Bf109E-3

[Hood]

I'm trying to up the speed of the Bf109E-3 so that I can catch Spit IIas at sea level. The most I can get it to (from 500m to 2,000m) is 400km/h on the clock. I've been playing with the boost settings even using WEP with ATA at 1.45 and rpm at just under 3,000, then played with the pitch.

Any tips for getting it faster? Thanks

Hood

[scorpac]

push

[scorpac]

wanna know the same...

[doghous3]

I started ranting about non-CEM MP server's. About how the BF109E performance is nerfed. It is but I did some research just after on the planes.

It turns out that the Spitfire could fly faster than the BF109 at level flight. Could dive faster. Obviously out-turn it, and if I remember rightly, could climb better too.

It was said that the German pilots would rely on their wingman when dealing with the Spitfire.

The BF109E did perform better at high altitude though.

I'll try to find the article again as perhaps it's information wasn't truely correct, but it was just a random google search. Sorry for no link.

[*Buzzsaw*]

I started ranting about non-CEM MP server's. About how the BF109E performance is nerfed. It is but I did some research just after on the planes.

It turns out that the Spitfire could fly faster than the BF109 at level flight. Could dive faster. Obviously out-turn it, and if I remember rightly, could climb better too.

It was said that the German pilots would rely on their wingman when dealing with the Spitfire.

The BF109E did perform better at high altitude though.

I'll try to find the article again as perhaps it's information wasn't truely correct, but it was just a random google search. Sorry for no link.

Salute

The 109 was faster over about 20,000, where they normally were in their escort role.

They had better dive acceleration, which was added to by the fact they could just 'bunt' their nose down, whereas the Spit had to roll inverted before diving otherwise Negative G cutout became a factor.

Climb depended on the altitude.

Of course, the speed advantage for the Spitfire down low is for the properly modelled +12 boost Spitfire I and II. The way the Spits are modelled now at +6, you can't catch a 109.

Although AI of all varieties will outfly humans and get much better performance. That is why when you take a Spit II as a human and try to catch an AI 109, you won't. And if you switch to the 109, and chase the Spit, you still can't catch your opponent.

At least that's my experience, I'd be interested in hearing others explain how to get more performance.

Of course, the Spit I's in the game, both the standard and Ia are completely porked. Both have the dual speed props, which is not accurate. 100% of the Spit I's with De Havilland dual speed props were converted to De Havilland constant speed props, most by the end of the first week of July, the rest by the end of August. Plus all new models coming out of the factory had Rotol constant speed props factory installed.

[KeBrAnTo]

It turns out that the Spitfire could fly faster than the BF109 at level flight. Could dive faster. Obviously out-turn it, and if I remember rightly, could climb better too.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: LOL , According to your words, let me ask you one question: What is "level" flight for you?, flying low?.

In that case there you go, have some additional reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_level
http://avstop.com/ac/flighttrainghandbook/straightandlevelflight.html

You know , listening to you it turns out that Spitfire rocked even more than in IL2 1946! :-P. FGS

S!

[doghous3]

That's pedantic old bean.

Straight and level flight, and low level. Seeing as you seem more knowledgable in aviation terminology I would have thought you'd understand it; instead of being condescending.

At least I gave you a laugh.

[Winger]

Try lowering the pitch so RPM are around 2100-2300 and ATA around 1.3 Throttle to full. Youll constantly have to adjust the pitch in order to maintain RPM while velocity increases. It takes a bit but it should get you to 450 at least at sea level.
It feels a bit like accelerating in a car using a high gear. In fact its nothing else.
Just as a hint. I use a Thrustmaster hotas Warthog. It has a dual throttle lever. For 1 engine planes i set the left throttle to actually be throttle and the right one to prop pitch. In fact during combat i most of the time regulate RPM via pitch. Not throttle.

Winger

[JG52Uther]

Try lowering the pitch so RPM are around 2100-2300 and ATA around 1.3 Throttle to full. Youll constantly have to adjust the pitch in order to maintain RPM while velocity increases. It takes a bit but it should get you to 450 at least at sea level.
It feels a bit like accelerating in a car using a high gear. In fact its nothing else.
Just as a hint. I use a Thrustmaster hotas Warthog. It has a dual throttle lever. For 1 engine planes i set the left throttle to actually be throttle and the right one to prop pitch. In fact during combat i most of the time regulate RPM via pitch. Not throttle.

Winger
^ This.
Full throttle plus full pitch does not mean max speed. I use a saitek throttle quad,and have 1 lever for throttle and 1 for pitch,and I move pitch more than throttle.

[609_Huetz]

Spot on Winger. I was just running down the same two guys over and over on LeadFarmers MP server. If you don't get the pitch right, even a Hurricane will catch you if handled correctly.

[JG53Frankyboy]

Horsepower output of a DB601Aa at very low alt: 1175hp with 1min emergency boost at 2500rpm
with full power (without boost) it would be 1015hp at 2400rpm for 5min.

[Kurfürst]

There's a small control bug with the 109E-3 when antropomorphic controls are enabled: using the flap wheel you can't trim the tailplane at the same time with the other wheel, but in reality both were located on the same place for exactly this reason: so they could be operated at the same time by the left hand. Pilot could thus compensate for trim changes occuring from lowering the flaps.

It should be changed that using the flaps do not disable elevator trim on 109E.

" Longitudinal trimming is effected by means of an adjustable tailplane having a 12 deg. incidence range and operated mechanically from a handwheel on the pilot's left; this wheel is mounted concentrically with the flap-actuating wheel, and by winding both wheels together the pilot automatically compensates for the change of trim due to flaps.

...

4.23. Longitudinal. – The adjustable tailplane is controlled from a 11.7-in. diameter wheel on the pilot's left (Fig. 3) ; 5.75 turns are required to move the tailplane through its full angular range (+ 3.4 deg. to - 8.4 deg.) and the wheel rotation is in the natural sense, i.e. winding forward pushes the nose of the aircraft down."

http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_UKtrials/Morgan.html

[6S.Manu]

Try lowering the pitch so RPM are around 2100-2300 and ATA around 1.3 Throttle to full. Youll constantly have to adjust the pitch in order to maintain RPM while velocity increases. It takes a bit but it should get you to 450 at least at sea level.
It feels a bit like accelerating in a car using a high gear. In fact its nothing else.
Just as a hint. I use a Thrustmaster hotas Warthog. It has a dual throttle lever. For 1 engine planes i set the left throttle to actually be throttle and the right one to prop pitch. In fact during combat i most of the time regulate RPM via pitch. Not throttle.

Winger

Me and my teammate got a problem climbing instead (never tried to find out the max speed).

We start with both oil and water radiators at 80°, and we keep these temperatures during all the flight.
Throttle fixed at 100% and we work with the PP to keep 2000/2100 RPM. Speed 260km/h.

At something like 2,5km of altitude we start to see light shakes (something like one every 5 seconds) and this goes worser the more alt we gain (finally we have a shake every second)

Initially we thought it was a problem of wind or turbolence but at those altitudes the air should be quite (at 5km the shaking is unstoppable)

Because of this our speed falls and after a pair of minutes we have backfire problems.

So we tried to turn down the throttle and the shakes disappear, but can't pull it up that the shaking starts again.

If you have a backfire problem from a exhaust how do you act? I tried to close the fuel but the flames are still there...

[Hellbender]

I assume the engine preasure is to high to a long time. Keep it to max 1.25 ATA (so says the manual) while travelling.

[Deadstick]

I assume the engine preasure is to high to a long time. Keep it to max 1.25 ATA (so says the manual) while travelling.

Not sure if that works while climbing though. ATA is (AFAIK), an instrument measuring pressure, kind of like the manifold instrument on Allied aircraft.

As the air gets thinner the higher you go, and as your engine needs air to breath to work efficiently, you will lose power the higher you go.

BUT there were these things called superchargers, which gave the engine extra boost at high altitude.

The 109E had an absolute service ceiling of around 32,000ft (9,700m), and I guess performance was pretty sloppy that high, but you should be able to get to around 20,000ft (6000m) before performance starts dropping off noticeably.

Here is a link to British evaluation tests of captured 109Es: http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_UKtrials/Morgan.html

The first graph shows climb performance.

[mattag08]

If what you guys are reporting is true about lowering propeller pitch to gain the best speed out of the aircraft then something is wrong. That's anti-thetical to the physics/chemistry of a constant speed prop. A propeller should develop max rated thrust at it's max rated RPM. End of story.

[*Buzzsaw*]

If what you guys are reporting is true about lowering propeller pitch to gain the best speed out of the aircraft then something is wrong. That's anti-thetical to the physics/chemistry of a constant speed prop. A propeller should develop max rated thrust at it's max rated RPM. End of story.

The 109 didn't have a constant speed prop.

[Corrvan]

If what you guys are reporting is true about lowering propeller pitch to gain the best speed out of the aircraft then something is wrong. That's anti-thetical to the physics/chemistry of a constant speed prop. A propeller should develop max rated thrust at it's max rated RPM. End of story.

Where are you getting this information?
This is completley incorrect in the mooney M20j.

[Winger]

Me and my teammate got a problem climbing instead (never tried to find out the max speed).

We start with both oil and water radiators at 80°, and we keep these temperatures during all the flight.
Throttle fixed at 100% and we work with the PP to keep 2000/2100 RPM. Speed 260km/h.

At something like 2,5km of altitude we start to see light shakes (something like one every 5 seconds) and this goes worser the more alt we gain (finally we have a shake every second)

Initially we thought it was a problem of wind or turbolence but at those altitudes the air should be quite (at 5km the shaking is unstoppable)

Because of this our speed falls and after a pair of minutes we have backfire problems.

So we tried to turn down the throttle and the shakes disappear, but can't pull it up that the shaking starts again.

If you have a backfire problem from a exhaust how do you act? I tried to close the fuel but the flames are still there...

