REALISM RATING of the HSFX 4.1 Bf-109K-4

REALISM RATING of the HSFX 4.1 Bf-109K-4 - Printable Version

+- All-Aircraft-Simulations (https://allaircraftsimulations.com)
+-- Forum: Announcements & General Discussions & Hyper Lobby (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=264)
+--- Forum: General Discussions. (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=298)
+--- Thread: REALISM RATING of the HSFX 4.1 Bf-109K-4 (/showthread.php?tid=69652)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

- RedChico - 16.04.2010

ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:My German is not that good

Even though my grand mother and grand father on my mothers side came from German between WWI and WWII and my great grand mother and great grand father on my fathers side came from Germany before WWI (read Bloodline wise I am a full blooded German)

That and I don't exactally know what you mean by wich (which) one they are?

What this has to do with it? you still haven't answered my question.

Quote:Nothing secret about them

You can find them at severl sites on the web

So instead of me just giving them to you

This is a good opertunity for you to apreicate some of the things I have to do to produce a document

You go find them and than maybe you will have a little more apreication for all the work that goes into what I do

There out there

Lets see if your smart enough to find them

So, all you care about is the work, the slavery work, did i get that right? God forbid someone would find you secret ways of get sources, i bet you would feel completely loss.
Yes i could, but Warbirds are not my speciality and i'm already behind you (LIKE I SAID BEFORE, NOT A GRUDGE), i search the Internet and read books about Tanks and Warships, i rather apreciate your skills in gathering all that precious data.

But wait, no no no... your arrogance excedes even your pride in show others you knowledge.
Unlike me, i'm happy to spread the word about tanks/warships about their stories how their are great or suck, how they were made, how well they were used, etc....

Quote:What do you mean by references?

Can you be more specific?

But of course, references... i mean the speed/climb graphs you pasted on your "analisys", i bet they were part of a bigger thing (like a report, maybe?) and from what i read from Tank/Warship related material they usually have a serial number, name of department and so on, just like professional report, no flowers, no special font, no using templetes from NACA.

See i can also write stupid remarks, just like you do.

Quote:A1 I found them on the web
A2 The document number is displayed on the graph
A3 I don't know of anyone that owns it
A4 This is not from a book the author is most likly a group of German test engineers

Oops, shame, my friend, you haven't responded yet, read above about reports.

Quote:Well clearly you like so many others did not bother to read the pdf I provided before commenting on it

How sad

From section 6 REALISM RATING SUMMARY

I'm sorry but you couldn't be so wrong, because i read it 3 times just to make sure that you wrote any reference or bibliography, but no.... not even a word about it.

Section 6, yes yes, i know what you mean you are ONLY talking about those graphs, what about the rest?
I know from Tank/Warship related material that ACTUAL test were made to confirm the calculated data, for speed, turn radius, drive speeds and much much more.

Because i'm not arrogant i can tell, for example, that:

- armour penetration values for german tank guns from Internet and books are all from American and English tests (made against their steel, generally their best Homogenous steel).
- That all (naval, airforce, army) german guns of 20mm and above had High Explosive filling in their AP rounds, unlike most allied countries that only used solid shots right until 4 inch guns.

And i can tell you that i found it on Panzer Tracts, the Encyclopedia of German AFV's of WW2, WW2 weapons (all books).

Quote:Yes I get it

Your still upset with me for pointing out your errors in the past (read holding a grudge) and that your dont read something before commenting on it (read running your pie hole)

No you didn't and you still insulting, nice going mate.

- RedChico - 16.04.2010

ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:(...)
Im at work now and it being a military base they block forien sites(...)

So you work on a military base, good.
I presume that you have some sort of access (legal) to their archives relating german military equipment declassified documents?

- TheGrunch - 16.04.2010

Jesus Christ guys, is this petty little argument really important? ACE made a small language-related mistake (failing to understand an abbreviation of 'ohne' to 'o.' as meaning without) and now you're going to capitalise on the opportunity to make up for your failed argument in another thread on a completely unrelated topic? What's the point?

- ACE-OF-ACES - 16.04.2010

TheGrunch Wrote:Jesus Christ guys, is this petty little argument really important? ACE made a small language-related mistake (failing to understand an abbreviation of 'ohne' to 'o.' as meaning without) and now you're going to capitalise on the opportunity to make up for your failed argument in another thread on a completely unrelated topic? What's the point?

Yeah he is pretty upset..

Ill put a stop to this in my next post to him

- ACE-OF-ACES - 16.04.2010

RedChico Wrote:
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:(...)
Im at work now and it being a military base they block forien sites(...)

So you work on a military base, good.
I presume that you have some sort of access (legal) to their archives relating german military equipment declassified documents?

