![]() |
|
IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games. |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I don't think it is questionable if aircraft's condition is representative enough for a standard 109E. I'd say it is close enough, there are always differences between individual aircraft, even if all of them are brought up to the same specs. Weight is pretty much irrelevant at high speed, and drag from wing installed weapons was shown to be small. I also think the methods employed are sound, and the data is as solid as test data can be.
So far so good, but for me there are other open questions, mostly regarding high altitude performance. It was brought up in another topic - a plane going 500 at SL should manage a lot more than 575 at 5000m, if it has slightly more power available at altitude. Doesn't make sense the way it is. Also, V15 having a DB601Aa engine, the full throttle altitude of 4900m is unreasonably high, no answer found as of yet. Spitfire tests do not show this kind of problems, which makes it easier for me to accept their results. They are more plausible. OTOH, Spitfire test results usually get less corrections and would therefore be less accurate. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Here's another take on it. If you look at Spitfire I speeds, roughly 285 mph at SL and about 355 mph at FTH, and the Merlin III's output, you will see that the Merlin has a good deal less power at SL than the DB 601A/Aa (about 870 HP vs 1045 PS). At rated altitude, the Merlin offers a bit more power, but the two aircraft reach about the same top speed. In short, the 109E needs less power at altitude, which quite clearly points to less overall drag in the high speed regime. So how on Earth would be it be slower or just as fast than Spitfire with more power (100-150 PS more) near SL...? [/QUOTE] Also, V15 having a DB601Aa engine, the full throttle altitude of 4900m is unreasonably high, no answer found as of yet.[/QUOTE] I don't think it's very unreasonable, 1000-1200 m gain in FTH due to high speed rammed power seems fairly typical, and it's seems it is what in all tests agree. Quote:
![]()
__________________
Il-2Bugtracker: Feature #200: Missing 100 octane subtypes of Bf 109E and Bf 110C http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200 Il-2Bugtracker: Bug #415: Spitfire Mk I, Ia, and Mk II: Stability and Control http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/415 Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! http://kurfurst.org ![]() |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
I'd like to see the document where V15's loadout is mentioned. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Buzzsaw,
To answer your questions about the V15a, yes its an E-1, but no, I do not think there was any meaningful difference between the E-1 and E-3 aerodynamically. Only the fitted armament was different. Now one of the test you have posted show that there was 0 to 1 kph "difference" between the MG FF being present or not.Other than that there was a slight bulge under the cannon drum in the underside of the wing. I do not know what drag that was responsible for, but I do have British tests for the Spitfire which give a speed difference of a whopping 1 mph for the similar bulge for the Hispano ammo drums... As for the V15a test, the full paper has been transcribed on my site http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...w_109V15a.html and I have also recently uploaded the originals to this forum, you can find in one of my recent postings in another thread. As for the 3 papers you have posted, they are turn times and radii for the 109E at 0 and 6000m, at various flap settings.