I am soryr but i have no clue about that. I am quite a beginner in WW2 aircraft and do not have big experience. I experienced those shakes too but i thought it would be turbulences too...

Winger

[JG52Uther]

Wonder if there is a bug with the mixture...Its auto so we can't change it,but it sounds like the mix is too rich at altitude.

[6S.Manu]

Wonder if there is a bug with the mixture...Its auto so we can't change it,but it sounds like the mix is too rich at altitude.

We can change the Mix also in the 109 (the central of the 3 levels near the throttle).

Today I tried again with my friends in multiplayer (with the "mod" finally we can fly together, but the multiplay "seems" limited to 6 players, have you ever hosted for more humans?): flying in a inflight 109 (former AI) I reached the 5 km before any shake. Maybe I had the first shake after x seconds from the airplane selection (takeoff/2,5km = 2km/5km)

I really don't know: anyway we tested some SpitIIa vs 109E4 and, I'm really sorry to say it, but the energy management seems to be AGAIN the one of IL2 version < 4.10.

It was our first real test, so probably we are still noobs with the full EM: anyway the 109 seems to lose tons of energy in a candle.

I'm still optimist (but please I can't wait AGAIN 10 years to have good FMs): for now the priorities are others I hope.

[ICDP]

The Spitfire Mk IIa is modelled quite well for a +12 lbs boost version (even thought he boost shows as +8 lbs). Unfortunately the 109 is about 30-60 kph too slow at all altitudes.

That would explain why your 109 lost so much energy, it simply has too little power.

[David198502]

We can change the Mix also in the 109 (the central of the 3 levels near the throttle).

Today I tried again with my friends in multiplayer (with the "mod" finally we can fly together, but the multiplay "seems" limited to 6 players, have you ever hosted for more humans?): flying in a inflight 109 (former AI) I reached the 5 km before any shake. Maybe I had the first shake after x seconds from the airplane selection (takeoff/2,5km = 2km/5km)

I really don't know: anyway we tested some SpitIIa vs 109E4 and, I'm really sorry to say it, but the energy management seems to be AGAIN the one of IL2 version < 4.10.

It was our first real test, so probably we are still noobs with the full EM: anyway the 109 seems to lose tons of energy in a candle.

I'm still optimist (but please I can't wait AGAIN 10 years to have good FMs): for now the priorities are others I hope.

how can you change the mixture in the bf?im only able to set it either to 100% or 0% and nothing in between:confused:

[6S.Manu]

how can you change the mixture in the bf?im only able to set it either to 100% or 0% and nothing in between:confused:

Two stages like you describe: maybe is something like 100% - 80%

@ICDP probably you're right!

[David198502]

Two stages like you describe: maybe is something like 100% - 80%

@ICDP probably you're right!

well maybe you are right.but reducing the mix doesnt help anyway.i climbed to about 7000m.on that altitude the bf climbs like my grandma goes upstairs. puffs coming out of the exhaust pipes every second and the whole plane shakes like Michael J. Fox.(sorry for that one)i reduced mixture and the engine almost stops.:confused:

[41Sqn_Banks]

Spitfire and Hurricane seem to have the same problem. I thought this is caused by "less than 1 g cut outs" but it looks like a more general problem.

[mattag08]

The 109 didn't have a constant speed prop.
It's identical for a constant pitch prop too. The pilot just has to do the work is all.

[mattag08]

Where are you getting this information?
This is completley incorrect in the mooney M20j.
I guess the M20J defies the laws of physics.

[IvanK]

As I understand it the lever currently labelled Mixture control in the BF109E3 was actually there to alter the timing purely to allow burning off the plugs (removing Oil fouling) and was only done on the ground. Once in flight Fuel injection did its thing. In short the 109E3 didnt have any mixture control.

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/5955/nomix109e1.jpg

I grew up understanding Max power and Speed was MAX BOOST and MAX RPM

[Kurfürst]

I did some testing with the E-3 today for speed at 0 and 5 km rated altitudes, and climb between 0 and 6000 meter.

Refer below to my findings, compared graphically to the actual Bf 109E Specification sheets of 1939, found here: http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_Baubeschreibung/109E3_Baubeschreibung.html

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/1320/il2code3speedtest.png (http://img696.imageshack.us/i/il2code3speedtest.png/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/9186/il2code3climbtest.png (http://img718.imageshack.us/i/il2code3climbtest.png/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

[unreasonable]

That is interesting - assuming your flying was accurate the climb is linear as opposed to showing the drop off shown in the manual data - suggests something missing from the CEM model/FM, air density?

That is apart from the difference of the slope...

[III/JG11_Simmox]

yea,sadly the 109s an absolute pig at the moment
hasnt a snowballs chance in hell against the spit II.multiplayer.

the spits II were running rings around me ,even when i had the advantage,so,a little depressed at my pathetic skills,i took a spit II up for a spin

needless to say,it was obvious why i was struggling against them
the energy they can retain is excellent
took on 2 109s and a G50 together at low alt and was in no danger of being shot down,the energy advantage made it just so much of an advantage,to get stuck in and just turn and burn
fast on the deck and climb well,the only place i was struggling against the 109,was at 5k,where the 109 should be better,even then i reckon i was gaining,but,hard to say.

so in short,im quiting the fatherland,and mother england,here i come:)

[6S.Manu]

so in short,im quiting the fatherland,and mother england,here i come:)
http://www.jimbo.info/weblog/archives/invasion23.jpg

[Winger]

I did some testing with the E-3 today for speed at 0 and 5 km rated altitudes, and climb between 0 and 6000 meter.

Refer below to my findings, compared graphically to the actual Bf 109E Specification sheets of 1939, found here: http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_Baubeschreibung/109E3_Baubeschreibung.html

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/1320/il2code3speedtest.png (http://img696.imageshack.us/i/il2code3speedtest.png/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/9186/il2code3climbtest.png (http://img718.imageshack.us/i/il2code3climbtest.png/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

I realized the lack of performance in the 109 too. 1c REALLY has to do something to fix that "unintentional mismodeling" in FM:)

Winger

[robtek]

I've tried today to reach the max. service altitude of 11.000m.

In short: NO WAY!

The engine is sputtering and quitting at 7.400m, Oil-temp fluctuating from 0 to 120 degree, water temp and fuel level also fluctuating without appearant reason.

Free-flight over France - Map. Full CEM on.

Same with the Bf110, altough only 7000m max.
Same fluctuations.

It seems that the engines are not modelled correctly.
Though, the spit II has a max. ceiling of 18.000ft -> ca. 5.500m.

Maybe the problem is in the atmosphere-modeling, but then again, according to some posters in this forum the spit does reach max speed.

[Kurfürst]

Could be a problem with auto-mixture, as some posters suspect, I can see some black puffs coming out from the exhausts periodically..

[Kurfürst]

That is interesting - assuming your flying was accurate the climb is linear as opposed to showing the drop off shown in the manual data - suggests something missing from the CEM model/FM, air density?

That is apart from the difference of the slope...

I've noticed the same. VSI readings during the climb were pretty constant, given the DB power curve and historical 109 climb curves, I'd expect climb to rise up to ca. 2000m, then decrease slowly up to the rated altitude, and drop off much quicker (engine is running out of umph, and the air is thinner too). The Il-2 manual's graph suggests the same..

Instead, its just like in Il-2, climb rate does not change much, if at all straight up from SL to rated altitude, then its dropping off... frankly I am disappointed quite a bit. Stalls don't show much improvement, CEM so-so (ie. rpm-boost limitations and detonation still not present), individual control characteristics and harmony for planes non-existant... they all feel the same. And I've found it impossible to break structure with even the silliest manouvres. Overspeeding kills it, but that's all...

:(

[JZG_Con]

The Spitfire Mk IIa is modelled quite well for a +12 lbs boost version (even thought he boost shows as +8 lbs). Unfortunately the 109 is about 30-60 kph too slow at all altitudes.

That would explain why your 109 lost so much energy, it simply has too little power.

oh .no not again , well the new patched worked wonders for me , but ive def lost some speed ..energy ..bf 109. :(

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

I have rarely flown the 109 up to now but on some forums the rumor rans that the mixture ratio of the 109 is messed up and only has 0 or 100%. Could this be the reason why the performance is lacking? I could imagine that optimising the mixture also might be a factor for engine power ...

I am just guessing ...

[Hunin]

Unfortunatly I don't have time to dig my teeth into this right now but here is the relevant ingame data.

Quick first impressions:

1. Cl max seems too low for both retracted and fully extended flaps.
Should be 1.4 and 1.9 according to british testing, 1.3 and 1.62 ingame atm.

2. Turn time of 25 seconds corresponds with british testing but is significantly higher then the 18. something stated in the official Baubeschreibung.

3. 460 km/h on the deck corresponds with both german testing of Wrk.Nr. 1792
and swiss testing. The Baubeschreibung on the other hand gives 500 km/h.
Any ideas where that difference might come from Kurfy?

