wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
FLYBOYJ said:
Consolidated Vultee in Nashville, Tn. 113 Ls were built there. They had been building some sub assemblies before that (Wings and tails?) for a while.
wmaxt
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ said:wmaxt said:The P-38 could have been the plane very easily but production was never high enough. The AAF averaged 1,200 servicable P-38s World wide at any one time in '43 and 2,500 in '44/'45. It was only second sourced in Jan. '45! wmaxt
Who was the second source?
FLYBOYJ said:Never knew that!
plan_D said:The P-38K was really specialised for high altitude combat though, wasn't it? I always the thought the P-38L would be the best all-rounder P-38 because with the extreme high altitude performance of the K - it lost some it's low altitude abilities.
Am I right? I don't quite remember what it lost though.
wmaxt said:FLYBOYJ said:Never knew that!
Think about this:
P-38K winter '43
432 METO at 29,600ft and 40mph faster than a J at 40,000ft.
Est. service ceiling of 48,00oft (on an Extreamly hot day 45,000ft was done)
4,800ft/min initial climb Fully loaded in Meto power
20K in 5min flat - FROM A STANDING START ON THE RUNWAY in METO.
Dive Flaps
A Second source
if All this started in '43/'44 it would have effectively trippeled the number of the number of the best P-38s available for the rest of the war.
The War Production Board said No to the 2 WEEK delay the K needed to fit into the line. The WPB didn't start a second line until '45. The WPB also rejected the simplified fuel controls that would have given the P-38L the ability to cruise economicaly over 300 mph too.
wmaxt
FLYBOYJ said:Soren said:wmaxt said:Soren said:the lancaster kicks ass said:well they're the only arguments you've given
No, I was just answering Lunatics question in that particular post
I've already brought up the Wing Thickness Aspect Ratio arguements.
Static design numbers only indicate a thoeretical advantage - by themselves they are just numbers. What are the Dynamic numbers that are exibited by the aircraft?
wmaxt
Bf-109 CL-max: 1.48
Spitfire CL-max: 1.12
These figures are from full scale windtunnel tests, no flaps or slats deployed.
All good but C/L - max is rarely considered except during engine out emergencies and figuring out best glide over a distance (or unless we're talking about gliders). I assume these numbers are meant to be a ratio (1.48 to 1, 1.12 to 1, etc.) If so if you're gliding in either of these aircraft you better be doing it close to home because those numbers show both of them glide like a brick. The 1.48 to 1 (for the -109) , that means for every foot "down" you're moving forward 1.48 feet, and with those numbers shown I'm assuming it means that the -109 glides an extra 4 inches forward better than the Spit!
Glider said:The November 1944 edition of the Flight Handbook for the K4 states that the max pressure boost was 1.75.
Orders from the OKL ChefTLR F1. E. 3V reported that tests at 1.98 couldn't be reported as the engines failed.
Daimler Benz reports that 1.98 boost not released due to failure of all the engines for the test (internal memo 6642)
Memo 6730 testing to be undertaken at 1.98 by Group 2/11 but only 1.8 engines supplied for combat with strict punishment if this is ignored. This memo also refers to the Mustang copmparison
Meeting held at Rechlin on 16th Jan concludes that 1.98 is not to be used on front line. Memo 6731
The comment about the top speed is based on the Projektburo estimate of 19.1.45 using a 9-12159 prop. The experimental one was a 9-12199 Dunnblatt.
I attach copies of memo 6730 and 6731. My German isn't that good so feel free to comment in case I got anything wrong.
Soren said:FLYBOYJ said:Soren said:wmaxt said:Soren said:the lancaster kicks ass said:well they're the only arguments you've given
No, I was just answering Lunatics question in that particular post
I've already brought up the Wing Thickness Aspect Ratio arguements.
Static design numbers only indicate a thoeretical advantage - by themselves they are just numbers. What are the Dynamic numbers that are exibited by the aircraft?
wmaxt
Bf-109 CL-max: 1.48
Spitfire CL-max: 1.12
These figures are from full scale windtunnel tests, no flaps or slats deployed.
All good but C/L - max is rarely considered except during engine out emergencies and figuring out best glide over a distance (or unless we're talking about gliders). I assume these numbers are meant to be a ratio (1.48 to 1, 1.12 to 1, etc.) If so if you're gliding in either of these aircraft you better be doing it close to home because those numbers show both of them glide like a brick. The 1.48 to 1 (for the -109) , that means for every foot "down" you're moving forward 1.48 feet, and with those numbers shown I'm assuming it means that the -109 glides an extra 4 inches forward better than the Spit!