__________________
Il-2Bugtracker: Feature #200: Missing 100 octane subtypes of Bf 109E and Bf 110C http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200 Il-2Bugtracker: Bug #415: Spitfire Mk I, Ia, and Mk II: Stability and Control http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/415 Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! http://kurfurst.org ![]() |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Sorry Kurfurst, your answer is clearly not accurate. Firstly, You have not provided an original document which shows the loadout, weight, or boost levels of the the V15 aircraft. If you have the full test, show the originals, not transcribed incomplete sections. Secondly, the V15 is clearly not a production aircraft, there were no production E-1's till late in 1938 and early in 1939. The date of the V15 test is April of 1938, long before any E models were produced. V15 is one of several prototypes produced to test the installation of the DB601 engine in a 109 airframe. Here is a excerpt from 'Messerschmidt Bf 109' by Robert Grinsell. This is one of several sources I have consulted which clearly trace the evolution of the 109E model, and which are in general agreement. The section of relevance, begins with the 109E header. ![]() As the above notes say, V15 was one of three early pre-production aircraft which were built in 1937 and which had the DB-601 installed and tested in various forms. These were V13, V14 and V15. I could not absolutely confirm a picture of V15, but I believe it is one of the lower or upper aircraft on the following page, as no others of this type were constructed. V14, the identical brother aircraft to V15 is definitely identified. You will notice there is no armament installed on V14 or the other two aircraft. ![]() At this time, Germany was orchestrating a propaganda campaign to convince potential enemies that it had a formidable and powerful air force with aircraft which outperformed all opponents. At this time, Germany was potentially moving into a conflict situation over its claims on the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia. In fact, the latest model of the 109 in service, the 109D, was slower and climbed worse than the initial model of the Hurricane then in service. The Luftwaffe attempted to mislead British and French observers by sending highly modified versions of the 109 to air competitions. Below is a picture of V13 in its initial form during the July 1937 Zurich International competition. In the case of the July event, V13 was equipped with a modified 1560 hp DB-601 engine, (misidentified in the caption as a DB600) which allowed it to win several events. These engines were designed to only last a few hours, used special fuels and boost levels. The Luftwaffe claimed their entries were 'production', in service aircraft, despite the fact no 109's were in service with Daimler Benz engines at that time. No armament was visible. ![]() V14, also equipped with a 1560 hp DB 601, was also present, and flown by Ernst Udet, head of the Technical Office of the Luftwaffe, but it crashed. Below are pictures, again, no armament is visible. ![]() In November of the same year, at a second international air competition, V13 made another appearance, in even more highly modified form. This time it was powered by a more heavily boosted DB601 which produced 1650 hp. This aircraft also had a large number of other modifications, including a special spinner, highly polished frame, and special radiators. And quite obviously, it has no armament. It achieved a top speed of 379 mph/607 kph at sea level. It was claimed to be a production, service aircraft. Seen below: ![]() The aircraft was flown by Dr Wurster, the chief test pilot for Messerschmidt. You will notice that the V15 test also has Dr Wurster as test pilot. During 1937 and 1938 V15 was being used a testbed for various engine, boost, radiator, and oil cooler configurations. It continued in this role through 1938 and into early 1939, then was retired. According to the several sources I consulted, it is clear this aircraft did not have standard armament, if any, and that it was equipped at various times with highly modified engines. The fact the results of the posted V15 test are not duplicated by any other of the tested actual E series aircraft is a clear indicator its results were obtained with non-standard equipment. Sources 'Messerschmidt Bf 109' by Robert Grinsell 'Bf 109, Versions B-E' by Roy Cross, Gerald Scarborough and Hans J Ebert 'Messerschmidt Bf 109' by Heinz J Nowarra 'Spitfire vs Bf 109' by Tony Holmes 'Messerschmidt Bf 109, Owners Workshop Manual', by Paul Blackah and Malcolm V Lowe Last edited by *Buzzsaw*; 10-12-2012 at 07:57 AM. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Bf 109E-1 V-15a WNr. 1774 was the last in prototype I know of, it was fully armed with 4 x MG 17s and in representative condition of serial production aircraft, the complete testing paper was provided on this forum if anyone wants to doubt my transcription. I am not discussing red herrings about previous or different aircraft, therefore on my part I have put an end to this part of discussion.
__________________
Il-2Bugtracker: Feature #200: Missing 100 octane subtypes of Bf 109E and Bf 110C http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200 Il-2Bugtracker: Bug #415: Spitfire Mk I, Ia, and Mk II: Stability and Control http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/415 Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! http://kurfurst.org ![]() |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In fact, as mentioned above, there were a number of prototypes after V15 designated for testing of the 109E series, they included V16, V17, V18, V19, V20, V21, V22.
As far as continuing the discussion, I will say I am still of an open mind if someone has further information on this aircraft and the test. At this point though, it would seem clear that a) it was a prototype, b) it was not armed with standard E series weaponry, c) Boost levels, fuel type and weight are unknown. Last edited by *Buzzsaw*; 10-12-2012 at 08:45 AM. |
![]() |
|
|