Anyway here are the cold hard facts:

;
; Messerschmitt Bf. 109 E-3 Flightmodel
;

;
[Aircraft]
;

Wingspan 9.867 m
Length 8.738 m

;
[Systems]
;

Propulsion Engine Daimler-Benz DB601A Propellor VDM Generic
Hydraulics Source Engine0 Pressure 100 bar Reservoir 8.5 pt
Electrics Source Engine0 Voltage 25.1 V BatteryCapacity 54 Ah GeneratorOutput 650 sW at 2000 RPM

LandingFlaps Mechanical Extends 25 sec
Undercarriage Retractable Hydraulic Extends 5.0 sec Folds Outwards OperatesThrough 320 kmh EmergencySystem PneumaticDischarge SafetyLock Nil SpringsStiffness Main 0.6 Tail 0.6 MaxDragEquivalentS 0.7 m2
WheelBrakes Hydraulic Efficiency 1.5
Fenster Mechanical Opens 0.5 sec
PitotHeater Electrical
LeadingEdgeSlats Mechanical Automatic Move 0.1 sec ResponseRange 15.0 to 15.01 deg

Hatch0 Mechanical Motion Type SwingingForward Time 2.0 sec Jettison Type Detachable Time 0.2 sec
Hatch1 Mechanical Motion Type Nil Time 0.0 sec Jettison Type Detachable Time 0.2 sec

;
[Controls]
;

Aileron Slider Threshold 340 kmh
Elevator Slider Threshold 400 kmh
Rudder Slider Threshold 400 kmh

AileronTrim Nil Default 0.017
ElevatorTrim Slider Range -0.5 to 0.5 Default 0.25
RudderTrim Nil Default 0.06

EngineThrottle Slider
EnginePitch Slider
EngineMagneto Switch M0 M1 M2 M12
EngineRadiator Rocker
EngineOilRadiator Slider
EngineMix Toggle
EngineWEP PushButton
EngineMix Toggle

LandingFlaps Rocker
Undercarriage Switch Up Neutral Down
UndercarriageEmergency ExpendableSwitch Close Open
WheelBrakes Slider
Fenster Toggle
AltimeterPinion Rocker Range 795 to 1040 Default 1000 mbar
Puppet0PriPitLight Slider
Puppet0SightLight Slider
NavSecFrequency Rocker
Timer0 CyclicSwitch
AcemakerSight Dimmer Toggle
TankSelector0 Toggle Off On Parked 0 Cruise 1 Selection 0 Flow FuelTank 1 to FuelTank 0 at 1 kg per second Selection 1 Flow FuelTank 1 to FuelTank 0 at 1 kg per second + FuelTank 0 to Engine 0
HydraulicsHandPump PushButton
PitotHeater Toggle
Timer0 CyclicSwitch

Puppet0Hatch Toggle Close Open Selection 0 Closes Hatch 0 Selection 1 Opens Hatch 0
Puppet0Jettison ExpendableSwitch Off On Selection 1 Sheds Hatch 0 Hatch 1

;
[Instruments]
;

EngineFuelPress Hydraulic Range 0 to 2 kgcm2
EngineOilPress Hydraulic Range 0 to 10 kgcm2
EngineOilTemp Electrical Range 0 to 120 C
EngineWaterTemp Electrical Range 0 to 120 C
EngineManifoldPress Mechanical Range 0.6 to 1.8 bar
EngineRPM Electrical Range 600 to 3600 RPM
EnginePropPitch Mechanical Range 0 to 12 hour
Speedometer Mechanical Range 0 to 800 kmh Pitot Kollsman
Altimeter Mechanical Dimension m
MagneticCompass Mechanical JamAngle 90.0 deg
SlipIndicator Mechanical Amplitude 12.0 deg
TurnIndicator Mechanical Source Primary NominalTurnTime 2 min
FuelReserve Electrical Range 0 to 400 litre
ArtificialHorizon Mechanical Source Primary Pitch Range -45 to 45 deg Roll Range -181 to 181 deg

GyroFeed Primary Electrical Secondary Nil

;
[Mass]
;

Empty 2060 kg
TakeOff 2600 kg
Fuel 300 kg
FuelTanks Aluminum 100 kg Aluminum 200 kg
FuelFillingOrder Tank 0 Tank 1

;
[Squares]
;

Wing 16.4 m2
Aileron 1.1 m2
Flap 2.0 m2
Stabilizer 1.90 m2
Elevator 1.20 m2
Keel 1.00 m2
Rudder 1.10 m2

;
[Arm]
;

Aileron 2.03 m
Flap 2.04 m
Stabilizer 5.15 m
Keel 5.18 m
Elevator 5.35 m
Rudder 5.45 m
Wing_In 1.25 m
Wing_Mid 2.50 m
Wing_Out 4.10 m
GCenter 0.05 m
GCenterZ 0.00 m
GC_AOA_Shift 0.45 m
GC_Flaps_Shift 0.20 m
GC_Gear_Shift 0.05 m
Wing_V 1.5

;
[Params]
;

SpinCxLoss 0.06
SpinCyLoss 0.03

Vmin 170.0 kmh
Vmax 470.0 kmh
VmaxAllowed 750.0 kmh
VmaxH 560.0 kmh at 4500.0 m
VminFLAPS 130.0 kmh
VmaxFLAPS 250.0 kmh
Vz_climb 20.0 ms
V_climb 270.0 kmh
T_turn 25.0 sec
V_turn 340.0 kmh
K_max 13.0
FlapsMult 1.0
FlapsAngSh 10.0

RangeAbility 480 km

SensYaw 0.6
SensPitch 0.7
SensRoll 0.32

;
[Polares]
;

lineCyCoeff 0.091
AOAMinCx_Shift 0.2
Cy0_0 0.15
AOACritH_0 18.0
AOACritL_0 -15.0
CyCritH_0 1.3
CyCritL_0 -0.64417434
CxMin_0 0.0275
parabCxCoeff_0 6.2E-4
Cy0_1 0.55
AOACritH_1 17.0
AOACritL_1 -19.0
CyCritH_1 1.62
CyCritL_1 -0.7
CxMin_1 0.11
parabCxCoeff_1 8.7E-4

slatAOACritHInc 3.0
slatCyCritHInc 1.3
slatParabCxCoeffInc 0.8E-4

parabAngle 5.0
Decline 0.010
maxDistAng 35.0

; ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[DB601A]
; ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


General MaximalPower 1020 sPS DryWeight 590 kg Displacement 33.9 litre Cylinders 12 Bore 150 mm Stroke 160 mm Compression 6.9
Reliability Lifetime 100 h FailureProbability 0.0

RPM Minimal 500 Nominal 2200 Maximal 2326 Saturated 9999 Continuous 2326 Limiting 3000 Direction Right
Intake Ramming 0.5
Exhaust PlainBackpipe
Supercharger SingleStageHydroCoupling Efficiency 0.23 LimiterInput Manifold NominalPressure 1.35 bar ContinuousPressure 1.2 bar WEPPressure 1.45 bar NominalAltitude 4500 m
Valvetrain Generic SlowRunningEfficiency 0.1
FuelPump Pushrod NominalPressure 3 bar at 500 RPM
Carburettor GenericDirectInjection OrificeSlowFast 0.05 sec Dresser ThrottleDriven Input 0.75 to 1.0 Output 1.0 to 1.2
Starter Mechanical
Ignition DualMagneto FrontEfficiency 0.57

Throttle Slider Translation Linear Bore 7.9 cm IdleOpening 0.05 WEPType ClockworkWEPModeToggle OperatingTime 1 min CooldownTime 10 sec
Pitch Slider Angle Min 82 deg Max 26 deg WEP 40 deg Feathering Nil
Mix Slider Multiplier Range 0.7 to 1.0

CylinderHead Material CastIron Temperatures Min 120 C Nominal 140 C Max 160 C
AirRadiator Tunnel Louvre Nil FlowControl Nil
Water Material Glycol Reserve 75 kg Temperatures Min 40 C Nominal 94 C Max 115 C
WaterRadiator ThermostatedTunnel Pressurized Louvre Mechanical OpensAt 80 C FlowControl Manual ContinuousAt 0.25 MinimalDragAt 0.25 MaxDragEquivalentS 100 cm2
Oil Material Oil Reserve 8.5 gal Pressure 70 lbsqin at 600 RPM Temperatures Min 30 C Nominal 75 C Max 105 C
OilRadiator ThermostatedTunnel Louvre Mechanical OpensAt 20 C FlowControl Manual ContinuousAt 0.25 MinimalDragAt 0.25 MaxDragEquivalentS 100 cm2

Propellor Reductor 0.64516129 Governor VariablePitch BladeAngleSpeed 1 degsec

SoundName motor.merlin

;
[Generic]
;

Construction VisualModel VDM Diameter 3100 mm Blades 3 BladeBreadthK 0.8 Mass 140 kg AngleRange 26 deg to 82 deg
DeIcing Nil

lineCyCoeff 0.07
AOAMinCx_Shift 0.0
Cy0_0 0.0
AOACritH_0 24.0
AOACritL_0 -22.0
CyCritH_0 1.3
CyCritL_0 -0.8
CxMin_0 0.02
parabCxCoeff_0 3.8E-4

parabAngle 7.0
Decline 0.002
maxDistAng 40.0

;

[unreasonable]

If this data is from the game files it shows V climb as 270kmh. (I assume this is supposed to be Vy - speed for best rate of climb). Kurfurst's test used a start speed of 250kmh. This might explain why the slope is "wrong".

Retest? (I am nowhere near a good enough pilot to do it myself I am afraid).

[609_Huetz]

That still will leave us at the problem that the mixture is not working correctly on either side - red or blue.

My concern, the higher you get, the more your data will be off due to this.

[Hunin]

I suspect it has something to do with this:

Mix Slider Multiplier Range 0.7 to 1.0

If my guess is correct and the function is linear ( 1 beeing full rich and 0 beeing full lean ) a mixture of 70 % seems awefully rich for flight above 4000 meters.

[unreasonable]

If you open up one of the dreaded info windows and put in the engine data, you can see the mix shown as 100% irrespective of height - this might be showing only the position of the control, but it I agree it certainly looks as though auto mix is not working. I also get the wheezing and black smoke puffs after about 5km height.

[Viper2000]

The simplest demonstration is to fly in no cockpit mode and look at the exhaust flame turn from blue to yellow during the climb; you'll see the same problem in the Spitfire & Hurricane too.

I think they just forgot the "AUTO" part of AUTO RICH.

As an aside, the large yellow flame is the result of after-burning, which is the continuation of combustion outside of the cylinder. This term is generally misused, especially by Americans, as a surrogate for reheat in the context of gas turbines, but it actually has, or at least had, a quite specific meaning in the context of piston engines before the turbojet was even thought of (on which note, today is the 74th anniversary of the first run of Sir Frank Whittle's engine, the 50th anniversary of Gagarin's space flight, the 30th anniversary of the first Shuttle flight, and, somewhat less significantly for aviation, my 27th birthday).