Here is the deal RedChico

I only have so many hours in a day

And spending all my time pointing out all your mistakes in the hopes that you will learn something is taking up a lot of that time

Only to have you play stupid and go off on some other tangent topic

Now I know your upset

But if you want any info from me other than what I have already provided here is what your going to have to do

Your going to have to apologies for all the silly stuff you have done

Im a big enough man to forgive and forget and than move on

The question is are you man enough to admit your mistakes and apologies for the things you have done?

And not one of those weak arse excuses like you tried to use in the other thread

For example.

RedChico Wrote:at least I'll say that i was wrong but partially.

In that there was nothing partial about it

You were totally wrong when you said the US captured a Ta183 prototype and took it back to the US for testing!!

Now here is the short list of things I will require an apologies and/or you admitting you were wrong If you want me to answer any of your questions from here on out

Code:
1) Admit you were completely wrong about the US capturing a Ta183 prototype

2) Apologize for resorting to calling me names in the other thread

3) Apologize for trying to paint me as being the problem when in fact you are the one that resorted to name calling

4) Apologize for not reading the pdf file before commenting on it (values calculated)

5) Apologize for trying to play the part of the victim

There is more but that should be enough

Now to be honest..

You and I both know your not man enough to admit you made a mistake

Let along man enough to apologize for all the things you have done

I am just doing this to highlight all the stuff you have done so that others will know why it is I am ignoring you from here on out

I hope I am wrong

But based on your actions over the past few months Im pretty sure I am not wrong about you

Im sure you will have some flipped response back to this

But know that I wont be wasting any more of my time on you

And anyone else with your attitude

In that you have added nothing to the topic thus far

Except to expose to us all just how upset you are with me for pointing out your mistakes

And that you didn't fully read and/or fully understand what you read in the pdf file before commenting on it

Because to be honest

Life is short and there are just too many other people here who actually have something to contribute to the topic at hand that I would much rather spend my time talking to

Unless I am really board than I do reserve the right to reply to you when I see you stick your foot in your mouth :twisted:

- ACE-OF-ACES - 16.04.2010

TheGrunch Wrote:I know you don't really approve of Kurfurst, but this chart may be more relevant to you (max 22.5m/s / 4430 fpm sea level):

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tes ... _steig.jpg

That's for the DB605DB/ASB (same as your speed chart) with MW-50 enabled up to 7.5km with either the 12159 or 12199 props.

Ah very cool..

I know I had this chart at one time, but I could not find it in my data base. Thanks for re-posting it

Now, just so I know, what is it on this chart that indicates it is the 'same as the speed chart' I used.. Just the engine type?

TheGrunch Wrote:The DB605D with MW and 12199 prop chart that he has on his website matches Oleggian climb-rates (~25m/s/~4900+ fpm), but I'm not really sure what to make of it as it's a huge improvement over every other chart and the engine type is not specified (just DB605D, not DC or DB or even DM) so it's possible that this one is the calculated one:

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tes ... _steig.jpg

It's a weird one that I'm slightly suspicious of.

I remeber this one from years ago over at ubi

Butch had a good reason for not using it..

But I can not remember what it is?

Ill see if I have it in my notes somewhere

Anyway it is late, but Ill re-do the analysis with these charts tommorow and update the pdf file

PS thanks for translating and making sence out of it all! S!

- LuckyOne - 16.04.2010

Do not worry Ace,maybe you made a minor mistake,but "someone" made mistake making Bf 109K [and many others a/c]with non historical characteristic and everyone accepts this as normal.Strange. :???:

- ACE-OF-ACES - 16.04.2010

LuckyOne Wrote:Do not worry Ace,maybe you made a minor mistake,but "someone" made mistake making Bf 109K [and many others a/c]with non historical characteristic and everyone accepts this as normal.Strange. :???:

Mistakes is how we learn sometimes

I have made plenty of them over the years

Admiting to them ASAP is something engineers learn to get use to

Especially an engineer who designs stuff for satellites

Like I did for years working at TRW (Later Northrop Grumman)

The sooner we found a mistake the better

And it was never to late to report a mistake

Because there is nothing worse than finding out about it after the satellite has been launched Wink

- TheGrunch - 17.04.2010

No problem! Yeah, it's just the same engine type that's certain...of course we're told that it's from a report that uses the standard Bf-109K4's performance as a baseline and calculates the improvement from a new prop, so that's something at least. The differences between the DB and DC seem to be simply that the DC can use C3 fuel so is later cleared for 1.98ata, and it has slightly worse performance at SL and slightly better performance at altitude.

- Trooper117 - 17.04.2010

Always good info on these threads and very informative, however, winding each other up and mud slinging is not good for the site image lads, so lets keep it nice and civil for future posts.. Thanks!

