[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Absolutely.

It is a legal binding document that the customer does not have to pay for the aircraft if it does not reach the stated performance. There is no guessing required. Once more as already stated, both Mtt and the Luftwaffe confirmed that performance before that aircraft left the factory.

Of course. No one ever stated in this thread that any Emil accepted by the LW has failed to meet the specifations agreed in the contract. What I dared to say was that the tolerance was rather generous at 50km/h, and we can not assume automatically that the actual performance of Aa Emils was always 500km/h. I suggested certain variability to be modelled (for all aircraft obviously). Please read properly.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Bf-109EV15a is for a fact not representative of a front line fighter two years later.

Just what I said, engine not quite ready + small important flaws in finish and lack of manifold exhaust covers. The test is interesting in certain aspect but no one ever suggested modelling the ingame A-1 Emils according to the charts.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

There is a lot of debate in some very knowledgeable circles about the engine used. It was either a DB-601A1 or a DB-601Aa as the DB-601A was never an 1100hp engine.

The 5 minute rating is either 1.3ata (DB-601A1) or 1.35ata (DB-601Aa).

I know this and it has nothing to do with what I wrote. I was simply asking how do you think the Emils with both A-1 and Aa should be modelled in game including the limits of the ratings. (Especially regarding the top speed at the sea level to start with). My reply was to Kwiatek simply to point out at different character of A-1 and Aa engine, because he did not make any difference between these 2 in his original post.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

We will give him a chance. I make mistakes, especially when I rush or am not all that interested. I also think robo is trying to learn.

Yes you did quite a lot of mistakes, mainly due to the fact you don't read properly what the others have to say and you somehow assumed that everyone except you doesn't know anything. You're learning, too dude, that's OK.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It is not accurate without the pressure data.

It is good enough given the information available. My point was that the value seems to be reasonable for the sim imho.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

I don't see anything wrong with the radiator drag. It seems typical for a liquid cooled engine installation.

That's right, but it is clear the French had some cooling issues and at one attempt, there was (unspecified) engine malfunction. All I said is that this test is a bit dodgy, too, just like V15a. The 50km/h difference is some 5-10km/h too big when compared to other test. I believe this is due to different ata setting during the two flights being compared at 5000m.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The climb performance is also typical for a colder than standard day. They did get better climb results than Mtt but their climb power settings appear off. Their rpm is high, which makes a difference and so is their manifold pressure.

They got worse climb results.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

All of that is secondary to the fact they performed the climbs on a colder than standard day.

And yet, they were overheating, perhaps those higher RPM and different components and coolant as mentioned in the notes. Who knows... But one is for certain - 1304 just as V15a test is interesting and informative, but not really usable.

So can you please say what do you think the top speed for both engines with all 3 rated MFP/RPM from the above chart would be? In your opinion?