[IvanK]

"....by Americans, as a surrogate for reheat in the context of gas turbines"

LOL only the Poms call it reheat :) the rest of the world settled on Afterburner ... as did CLOD.

[Viper2000]

"....by Americans, as a surrogate for reheat in the context of gas turbines"

LOL only the Poms call it reheat :) the rest of the world settled on Afterburner ... as did CLOD.

As a thermodynamicist, I can assure you that "the rest of the world" is wrong ;) . They can't help it. :-P

Actually misuse of afterburning is mostly an aviation/pop culture thing; in other applications people are more likely to just talk about a reheated cycle; of course, they're also less likely to talk about it in the first place... :lol:

In fairness to the Americans, people in the UK have been misusing the term for a long time as well; I've seen footage of the 1948 Farnborough airshow where the commentator talks about a Vampire "fitted with an 'after-burner' " in a perfect cut glass accent, such that you can actually distinctly hear both the quotation marks and the hyphen. Of course, all it was good for was improving the rate of climb, since the airframe very rapidly ran into its Mach limit on the level even dry... (another interesting distinction of course being that dry/wet power really refers to water injection, and the reheat equivalent would be cold/hot, but this distinction doesn't seem to survive on the engineering side now that water injection has gone out of fashion - IIRC the F-105's J-75 could actually use water injection and reheat either separately or in combination, so the distinction was once important).

The distinction between reheat and afterburning is an important one because true afterburning is generally a bad thing; reheat is generally deliberate. It's quite possible to have both going on in a gas turbine (eg hotshot/hotstreak reheat ignition is a actually a deliberate case of afterburning; the turbine wouldn't like it if it went on for any length of time, and I suspect even for the short durations actually seen in service it doesn't do the blades much good due to impingement of liquid fuel drops if nothing else); the decline of the piston engine and the massive improvements that the combustion people have made over the years have combined to pretty much kill off true afterburning in the aviation context, and therefore I suppose that the loss of its separate meaning from reheat is inevitable. But I digress...

[IvanK]

I have used the Hotstreak system to light the the fires and turn Kero in to noise and heat many times .... It will always be AB to me :)

[Viper2000]

I have used the Hotstreak system to light the the fires and turn Kero in to noise and heat many times .... It will always be AB to me :)

What aeroplane? (edit - Lucky devil! - I would have loved to fly fast jets, but my glasses killed that dream...)

[IvanK]

Check your PM's Viper ... yes I was very fortunate :)

[Kurfürst]

Quick first impressions:

1. Cl max seems too low for both retracted and fully extended flaps.
Should be 1.4 and 1.9 according to british testing, 1.3 and 1.62 ingame atm.

Possibly, I'd have to check the Kurvenwendigkeit der Me typen doc, perhaps I can some data for that..

What is behind it that they did a couple of stall speed trials with the Spit earlier, and from the stall speed they deducted Clmax (which in itself lends some room for error, recall those lenghty discussions about what 'stall speed' really is'?). Based on the date, they calculated a doghouse turn chart for the Spi.

When the 109E-3 was handed over by the French for testing, the British wanted a similiar graphical comparison made. They made a similiar test procedure to establish 109E stall speeds, based on that, the Clmax.
http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_UKtrials/Morgan_files/image011.jpg
at http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_UKtrials/Morgan.html


2. Turn time of 25 seconds corresponds with british testing but is significantly higher then the 18. something stated in the official Baubeschreibung.

As noted above, there was no actual measurement of the 109E turn times by British; or if there were, the 25 seconds value was not derived from testing. The Kurwenwendigkeit der Me typen part I. report by Messerschmitt AG calculates the turn time with 990PS on the deck, using proper propellor effiency curves etc.

It gives the turn time for 109E as 18.92 secs on the deck, a fairly believable number IMHO. What complicates things that appearantly we have (ca. 50HP higher) DB 601Aa ratings present, not DB 601A the report assumes. Well say 18-18.5 secs in this case. Actually it should be possible to calculate it precisly using the report.


3. 460 km/h on the deck corresponds with both german testing of Wrk.Nr. 1792
and swiss testing. The Baubeschreibung on the other hand gives 500 km/h.
Any ideas where that difference might come from Kurfy?

I am not sure, but I and others have a very strong suspicion the 460-470ish values are either for the 30-min rating, or due for using the high altitude (2nd speed, FS gear etc.) blower at low level too.

The conditions of the Wrk.Nr. 1792 test are not known for certain, as the report aimed for relative speeds w. and w/o MG FF barrels in the wing, and not absolute figures. Even boost is uncertain, a the report mentions that the figures are not corrected for nominal engine output etc.

The Baubescreibung is the official performance specs for the 109E, which the manufacturer guaranteed to be met withon +/- 5% tolerenace. Those Emils that could not satisfy the specs were not accepted by BAL, the LW's quality control organisation. Even at the war's end!

Moreover the 500/570 specifications laid down in the Bbschr. 109E paper were confirmed with the detailed report of the Emil prototype:

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_V15a/Geschw_109V15a.html

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_V15a/files/109v15a_blatt6.jpg

and by French testing of Bf 109E-3 WNr. 1340 (same aircraft as tested by the Brits later) also seem to confirm that the level speed figures laid down in the in German specs can be confirmed:
http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_French_trials/french_109e_performanceT.html
(beware of the bewildering combination of open/closed raditors, RPMs and manifold pressures used.. its a bit of a pity that the French used Hgmm for boost instead of ata. Confusing..)

Besides if one uses simple common sense, its quite easy to see. If you look at the Spitfire and Bf 109E speeds and powers at rated altitude, you'll find that that both do around 570 km/h, but the Spit has actually quite a bit of more power at this altitude (as opposed to popular knowledge, the Merlin III was pretty good at alt). It follows that it has more drag. Now, at SL the Spit does, iirc some 282 mph at +6 1/4 boost, which is 890 HP. And the 109 there has 990 (601A-1) to 1050 HP (601Aa). It follows that should be a good deal faster than 282 mph (454 kph), with 150 HP extra in less draggy airframe..

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Just as a side note: 5% of 500 kmh = 25 kmh, so a 475 kmh fast Emil would still have been accepted ;) :-P

Just wait and take a look again when mixture ratio is fixed. This might in fact lead to more nominal values when finally this parameter can be optimized.

When talking about drag one has to be a bit cautious when saying which airframe is less draggy when talking about flight operations as drag is composed of friction drag and induced drag. The former is due to friction over the skin and therefore mainly dependent on speed and altitude, the latter foremost dependent on angle of attack. So it might be (might be, I don't say that it should be but yet could be) that the spit just had to fly at an angle of attack at high altitude that went along with higher induced drag while it had to use less angle of attack at lower altitudes and therefore had less drag. Actually it is quite reasonable to assume that this is indeed the case. When the air density decreases the plane has to increase angle of attack for level flight but then can reduce angle of attack with tanks more empty. The behaviour could be very much different for the 109 and the Spit. I cannot tell in which ways.

[Kurfürst]

Just as a side note: 5% of 500 kmh = 25 kmh, so a 475 kmh fast Emil would still have been accepted ;) :-P

Just wait and take a look again when mixture ratio is fixed. This might in fact lead to more nominal values when finally this parameter can be optimized.

Top speeds at SL and rated altitude are coded (ie. set by developer manually. Currently its 470 at SL (which is double wrong as I suspect it should be attainable only with the 1175 PS rating instead of the actual 1045 PS rating), and 560 at 4500 meter for the Emil). I guess the engine works out the rest of the graph from these figures (its pretty obvious between SL and FTH, the above probably follows the same rules for all planes, taking into account stall speed, which is also manually set.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Top speeds at SL and rated altitude are coded (ie. set by developer manually. Currently its 470 at SL (which is double wrong as I suspect it should be attainable only with the 1175 PS rating instead of the actual 1045 PS rating), and 560 at 4500 meter for the Emil). I guess the engine works out the rest of the graph from these figures (its pretty obvious between SL and FTH, the above probably follows the same rules for all planes, taking into account stall speed, which is also manually set.

Oh. If top speeds are hard coded then that is not good. This shouldn't be the case.

[Pluto]

I started ranting about non-CEM MP server's. About how the BF109E performance is nerfed. It is but I did some research just after on the planes.

It turns out that the Spitfire could fly faster than the BF109 at level flight. Could dive faster. Obviously out-turn it, and if I remember rightly, could climb better too.

It was said that the German pilots would rely on their wingman when dealing with the Spitfire.

The BF109E did perform better at high altitude though.

I'll try to find the article again as perhaps it's information wasn't truely correct, but it was just a random google search. Sorry for no link.

Sorry but that sounds like crap, in reality the 109 was faster than the Spit and it could dive faster, the Spit could fly tighter turns and was more agile in dogfights. I learned that years ago from a real pilot who was flying in the Battle of Britain the 109. If it is not like that in this sim, it is simulated wrong and needs to be patched!
:rolleyes:

[Kurfürst]

;
[Params]
;

SpinCxLoss 0.06
SpinCyLoss 0.03

Vmin 170.0 kmh
Vmax 470.0 kmh
VmaxAllowed 750.0 kmh
VmaxH 560.0 kmh at 4500.0 m
VminFLAPS 130.0 kmh
VmaxFLAPS 250.0 kmh
Vz_climb 20.0 ms
V_climb 270.0 kmh
T_turn 25.0 sec
V_turn 340.0 kmh
K_max 13.0
FlapsMult 1.0
FlapsAngSh 10.0

RangeAbility 480 km
;

I took a look at the figures above and compared it to my documentation. See the suggested values below:

?? means I have no idea what the figure is for..
Changes are marked with bold, with source given.

SpinCxLoss 0.06 ??
SpinCyLoss 0.03 ??

