Official Fulqrum Publishing forum
Page 11 of 17 « First 910 11 1213 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)
-   FM/DM threads (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=196)
-   -   radiators have no influence on speed (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=27524)

Hatch 11-01-2011 04:28 PM
LOL guys, you do realise it says clearly on the graph that it should not be used for anything else than a comparison between the engines due to a non standard radiator ?

Also the speeds increase in the direction of the arrow.
Where it says geschwindigkeit.->


:rolleyes::rolleyes:

ACE-OF-ACES 11-01-2011 04:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SYN_Repent (Post 357092)
your saying i was wrong, about you saying you cant admit your wrong......show me where else i was wrong......

its a laugh, you spout a hundred lines to show how much more clever you are than people, how stupid they are, and how right you are, then when your caught out, and PROVED wrong.......you write one little line.

you really need to start and get right to the point (if there ever is one) in your posts, because the majority of your words are just worthless spam, you have added nothing to this thread except the graph you produced to prove david right (great move btw).



@ david, now lets get back to the original post, i did some testing in an E3, at 3000m with around 1.3ata and 2200 rpm, i was making about 420 kmh

with rads closed the speed went up to around 440kmh, that was rads fully closed for a short period of time.
I said it before and Ill say it again

How is it that I knew in advance that you would not be able to admit you were wrong?

easy, I know you and your type!

Thanks for proving me right about you not being able to admit you were wrong! Now we know who is man enough.. ie.. Not you! ;)

ACE-OF-ACES 11-01-2011 04:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatch (Post 357093)
LOL guys, you do realise it says clearly on the graph that it should not be used for anything else than a comparison between the engines due to a non standard radiator ?
Man I wish I could read german better!

Thanks for that info Hatch! By the way, does it say anything else? As in was this some sort of test radiator? As in an atempt to improve on the drag of the standard radiators?

GOA_Potenz 11-01-2011 04:40 PM
Hey ACE the othe day i was driving my van on the motorway and i couldn't tell if i was a running at 50km/h or at 100km/h ;)

Come on mate you are pulling in no sense argue, everybody can notice a 10/
km/h difference, you have a bloody withe mark on the speed gauge to read your speed and the resolution on todays computers are mostly 1680 x 1050 or 1920 x 1080 or even higher, so resolution isn't a problem to read the gauges, also you have a lovely label that tells you the speed, but there's no way that anybody miss a 50km/h gap so please stop this argument, your graphic show that 50km/h gap from closed to open.

regs Potz

SYN_Repent 11-01-2011 04:42 PM
he might have german gauges potenz, he cant read them very well.

GOA_Potenz 11-01-2011 04:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SYN_Repent (Post 357100)
he might have german gauges potenz, he cant read them very well.

actually german gauges are easy to read than the allies as the imperial mesures system add more lines to the gauge as german in metric system is more visual cleaner to read

Flanker35M 11-01-2011 04:56 PM
S!

OK, studied the graph. Texts are a bit hard to read but anyway. Rotating it clockwise makes it easier BTW ;)

OK, rotate pic 90deg and you see what I mean. Left side (Y-axis) is speed in km/h and coolant temp in Celcius. Top curve is for DB605A(marked with a *), lower curve DB601E(marked with a triangle). Lowest curve is the temperature curve and for both engines pretty much the same. X-axis is the opening of the cooling flaps in millimeters, 0-400mm.

IT seems the flaps were open 50mm and 81mm respectively. The note says something like: Just for comparison for DB601. DB605 is not usable because of the non-standard cooler and the cruising altitude, absolute values, see VB 109 18 L42 (must be a technical report) The harder to read note says something like: Not credited. automatic values ​​in H=2050m

David198502 11-01-2011 05:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SYN_Repent (Post 357092)
your saying i was wrong, about you saying you cant admit your wrong......show me where else i was wrong......

its a laugh, you spout a hundred lines to show how much more clever you are than people, how stupid they are, and how right you are, then when your caught out, and PROVED wrong.......you write one little line.

you really need to start and get right to the point (if there ever is one) in your posts, because the majority of your words are just worthless spam, you have added nothing to this thread except the graph you produced to prove david right (great move btw).



@ david, now lets get back to the original post, i did some testing in an E3, at 3000m with around 1.3ata and 2200 rpm, i was making about 420 kmh

with rads closed the speed went up to around 440kmh, that was rads fully closed for a short period of time.
thats interesting....i tested at an altitude of 500 meters and had the rads almost closed, level flight 440kph.then i opened them completely and the speed remained, not only for some seconds but for 5minutes, until i stopped my test.

well it seems that some report here changes with different rad settings, will have to try again at different altitudes...will report back my experiences.

Hatch 11-01-2011 05:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES (Post 357097)
Man I wish I could read german better!

Thanks for that info Hatch! By the way, does it say anything else? As in was this some sort of test radiator? As in an atempt to improve on the drag of the standard radiators?
No not really,

It was probably an informal test as it also states that they were using plain data.
It says "nicht umgerechnete messwerte" .
Which tranlated would be something like the "data was not thoroughly calculated".

They refer to another paper? with reference number VB 10918 L42
They also caution because of the non standard height at which the test was conducted.


Ah I saw Flanker35M's post too late

Hatch 11-01-2011 05:14 PM
http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techre...ng/f_flaps.htm


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:24 PM.
Page 11 of 17 « First 910 11 1213 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.