I have read that the 109G could overheat from sitting at fly on ground for too long on really hot days. Whether this is true or not I do not know. Anyone know?
Is Spitfire really the BEST British fighter???
- Thread starter Chiron
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Actually any recip could overheat at idle on the ground on a hot day!
I think you can, provided the engine doesn't get too hot. And to stop it getting too hot you have to open the radiators more, which means you can't go as fast.
In other words, the German speed figures can only be achieved for short periods. Even if you can run at the required power settings for longer, you have to open the radiators to do so, and the published German speed figures are usually obtained with both maximum power and closed radiators.
FLYBOYJ said:
That is what I always though atleast. So did the 109G overheat quicker than others or is this just a statement about a 109G.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
I never heard that the -109 overheated quicker (or later) than allied contemporaries.
I am going to have to find where I read that. I am just trying to see if anyone else knows anything else about it because it really is the first time that I read that.
alejandro_
Airman 1st Class
- 281
- Jul 4, 2005
The Bf-109G/K had some issues that should be taken into account when comparing to the Spitfire. By the end of the war the materials and productiom standards were becoming poorer:
http://members.aol.com/falkeeins/Sturmgruppen/hartmann.html
The second issue is maneouvrability; at high speeds the late G and K had improved over previous versions but at medium and low regimes it was worse.
It would be nice if somebody can provide more data on these issues.
Regards.
http://members.aol.com/falkeeins/Sturmgruppen/hartmann.html
The second issue is maneouvrability; at high speeds the late G and K had improved over previous versions but at medium and low regimes it was worse.
It would be nice if somebody can provide more data on these issues.
Regards.
I can actually believe that. They were getting desperate at that time of the war.
TenGunTerror
Airman
In terms of air victories alone, it is the Hurricane by a landslide.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
trackend
Chief Master Sergeant
All I can say on the subject of cooking is on the WT at the Duxford's spring show after 9 minutes sitting at the ready on the runway all three spites started to complain that they needed to get in the air as the engines were getting too warm, Two Merlins and one Griffon
Why? Some old subjects could be interesting enough to revive for newer members. If it shouldn't be revived, it should be closed, I think.
claidemore
Senior Airman
Nothing wrong with reviving an old thread, if there is new information, or some other good reason for it. I think many of us when we first joined these forums, found an old discussion that we were interested in and had further information to add.
On the other hand, reading through multiple old threads and then replying to each of them with a short comment, is really a form of flooding.
I believe that was the reason for the instruction to stop bumping old threads.
Claidemore
PS. Ironically, every time we respond to this particular old dead thread, we are guilty of bumping it one more time!
On the other hand, reading through multiple old threads and then replying to each of them with a short comment, is really a form of flooding.
I believe that was the reason for the instruction to stop bumping old threads.
Claidemore
PS. Ironically, every time we respond to this particular old dead thread, we are guilty of bumping it one more time!
It is not that it shouldn't be revived. If there is something interesting to be added then by all means add it. It is the bumping of old threads with pointless and relatively meaningless comments which add nothing to the discussion that annoy both Joe and I.
Nothing wrong with reviving an old thread, if there is new information, or some other good reason for it. I think many of us when we first joined these forums, found an old discussion that we were interested in and had further information to add.
On the other hand, reading through multiple old threads and then replying to each of them with a short comment, is really a form of flooding.
I believe that was the reason for the instruction to stop bumping old threads.
Claidemore
PS. Ironically, every time we respond to this particular old dead thread, we are guilty of bumping it one more time!
Exactly Claidemore. And yes we should stop bumping it unless someone has an interesting tidbit to provide.
