Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
As you can see from the testtable I posted, somehow Kurfürst succeeded to pick up the real RPM but not the real altitude which was 6,420 m, The altimeter in the MT-215 showed 130 - 100 m too low figure and the tachometer 40 rpm too high figure. The max power used was that of Steig- und Kampfleistung, which was the highest allowed at that time.Actually Kurfurst write "During the tests, 1.3-1.32 ata and 2540 RPM was realized, though such small variations were within tolerance, the lower RPM and/or other factors appear to have somewhat impaired the supercharger`s performance, and thus may have reduced altitude performance, as seen from the performance curves : the rammed rated altitude of 6,3 km was considerably below not only the nominal value (of 7 km) of the DB 605 A, but also the typically obtained, avarage 6,6-6,7 km rated altitude"
I remember now, the context. What I took at face value 60 years ago, I now question the statment "the skinfriction drag and induced drag as minimum limit of the useful drag, the efficiency of the Me-109 is but 40%".
As you can see from the testtable I posted, somehow Kurfürst succeeded to pick up the real RPM but not the real altitude which was 6,420 m, The altimeter in the MT-215 showed 130 - 100 m too low figure and the tachometer 40 rpm too high figure. The max power used was that of Steig- und Kampfleistung, which was the highest allowed at that time.
S&K rpm would be not 2600'? i don't find the trouble with the tachometer in the report where is?
6420 is ever a bit lower
Hello Vincenzothe test report is in the kurfurst site in english and in suomen
Nope, not evenYou made me watch another one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The whole reason behind watching these videos is to be told to watch more of them where he will explain more, count the times he says that. That is a long fishermans yarn, which implies that the Bf 109 would have been much better if only an expert from 2023 set up the supercharger. Watching the video, and using its information why wouldnt a P-40 with Merlin engines be just as effective as a P-51?
As I understood things the reason the P-51B?C D were faster than the Spitfire with the same engine was that P-51s all around better aerodynamics, but this includes the Spitfire having cannon which was a deliberate choice. The two stage Merlin allowed the Spit to have parity not huge superiority with the Bf 109 and Fw 190 which both had more swept volume. I would therefore expect the P-51 to have 20-30 MPH advantage over a Bf 109. The rambling style gives me again the impression that he is misrepresenting something, and he is.
Really , an American pilot that entered the fight in 1944 , was very easy to score 5-10 kills even if he was not particular talented .
It is a statement of nonsense on par with "anyone could win in Max Verstappen, Lewis Hamilton Michael Schumacher's car. In fact joe public cant even pull off and keep the tyres warm on an F1 car. The number of allied pilots that were shot down in 1944 proves it wasnt easy...ever read Bob Goebel's memoir 'Mustang Ace' ? All American fighter pilots could probably fly pretty well, this was certainly true for all P-51 pilots. Only relatively few fighter pilots could shoot as well as they could fly. I guess that's what you meant....
A VERY small % of American pilots that entered combat vs LW after June 1st scored five in the air.In ww1 Germany faced similar raw material shortages with ww2. Still was able to produce very competitive fighters to the last day of the war. Fokker dvii and dviii, siemens-suckert DV etc.
In ww2 , from late 1941 , Germany s fighters were badly outperformed by the western fighters. Despite the great potential of both the bf109 and fw190 , the final products that was delivered to the fighter wings were sitting ducks for the spitfires, Mustangs,p47s etc. Unreliable engines, poor building quality, strange aerodynamic choices, poor projects management, lack of two stage superchargers, terrible sacrifice of performance in order not to disrupt the production numbers, unreasonable armament requirements resulted in inferior fighters beyond any hope
A good question is why it took the western air forces 4 years to defeat LW given the huge advantage they possessed not only in numbers but in quality as well.
Really , an American pilot that entered the fight in 1944 , was very easy to score 5-10 kills even if he was not particular talented . If he could be fast enough to score before his comrades. Strafing was the dangerous mission.
On the other hand , even a single kill against an Anglo American fighter in 1944-45, was an amazing succes for a German pilot. The average operational german fighter of the era was 80-100 km/h slower than the p51,spit xiv ,spit ix 25lbs, tempest, p47m , p38l, la7 ,yak3,
..... A good question is why it took the western air forces 4 years to defeat LW given the huge advantage they possessed not only in numbers but in quality as well.
......
Indeed look up Richard Hammond of top gear in an f1 car. Now these boys of top gear drive a fast car all right. Never seen Hammond so much trying to get round and failed. And being Hammond he did try even over his limits.It is a statement of nonsense on par with "anyone could win in Max Verstappen, Lewis Hamilton Michael Schumacher's car. In fact joe public cant even pull off and keep the tyres warm on an F1 car. The number of allied pilots that were shot down in 1944 proves it wasnt easy.
It was Hammond (and others) I had in mind, he had a few goes at pulling off then they had to stop because the tyres were so cold they were flat, he drives fast cars but is not a racing driver, he is Joe Public. If you look at the losses on both sides in 1944 any claim that anything was easy is an insult to all concerned.Indeed look up Richard Hammond of top gear in an f1 car. Now these boys of top gear drive a fast car all right. Never seen Hammond so much trying to get round and failed. And being Hammond he did try even over his limits.
After that i looked at f1 racers quite differently.
combination of pressure drag items (carb inlet, radiator size incease), G heavier than F, bulges for 15mm MG 131 & low quality camo paint very grainy and draggy & open gap wheel well (parasite drag), weight increase (increased induced drag, engine weight increase from DB 601 through DB 605, etc.Many yrs. ago i read Heinz Knokes book, where he stated in a passage that his Me109g was becoming very sluggish, he blamed it on all the crap being hung on the airframe and the "bulges" all over the fuselage. The R4M rockets on the wings seemed to draw his ire as a major drag issue. I think some pilots nicknamed the aircraft "the bulge"