radiators have no influence on speed

[Flanker35M]

S!

Addman, try to find the book called Lentäjän Näkökulma II (Pilot's Point of View II freely translated). Written by Jukka Raunio. ISBN 951-96866-0-6

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Since David was unable, or unwilling to provide the real 'data' his claim is based on, I figured I would give it a quick look.

To see what all the fuss is about, ie are we talking about

10?
20?
30?
40?

In doing so I found some 109G data but not E data, here is the sorce

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...9/14026pg9.jpg

Now it is really hard to read the speed axis, but it 'looks' like it goes

520
530
540
550
560

If that is the case, than the 'difference' in speed between open and closed is..

5 kph

Which is well within the pilot error noise

Thus, IMHO, the only way to detect this small change is to log the data and account for the pilot errors

PS correct me if I am wrong, but the rads on the 109 changed alot from the E to the G, so, assuming Jerry did a better job on the new rads, we can only assume that the older E rads caused more drag, and thus impacted speed more. But, even if the change was doulbe this, say 10kph, it is still well within the pilot error noise

[David198502]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Since David was unable, or unwilling to provide the real 'data' his claim is based on, I figured I would give it a quick look.

To see what all the fuss is about, ie are we talking about

10?
20?
30?
40?

In doing so I found some 109G data but not E data, here is the sorce

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...9/14026pg9.jpg

Now it is really hard to read the speed axis, but it 'looks' like it goes

520
530
540
550
560

If that is the case, than the 'difference' in speed between open and closed is..

5 kph

Which is well within the pilot error noise

Thus, IMHO, the only way to detect this small change is to log the data and account for the pilot errors

PS correct me if I am wrong, but the rads on the 109 changed alot from the E to the G, so, assuming Jerry did a better job on the new rads, we can only assume that the older E rads caused more drag, and thus impacted speed more. But, even if the change was doulbe this, say 10kph, it is still well within the pilot error noise

well that document is really hard to read....however how do you come to the conclusion of 5kph differnce?

maybe i read it wrong....there are two different graphs which show the speed per rads setting.
however both show a straight decreasing line with the same angle...so the difference remains the same.
the lower line shows a speed of 555kph with 50mm opened rads, and only 505kph with 310mm opened rads(which is not fully open).

50kph difference between not fully closed and not fully opened rads...

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by David198502

well that document is really hard to read....however how do you come to the conclusion of 5kph differnce?

maybe i read it wrong....there are two different graphs which show the speed per rads setting.
however both show a straight decreasing line with the same angle...so the difference remains the same.
the lower line shows a speed of 555kph with 50mm opened rads, and only 505kph with 310mm opened rads(which is not fully open).

50kph difference between not fully closed and not fully opened rads...

As noted, hard to read the graph, but assuming 'speed' is on the bottom (x axis) and that it goes as follows

520 - 530 - 540 - 550 - 560

Now looking at the point where the two curves intersect (y=0) the bottom (x axis) we have

1st @ ~523.5kph
2nd @ ~528.5kph

5 = 528.5 - 523.5

That is what I got, but again, I could be reading it wrong too.. That graph is hard to read

But..

Lets not use that graph.. Lets use the 109E data your claim was based on! That would be the correct thing to do! Now that I got your att on the subject!

[David198502]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

As noted, hard to read the graph, but assuming 'speed' is on the bottom (x axis) and that it goes as follows

520 - 530 - 540 - 550 - 560

Now looking at the point where the two curves intersect (y=0) the bottom (x axis) we have

1st @ ~523.5kph
2nd @ ~528.5kph

5 = 528.5 - 523.5

That is what I got, but again, I could be reading it wrong too.. That graph is hard to read

But..

Lets not use that graph.. Lets use the 109E data your claim was based on! That would be the correct thing to do! Now that I got your att on the subject!

the whole document is twisted 90° left.
so the speed is actually on the y axis.but there is also the temperature on the y axis as well in the lower half...
and the rads settings are on the x axis in mm.

so the doc you provided states a difference of more than 50kph between open and closed rads.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by David198502

the whole document is twisted 90° left.
so the speed is actually on the y axis.

Disagree.. Look at the top of the document.. The heading is not rotated, which is the way it is scanned in and how it will appear when you click on the link. Thus all my references are to how it is presented. PS the word is rotated not twisted

Originally Posted by David198502

but there is also the temperature on the y axis as well in the lower half...

Which pertains to the temperate graph.. which is not what we are talking about, we are talking about how it affected the speed

Originally Posted by David198502

and the rads settings are on the x axis in mm.

If you want to rotate the graph, go for it, but all my references are to the graph in how it is presented (un rotated) in a typical 8 1/2 by 11 sheet of paper

Originally Posted by David198502

so the doc you provided states a difference of more than 50kph between open and closed rads.

Nope..

Not based on the numbers I read, i.e.

(left) 520 - 530 - 540 - 550 - 560 (right)

[David198502]

as cheesehawk says!

ace is suggest you to buy glasses

[robtek]

The difference is about 50 km/h as i read it, as the two lines represent the DB601 and the DB605.

[addman]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

Addman, try to find the book called Lentäjän Näkökulma II (Pilot's Point of View II freely translated). Written by Jukka Raunio. ISBN 951-96866-0-6

Thanks! Found it at the city library, time to practice on that Finnish of mine.