Vmin 170.0 kmh - should be 153.0 kmh -
this is for a throttled down (~power off) engine as the UK Morgan report posted above. It needs to be found out what 'Vmin' means in the sim, since in real life, the stall speeds are about 10 mph lower when the engine is opened up (propeller helps the wings, relative airflow speed is higher than airspeed would indicate -> more lift). So if the other planes are using Power ON stall speeds, this should be not be used but a lower stall speed value.[i]

Vmax 470.0 kmh - Should be 520. Now a bit of a comment would be needed here.
[i]
Vmax for the 109E-3 with DB 601Aa should be 500 kph (see Baubeschreibung 109E graph posted above). This was achiavable with the 1,35ata rating 5-min (1045PS at SL) and guaranteed within 5%.

However I believe this figure (the 470 kph one) is to be achieved only by using all out boost in the sim, and that is what the testing shows: 470 can only be approached by using the 1-min WEP (W button), ie. 1,45ata. This latter translates to 1175 PS at SL...

If this is the case, the Vmax. should bet 500+, at around 515-520 kph (deducted as power requirements increase with the cube), achiavable in the sim w. the 1-min boost, and so that the proper max. speed (500) could be achieved with the 5-min 1,35ata/2400 rating.


VmaxAllowed 750.0 kmh - correct. Appearantly Il-2COD does not differentiate for dive limit changes with altitude.
VmaxH 560.0 kmh at 4500.0 m - should be 570 kph at 5000m, as per Baubescreibung curves
VminFLAPS 130.0 kmh - this matches the UK Morgan/RAE report for 109E with flaps fully down
VmaxFLAPS 250.0 kmh - note: this is for fully deployed flaps, for example 20 degrees flaps were allowed up 500 km/h
Vz_climb 20.0 ms - its unclear what this is for, presumably initial climb rate. If so, probably correct if it's understood with 1-minute WEP; if meant for 5 minute rating, too high IMHO. This is based on analysis of German, French and British measurements, and the 109E Baubescreibung.
V_climb 270.0 kmh - should be 250 km/h, as per the Emil 1939 short manual.
This might be significant as it will result in steeper climbs, a working tactic described by UK evaluations for the 109E.
T_turn 25.0 sec - should be around 18-18.92 sec for SL, as discussed above.
V_turn 340.0 kmh - this needs to be re-calculated I think due to the previous change.
K_max 13.0 - ?? No idea what these last three are for..
FlapsMult 1.0
FlapsAngSh 10.0

RangeAbility 480 km - Should be 665 km?

This is probably for range, but its entirely unclear to what altitude and engine setting this should be true. Developer would be needed to comment on this.. In any case, German range tables give economic cruising range at 650 - 665 km for the Emil, pretty irrespective of altitude (different engine setups were, however, required, ie. pitch, rpm, boost etc.).

[unreasonable]

It is possible these "hard coded" max speeds and ranges only affect AI or the generation of missions in FMB in some way as opposed to the player FM, insofar as these may need to have access to a/c specific data in a shorthand form: a bit like the hard coded "cruise speeds" in IL2 classic IIRC.

[Sauf]

Both the E-3 and E-3B are overweight by default, am maybe stating the obvious but is this taken into account with peoples test flights?

[Xiola]

Really the Spitfire II shoould not be common through the battle as far as I can remember.

It should be the Hurricane or Spitfire 1 vs 109E.

Spitfire II only really arrived properly after the 'official' Battle was over' IIRC, so Multiplayer servers should not include it too often IMHO.

It was more a Oct '40 to april '41 aircraft

[JG53Frankyboy]

i am sure the Spitfire experts will give you other dates for the Spit II soon ;)
just in short, it fought in the BoB long before 31.october :)

as the not in game beeing Hurricane II too

[robtek]

As the E7, E7/N and F-0 - F-1

[15JG52_Brauer]

Hope devs will address this soon - brfotr the beta patch I seemed to be able to avoid the worst of the 109 mixture/bumping issues through what I thought was patient warm up and restiction of revs - managed a climb to 7400 no bumps on syndicate server (full CEM and temps) - but now I get it as soon as I get up nearly, no matter what I do unless I go full throttle - then it's only a matter of time - even with managing rpm via prop pitch before it goes pop - even with rads full open and temps seemingly ok :-x

[Xiola]

i am sure the Spitfire experts will give you other dates for the Spit II soon ;)
just in short, it fought in the BoB long before 31.october :)

as the not in game beeing Hurricane II too

Hi Franky,

Yeah I know it was around during the battle, but not in many numbers.

However I have since learned that the Mk1 Spitfire is a 2 pitch prop 1939 version, and not representative of a BOB Spitfire Mk1, so I retract my above statement.

What is really needed is a Spitfire mk1, CSP running on 100 octane. That is the proper 'common' Spitfire of the BOB IMHO.

[Kurfurst]

This thread is about reporting suspected FM/DM bugs about the Bf 109E-3 for the developers. Please keep it that way.

Other aircrafts have their own respective threads, discuss issues with them there. ;)

[Hood]

The posts talking about mixture, are they referring to the occasional shudder you get in the 109, as if mixture were wrong? Is there any way to resolve this as it is very distracting when you're looking for the enemy?

Hood

[TomcatViP]

I do agree with Kufurst

270kph climb speed was for the heavier series (G and latter) - in fact the late K cld hve had her best climb speed back to 250 due to P/W ratio.

In general the 450/70 suggest more a D model suitable for the campaign of France. And the E model captured by French and passed to Britain sustained crash before being handed over to the CeV (the test center in France). As an anecdote the ferrying pilots on that occasion would become a very famous Test pilot in France after the war ended.

It's will be surrealistic to hve a Spitfire out speeding a 109 at low alt excepting in certain conditions like a rare 100 fitted model with COLD engines. But Obviously anything diving into a 109 would gain on it.

I understand that RAF aficionados are proud and impatient to show it off. But this is not the way those brave guys did it in 1940. Pls act with respect to history.

[mcler002]

http://militaria.forum-xl.com/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=119

Messerschmitt Bf-109-E4 - 3/NJG1 1941

Would like that one :P ^

...skin wise :P ... maybe with a red nose...

[Bellator]

I can't figure out how they got the lift coefficient numbers so wrong. They seem to rely purely on the dubious British tests.

In clean configuration, gear up, no flaps and no slats even (+ a shorter wing), a prototyoe V24 was tested and acquired a Cl-max of 1.48. With slats and a longer wing (increasing aspect ratio), I suspect a Cl-max of atleast 1.65 in clean configuration with gear up & no flaps.

The Bf109F featured a Cl-max of ~1.7 in clean configuration according to MTT documents. So very similar.

[BlackbusheFlyer]

I'm trying to up the speed of the Bf109E-3 so that I can catch Spit IIas at sea level. The most I can get it to (from 500m to 2,000m) is 400km/h on the clock. I've been playing with the boost settings even using WEP with ATA at 1.45 and rpm at just under 3,000, then played with the pitch.

Any tips for getting it faster? Thanks

Hood

You should not be able to catch any Spit at sea level. The Spitfire was known to be faster than the 109 below 20,000ft.

I think at the moment the 109 is actually faster than the Spitfire below 20,000ft which needs a bit of adjusting.

[TomcatViP]

this is completely wrong.

Pls re-read the according literature.

I might understand tht you refer to various MkI with 12lb perf charts found across the web but pls mind that :
1. some of the curve in those charts are questionable (flat, un-daunted etc...)
2. "emergency power rating " are for use in case of emergency.

In time of war you don't land back with a burnt engine each time you hd to climb above 12Kft...

Unless you want to be the absolute top scoring ace of your squad in potatoes peeling

[BlackbusheFlyer]

this is completely wrong.

Pls re-read the according literature.

If this is wrong please provide links which support this argument? Virtually everything I have read or heard spoken about the early Spitfire was they were faster at lower altitude than the 109's.

[heloguy]

If this is wrong please provide links which support this argument? Virtually everything I have read or heard spoken about the early Spitfire was they were faster at lower altitude than the 109's.

Any links supporting yours? I think this thread is supposed to be about cold hard numbers, as Kurfurst has provided on the 109. Not whether one aircraft was faster than another.

[Nobody96]

I did a bit of testing with the E3:

The shaking is due to missfires. They start as soon as the engine is overheated. You can test this properly with a Spitfire because as soon as you are airborne with the E3 your watertemp is up to 80 and your engine starts to missfire.

You cannot decrease the water temperature below 80 degrees. I tried a lot of high speed dives with 0% throttle but wasn't able to decrease the water temperature.

If you fly without temperature effects enabled, the AI seems to have no problem keeping the water temperature at bay.

[BlackbusheFlyer]

Any links supporting yours? I think this thread is supposed to be about cold hard numbers, as Kurfurst has provided on the 109. Not whether one aircraft was faster than another.

Here is one for starters:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

This page in fact includes opinion from protagonists from both side who flew both or flew against each other. It is fairly overwhelming in universal agreement of the greater speed of the Spitfire Mk1 against the 109E, supported of course by flight trials.

[l3uLLDoZeR]

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html



That was awesome reading..I love knowing what the real pilots had to say!

[ICDP]

Here is one for starters:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

This page in fact includes opinion from protagonists from both side who flew both or flew against each other. It is fairly overwhelming in universal agreement of the greater speed of the Spitfire Mk1 against the 109E, supported of course by flight trials.

That data is cherry picked to show how the 109E was inferior to the Spitfire. Even the quotes from German pilots are cherry picked to show the Spitfire in a glowing light. How many reports are there in that site that show how a 109E outran or outturned or shot down a Spitfire in combat? Just because he didn't post them doesn't mean it didn't happen, of course many Spitfires fell to the guns of 109Es in BoB. It is easy for a person to make their pet plane look good when they deliberately leave out the reports or tests that don't show it in a particularly good light. Let me give you a clue, it is called spitfireperformance because the guy who created the site has a distinct bias towards allied aircraft, and particularly the Spitfire. It is a good site and the flight test reports are a gold mine, but be sure to read other primary sources for comaprison.

