[RedChico]

Are you really reading the posts or are you just insulting everyone?

People are not questionning your statistical work with all the equations and graphs and whatever, i'm sure that everyone that had Statistics course in school can do this.

The question is:

Where did you get the real world data, wich document number, wich entity owns it, wich author... do you get get it?

And background of the planes tested? was it in working condiction? was it constituted by standard parts and equipment? what kind of fuel was used?




To Mods: They and me included already asked him nicely, all he did was responding with disrespect, take that in consideration please.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Are you really reading the posts or are you just insulting everyone?

Now this is funny

RedChico resorts to calling me names in another thread

Such that one of the mods had to edit his post

Now he wants to come over hear and act like some kind of victim

Nice try RedChico

But no sale

SAVVY?

[RedChico]

I called myself names, not to you, that shows the amount of arrogance and disrespect you have.
What about your response then? Instead of responding to me on a polite maner you kept insulting phrase upon phrase. Of course i knew those were 262's.
Victim? I don't need pity from others especially yours, i'm fine thanks for asking.
The problem is you not me.

Also, i already pointed to you your mistake comparing the IL2 P51 D30NA against a real a P51 B we (me and others) told to compare apples with apples mean P51 D30 against P51 D30 and if you don't have real world data then do not compare, but you acted arrogant because you're rigth and the rest of the world is wrong isn't that correct?

I'm still waiting for the original documents of all your comparisons, ACE-OF-ACES.

[Thunda]

Im with RedChico on this- seems all you have is some highly questionable data, and a bad attitude. Im dying to see this original document that totally proves these exact claims of performance- the PDF proves nothing. But you dont want to discuss, you want to insult- are you sure you work in research?

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I called myself names, not to you, that shows the amount of arrogance and disrespect you have.

That is your story

But clearly the mod did not buy your story either

In that he edited your post

Again nice try

But no sale

What about your response then? Instead of responding to me on a polite maner you kept insulting phrase upon phrase.

I simply quoted what you said to me back to you

Of course i knew those were 262's.

Truth be told the only reason your posting in this thread is because you are still upset with me for pointing out your error in the other thread

Readers Digest version of the othe thread

I and others were talking about the Ta183 and how the drawings and blue prints at Luft46 are all fake

And that the likly hood of the Ta183 being build in WWII were slim to none in that all they really had to show for it was a wooden wind tunnel model

At which point you decided to chime in and say that not only are their real blue prints but that the Germans had build a prototype and that the US had captured said prototype and brought it bacck to the US for testing.

At which point alot of us got a pretty good laugh at your expence

In that was not true

You confused a Messer prototye with the Fockwolf Ta183

And now here you are still upset and trying to get some sort of payback for me pointing our your mistake

Victim? I don't need pity from others especially yours, i'm fine thanks for asking.

Yes victiim

And you have my pitty wether you like it or not

In that it is pretty sad that you feel the need to come to post in this thread because you made such a fool of yourself in the other thread

The problem is you not me.

Classic

Your the one that had to resort to name calling

Such that the mod had to edit your post

And I am the problem?

Again

Nice try

But no sale

Also, i already pointed to you your mistake comparing the IL2 P51 D30NA against a real a P51 B we (me and others) told to compare apples with apples mean P51 D30 against P51 D30 and if you don't have real world data then do not compare, but you acted arrogant because you're rigth and the rest of the world is wrong isn't that correct?

Correct

So add that to the list of things your still upset about

It would be one thing if I tried to hide the fact that I was comparing P51B data to a P51D

But I didn't and I clearly noted the limitaions of the comparson

I'm still waiting for the original documents of all your comparisons, ACE-OF-ACES.

I know

You hang on my every word

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Im with RedChico on this- seems all you have is some highly questionable data, and a bad attitude. Im dying to see this original document that totally proves these exact claims of performance- the PDF proves nothing. But you dont want to discuss, you want to insult- are you sure you work in research?

That is a neat theory

Tell you what

Allow me to pull a Bill move here and task you with the job

In that I can re-do this test in a min or two

So why don't you go find the Bf-109K-4 data you like and I will use it in place of my data

But I will only do it if you go find all the info that RedChico said must be preset for it to be valid

Now before you do that

Allow me to make a little prediction

Chances are good that your going to end up finding the data I have in my pdf

I have three real world tests of the Bf109K-4

Of the three the one I used has the best results

Good luck!

