- Thread starter
- #141
Build the perfect water cooled engine
- Thread starter gjs238
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
Well, you are the one who claimed the P-51 was mediocre and yet the 109 can't do some of the jobs the P-51 could. Granted the P-51 can't do some of the jobs certain models of the 109 could, or at not quite as well.
does that make the 109 mediocre?
Fuel pumps or compressed air, who cares, most if not all planes that used combat drop tanks had full or nearly full tanks when they dropped the external tanks.
One way trips are sure fire way to escort bombers and win wars???
It's just a benchmark.
Care to back that claim up? It holds up about as well as claiming that a 109 gets such good mileage that it could fly from Paris to New York and back on one drop tank with fuel to spare
if you goto Kacha`s Luftwaffe Page and add up the top 10 109 aces you get 2628
aircraft shot down. for all the allied aces on all fronts was something like 2000(+/-).
if I'm wrong I'll owe you a coke. I don't think I'm wrong.
aircraft shot down. for all the allied aces on all fronts was something like 2000(+/-).
if I'm wrong I'll owe you a coke. I don't think I'm wrong.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
if you goto Kacha`s Luftwaffe Page and add up the top 10 109 aces you get 2628
aircraft shot down. for all the allied aces on all fronts was something like 2000(+/-).
if I'm wrong I'll owe you a coke. I don't think I'm wrong.
Surely that proves nothing. The Luftwaffe operated in a target rich environment and its pilots flew till they died which for the USAAF and RAF was not the case. I am sure I read somewhere might have been on this site that if you divided sorties by kills then the top USAAF and RAF aces had similar kills to sortie ratios as the top LW aces. The top 1% of pilots in both world wars did the vast majority of killing.
all target rich enviroment means is that theres that many more people hunting you too.
so, that would make the German pilots even better, no? theres more sources to those figures.
I put the link to the easiest one for anybody to check
fly to you die was true.. but not what you think it means.
when all was said and done:
western front allied aircraft shot down: 14000
Luftwaffe fighters lost: 13000*
eastern front allied aircraft shot down: 31000
Luftwaffe fighters lost: 4000*
grand total Allied losses: 45000
grand total Luftwaffe fighter losses: 17000
(* Note: the German loss figures are total combat loss figures. i.e. to ground fire,
and in aerial combat)
source: Claes Sundin Christer Bergstron
don't think anybody in there right mind would argue with those two gentleman.
wonder how many swastika's on the sides of ace pilots in P-51 P-47's were from parked aircraft? haha.
so, that would make the German pilots even better, no? theres more sources to those figures.
I put the link to the easiest one for anybody to check
fly to you die was true.. but not what you think it means.
when all was said and done:
western front allied aircraft shot down: 14000
Luftwaffe fighters lost: 13000*
eastern front allied aircraft shot down: 31000
Luftwaffe fighters lost: 4000*
grand total Allied losses: 45000
grand total Luftwaffe fighter losses: 17000
(* Note: the German loss figures are total combat loss figures. i.e. to ground fire,
and in aerial combat)
source: Claes Sundin Christer Bergstron
don't think anybody in there right mind would argue with those two gentleman.
wonder how many swastika's on the sides of ace pilots in P-51 P-47's were from parked aircraft? haha.
Last edited:
None, as ground kills were not claimed officially.
Mustang nut
Banned
- 200
- Jun 14, 2011
hence the haha
Claims are always an issue, but part of the Luftwaffe fighting code was that the wing supported the "ace" so a few racked up large numbers of victories at the expense of the unit as a whole. This was noted in the BoB north Africa and other campaigns. + It may be a litle vulgar but I would say that in the end the Luftwaffe lost.
Lighthunmust
Banned
I have read something similar but don't recall where. I think Robert S. Johnson in a early model P-47 had an extremely high kill to sortie ratio. He was flying in target rich environment consisting of the Luftwaffe's most experienced pilots flying aircraft with many performance advantages on the western front. What makes Johnson's accomplishment even more impressive is that all his kills are fighters and most of them single-engine fighters flown by pilots with far more combat experience then him. A target rich environment is of course not necessarily one where all targets are hunters. The eastern front being an example of one side having a higher proportion of target aircraft that were inferior to those of the other sides hunters for much of the period of conflict.
Shortround6
Major General
if you goto Kacha`s Luftwaffe Page and add up the top 10 109 aces you get 2628
aircraft shot down. for all the allied aces on all fronts was something like 2000(+/-).
if I'm wrong I'll owe you a coke. I don't think I'm wrong.
Well, a different web site says 2556 for the top ten Luftwaffe aces.
However, unless my arithmetic is wrong this web site:
English / British Aces of WWII
gives about 1965 claims just for the RAF aces with ten or more victories. I stopped counting at that point. Is an ACE 10 or more or 5 or more?
Note that this total doesn't include Australian aces or Canadian Aces or other Commonwealth countries let alone Russian or American aces.
So even counting aces with 10 or more Victories I don't think it would be a problem to come up with another 600-700 claims.
Heck, you can get over 60 from Rhodesia if you count 5 victories or more
wuzak
Captain
Well, a different web site says 2556 for the top ten Luftwaffe aces.