- ACE-OF-ACES - 17.04.2010

TheGrunch Wrote:No problem! Yeah, it's just the same engine type that's certain...of course we're told that it's from a report that uses the standard Bf-109K4's performance as a baseline and calculates the improvement from a new prop, so that's something at least. The differences between the DB and DC seem to be simply that the DC can use C3 fuel so is later cleared for 1.98ata, and it has slightly worse performance at SL and slightly better performance at altitude.

Thanks Grunch!

So just to make sure we are on the same sheet of music you would recomend I use the same speed chart I am using now but replace the rate of climb chart with that first one you provided, ie both the 1.8ata

And the 2nd one would be for the K4-C3 1.98ata

On that note is there a speed chard for the K4-C3 at 1.98ata?

- RedChico - 17.04.2010

Quote:In that there was nothing partial about it

You were totally wrong when you said the US captured a Ta183 prototype and took it back to the US for testing!!

Now here is the short list of things I will require an apologies and/or you admitting you were wrong If you want me to answer any of your questions from here on out

Let me explain a bit more, because you're the one not reading posts correctly.
The picture i posted is part of the Operation LUSTY (capture of german tech) and its on of the trips they made of course that picture shows 262's (i'm not stupid as you said i was) on the deck, also said that there's another picture of the other trip (taken from above, probably the bridge and wich i don't have, but seen it at least in a documentary) showing several other planes incluiding a He 162 and 1 airplane that i thought it was a Ta 183.
But what i was seeing after all was a Me P1101, it's very similar to the Ta 183, same wing configuration same fuselage configuration with the only diference of the elevator position.

Quote:There is more but that should be enough

Now to be honest..

You and I both know your not man enough to admit you made a mistake

Let along man enough to apologize for all the things you have done

1) I already admited but since you ask again, i'm sorry i was particially wrong on the grounds i wrote above.
2) I called my self what i called no to you, but one thing i'm not is arrogant (thats not a name but a trait), since it was you that called me more names than me.
3) Again it was you that did all the name calling.
4) I'll not apologize since i've read your 109K report and didn't find true references/bibliographies only 2 graphs.
5) All your imagination like mine imagening a Ta 183 instead of a Me P1101, silly me.

Quote:Im sure you will have some flipped response back to this

But know that I wont be wasting any more of my time on you

And anyone else with your attitude

In that you have added nothing to the topic thus far

Except to expose to us all just how upset you are with me for pointing out your mistakes

And that you didn't fully read and/or fully understand what you read in the pdf file before commenting on it

Because to be honest

Life is short and there are just too many other people here who actually have something to contribute to the topic at hand that I would much rather spend my time talking to

Unless I am really board than I do reserve the right to reply to you when I see you stick your foot in your mouth

I don't need to come up with any response cause you're already doing it for me, still insulting heim?

I also have some demands:

1) Remove your previous report of "IL2 P51D-30 vs real P51B", and replace with a "apples Vs apples" and if you don't have "real world data", don't post it.
I know that you say in your reports (and that means i've read it), those are calculated graphs but we (yes we) still need to see in what report they were in.... and you still haven't come up with that, hell i'm not asking where and how did you got them anymore.

2) Keep your report simple, don't paint them with fancy stuff like that NACA front page, or the old type font, you're doing these report to show us whats diferent and whats not and not to get a grade in school.

3) And, i know its hard, but stop being arrogant and rude, you had lots and lots of chances to do that but kept responding badly, not only against me but against others (that's is if you remember what you wrote). Because you're the only one here that's that rude and arrogant (not name calling but a trait that everyone doesn't like), not even me when i was a admin on AAA server, as i always had proof (replays) to back me up on all bans issued.

4) Apologize to us (yes not only me), it's not me who as to produce apologies because i only respond to insults.

Thats it, i'll rest my case when you do these points or when someone else gets involved to resolve this matter.

- ACE-OF-ACES - 17.04.2010

Thanks for proving what I allready knew..

Moving on

- ACE-OF-ACES - 17.04.2010

TheGrunch Wrote:No problem! Yeah, it's just the same engine type that's certain...of course we're told that it's from a report that uses the standard Bf-109K4's performance as a baseline and calculates the improvement from a new prop, so that's something at least. The differences between the DB and DC seem to be simply that the DC can use C3 fuel so is later cleared for 1.98ata, and it has slightly worse performance at SL and slightly better performance at altitude.

One more question

What is the signicants of the '5026/ 28' listed in the mid right hand side of that rate of climb chart?

- ACE-OF-ACES - 17.04.2010

Ok I updated the graphs and pdf with the new charts

Enjoy!