Unfortunately, no. The papers you have posted clearly state that the results were not adjusted to the nominal engine outputs. They are not performance test but comparison flights with various installations (guns present/not present, slats sealed/unsealed).

And in all likelyhood, they are all done using the high altitude blower (FS gear in English terms) for the trial.

The flight test results. I see a trend here. The three test you have posted we know that they were done at a lower boost setting, with the results not having been corrected to guaranteed engine outputs, and we do not know if, during the tests, they used MS or FS gear.

We do know however that they all match the results obtained in the most detailed test, that was corrected for guaranteed output, and when during the trials the the supercharger in FS gear.

WNr. 1774
485 km/h at 1.31 ata at MS gear (uncorrected for guaranteed engine output)
497 km/h at 1.35 ata at MS gear (corrected for guaranteed engine output)
460 km/h at 1.31 ata at FS gear (uncorrected for guaranteed engine output)
470 km/h at 1.35 ata at FS gear(corrected for guaranteed engine output)


WNr. 1792
464 km/h at 1.30 ata at ? gear (uncorrected for guaranteed engine output)

WNr. 1791
474 km/h at 1.30 ata at ? gear (uncorrected for guaranteed engine output)

In short, it just the usual Mike Williams BS.

J-347
464 km at 1.35? (detail not given) ata at ? gear

Can we see the testing details of the airframes? What Werknummer, airframe condition, what boost was used, were the radiator flaps open or closed etc...?

All I can see is that they did no actual testing below 10 000 feet / 3000 m.

Yes. When operating the high altitude blower (FS gear) near SL, which occured in some tests, but never in real operations.

Serial 109 E-1/ E-3 speed at the deck for 1.35 Ata was 500 km/h. Don't argue with me, argue with Willy Messerschmitt who sold these planes and guaranteed in the contract that each and every one of them will do within 5% tolerance of 500 km/h.

No, 500 km/h is the official specification for the serial produced Bf 109E.

My source, which I already posted, says the 109E could do 497 km/h at 1.35ata, with 1/4 open radiators, without overheating.

I'd like to see your source which contradicts that.

I doubted your data based on biased approach between allied and axis over many posts of yours, you don't like this one bit although it's a logical deduction to make, quite normal.

From what I can see is that you have a projected graph that you made yourself from your own calculations vs multiple graphs which come from actual air tests from both allied and axis during the time. But it doesn't fit with your dreams so you shoot the messenger. We've been here before haven't we.......

Well and I only doubt your mental and psychological well-being since I have observed a fracture between reality and your posts, and also a well-developed paranoia and tendency to believe/make up conspiracy theories in many posts of yours, you don't like this one bit although it's a logical deduction to make, quite normal.

So there's really no reason to complain. You express your opinion, I express mine in return. Isn't that how friendships are born?

Oh, really, is that so. Would you kindly point me to this 'projected graph I made myself', please?

Where you find it that there is lower engine outputs???

In these documents - German documents there is clearly 1.3 Ata and 1/4 radiator open. And these is serial production planes.


From where you get these about MS or FS gear??? 109 E had hydraulic supercharger which surly was not used in V15 prototype nothing more.



I would really like to see your speed charts for SERIAL 109 E which confirm these beacuse until now i didnt saw any. But for contatry i saw many which show 467-475 km/h not more.

For prototype 109 V15 yes with no hydraulic supercharger. But next serial production 109 E tests speed didnt copy these.

Moreover other county (Swiss, French, US) speed test for serial 109 E confirmed German test for serial planes.

You alreay saw it page before. German documents from test speed for SERIAL planes not from one prototype and german prospect.

Yeah. As on the other threads you just turn to insulting anybody who doesn't agree with you 100%. It's all a bit mental really.

Kwaitek, save your breath in trying to convince him, he lives in this fantasy world where the 109 ruled the skies, he makes up anything he can to make the 109 out for better than it actually was. You are dealing with a guy permanently banned from 2 other forums and Wikipedia, he's not going to change his mind. The important thing is that everyone is aware of him so he doesn't get the space to destroy historic truth - work on that instead. It is that last part is why I am sticking my neck out on these forums, that everyone can see, because you just need to stay silent for him to triumph.

