improving the 109??

[ww2restorer]

Quote Flyboy ''So I'll ask you again, what's the arrival/ departure procedure for flying in and out of EDW?!?!?''
Be fair, give the lad a chance. If we include Rogers lake bed, he only has 24 runways to choose from.

 

[pbehn]

See the replies in red above.

Where is my $1000$

 

[pbehn]

I do bring facts to the table but you don't even dispute them! Such as your argument about the Head on Pass Scenario above.

The preferred method in head on attack against bombers was to fly inverted which shows how little aiming actually counted

 

[pbehn]

The major stumbling block in your argument, which you have done very well mind you, is that the Tempies gun should be Zeroed at 250 yards, or 230 meters! Then recalculate and allow for the trajectory rise from the gun's position 4-5' below the line of sight through the Reticle so two drawings, one for top view and one from the side will knock your socks off! While dispersion from the guns will spread the bullets around some, it is doubtful that there would be any significant chance to get even one hit from the Tempies guns while the German pilot could expect ALL of his shells to hit!

All very interesting but what about my$1000 there are about 50 spits still flying,it is a matter of life and death.

 

[pbehn]

All true! But not really relevant! Re calculate for the Spit at 250 as above, but the 109 is going 300 MPH and is only 300 meters behind and has just opened fire. Then take into account the early Spits horrendous rate of roll AND the displacement of the centers of the two plane's circles due to the initial range. Then tell me the finished range, angle off and number of seconds the 109 has continuously tracked the target? This was, with one minor variation, a real live problem given to real live AF Pilots at the Colorado Springs Academy!

There were no spits they all crashed on take off you said,where is my $1000?

 

[pbehn]

All true! But how it works is that the plane with the higher loading is, all other things being equal, going to have the smaller wing, with both less frontal area and less surface area and thus, less drag because of it! That means for any given power the plane with the smallest wing goes the fastest. But the corollary is the plane with the smaller wing will take much longer to take off and land. That requires either high lift devices to compensate, or a much larger air field. Take your pick.

Frontal area is wing span x thickness have you seen the difference in wing thickness between a typhoon and tempest ? 250 mm at wing root

 

[pbehn]

Why do I owe you $1000.00?

You challenged me on spit losses in fact you said more spits crashed than were shot down, I claim my $1000 or call you a B S merchant

 

[pbehn]

Great, but we are not comping Typhoons and Tempies. We are comping a Tempy with the standard wing and a similar in all respects Tempy, except wing planform/area!

The. Typhoons an tempest had similar wing loading but different frontal area the mustang wing was thicker than the spit but much less drag. Where is my $1000?

 

[pbehn]

Read the exact post! I stated that more Spits, (and Messers by the way) crashed on take off, or landing than were destroyed in combat! There was one other proviso in that you had to provide the proof in current publications, or post war research based on the now current best knowledge in the public domain.
You have not proved me wrong, so I do not owe you the money!

Yes I did you are full of B S

 

[Milosh]

Read the exact post! I stated that more Spits, (and Messers by the way) crashed on take off, or landing than were destroyed in combat! There was one other proviso in that you had to provide the proof in current publications, or post war research based on the now current best knowledge in the public domain.
You have not proved me wrong, so I do not owe you the money!

You have not proved anything either.

What are the numbers?

 

[gumbyk]

All true! But not really relevant! Re calculate for the Spit at 250 as above, but the 109 is going 300 MPH and is only 300 meters behind and has just opened fire. Then take into account the early Spits horrendous rate of roll AND the displacement of the centers of the two plane's circles due to the initial range. Then tell me the finished range, angle off and number of seconds the 109 has continuously tracked the target? This was, with one minor variation, a real live problem given to real live AF Pilots at the Colorado Springs Academy!

So how come Britain won the BoB, if they had such inferior aircraft (mostly they weren't even using Spitfires, but Hurricanes)?

P.S. simply pulling 13-14º AoA to get on target isn't going to give you a very stable platform to shoot from.

