That's been a 109G if I remember well (and the speeds as far as I can read them confirm that it is not a 109E). I have some doubts if the 10 kph can be transposed to an earlier model. I am not sure if the scattering could be transposed to the 109E. It would be great to find a similar graph for the E version but all presented tests of the E indicate that the performance was below 500 kph.

@Robtek: And it says Erla 109G_13speedrun...
DB 605A Steig- Kampfleistung...

Has nothing to do with any E-Series!

What I don't understand is why ppl here simply don't have a more modest approach with plane perf and simply listen to what flight manual told us.

Is there any flight manual available that lies greatly abt the perf plane for any major country during WWII ? No

The variability is even accepted as beinh ard 5% for german plane wich were certainly the most hard pressed aero industry for all metals airplanes (with JN) during the war.

So why do we hev to rely on obscure test flights when we all know that foreign test of captured aircraft is always a difficult exercise ?

Are the 33000+ Me109 delivered just a gigantic scam shared by all the pilots that flew them ?

Enough is enough.

On one side we hve Spits fanatics that want to prove that actual flight manuals were wrong and perfs were better due to field made mod that nobody really heard abt etc..

ANd on the other side, the anti 500-kph mafia put on every thread test flight with less than average test result for the 109.

Messer had some problem with their deliverable, notably due to the innovative construction tech and higly tuned cellules and aerodyn. This is a well known fact and the german autorities put high pressure on him to fix this.

[ConjucturingMode=ON] That one low performing 109 was flight tested to prove that meaning in front of Messer's officials and low perfs duely recorded does not mean that Messer was allowed to sell 3000+ under performing E model... C'mon guys. Heads up for a while. WHat about that much talked SA ! [/ConjoncturingMode=OFF]

Just relax. Ok there is some test from Fr for example with planes that we know had crashed landed somewhere on their way to test facilities etc.. etc...

But if the flight manual says abt 500 deck, damn we will have heard abt since long if it didn't !!!! Pilots would hve complain, military would hve cancel orders etc.. etc... 465 is not 500. 35 kph at that time was a vital asset. It matters !

It's even illogical way to think, that UK did play some dangerous alchemy trying to convert their eng with 100 oct fuel if the enmy in front used low performing planes...

I urged all to stop searhing on the net or hanging too much time browsing the SpitPerf.cow website. Read books instead. Many are written by serious historians, not self proclaimed prophets.

And what ever... if you think that you can't handle the planes that your fav side gets in CoD... C'mon, it's a game, switch side and enjoy flying the finger pointed übers planes !

Of course i know that the chart was from a G model, to implement that i didn't know what i posted points to someone with more enthusiasm as common sense.

It was a example of typical deviations from a set value!

Tomcat read German speed test for serial 109 E series not manual or prototype.

Most German speed test for serial 109 E claimed 467 km/h (E-3) - 475 km/h (E1) at sea level with 5- mintues emergency power ( 1.3 Ata). Such performacne is confirmed and corensponed very close to speed test made by other countries like Swiss ( E-3 with 601Aa), French or USA.

German test for serial 109 E-1 - 475-476 km/h at 0

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...109E1-1791.jpg


German test for serial 109 E-3 - 467 km/h at 0

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...109e3-1792.jpg

USA test for serial 109 E-3 - 467 km/h at 0

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...e-109E3-US.jpg

French test for serial E-3 ( radiator closed) - 480 km/h at 0

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...9E3-French.jpg

Swiss test for serial E-3 with Db601Aa - 467 km/h

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...109E-Swiss.jpg

Another German manual data for 109 E

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...dbookcurve.jpg


There are only 2 different speed results :
- 1 is made for prototype V15a which clearly for me had not hydraulic supercharger but rather 2-stage - still it is for prototype 109E not serial production ones.
- 2 is manual for 109 but there is any information about these data

I belive that 109 E speed at sea level was between 467-475 km/h at 1.3/1.35 Ata (radiator 1/4 open) and faster speed could be possible to achived at 1-minutes take off power 1.4/1.45 Ata but truly speaking it is only for very short time. I dont belive any serial 109 E could do more then 490-500 km/h at sea level and even such speed probably could be achived with extremaly condition.

Again, it's exactly what I am describing:

-Flight test of capt aircraft (we know tht both of those capt'ed 109s had structural failure as one of the french ferry/test pilot is famous for his flight testing postwar (Dassault)).
- Swiss 109 tht were not exactly in the same config of the German built (Yugoslavian were - Romanian shld be also)
-April 39 flight test...
There was only a minority of E model during the campaign of France. Most were D models. So V15 is an early test model. Just like saying in 50years tht tht F35 was not supersonic showing early flight test data. (Pls note tht I am not actually writing tht 109 shld be supersonic in CoD!!!)

....

Regarding the S/C on the 109, he he I am glad to read it from you now ;-)

But 450+ is the speed of the MS406 and Curtiss tht french used in majority. The D even was faster than those aircraft. I don't see how the E could hve the very same perf.

Note also tht cruise pow for the DB605 was ard 880HP giving G model a 450+ cruise speed. I don't see how the E cellule with 1100+ HP could be slower.

It's simply a question of logics (perf comparison, flight manuals, history books (reals ones), Maths and logics).

~S

... you show are not performance tests at all. Two tests shown were aimed at showing the difference between guns installed/unistalled, slats sealed/unsealed.

Compared to E-1 running at 1.35ata.... is it really a surprise that planes flying at lower power settings are SLOWER?

The French got around 480 with a less powerful engine. The Swiss conditions are unknown completely. The US did not test low altitude performance at all.

Stop making up and spreading this BS again and again about the allaged lack of hydraulic supercharger... its getting tiresome.

The V15a was in every way akin to the 'serial production' 109E types. It was in every way identical to serial production machines, as clearly stated by the report itself.


At that is based on a Swiss graph of which's test conditions we know absolutely nothing, the idea that two uncorrected tests at 1.3ata were representative of 1.35ata performance etc.

It still begs an answer for the question why on earth did Messerschmitt contract for the delivery of 4000 planes at 65 000 Reichmarks each doing 500 km/h and not 460 on the deck.

I guess he was desperate for a 260 million RM deficit for violating the delivery contract's terms...

I am looking for the following information.

What was the top speed of the Spitfire I, at +6 1/2 and +12 at SL, and what power it corresponded to.

What was the top speed of the Spitfire I, at +6 1/2 at rated altitude, and what power it corresponded to.

What was the top speed of the 109E, at 1.3/1.35ata at SL and at rated altitude, and what power it corresponded to.

Messerschmidt did not guarantee 500 kph but 500 +/- 5% so if each 109 would have been at 475 kph it would have been perfectly acceptable.

This means however also that it can fairly be assumed that the speed on the deck should be 475 kph at minimum.

Well Storm,

if you sell 4000 unit of a product that all meet only minimal requirements, you certainly won't sell 29000 more.... even in the complete madness of the Nazi regime. Hve a look at the 210/410 scandal (read the "Fana de l'aviation" 2011 paper ;-) )