If those reports on that site were the only thing you read about the 109E and Spitfire you would come away believing the Spitfire was so superior it wasn't even a contest. Just show up in your Spitfire and expect to win, if a 109 pilot shot down a Spitfire it was only down to blind luck. To suggest that the Spitfire MkI always outran or outturned the 109E or the 109E always outdived a Spitfire is nonsense. I remember reading the reports from USN pilots when they first encountered the A6M Zero in the pacific. The after action reports had claims that the A6M was doing 450mph in straight and level flight and was climbing at 5000ft per minute. We both know that that isn't even close to true, but those USN pilots were convinced they were correct. Here is a link to those reports to show how even combat pilot eyewitness reports can be very far from the truth.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/vmf221b.htm

http://www.warbirdforum.com/vmf221.htm

Pilot anecdotes are fun to read, but unfortunately they tell very little about relative performance of two different aircraft. So many variables are unknown, is one plane damaged or overheating? What is the relative skill of the pilots? Is the victim even aware of the danger, maybe he is fixated on something else etc. Even flight tests of captured enemy equipment should be treated with caution. For example the 109E sample the RAE tested was a crash landed and repaired machine. I have read plenty of accounts from rookie pilots claiming they couldn't keep up with their far more experienced flight leaders in the same plane type. Pierre Clostermann in his excellent book "The Big SHow" touches on this subject quite clearly on a few occassions.

Sorry for the long drawn out post, my point is that the Spitfire and 109E and even the Hurricane had their strengths and weaknesses and were close enough matched that pilot skill and tactics had far more to do with the outcome than relative performance of each aircraft.

[TomcatViP]

Pilots and tactics :rolleyes:

Good post.

[BlackbusheFlyer]

That data is cherry picked to show how the 109E was inferior to the Spitfire. Even the quotes from German pilots are cherry picked to show the Spitfire in a glowing light. How many reports are there in that site that show how a 109E outran or outturned or shot down a Spitfire in combat? Just because he didn't post them doesn't mean it didn't happen, of course many Spitfires fell to the guns of 109Es in BoB. It is easy for a person to make their pet plane look good when they deliberately leave out the reports or tests that don't show it in a particularly good light. Let me give you a clue, it is called spitfireperformance because the guy who created the site has a distinct bias towards allied aircraft, and particularly the Spitfire. It is a good site and the flight test reports are a gold mine, but be sure to read other primary sources for comaprison.

If those reports on that site were the only thing you read about the 109E and Spitfire you would come away believing the Spitfire was so superior it wasn't even a contest. Just show up in your Spitfire and expect to win, if a 109 pilot shot down a Spitfire it was only down to blind luck. To suggest that the Spitfire MkI always outran or outturned the 109E or the 109E always outdived a Spitfire is nonsense. I remember reading the reports from USN pilots when they first encountered the A6M Zero in the pacific. The after action reports had claims that the A6M was doing 450mph in straight and level flight and was climbing at 5000ft per minute. We both know that that isn't even close to true, but those USN pilots were convinced they were correct. Here is a link to those reports to show how even combat pilot eyewitness reports can be very far from the truth.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/vmf221b.htm

http://www.warbirdforum.com/vmf221.htm

Pilot anecdotes are fun to read, but unfortunately they tell very little about relative performance of two different aircraft. So many variables are unknown, is one plane damaged or overheating? What is the relative skill of the pilots? Is the victim even aware of the danger, maybe he is fixated on something else etc. Even flight tests of captured enemy equipment should be treated with caution. For example the 109E sample the RAE tested was a crash landed and repaired machine. I have read plenty of accounts from rookie pilots claiming they couldn't keep up with their far more experienced flight leaders in the same plane type. Pierre Clostermann in his excellent book "The Big SHow" touches on this subject quite clearly on a few occassions.

Sorry for the long drawn out post, my point is that the Spitfire and 109E and even the Hurricane had their strengths and weaknesses and were close enough matched that pilot skill and tactics had far more to do with the outcome than relative performance of each aircraft.

I hear the points you are making, but discounting real pilots experience is somewhat dubious. I am not suggesting by any stretch that the Spitfire should be 'autowin' so where did you get that from? The fact is that at the moment the 109 in the game is faster than the Spitfire Mk 1 at all altitudes and both climbs and dives faster which does not appear to be in agreement with the bulk of written evidence.

I quote:


To suggest that the Spitfire MkI always outran or outturned the 109E or the 109E always outdived a Spitfire is nonsense

Where was this suggested? Was not by me.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Reading test results also always should be taken with a grain of salt. Production comes always with allowances and scattering. Everyone in engineering knows this that two pieces coming from the same belt will differ slightly. This and knowing that back then the part of manual work was still quite important compared to today's standards should make everybody understand that one assembled plane would behave slightly different from the next one.

So my guess is that the performance will also vary a bit from one plane to another. I don't know how much the allowences were for the different performance parameters but if it was only 1% I would say that it was already high quality.

[ICDP]

I hear the points you are making, but discounting real pilots experience is somewhat dubious. I am not suggesting by any stretch that the Spitfire should be 'autowin' so where did you get that from? The fact is that at the moment the 109 in the game is faster than the Spitfire Mk 1 at all altitudes and both climbs and dives faster which does not appear to be in agreement with the bulk of written evidence.

I quote:



Where was this suggested? Was not by me.

You linked to an article on a web site that compared the Spitfire Mk Ia and Mk IIa to the 109E during the BoB. Linking to an article compiled and edited to make the 109E look consistently worse than a Spitfire gives the impression that you agree and endorse this opinion. My apologies if this is not the case, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and pointed out that the article was clearly biased. Even the level speeds given for the 109E are taken from either 1938 or 1939 variants and comapred with 1940 variants of the Spitfire.

I do not suggest that pilot accounts are discounted entirely, I pointed out that on that site we only see the ones where the Spitfire won. There are scores of combat reports from both sides where a Spitfire got shot down by a 109E. I would not use them as evidence that the 109E was clearly a superior machine because it wasn't.

Also the 109E that Mike Williams is fond of using for his performance figures was badly damaged in a crash landing and repaired by the French using parts recovered from other wrecked 109Es. The French had tested it and even damaged the engine by using the wrong oil and lubricants, prior to repairing it and giving it to the British who tested it almost one year later. He also neglects to point out that in the Sept 1940 test of that 109 it had no oxygen bottles so could not be tested at higher altitudes. It also had an earlier DB601A engine with the lower FTH. Just like the Merlin the DB601A was uprated and refined during its operational life, the 1940 version was more powerfull than a 1938/39 version.

Crying foul and stating the 109E is overmodelled compared to the CoD MkI Spitfire is not looking at the big picture to be honest. The CoD Spitfire Mk I, Mk Ia and both Hurricanes are seriously underperforming compared to BoB era variants. They are either getting speeds for a +6.25 lb boost variant or even worse. At most altitudes the 109E is getting speeds that don't even match the 1938/39 30 minute rating, never mind the 5 or even 1 minute rating of the BoB era version. Even the Fiat G.50 is getting much lower speeds than it did in real life. So all of these planes in CoD are getting speeds that match 1938/39 machines or even worse in most cases.

My apologies if any of this seems like I am attacking you or trying to be condescending. My aim is to highlight the fact that you need to get as many primary and varied sources as possible when comparing aircraft performance. Also take into account that even two identical aircraft can have vastly different performance due to quality of build and of pilot.

[heloguy]

The fact is that at the moment the 109 in the game is faster than the Spitfire Mk 1 at all altitudes and both climbs and dives faster which does not appear to be in agreement with the bulk of written evidence.

Did you actually fly each airplane, and record the max attainable speed? If you're referring to being outrun by AI 109s, or even a human controlled 109 on a server, that isn't evidence that either the Spit is underpowered, or the 109 is overpowered.

There are just too many factors at play to be sure. The computer flies the aircraft perfectly all the time. Always in trim, and if they are trying to run, they will have the least amount of drag possible on the airframe. If you have one thing out of place, and aren't getting the max performance from your aircraft, you probably won't catch them. The same might be said of the difference between how one player flies online and another.

The only way to be sure is to test each aircraft, being careful that all the parameters are covered. Altitude must always be the same, the aircraft must be in trim, and the drag configuration must always be the same. It takes multiple tests and an average of results.

No, I don't sit around and do this, and no, I probably won't. But, it is important to understand that sitting down, throwing the throttle through the firewall, and holding 'er level in a flat out chase doesn't constitute a viable test of how fast one aircraft is compared to another in the game, or in real life. It's been stated many times that tactics (ie pilots) were the difference between winning and losing a dogfight. Attacking from an advantage, surprise, etc. Not one aircraft defeating another by running it down in a chase either straight and level, or in climb or dive unless the disparity in performance was immense. Dogfights were tiresome engagements that most of the best pilots avoided if they could.

I also believe the manual, and multiple sources, such as The Most Dangerous Enemy to name one, talk about how the Emil did dive faster, due to the fact that it could bunt over with its fuel injected engine and not lose any power.

[Winger]

Here is one for starters:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

This page in fact includes opinion from protagonists from both side who flew both or flew against each other. It is fairly overwhelming in universal agreement of the greater speed of the Spitfire Mk1 against the 109E, supported of course by flight trials.

BS.
Winger

[Bloblast]

I've been testing a lot to get the max speed out of the 109E-3 this is the best;

-set oil and water radiator open for 50%, is enough no overheatings occured!;
-set elevator trim to -1, this keeps nose down, build up speed;
-set prop settings to 80%.(10:10 position)
-keep throttle 100% during dogfight.

Doing this you can build up speed to around 500 Kph.
Close in on enemy try to cripple with few canon shot, finish it off with MG.
Avoid turning with enemy, only do this with superior energy.

Success!!

[bluescreen2]

I've been testing a lot to get the max speed out of the 109E-3 this is the best;

-set oil and water radiator open for 50%, is enough no overheatings occured!;
-set elevator trim to -1, this keeps nose down, build up speed;
-set prop settings to 80%.
-keep throttle 100% during dogfight.