 

[GregP]

Shooter

Regarding post #633:

The MG 151 / 20 cartridge was the 20 x 82 mm. There were 7 varieties of cartridge: HEI-T, incendiary, HE, AP-T, APHE, and two different API cartridges. They ranged from 95 to 117 grams per projectile. If we look at the HEI-T and HE cartridges, the HE was 95 grams projectile weight with 18.6 grams of HE (PETN). The Soviet "quality factor" or Q for this weapon is derived from the kinetic energy multiplied by the rate of fire divided by the gun weight. For the MG 151 / 20, Q = 8.2.


The HEI-T cartridge came in at 113 grams with 2.3 grams of HE (PETN) and 2.1 grams of incendiary (Elektron). In total the HE in any of the seven MG 151 / 20 cartridges ranged from 2.3 grams to 18.6 grams. Muzzle velocity is unknown for a couple of the cartridges, but ranges from 705 to 805 m/s for the other 5 cartridges. Average muzzle velocity was 725 m/s.


The Hispano MK II fired a 20 x 110 mm cartridge at between 840 and 880 m/s. There were nine different cartridges: HE, HEI-T, HE-T, TP-T, TP, API-T, AP-T, API, and blank. HE = high explosive; -T means tracer, AP = armor piercing, I = incendiary. Muzzle energy = 43.5 kJ. HE and HEI rounds had 6 to 11 grams of HE. HE was 130 grams and HEI was 168 grams. For the Hispano MK II, Q = 8.5 – 10.0 depending on 130 or 168 gram projectile.


The ShVAK 20 mm cannon was almost identical to the 12.7 mm machine gun except for bore. It was a converted Berezin12.7 mm MG. It was available in synchronized and unsynchronized units. It used the 20 x 99 mm cartridge. Muzzle velocity was 750 – 770 m/s. It had 2.8 grams of HE and 3.3 grams of incendiary in it. There were ten different cartridges with 4 kinds of HEI and 4 kinds of API and 2 kinds of TP. HE weight ranged from 0.8 grams to 6.7 grams of HE, but the Soviet HE was of an unspecified type and the 6.7 grams unit was an HEI-fragmentation round. Projectile weights ranged from 91 to 96.5 grams. For the ShVAK 20, Q = 8.7.


Most of the people involved in the "great fighter gun debate" center on the Q of the weapon as a great indicator of it's effectivity. So for these three cannons, we have: 1) the MG 151 / 20 with Q = 8.2; the Hispano MK II with Q = 8.5 – 10.0; and 3) ShVAK with Q = 8.7.


Looks like about a wash to me and to most of the gun community in general. Since you claim to be a "shooter," I'm curious why you don't seem to know this since most gun people these days look hard at the Q as an indicator of how hard a gun projectile hits the target.


There is another measure called "M," which is the mass output per second divided by the gun weight. Think of M as the indicator of weight of fire delivered per the weight of the gun. A higher M throws out more weight per second. For these 3 guns: 1) MG 151 / 20 M = 31.36; Hispano MK II M = 22.1 – 28.5 depending on the 130 g or 168 g projectile; and 3) ShVAK 20 M = 30.2.


Google "the great fighter gun debate" if you want more information.


We all know US planes were a bit heavier built than most others, but having a range of M from 22 – 31 means little to the designer if he gets a good Q from the shells he fires.


Again, to me these three weapons seem pretty evenly matched with the MG 151 / 20 having the slowest muzzle velocity of the three, but if it hit, it caused some decent damage if the HE exploded. It might not if it went through fabric. Of course, the same could be said for the other two cartridges as well. The Hispano caused slightly less damage per shell, but it wasn't a significant difference as evidenced by the Q rating. The ShVAK, especially if they used the frag cartridge, could damage a lot more volume, but with smaller chunks of shrapnel. It tended to be effective when hits were achieved.

 

[pbehn]

You have not proved anything either.

What are the numbers?

I have posted them you look them up,you made the bet you fool now pay. UP

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Quote Flyboy ''So I'll ask you again, what's the arrival/ departure procedure for flying in and out of EDW?!?!?''
Be fair, give the lad a chance. If we include Rogers lake bed, he only has 24 runways to choose from.

