Spit/109 sea level speed comparisons in 1.08 beta patch

[Crumpp]

Interesting how the Bf 109E-3 loading chart http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ladeplanes.jpg shows the weights as 2,608 kg (5,749 lbs) fully loaded for combat while, without ammunition for training flights, the weight is 2,532kg (5,582 lbs)...

I got the weights from several flight test but did not have a ladeplan. The weight I used leaves out the pilot.

I fixed it and it narrows the gap but does not eliminate it.

The RAE chart shows a Spitfire sustained turn advantage across the entire speed range

The RAE chart uses CLmax neither airplane can attain in clean configuration by any calculation or measurement, including the RAE's. Read the report you claim I have not!

In fact, the CLmax comes very close to matching full flaps for both aircraft.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

I got the weights from several flight test but did not have a ladeplan. The weight I used leaves out the pilot..

Why on earth would you leave out the pilot?

Seriously are you going to redo the numbers with the extra Merlin power, 30% will make a huge difference.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Glider

Why on earth would you leave out the pilot?

Seriously are you going to redo the numbers with the extra Merlin power, 30% will make a huge difference.

Crumpp has to be carefull...if he starts using realistic figures the results won't come out as he intends.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Crumpp has to be carefull...if he starts using realistic figures the results won't come out as he intends.

Give the guy a chance, he said he would

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

I got the weights from several flight test but did not have a ladeplan. The weight I used leaves out the pilot.

I fixed it and it narrows the gap but does not eliminate it.



The RAE chart uses CLmax neither airplane can attain in clean configuration by any calculation or measurement, including the RAE's. Read the report you claim I have not!

In fact, the CLmax comes very close to matching full flaps for both aircraft.

So while Crumpp is prepared to say that maths has all the answers compromises, such as leaving out the pilot and reducing the weight of an aircraft is okay - especially if it favours one type in particular over another. "I fixed it and it narrows the gap" but no explanation as to how this was done. Instead we are told to have faith in Crumpp's genius because he knows better than everyone else, as per usual.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

So while Crumpp is prepared to say that maths has all the answers compromises, such as leaving out the pilot and reducing the weight of an aircraft is okay - especially if it favours one type in particular over another. "I fixed it and it narrows the gap" but no explanation as to how this was done. Instead we are told to have faith in Crumpp's genius because he knows better than everyone else, as per usual.

Yep, one of the main flaws of Crumpps beloved maths, put garbage in and get more garbage back.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

So while Crumpp is prepared to say that maths has all the answers compromises, such as leaving out the pilot and reducing the weight of an aircraft is okay - especially if it favours one type in particular over another.

Uhm, the weight Crumpp used for the Spitfire I doesn't include the weight of armor either. So how this - marginal - weight difference favours one type over the other, Sherlock?

"I fixed it and it narrows the gap" but no explanation as to how this was done. Instead we are told to have faith in Crumpp's genius because he knows better than everyone else, as per usual.

I see. Crumpp understands the formulae behind calculating turn radii and time, you do not, and somehow he is to be blamed for your ignorance? Or maybe it is his fault that after your never ceasing personal attacks, he is not particularly inclined to bother to explain it to you?