FJ,
CL-max is for figuring out the max lift pr area the wing will produce, it has nothing to with glide distance. However all else being equal, the higher the CL-max is, the longer the a/c will naturally glide, as there is then more lift pr area.
With the CL-max figure we can figure out the a/c's Lift-loading by dividing it with the Wing-loading. Example: An a/c with a Wing-loading of 27 lbs/sq.ft. and a CL-max of 1.30, will have a Lift-loading of 20.8 lbs/sq.ft..
Deploying Flaps will normally increase CL-max with a factor of 0.05, while slats by 25% of the original figure. Example: (All using the same airfoil and wing shape.)
Un-slatted wing CL-max: 1.30
Slat equipped wing CL-max: 1.62,5
Un-slatted wing with Flaps deployed CL-max: 1.35
Slat equipped wing with Flaps deployed CL-max: 1.67,5
Glider said:Soren
So what your saying is that 1.98 boost was authorised by DB, then that authorisation was withdrawn due to the unsuccessful tests, and Daimler Benz were critisised for incorrectly making the authorisation in the first place.
As a result your statement was correct ie. that it was used albeit unofficially.
Glider said:Can I ask what happened after the authorisation was withdrawn?
FLYBOYJ said:With all that said, if the numbers shown for the Spit and -109 are ratio based on max glide (or max lift loading) over a given distance, both aircraft glide like bricks!
Soren said:FLYBOYJ said:With all that said, if the numbers shown for the Spit and -109 are ratio based on max glide (or max lift loading) over a given distance, both aircraft glide like bricks!
Yes they would have been awfull Gliders, which is why they had engines, to keep the speed up.
FLYBOYJ said:The the ability of an aircraft (with an engine) to glide (simulating an engine failure) and managing that glide to a safe emergency landing is a major emergency perfomace characteristic. This is a big part of the aircraft pilot checkout.
FLYBOYJ said:Even though your numbers show the -109 was a little better, we're probably talking feet between the two.
Soren said:FLYBOYJ said:The the ability of an aircraft (with an engine) to glide (simulating an engine failure) and managing that glide to a safe emergency landing is a major emergency perfomace characteristic. This is a big part of the aircraft pilot checkout.
Absolutely.
But my and your point was that without sufficient speed (Provided by the Engine) the 109 and Spit wouldnt fly, they would simply plummet like a brickGliders have very high aspect ratio wings which provide an incredible amount of lift for their size, enabling them to fly unassisted once airborne, but their wing aspect ratio is also more than twice that of the 109.
FLYBOYJ said:Even though your numbers show the -109 was a little better, we're probably talking feet between the two.
With slats un-deployed the Bf-109 will stall a tiny bit later than the Spitfire, thanks to its lower Lift-loading. With Slats deployed, the 109 will stall even later yet, and at a higher AoA. This higher AoA can be a disadvantage upon landing though, as the forward vision gets severely restricted.
Schöpfel said:Hello Soren:
"Btw the K-4's began running at 1.98ata from Dec. 44. and top speed was 452 mph with this setting."
Do you have a primary source and Kurvenblatt showing this, thanks! You wouldn't be getting your datas, as well as your attitude from that Hungarian would you?
Schöpfel said:Ignoring the dokuments and datas available, cherry picking what datas fits your agenda, while resorting to character smears only demonstrates the weakness of your argument and discredits you.
Another point to consider here is the following; the K-4 may have been the latest variant of the venerable 109 but it was above all a product of Germany's late-war industry ..with all the associated quality control problems.. accounts from pilots who flew K-4s in late April 1945 list an array of defects..aircraft poorly trimmed, instruments incorrectly calibrated, no oxygen and no master compass... With chaos reigning as Hartmann's unit fell back before the Russians is it likely that he would take off in an aircraft that would potentially let him down....but of course we'll never know...
"...General (Engineer) Paul critized in this meeting, that the Sondernotleistung with 1.98ata on behalf The Company [Daimler Benz] was handed over directly to General Galland, before a through test was completed. He was also extremely critical about on behalf of the Technischen Aussenddienst, this power setting was given directly to the troops/units, and the engines were set to it..."