Best Messerschmitt Bf109 subtype

[kool kitty89]

Here: I started a new thread: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...ign-13084.html (Canopy Design)

Now let's get back to the topic at hand.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Part I still can`t get is that why all this stuff about P-51 windshields is being discussed in the thread titled 'Best Bf 109 subtype'...

This board needs a bit of discipline when it comes to off topic arguements, I mean it is not bad to steer off a bit sometimes from the subject, but when it becomes a regular issue of hijacking threads, I must ask myself, that if some of us are so thrilled with the same subjects that we feel the unconquerable pressure to discuss it over and over again between ourselves, then, why not do it in its own dedicated thread, say in:

P-51 vs. Luftwaffa Thread MMII.
Spitfire vs. Messerschmitt in turns thread MMMDDCILV.
Soren vs. drgondog Thread XIII.
Hartmann didn`t even flew in combat, his claims are bogus CXXII.
I`m getting pissed off with off topic post and thread hijacking II.

Ditto

I completly agree. It almost allways seems to involve the same people as well.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Soren

Oh and about being a school educated Aeronautical engineer, well they have to read similar or the very same books I have Adler. The only advantage is they get to fool around with computer fluid programs, something I have to pay hundreds of dollars to do.

Soren it goes way more in depth than just reading books. Come on now, you know that experience is worth a lot more. Dont even go there!

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

I won't reply to pissing match posts, it's ridiculous.

What Bill seems unable to understand is that if you haven't used a computer pressure distribution program before then you can't expect to undertsand it right away.

Furthermore the only reason he keeps bringing this up is because he knows all I've said in this thread is 100% correct.

Ah, no. I do not and have repeatedly indicated to you why your 'math and physics' with respect to manueverability can't stand the scrutiny of rigorous modelling..

You can state your opinion Soren, but browbeating people with simple contempt beccause they aren't 'convinced' of your credentials can be insulting - particularly when you declare victory be stating that "anyone can see.."

Perhaps when you can demonstrate industry practices and/or academic grounding in your assumptions and the equations you wish to bring to the table, your opinion will be held in higher regard.

It simply isn't as 'simple' as you think trying to model with accuracy any manuever results -

Even today with very sophisticated models, there IS a reason to go from prototype to flight test, then to production.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Part I still can`t get is that why all this stuff about P-51 windshields is being discussed in the thread titled 'Best Bf 109 subtype'...

This board needs a bit of discipline when it comes to off topic arguements, I mean it is not bad to steer off a bit sometimes from the subject, but when it becomes a regular issue of hijacking threads, I must ask myself, that if some of us are so thrilled with the same subjects that we feel the unconquerable pressure to discuss it over and over again between ourselves, then, why not do it in its own dedicated thread, say in:

P-51 vs. Luftwaffa Thread MMII.
Spitfire vs. Messerschmitt in turns thread MMMDDCILV.
Soren vs. drgondog Thread XIII.
Hartmann didn`t even flew in combat, his claims are bogus CXXII.
I`m getting pissed off with off topic post and thread hijacking II.

You are right Kurfust.

In a manner of speaking the hijacking between Soren and myself is all about Soren dismissing any opionion opposing his own regarding a/c performance as unfounded.

Frequently, he then proceeds to use aero theory and coefficients to suit his own argument and proceeds to present them as 'irrefutable fact' - which has led me from a debate on facts to a debate on theory.

So, I apologize to you and others that are similarly irritated and will try to NOT wander when I engage.. but I will pound Soren everytime he 'theorizes in a no-theory zone' about stuff he really doesn't fully understand. I also will restrain myself from the same territory.

Regards,

Bill

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

...

I think the first problem was the argument over the term "suction" soren used, which dodn't match the terminology Bill was using. (Soren reffering to lower pressure, as in the same context to the vacuum in the bullet anology -translating to a net drag-, Bill referring to the qualty airfow over wetted surfaces I think)

Actually KK, Lednicer used the term "Suction" when referencing the P-51D canopy model results. What Soren did not understand is that Lednicer been redundant he would have described the flow over wing as "Suction" also - as they are pressure 'forces' in a vertical plane to the free stream.

Anybody that had a rough clue of Fluid Mechanics or the enxt extension, Aerodynamics, would have recognized this immediately whether he had ever seen a computer model like this before, or not.

When he kept up the argument, he never stopped and recognized his limits in understanding what he saw, did not acknowledge that he didn't understand the context and further went on to make the anology of pressure (or wake) Drag which is In Line with the free stream flow but a force retarding the bullet's sustained flight.

I only pushed him on this because he missed the theory behind slats, he kept claiming that it was 'obvious' that a 109 out turned a Spitfire (model for model) and always out turned a Mustang despite flight tests and many combat experiences to the contrary (note: I did not say "Always").

Then, ignoring experiences and opinions to the contrary he trotted out his 'vast aero knowledge' to prove his point. He does not really fully understand the limitations of his knowledge.

Once again, I apologize for hijacking the thread with this relentless pursuit of Soren's lack of 'bona fides' in this field - and wish to stress that my 5-6 years in industry practice, combined with my BS and MS Aero degrees, does NOT make Me a Practicing Expert.

[parsifal]

Bill, remind me never to doubt your credentials in any debate concerning aero engineering. I am impressed.

For the record, i have no formal experience in aero engineering, or any flight experience. I have experience in tactical handling, and some grounding in military theory, but nothing like this.

Very impressive. I know which horse i am backing in this horse race at this point. This is an intersting (but hard to follow) thread guys

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by parsifal

Bill, remind me never to doubt your credentials in any debate concerning aero engineering. I am impressed.

For the record, i have no formal experience in aero engineering, or any flight experience. I have experience in tactical handling, and some grounding in military theory, but nothing like this.

Very impressive. I know which horse i am backing in this horse race at this point. This is an intersting (but hard to follow) thread guys

Parsifal - I make mistakes, no doubt about it. more often than not I know what I don't know and have learned over time when to NOT open my fat mouth..

[kool kitty89]

Bill I agree, but if you wan't to discuss that more in the canopy poll I opened.

And granted, test data will be different from calculated data, and an advantage of an a/c on paper may not hold up in reality. (although a huge deviation would seem odd)

But in the case of this discussion the airframe almost the same, so a change or advantage over another model would apply much more closely than figures from an entirely different a/c. The only major changes was going from the E to F with resulting in the F and later models being much cleaner. The K changed this again, though not as drastically.

[Soren]

Bill,

I'm getting real tired of your ridiculous rants. You know I've said nothing wrong in this thread and so you had to bring up that stupid suction debate you have come to love so much!

But if you're the expert you claim to be then tell me please, is there anywhere in this thread that I've said anything whch isn't 100% correct ????

So if you can't find anything in this thread which is incorrect then in the future, for everyones sake, keep your mouth shut, otherwise it's clear that you could care less about sidetracking any thread and care more about your own personal agenda!

[kool kitty89]

Okay lets get on topic though, and leave that for PM's.

Lets get back to comparing 109's and other 109's

[Juha]

Hello
how much aerodynamically cleaner K-4 was?
G-2 650kmh @ ? with 1310hp engine (1,3 ata)
K-4 727kmh @ ? with 2000hp engine (2,0 ata)

Juha

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Nobody seems to listen...