It says there, right in the documents you have posted. Please translate, for all.

Actually, none of them are serial production planes. The two planes you have posted are pre-production planes for a batch of 14. And they are exactly identical to WNr. 1774.

It says right there, Bodenlader, Hohenlader. MS gear, FS gear.

Source please.

BTW some G-6s tested at Rechlin show the same pattern. The 109s hydraulic supercharger could operate in MS or FS gear, if it is set so.

Here, again:

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...15a_blatt6.jpg

And this is the official specification for 109E, guaranteed within +/- 5% by the manufacturer.

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test..._Bau_speed.png

We have already discussed this. The tests you have posted are probably done in FS gear, which yields less performance than MS gear near SL.

Source for no hydraulic supercharger please.

Especially as there was never any DB 601 w/o a hydraulic supercharger..

We have discussed this. The Swiss trials, though no details are available, are comparing various propeller designs, and are again likely at FS gear.

The French tests actually closely agree with the nominal specs, the French themselves state it so.

The US test, of which's conditions we know absolutely nothing, did not test SL speed at all - they did not measure speed below 12 000 feet - there's no data point there marked... it's just a rough extrapolation. Oh, and just for the record, the US tests also seem to have measured both FS gear and MS gear. They measured ca. 335 mph at 12 000 feet (540 kph at 3657 m), that's pretty much the same the Germans measured in FS gear on WNr 1174 / V15a.

I am curious why you did not post the testing details though. Testing details are very important, an open radiator can chop off 50 km/h from top speed, for example.

Oh. You mean the papers which are not corrected for guaranteed engine outputs, are likely done at the less optimal FS instead of MS gear, and were never meant to measure the absolute performance of serial produced aircraft but relative speed difference of various installations, and was not done on serial production aircraft if that's so important for you.

... and I mistook you for a nutjob for a minute. My mistake! :D

As I said you are comparing a base performance line and Boosted performance line,which is wrong.

Here a really good graph posted by Kwiatek where we can see a base performance line and Boost performance lines, pls watch it :

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/s...-rae-12lbs.jpg

The red line is base performance line, without Boost, I know that is max weak mix and calculated but its a good reference, the real speed should be a slight better then.

So we have a 246mph of sea level without Boost and 283mph with Boost.

Now we can extrapolate that data to the graph made by Klem which contain the B6 data :

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/9...performanc.jpg

Obviously he is comparing base performance line with Boost line but that don't mean that its not a interesting graph because we have here the sea level speed of the base performance line posted by B6.

As you can see the B6 graph data shows a sea level speed of 255mph without Boost, considering that the 246mph mark of Kwiatek graph is weak mix calculated I can say that it´s pretty accurate.

So, what is wrong with the B6 graph ?

I can say nothing but we need the freaking Boost modeled :!:

I translated there is not information about confirmed lower power output but only about correct mainfold pressure, temperature and not guarantee engine power - nothing more. No info about lower power output.


Exacly that why it looks that V15 prototype didnt used variable hydraulic supercharget but only 2 position one. With variable supercharger speed polars will be much more smooth.


Please - Your own site:

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...w_109V15a.html

" It appears that variable-speed hydraulic supercharger control was either not present or not engaged in the tests (ie. testing seperately with both supercharger gears) : low-altitude and high-altitude supercharger speeds were engaged at a given boost pressure, therefore the curves do not show the characteristic shape of the DB power curve - this would result in a more smooth,curved transition and improved in performance between the supercharger`s two critical altitudes (ca between 2200 and 4800m) in level flight."


Again for prototype V15 and German prospect not FOR SERIAL PRODUCTION plane. Nothing knew. I would like to see such speeds for serial planes.


Suorce? I dont see any information about these.

As we know serial production 109 E had variable hydraulic supercharger so how and for what would like to disable MS gear????

Maby Germans, Frenchs, Swiss and Americans made phone call and decided to blocked MS gear in their 109 for test?


Again totally bulshit for me and not confirmed anywhere.

Beacuse it show maximum speed for Spitfire MK1 which mean for 87 octan - +6 1/2 mainfold pressure (boost) - so not red but blue line from RAE charts.

Red line is for maxium continous weak mixture power which mean +2 1/2 mainfold pressure ( boost) for economical flying.