Spit/109 sea level speed comparisons in 1.08 beta patch

[JtD]

Regarding level speed performance of the 109, a question raised by I think MiG-3U puzzled me, maybe you have a good explanation, I'm at a loss for now: How come the 109E is faster than the 109F at less power, if you accept the 498 km/h for the 109E at 990ish hp from the V15 test and the 495 km/h for the 109F at 1065ish hp from the 109F Kennblatt?

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by JtD

Regarding level speed performance of the 109, a question raised by I think MiG-3U puzzled me, maybe you have a good explanation, I'm at a loss for now: How come the 109E is faster than the 109F at less power, if you accept the 498 km/h for the 109E at 990ish hp from the V15 test and the 495 km/h for the 109F at 1065ish hp from the 109F Kennblatt?

I could be wrong but I think he was being sarcastic in order to question Kurfursts 498kmph figures. Glider confused me too since he dissected MiG3U's post as if it were in support of Kurfurst, when it wasn't.

[Bounder!]

Originally Posted by JtD

Regarding level speed performance of the 109, a question raised by I think MiG-3U puzzled me, maybe you have a good explanation, I'm at a loss for now: How come the 109E is faster than the 109F at less power, if you accept the 498 km/h for the 109E at 990ish hp from the V15 test and the 495 km/h for the 109F at 1065ish hp from the 109F Kennblatt?

Just a stab, Kurfürst is probably the man for this question but looking up the weight of the 109e and 109f and it appears the later is heavier when loaded which might help account for the lack of speed increase over the emil?

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by JtD

Regarding level speed performance of the 109, a question raised by I think MiG-3U puzzled me, maybe you have a good explanation, I'm at a loss for now: How come the 109E is faster than the 109F at less power, if you accept the 498 km/h for the 109E at 990ish hp from the V15 test and the 495 km/h for the 109F at 1065ish hp from the 109F Kennblatt?

Its difficult to say how much it is on the 109F Kennblatt because the Kennblatt's figures are with the original ratings of the 601N at 495/515 (1.42/1.3, which were reduced to 1.25). In short the 495ish figure is for 1.3ata.

My best guess is that there was a major difference between the Emil and Friedrich propellers (also according to the propeller effiency curves I have seen), the latter was of smaller diameter and almost certainly meant for high altitudes, and probably less efficient in denser air, hence the relative stagnation of speed near SL. The Friedrich would be probably faster with a different prop.

But all of this is not so extraordinary or a surprise since the same can be noted when it comes to the Mark I / Mark V / Mark IX Spitfires's evolution. Hell the Mark I. at +12 is supposedly faster at SL than the Mark IX at +15 boost, how come..?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

But all of this is not so extraordinary or a surprise since the same can be noted when it comes to the Mark I / Mark V / Mark IX Spitfires's evolution. Hell the Mark I. at +12 is supposedly faster at SL than the Mark IX at +15 boost, how come..?

Lack of documentation for this claim noted. Still waiting for data proving the 109E had less drag than the Spitfire I.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Lack of documentation for this claim noted. Still waiting for data proving the 109E had less drag than the Spitfire I.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Lack of documentation for this claim noted.

Also noted

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Still waiting for data proving the 109E had less drag than the Spitfire I.

Yes that would be something to see!