However, unless my arithmetic is wrong this web site:
English / British Aces of WWII
gives about 1965 claims just for the RAF aces with ten or more victories. I stopped counting at that point. Is an ACE 10 or more or 5 or more?
Note that this total doesn't include Australian aces or Canadian Aces or other Commonwealth countries let alone Russian or American aces.
So even counting aces with 10 or more Victories I don't think it would be a problem to come up with another 600-700 claims.
Heck, you can get over 60 from Rhodesia if you count 5 victories or more
An Ace is with 5 or more victories. Several pilots became Ace in a day.
Well, a different web site says 2556 for the top ten Luftwaffe aces.
However, unless my arithmetic is wrong this web site:
English / British Aces of WWII
gives about 1965 claims just for the RAF aces with ten or more victories. I stopped counting at that point. Is an ACE 10 or more or 5 or more?
Note that this total doesn't include Australian aces or Canadian Aces or other Commonwealth countries let alone Russian or American aces.
So even counting aces with 10 or more Victories I don't think it would be a problem to come up with another 600-700 claims.
Heck, you can get over 60 from Rhodesia if you count 5 victories or more
awesome! still.. took all them allied aces just to match the top 10 Germans. not to mention if you wanna
go to the top 20 TOTAL Luftwaffe ace list.
the DB605.. best engine ever
remarkable airmanship!
' Marseille was credited with seven kills against P-40s in 11 minutes '
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Allied P-40 losses for the day were four, including one that was most likely due to AAA, as well as one heavily damaged and written off on landing and several others that were damaged and repaired.
Against this, there were Luftwaffe claims for 19 P-40s and one Spitfire.
Shortround6
Major General
awesome! still.. took all them allied aces just to match the top 10 Germans. not to mention if you wanna
go to the top 20 TOTAL Luftwaffe ace list.
the DB605.. best engine ever
Fine, go to it, according to that web site the top twenty Germans had 4538. Running the UK list down to five or more gives 4310 which means the rest of the British Empire/Commonwealth, The Americans, Russians, French, Poles, Belgians and Dutch*only need another 229 victories between them to make the statement that the top 20 German pilots shot down more than ALL the Allied aces untrue.
* and anybody else I left out.
Lighthunmust
Banned
I always find a good pissing contest interesting, but how much you piss is not all that important, it is all about how quickly and legibly you write your name in the snow. In other words kills to sortie ratio and what you killed is what it really is all about with regard to who is most skilled. Please continue gentlemen I find this a most interesting display of who and who is not thinking rationally.
problem is, you already made up your mind a while ago..
wuzak
Captain
I see now
One of the reasons I've proposed a boxer engine was that such an engine leaves much more space above the crankcase (or under it, for inverted Vee) than the V engines, hence allowing for an easy installation of motorkannone.
The problem with a boxer engine is that it lacks rigidity and can be wide.
The motor cannon is also dependent on the disposition of the supercharger and attendant ancillaries. The reason why the Merlin could not carry a motor cannon was that the supercharger was large and in the way, while the intake piping was also in the way. In two stage engines there was also the aftercooler. It was a similar case for the Allison.
A flat engine may have less of a problem with intake runners and/or exhausts, but the supercharger may still be in the way.
The Merlin's reduction gearbox was therefore able to be designe so as to give the minimum frontal cross section from the engine.
wuzak
Captain
Between 1927 and 1930 Rolls Royce converted a pair of Kestrels to sleeve valves, and also to compression ignition (Diesel). These were known as RR/Ds. Testing on these proved disappointing and resulted in many breakages, due to the stresses caused by the high compression ratios required for the Diesel. The engine was unsupercharged, and gave a mere 350hp from its 19.2l/1170cid (Kestrel 21.2l/1296cid).
One of the engines was then converted back to run on petrol, and was designated, IIRC, RR/P. It used a standard Kestrel supercharger, and was able to make 680hp in testing. This was approxmately 150hp more than the standard Kestrel at that time. It was also a couple of years before the design of the Merlin commenced.
I wonder if any consideration was given by RR engineers to design PV12 with sleeve valves. Some trouble with sleeves was experienced with RR/D and RR/P, but Rolls Royce quickly came up with suitable materals to alleviate the problem.
RR/P was very heavy, due to the sleeve drive design (a long gear train either side of the block). In fact it was more than double the weight of the standard Kestrel, and nearly as much as the later Sabre!
One of the engines was then converted back to run on petrol, and was designated, IIRC, RR/P. It used a standard Kestrel supercharger, and was able to make 680hp in testing. This was approxmately 150hp more than the standard Kestrel at that time. It was also a couple of years before the design of the Merlin commenced.
I wonder if any consideration was given by RR engineers to design PV12 with sleeve valves. Some trouble with sleeves was experienced with RR/D and RR/P, but Rolls Royce quickly came up with suitable materals to alleviate the problem.
RR/P was very heavy, due to the sleeve drive design (a long gear train either side of the block). In fact it was more than double the weight of the standard Kestrel, and nearly as much as the later Sabre!