Doing this you can build up speed to around 500 Kph.
Close in on enemy try to cripple with few canon shot, finish it off with MG.
Avoid turning with enemy, only do this with superior energy.

Success!!

why prop 80% and not 100% ? isnt 100% most power forward meaning max speed?

[JG53Frankyboy]

because the 109E-3 in CoD has no CSP unit...

[Winger]

-set prop settings to 80%.

Success!!

You cannot say that across the board! Since the pitch of the 109 is entirely manual you will have to readjust it permanently in order to receive maximal performance. There is no single pitchsetting that works for everything.

Winger

[Bloblast]

why prop 80% and not 100% ? isnt 100% most power forward meaning max speed?

You can not get maximum speed with 100%. It's more like a first gear. I use it only for take offs.

[Bloblast]

You cannot say that across the board! Since the pitch of the 109 is entirely manual you will have to readjust it permanently in order to receive maximal performance. There is no single pitchsetting that works for everything.

Winger

No for take offs I use 100%, but max speed is then around 400 Kph.

But critical is of course dogfight against Spit.
Using the 80% prop I can get to speed of around 500 Kph, keep throttle to 100% open!
No tight turns!
Best way for BnZ tactics

[TomcatViP]

Theres is a dial with two needles bellow the eng pressure gauge

Pls refer to the standard historical German UHR langage (watch) to descibe your pich setting.

For exemple 100% (à la Il2) = 12Hr
Take off : 11H30
High power Cruise (combat cruise) : ard 9Hr30
Lean power cruise (long range) : ard 8H30 or bellow

Those value (except the last one wich I do not knwow nothing abt) are historicals value for the E. It might be interesting to refer to interviews of the few Warbird pilots qualified on the type (two E fly in historical configuration nowadays - I remember reading those values somewhere)

During fight slightly over revs your standart settings (let's says 10h upon the merge) and then keep an eyes on the dial to keep rpm cte. If you need more power in a step climb add rpm. On the contrary on the dive lower your rpm.

In combat, too much Overreeving will increase the risk of overheating or damaging/breaking your engine.

the 109 engine is really easy to manage during a fight in the sim as it was in RL thx to its injection system.

NOte : keep your emergency boost for... emergency use. You leave in dusts anything given your actual E state and egress trajectory.


~S!

[Blackdog_kt]

+1 to the above post, i use somewhat similar settings and i found them out simply by experimenting in free flight. It can easily make 500km/h IAS at low altitudes on combat power settings and can also easily cruise at or above 400km/h IAS with 1.2 Ata and the pitch indicator at the 10:10 position.


An easy analogy to remember is that it works like shifting gears in a manual transmission car, lower RPM is like higher gears and higher RPM is lower gears. This means that to get the most speed in a dive or in level flight you actually have to lower the RPMs a bit (go to a higher gear). If on the other hand you want to limit your speed in the dive, pull the throttle a bit back and increase the RPMs, the blades will meet the air in more of a "flat" way but since the engine is throttle back they are semi-windmilling and this acts as an airbrake.

In a similar fashion, higher RPM means lower top speeds but faster response to throttle changes, so you increase them in the climb as your speed drops (it's like shifting down a gear and pressing the gas pedal to climb over a hill in your car).

I've found the useful powerband to be between 2100 and 2600 RPM (just don't exceed 2500 for too much time), i don't know if this corresponds to historical values and how much more i could improve it but it certainly seems to leave everything in the dust if flown like that so it works good enough for the time being.

[ICDP]

Can you get 500kph TAS at sea level? Best I can get is 465kph, and yes that is well trimmed and radiators and oil coolers more than 50% closed. 2200-2500 RPM though this makes zero difference to me in speed runs.

Can you also elaborate on what you define as low alt?

Maybe you could share a trak with us. Take a 109 on the channel mission, fly at SL as fast as you can at direction 180 and show us how the 109 can get close to 500kph at SL.

[Blackdog_kt]

I'm not sure it's dead-on 500, it might be 485, but it's certainly closer than most people get. The main trick is to "switch your gears" when they peak, that is, change prop-pitch each time you see your airspeed not increasing anymore.

I'll try to remember to make a track tomorrow (it's a bit late currently) and upload it, it would be good practice for me too and maybe i'll pick up an extra trick or two during the process. Cheers ;)

[609_Huetz]

I'm not sure it's dead-on 500, it might be 485, but it's certainly closer than most people get. The main trick is to "switch your gears" when they peak, that is, change prop-pitch each time you see your airspeed not increasing anymore.

I'll try to remember to make a track tomorrow (it's a bit late currently) and upload it, it would be good practice for me too and maybe i'll pick up an extra trick or two during the process. Cheers ;)
Gonna be interesting to see what you can come up with. After some messing around in the good ol' 109. 480-ish is the absolute max I could squeeze out of her and hold on the deck.

One thing I that may cause issues for people is controling prop pitch by buttons on your joystick rather than using an extra axis-controler. Fine adjustments are almost impossible to achieve with buttons.

[klem]

I'm not sure it's dead-on 500, it might be 485, but it's certainly closer than most people get. The main trick is to "switch your gears" when they peak, that is, change prop-pitch each time you see your airspeed not increasing anymore.

I'll try to remember to make a track tomorrow (it's a bit late currently) and upload it, it would be good practice for me too and maybe i'll pick up an extra trick or two during the process. Cheers ;)

I'm not a 109 flyer but I thought I'd drop in something Ulrich Steinhilper said in his autobiography "Spitfire on my tail". He was flying the Me109E.

He said that some of the inexperienced pilots had problems keeping up because they could not get used to the idea of establishing an airspeed with high pitch then coarsening it to get a surge in speed with a drop in rpm (a bit like connecting the energy of a rotating flywheel - the rotating engine mass) then, before the gained speed fell away with falling rpm, returning to higher pitch to maintain speed and let the revs build up again, then keep repeating the process. In this way they gained speed more quickly.

Perhaps behaving a bit like KERS in current Formula 1.

[Bloblast]

I'm not a 109 flyer but I thought I'd drop in something Ulrich Steinhilper said in his autobiography "Spitfire on my tail". He was flying the Me109E.

He said that some of the inexperienced pilots had problems keeping up because they could not get used to the idea of establishing an airspeed with high pitch then coarsening it to get a surge in speed with a drop in rpm (a bit like connecting the energy of a rotating flywheel - the rotating engine mass) then, before the gained speed fell away with falling rpm, returning to higher pitch to maintain speed and let the revs build up again, then keep repeating the process. In this way they gained speed more quickly.

Perhaps behaving a bit like KERS in current Formula 1.


Hm I should read that book too.

[Blackdog_kt]

Gonna be interesting to see what you can come up with. After some messing around in the good ol' 109. 480-ish is the absolute max I could squeeze out of her and hold on the deck.

One thing I that may cause issues for people is controling prop pitch by buttons on your joystick rather than using an extra axis-controler. Fine adjustments are almost impossible to achieve with buttons.



Ok, i did some quick and dirty testing before going to bed last night and it turns out that i can't maintain 500km/h after all, but it's not off by too much.

I confirmed speeds by temporarily disabling my head-tracking and placing the mouse over the IAS gauge to keep the pop-up readout of the instrument displayed during the entire test.

I assume that by top speed we mean running flat out but with temp effects and CEM on, so i tried to use the highest possible settings that won't damage the engine.

I firewalled the throttle and activated WEP (which the sim calls "afterburner" and automatically disengages after a while, default key for this is backspace), trimmed nose heavy and started descending to the deck. I easily got 460km/h and by playing with trim and pitch a bit more i managed 470km/h.

I tried further coarsening the pitch but got no noticeable increase.

Never the less, maybe it can get there with further efforts. For example, i don't have a spare slider for pitch so i use buttons on the stick to increase/decrease it, which don't really give that precise of a control. Maybe someone with a second throttle/slider could achieve the missing 30km/h. Perhaps the devs will implement a closer representation of how the pitch control operated and we might be able to overcome this regardless of what controls we use.
It was much more gradual in reality than the way it currently works in the sim, where we get about 20-30 minutes of change of the prop pitch clock indicator for every key press. After reading a link posted in another thread, it seems that 10 minutes on the clock corresponds to 1 degree of prop angle, so it seems like the smallest amount of pitch change for someone using keys or buttons is not less than 2-3 degrees of pitch.
That was a very helpful link, i hope the guy who dug it up won't mind me linking it here too: http://marseillegruppe.com/foro/viewtopic.php?p=2954&sid=3591268e7829c1e00ff328cb9d3b84f4

Another thing is that i didn't have the rads completely closed. Water rad was between 1/3 and half open, the oil rad was about 1/3 open. I don't know if i can gain anything more by really pushing the issue with rads and temps, as it was getting way late and i didn't have time for further testing.

I don't think the results are that unrealistic. I mean, i can't really be sure, but surely top speeds published in specs and tests in a controlled environment have many things going for them which not all of us have, mainly the use of proper controls and well trained test pilots that have experience in pushing the machines to their absolute limits.

I don't know if it's bugged or not, but i don't consider it unrealistic either that my 109 will be somewhat slower to one flown by a properly trained guy or someone with better controls than mine.

It's a mere 20-30km/h off and to know if the FM is in need of tuning we would first need to know if the problem really lies with the FM or just with how we work the aircraft.



I'm not a 109 flyer but I thought I'd drop in something Ulrich Steinhilper said in his autobiography "Spitfire on my tail". He was flying the Me109E.

He said that some of the inexperienced pilots had problems keeping up because they could not get used to the idea of establishing an airspeed with high pitch then coarsening it to get a surge in speed with a drop in rpm (a bit like connecting the energy of a rotating flywheel - the rotating engine mass) then, before the gained speed fell away with falling rpm, returning to higher pitch to maintain speed and let the revs build up again, then keep repeating the process. In this way they gained speed more quickly.

