109 e4 performance

[Crumpp]

Ok, we can ballpark the vicinity of the speeds we should be seeing at each of the settings by using the basic math relationships of power required to power available. Most of you won't know what I am talking about but it works.

For these ratings:

2) Startleistung 1175 PS in 0 m Höhe = 500kph
(zulässige Dauer 1 Min.)
bei 2500 U/Min.

3) Bodenleistung 1015 PS in 0 m Höhe = ~474kph
Kurzleistung (5 Min. Dauer)
bei 2400 U/Min.

Erhöhte Dauerleistung 950 PS in 0 m Höhe = ~465 kph
(zulässige Dauer 30 Min.)
bei 2300 U/Min.

Dauerleistung 860 PS in 0 m Höhe = ~449 kph
bei 2200 U/Min.

That is based on Mtt's contractual performance with the RLM and of course has a +/- 5% and assumes the radiator is in the same position as the 1 minute rating. This is a quick ballpark and it can be refined.

[CaptainDoggles]

For those not familiar with the math:

http://mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/t...es/node97.html

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

That is based on Mtt's contractual performance with the RLM and of course has a +/- 5% and assumes the radiator is in the same position as the 1 minute rating. This is a quick ballpark and it can be refined.

Thanks very much. I put it into the table posted earier. Only difference (probably typo) was the PS for Bodenleistung. What is the position of the radiator? What would the values for A-1 be? What would the drag penalty for E-4 Haube be and what would the drag penalty for bombrack be, if you happen to know?

DB 601 Aa / 9-9518E

1.45 ata 2500RPM 1175HP (1 minute) - 500km/h
1.35 ata 2400RPM 1045HP (5 minutes) - 474km/h
1.15 ata 2300RPM 950HP (30 minutes) - 465km/h

[Crumpp]

I speak German but I honestly can't see this test confirming the Vmax values stated in the manufacturer's brochure.

What else are you looking for?? I mean seriously, your whole premise is that Mtt is lying and will get paid for thousands of aircraft despite that presumption.

Does that really make any sense?

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

What else are you looking for?? I mean seriously, your whole premise is that Mtt is lying and will get paid for thousands of aircraft despite that presumption.

Does that really make any sense?

Crumpp, I never stated Mtt was lying I am simply trying to find exact values that could be considered reasonable (not too optimistic, not too pesimistic) and as such would be usable to model the Emils in the sim. I am not arguing with you, I am just asking more questions. I understand if you're not interested or too busy and won't reply.

What you wrote and calculated is in acceptable agreement with the real life tests (467km/h for A-1, 2400RPM, 1.31ata 990PS)

Oh and yes, it does make sense, thank you dude.

[CaptainDoggles]

There's no such thing as an exact value in engineering. EVERYTHING has a tolerance.

• That hole you drilled? Only accurate to within ±1mm.
• The elastic modulus of steel? It's a statistical range that depends on the microcrystalline arrangement of the atoms.
• The shear stress of your wing spars? Depends on the cross-section which is not accurate because of tolerances in the manufacturing process.
• Horsepower you get from fuel? Depends on chemical composition, which is again subject to tolerances and impurities introduced when it is refined and processed.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

There's no such thing as an exact value in engineering. EVERYTHING has a tolerance.

• That hole you drilled? Only accurate to within ±1mm.
• The elastic modulus of steel? It's a statistical range that depends on the microcrystalline arrangement of the atoms.
• The shear stress of your wing spars? Depends on the cross-section which is not accurate because of tolerances in the manufacturing process.
• Horsepower you get from fuel? Depends on chemical composition, which is again subject to tolerances and impurities introduced when it is refined and processed.

CaptainDoggles - this is pretty much what I was talking about, I would really appreciate having certain variations in parameters and performance (I actually believe such a thing is present in the sim now, at least overheating behaviour...). What I am trying to do is, to come with something constructive, e.g. some numbers usable for the devs, from which these say Vmax ranges for the aircraft in the sim might be calculated.

[bugmenot]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Ok, we can ballpark the vicinity of the speeds we should be seeing at each of the settings by using the basic math relationships of power required to power available. Most of you won't know what I am talking about but it works.

For these ratings:

2) Startleistung 1175 PS in 0 m Höhe = 500kph
(zulässige Dauer 1 Min.)
bei 2500 U/Min.

3) Bodenleistung 1015 PS in 0 m Höhe = ~474kph
Kurzleistung (5 Min. Dauer)
bei 2400 U/Min.

Erhöhte Dauerleistung 950 PS in 0 m Höhe = ~465 kph
(zulässige Dauer 30 Min.)
bei 2300 U/Min.

Dauerleistung 860 PS in 0 m Höhe = ~449 kph
bei 2200 U/Min.

That is based on Mtt's contractual performance with the RLM and of course has a +/- 5% and assumes the radiator is in the same position as the 1 minute rating. This is a quick ballpark and it can be refined.

There's typo in the Baubeschreibung: M o t o r l e i s t u n g
http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...chreibung.html

should be 1045 PS in 0 m Kurzleistung (5 Min. Dauer)
bei 2400 U/Min.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by bugmenot

There's typo in the Baubeschreibung: M o t o r l e i s t u n g

I pointed out that typo already and it has been already corrected in the chart I am putting together, bugmenot.

[TomcatViP]

I don't know who put the variable s/c case frwd but the chart above posted by Bugmenot show precisely that there was none

One 1946's like hypothesis that can be thrown away