary (note: I did not say "Always").

Then, ignoring experiences and opinions to the contrary he trotted out his 'vast aero knowledge' to prove his point. He does not really fully understand the limitations of his knowledge.

Once again, I apologize for hijacking the thread with this relentless pursuit of Soren's lack of 'bona fides' in this field - and wish to stress that my 5-6 years in industry practice, combined with my BS and MS Aero degrees, does NOT make Me a Practicing Expert.

Bill, remind me never to doubt your credentials in any debate concerning aero engineering. I am impressed.

For the record, i have no formal experience in aero engineering, or any flight experience. I have experience in tactical handling, and some grounding in military theory, but nothing like this.

Very impressive. I know which horse i am backing in this horse race at this point. This is an intersting (but hard to follow) thread guys

parsifal said:

Bill, remind me never to doubt your credentials in any debate concerning aero engineering. I am impressed.

For the record, i have no formal experience in aero engineering, or any flight experience. I have experience in tactical handling, and some grounding in military theory, but nothing like this.

Very impressive. I know which horse i am backing in this horse race at this point. This is an intersting (but hard to follow) thread guys

Click to expand...

Parsifal - I make mistakes, no doubt about it. more often than not I know what I don't know and have learned over time when to NOT open my fat mouth..

Bill I agree, but if you wan't to discuss that more in the canopy poll I opened.

And granted, test data will be different from calculated data, and an advantage of an a/c on paper may not hold up in reality. (although a huge deviation would seem odd)

But in the case of this discussion the airframe almost the same, so a change or advantage over another model would apply much more closely than figures from an entirely different a/c. The only major changes was going from the E to F with resulting in the F and later models being much cleaner. The K changed this again, though not as drastically.

Bill,

I'm getting real tired of your ridiculous rants. You know I've said nothing wrong in this thread and so you had to bring up that stupid suction debate you have come to love so much!

But if you're the expert you claim to be then tell me please, is there anywhere in this thread that I've said anything whch isn't 100% correct ????

So if you can't find anything in this thread which is incorrect then in the future, for everyones sake, keep your mouth shut, otherwise it's clear that you could care less about sidetracking any thread and care more about your own personal agenda!

Okay lets get on topic though, and leave that for PM's.

Lets get back to comparing 109's and other 109's 8)

Hello
how much aerodynamically cleaner K-4 was?
G-2 650kmh @ ? with 1310hp engine (1,3 ata)
K-4 727kmh @ ? with 2000hp engine (2,0 ata)

Juha

Nobody seems to listen...