Perhaps behaving a bit like KERS in current Formula 1.


I think that technique was used for climbs mainly: rev up the engine to spool up the supercharger a bit more then go to lower RPM/coarse pitch to transfer the boost from the supercharger to a bigger "bite" of air, but the low RPM also makes the supercharger run slower so you repeat it all the way to your chosen altitude.

I do "dance" on the pitch buttons sometimes but that's mainly if i want to keep an intermediate setting between the ones that i can get by a single keypress, for example if i want to set the pitch clock to 10:50 i increase and decrease it in sequence between 10:40 and 11:00. However, that's not really something that i need to keep doing as it doesn't give any noticeable gain in final performance, it's just making the transition smoother between the two settings by letting the aircraft "settle" at an intermediate one ie, it's just a trick for a "poor man's secondary slider" to a get a bit more gradual control.

[ICDP]

I appreciate you doing the tests Blackdog, your results are similar to my own. Closing the rads further will just damage the engine so nothing to be gained at all there. I have to disagree on the thought that it is close enough to be honest. This test is only the SL speeds, as you gain altitude the 109E gets further from its actual RL speeds, as much as 30-40 MPH in some cases. This is the case for most fighters in CoD, the only ones that get RL speeds are the Spitfire Mk IIa and the Bf110 (for a DB601A-1 variant at 30min power). There is no Bf110C with DB601N in COD, about half of the 110s in BoB were so equiped.

It is all academic really, the FMs in CoD are in need of a lot of work right now. The devs are trying to fix so many serious bugs it could be a while before they can devote resources to fixing FMs.

[Blackdog_kt]

I have no reason disputing what you say, especially since i just did a brief test run at sea level and didn't mess with high altitude tests and IAS->TAS conversions.

I think what we all agree on is that the course of fixing things should be playability/performance optimizations followed by getting the FMs as accurate as possible.

It's also good to have some level headed discussion going for a change, without having any thinly veiled "please make my favorite aircraft rock" distractions. If we keep at it we can make it easier for the devs to fix things by compiling a list of in-game tests and official documents to compare them to, resulting in faster fixes.

I guess my point is, good work everybody for focusing on what we can do to pinpoint errors and providing useful feedback instead of just saying "this doesn't work, please fix it" :-P

[Radick]

Kenngröße

Daten der Bf 109 E-3



Länge

8,64 m



Flügelspannweite

9,87 m



Flügelfläche

16,2 m²



Höhe

2,60 m



Antrieb

Ein Daimler-Benz 12-Zylinder-V-Motor DB 601 A-1 mit maximal 990 PS Startleistung



Höchstgeschwindigkeit

570 km/h in 5000 m Höhe



Reichweite

800 km



Besatzung

1 Mann



Dienstgipfelhöhe

10.500 m

in cod max 8000 meters *FAIL*


Leergewicht

2010 kg



Fluggewicht

2505 kg



Bewaffnung

Zwei 7,92-mm-MG 17 über dem Motor (je 1000 Schuss) und zwei 20-mm-Maschinenkanonen MG FF in den Tragflächen, außerhalb des Propellerkreises feuernd (je 60 Schuss).

[VO101_Tom]

...

Just a small note.
Without accurate source (evidence) these is worthless. Unnecessary to copy data, which have nothing to do with the topic. Dimensions, or crew datas. It is not possible to take this list seriously. Be looking for normal sources if you want to talk about something.

For example from here: http://kurfurst.org/
Or from here: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
Or from anywhere, where original documents are scanned.

[Radick]

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bf_109#Bf_109_E

[Varrattu]

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bf_109#Bf_109_E :rolleyes::rolleyes:

:!::!: Concerning reliable information E-Stelle RECHLIN is our watchword :!::!:

S! Varrattu

[Radick]

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

:!::!: Concerning reliable information E-Stelle RECHLIN is our watchword :!::!:

S! Varrattu

http://www.adlertag.de/flugzeuge/bf109e.htm
http://www.bf109-project.com/de/bf109E.html
http://weltkrieg2.de/Waffen/Kampfflugzeuge/Jagdflugzeuge/deutsche/Messerschmitt-Bf-109/Bf-109-E.htm
http://www.modellversium.de/galerie/9-flugzeuge-ww2/8471-messerschmitt-bf-109-e-3-heller.html
http://www.wopyweltweit.de/luftwaffe/bf109e.htm

you need more?

[TomcatViP]

Sadly I am not sure that SpitPerf.com could be regarded as a valid source as it is clearly one sided. And I am speaking with scientific reasoning

Man hve to be cautious when picking data from this website (see for example some of the documentation cited regarding 109 and FW perfs or some of the depicted curves lacking some evidence such as the daunted shape for staged comp).

Unless of course you want us to be back at the MyOWnMOdded Bretzel Ninja FM era ... ;)

[Crumpp]

You can not get maximum speed with 100%.

A CSP equipped propeller aircraft will achieve Vmax in level flight ONLY at the highest allowable manifold pressure and maximum propeller rpm.

That is how it works. You can fly with me anytime and I will demonstrate or you can look at your own M20J POH.

Don't confuse a variable pitch propeller operation with a CSP.

Kurfurst would know better but I do not think the variable pitch propellers were very common in the Bf-109E's. IIRC, they were used for a very short time period and were replaced by VDM hydraulic/electric designs.

Most of the propellers VDM produced were hydraulic/electric propellers. In normal operations they were hydraulic CSP's and as a backup for emergency purposes had an electric pitch variance control.

[Hood]

Following on from my qustion about the E3 speed...

I'm slowly coming to grips with the ATA/revs/pitch conundrum. For what it's worth I like the way the prop pitch lever works now. I say slowly as sometimes I just don't get it! Is the trick for maximum speed to just set ATA to about 1.4 then keep the revs at about 2,300 and slowly decrease pitch (allowing the revs to pick up again each time) until the revs start to drop without going back up again? EDIT: just re-read Winger's first post in the thread and it seems this is what he means.

Also, if I use full elevator immediately I get an instant stall. I know all about high speed stalls and so on but it just seems too quick for me - the same happens if I pull a sharp tune but then I can see the speed plummet. At the moment there's no way I can pull a sharp turn to get a snap shot off.

I've dampened down the axis settings to 80+ but it doesn't seem to make any difference when I'm using full elevator. I also find that it's very hard to fly the plane at low speeds. I'm making an assumption that the FM is correct and it's just learing to refly that's key - is this correct?

I also find it very hard to hit anything with the cannons - must get in closer I think.

Hood

[klem]

I'm not really a 109 flyer but I wonder if the following fits in with CoD 109E performance:-

Ulrich Steinhilper (109 pilot in BoB, shot down towards the end of it so probably flying 109E) said that many new pilots couldn't keep up because they couldn't get the hang of running up to stable speed under max rpm then coarsening the pitch to 'boost' the airspeed before returning to fine pitch to build up the revs again, rinse and repeat. In that way they achieved max speed more quickly that just waiting for it to build up at max rpm.

Just a thought.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

I understand this procedure to provide more acceleration, as you yourself say. It won't, in the end, provide higher max speed.

[Crumpp]

In that way they achieved max speed more quickly that just waiting for it to build up at max rpm.

Vmax occurs at maximum rpm even in a variable pitch propeller. A CSP automatically adjust pitch to maintain rpm.

What will see in a variable pitch propeller is an rpm decrease as the speed picks up.

The pilot should adjust the pitch to reestablish maximum rpm.

[TomcatViP]

CSP adjust pitch in function of the torque available to correct the effect of the air momentum. Maintaining a Cte RPM in function of the pilot inputs helps the pilot to concentrate on flying the aircraft and not the engine.

The down side being a slight decrease in perf (at least absolute achievable perfs).

A bit of ggl search give me this one :
http://www.hariguchi.org/flying/info/prop.html

Take a look !

[Hood]

And about my elevator question?

Hood

[Blackdog_kt]

You need to be switching to fine pitch as your speed drops.

It's like cornering in car, you down shift gears to get the engine at high RPM and maintain responsiveness, acceleration and "pull", then when you exit the turn you accelerate and switch to higher gears (coarser pitch) once again.

It's harder with the currently bugged prop pitch because pitch control is too slow, but i could do it fine a couple of patches ago.

[fireship4]

Vmax occurs at maximum rpm even in a variable pitch propeller

But as I understand it, a fine pitch causes more drag at high speed than a coarse one, therefore vmax may not be at max rpm?

[Mokkeri]

It's not then on fine pitch, look at pitch clock. Fine pitch at high speed will cause over revs. Like a car plane will made best speed when engine is giving every HP it can get, and it is on max allowed rpm and max allowed manifold pressure.

[Blackdog_kt]

But as I understand it, a fine pitch causes more drag at high speed than a coarse one, therefore vmax may not be at max rpm?

Only partially correct, because pitch doesn't equal RPM. The same pitch can give different RPM at different throttle settings and airspeeds.

You can easily test this in the Tiger Moth which has a fixed pitch propeller: if you accelerate or open the throttle the RPM goes up, if you decelerate or close the throttle the RPM goes down and all that happens with the pitch remaining rock steady.

Therefore, Vmax at max allowable manifold pressure and max allowable RPM doesn't mean full fine pitch.

It means the pitch that gives the max allowable RPM at the given airspeed range, which will be sufficiently coarse at that speed. ;)

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Anyone realized that when one drops the flaps on the 109 the ailerons also slightly deflect down and now takes this as the new neutral position? Is this how it was?

[Crumpp]

Is this how it was?

Yes

[CaptainDoggles]

Anyone realized that when one drops the flaps on the 109 the ailerons also slightly deflect down and now takes this as the new neutral position? Is this how it was?

Those are called 'droop ailerons' and they increase the camber of the wing, which supplements the effect of flaps and increases the maximum section lift coefficient

[raaaid]

actually i found e fatsest at 2100 rev