He claimed he's flown at every aero club, if anyone has every done it, they'll remember it.

Shooter, 2 Mods have asked for a reply, if you want to participate here you'll answer.

 

[GrauGeist]

Read the exact post! I stated that more Spits, (and Messers by the way) crashed on take off, or landing than were destroyed in combat! There was one other proviso in that you had to provide the proof in current publications, or post war research based on the now current best knowledge in the public domain.
You have not proved me wrong, so I do not owe you the money!

You were proved wrong in countless replies, especially in this regard.
Allied and RLM operational loss fugures have been posted in reply, YET you keep ignoring the hard numbers and ramble on.

These figures are also available in abundance throughout this forum, including a well researched database.

I do bring facts to the table but you don't even dispute them! Such as your argument about the Head on Pass Scenario above.

Again, you bring bullsh!t and repeatedly get corrected by facts - facts that have been well researched and documented.

Either you are so entrenched in your world that you refuse to accept fact or you have a serious reading comprehension problem.

 

[Milosh]

I have posted them you look them up,you made the bet you fool now pay. UP

Agh? I was asking Shooter for his numbers to back up his statement.

 

[ww2restorer]

He claimed he's flown at every aero club, if anyone has every done it, they'll remember it.

Shooter, 2 Mods have asked for a reply, if you want to participate here you'll answer.

Oh yes, I have been sitting back watching with interest. I still have my copy of the AFBI 13-100 somewhere. I don't know where he is getting his info from, but wasn't anything I was taught when at MIT, DoD and EDW.

 

[GrauGeist]

He claimed he's flown at every aero club, if anyone has every done it, they'll remember it.

Shooter, 2 Mods have asked for a reply, if you want to participate here you'll answer.

Better still, Joe...how about him telling us what's unique about approach/departure at a certain Island in the southland.

The Shack there has a great grill with an interesting name, too.

I don't want to give away too much because of "post-google-authority".

 

[pbehn]

Agh? I was asking Shooter for his numbers to back up his statement.

Sorry

 

[GregP]

C'mon Shooter. I looked it up only out of curiosity. You don't really expect me to go look it up again for you, do you? I'd say Google "20 x 82 mm cartridge" and go for it. It isn't hard to find, and no insult is intended in the slightest. It's just that I already spent spent enough time on it and my interest level ins't all that high.

The only relevant numbers are the Q and M for the gun. Perhaps weight of fire per second would be nice, too. The Q's show the Mg 151 / 20 to be a decent gun, but hardly a standout above the other two, and we left out most of the other WWII fighter guns. I show 17 rifle-caliber MGs (7.62 - 7.92 mm), 10 heavy MGs (12.7 - 15.0 mm), twenty-two 20 mm cannons, and 24 heavy cannons (30 - 75 mm). So the discussion above leaves out most of the guns actually used. I have the numbers (the important numbers, not the HE and incendiary content) for all the rifle and heavy caliber machine guns, 20 mm cannons, and heavy cannons (> 20 mm) in a single spreadsheet and I calculated the "Q" and "M" to be sure the guys on the great fighter gun debate got it right. Mostly, they were ... I think I recall one error, and it was a decimal point. The M numbers come out in fractions, so I left the M as grams per second divided by kg because most people can compare 20 to 30 easier than .02 to .03.

The data came from the "great fighter gun debate," and I'm fairly sure it is still out there in cyberspace somewhere.

Somewhere in a spreadsheet I also have the same data for most of the battleship guns compiled with the various ship classes to get a weight of fire per broadside for the battlewagons, but that isn't really relevant in a WWII aviation forum ... unless you happen to be flying at the wrong altitude between two fighting groups of battleships.

As yet, I haven't compiled the guns in between 75 mm about 10-inch. Maybe when I retire and have nothing else better to do.


Hey James,

Nice table there. I've put it into Excel, but need to go see where they got the "Damage" number because I have mostly been using the Soviet "Q" and "M" numbers. Good find!

Update: Now that I see how he calculates it, I have erased the data, He decided to make up his own figure or merit that nobody else I have ever seen uses. I'll stick with the Soviet quality and mass figures.