Performace charts and comparisons

Discussion in 'Engines' started by GADGET, Oct 25, 2006.

  1. GADGET

    GADGET Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6

    Attached Files:

  2. Kurfürst

    Kurfürst Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,076
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    legal field
    Location:
    Aquincum, Pannonia Prima
    I agree, it's a nice collection as far as the primary material goes.

    Certain care however is needed to be taken with that site's articles, as they are very selective, biased and sometimes outright manipulative with the original sources to come to the 'proper' conclusion.

    Basically it applies to all three Bf 109 comparisons, which effectively are a cherry pickings of the worst possible Bf 109 tests vs. the best test, or even prototypes on the other side. The supplementary information on the Bf 109 engine ratings, variants availability etc. is seriously manipulated.

    It's better IMHO to read the original reports themselves and make your own conclusions.
     
  3. mad_max

    mad_max Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    kurfy posted

    Same thoughts I have about the conclusions of some 109 sites out there.

    Atleast he shows the 8th Airforce used 72" and 75" boost in service for the Merlin's from his website.
     
  4. Brain32

    Brain32 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    It's a great site no doubt about it, I've been visiting it for a long time now :)
    However I agree with Kurfurst, if you want to believe that brave allied pilots that got killed in action were obviously incompetent even to drive a skateboard - then go ahead and take those articles as indisputable truth ;)
    I'll draw my own conclusions ;)
     
Loading...

Share This Page