[LuckyOne]

Well,I can see and conclude that major fuss is when someone touch in reality of German a/c...and that is very indicative for me.WHY??

Ace worked over realism rating of many a/c such as Sabre,MiG-15,P-51,P-47,P-38..etc.and no one make any fuss about those a/c.But,when someone "touch" realism and clearly visible non historic characteristic of some German a/c,that is heresy.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Well,I can see and conclude that major fuss is when someone touch in reality of German a/c...and that is very indicative for me.WHY??

Ace worked over realism rating of many a/c such as Sabre,MiG-15,P-51,P-47,P-38..etc.and no one make any fuss about those a/c.But,when someone "touch" realism and clearly visible non historic characteristic of some German a/c,that is heresy.

I have run into those types in the past

Very ugly bunch

I hope that is not the case here

Most of what we have seen thus far in this thread IMHO is due to people who had their minds made up before they even read anything (read closed minds) and people who could not admit they were wrong in other threads and are still upset with me for pointing out thier mistakes (read hold a grudge)

Or it could be a combination of all thee above

I just hope that is not the case

[RedChico]

(...) I have three real world tests of the Bf109K-4 (...)

And wich are they?
Or are they top secret and only you can see them?



Your PDF's only have 2 items of original documents (the speed and climb graphs), but no reference to the actual documents.

So i ask again:

Where did you get the real world data, wich document number, wich entity owns it, wich author... do you get get it?

And background of the planes tested? was it in working condiction? was it constituted by standard parts and equipment? what kind of fuel was used?

[ACE-OF-ACES]

And wich are they?

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?

Or are they top secret and only you can see them?

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

Your PDF's only have 2 items of original documents (the speed and climb graphs), but no reference to the actual documents.

What do you mean by references?

Can you be more specific?

So i ask again:

Where did you get the real world data, wich document number, wich entity owns it, wich author...

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

And background of the planes tested?
was it in working condiction?
was it constituted by standard parts and equipment? what kind of fuel was used?

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

[quote]The HSFX4.1 Bf−109K−4 is a stock IL−2 flight model. Though the top speed is a little low, it falls within the generally accepted 5% error window. As for the rate of climb, it far exceeds the 5% error widow, with a max error of around 37% at 15,000ft and an average error of about 21%. [b][color=yellow]To make maters worse, the real world data provided consists of

[TheGrunch]

ACE, just to chime in...the climb rate graph that you've used says at the top "DB605DC/ASC o. MW f

[ACE-OF-ACES]

[quote="TheGrunch"]ACE, just to chime in...the climb rate graph that you've used says at the top "DB605DC/ASC o. MW f

[TheGrunch]

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):

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.

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:


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

[ACE-OF-ACES]

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):

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.

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:


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

Well..

Don't get me wrong

Kurfurst (known as Krusty to by some of us ex ubi members)

Has done alot of good leg work gathering up alot of good data

But his bias runs deep

If it was just that than all one would have to do is look at the raw data that he presents and draw you own conclusions from it instead of reading his conclusions and or his interpretations of it

But

I have caught him red handed in the past flat out lying and even going as far as to falsfy data

So at this point I am suspect of anything presented at his site

Im at work now and it being a military base they block forien sites

So Ill have to take a look at your link when I get home

If it looks like it has not been tampered with Ill be more than glad to use it

And thanks for taking the time to actully read the pdf I put out

And thanks for taking the time to translate it

Like I said everyone in my family is of German decent

So I grew up hearing alot of German being spoken and could speak it pretty well

Than when I was in the Army station in Germany I learned how speak it some more

But I could never read it well

So thanks for your help!

[TheGrunch]

No problem, I'm just as interested in the accuracy of the comparison as you are. Can't say I've been on the wrong side of those kind of activities from Kurfurst myself. According to Kurf the second chart I quote is a DB605DC at 1.98ata using C3 fuel where all the rest are at 1.8ata, and this explains the discrepancy. Which means that the K4 FM has the ROC of a K4-C3, and the K4-C3 is far too high (at about 5200fpm where it should be ~4900fpm). The K4 FM should ideally be closer to about 4400-4500fpm.