FM's the State of Play with empasis on Climb performance.

[Ernst]

The relative climb speeds, i.e., the difference between the climb speeds of all aircraft each other are in good agreement with RL.

Since to me there is no difference in the "fighting" aspect if the strategy used was to degrade RAF fighters or upgrade the LW ones.

Obviously I prefer that the LW ones upgraded to its RL curves. But if someone is complaining that they were being shot down because the RAF are uncompetitive in climb area I disagree.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Ernst

The relative climb speeds, i.e., the difference between the climb speeds of all aircraft each other are in good agreement with RL.

Well they are certainly not.

[Ernst]

And more there were some error due the fact there is no guarantee that the pilot used the maximun aircraft performance only because he is human. Was the tests repeated extensively do determine an average that the pilot can climb the aircarft? Yes or no? Due to this the relative (difference in) climbs are in good agreement. Second the quantity represented is not rate of climb.

From the error theory the error should be the minimun grade/2, i.e, sigma = 2.5ftm/2 = 1.25m = 1m15s. Considering this error the relative climbing can be considered in good agreement.

[Crumpp]

And more there were some error due the fact there is no guarantee that the pilot used the maximun aircraft performance only because he is human. Was the tests repeated extensively do determine an average that the pilot can climb the aircarft? Yes or no? Due to this the relative (difference in) climbs are in good agreement. Second the quantity represented is not rate of climb.

You are absolutely correct in both your post's Ernest. The Relative performance is about right and it looks like people are nitpicking IMHO.

To put it another way, there is more correct about it than there is wrong with it.

It is rate of climb though. Rate is performance in relation to time. The graph plots are time to altitude which one can calculate rate in feet, meters, inches, nanometers, or whatever unit of distance per time they wish.

[5./JG27.Farber]

the 250 IAS is for sea level, it drops over altitude.

For example the Bf109T

Alt - 0m's
Speed IAS - 250

Alt - 1000m's
Speed IAS - 243

Alt - 2000m's
Speed IAS - 236

Alt - 3000m's
Speed IAS - 229

Alt - 4000m's
Speed IAS - 222

Alt - 5000m's
Speed IAS - 215

Alt - 6000m's
Speed IAS - 208

Alt - 7000m's
Speed IAS - 200


So merely maintaining 250kmh for a 109 climb test is actually not its best climb. Just a thought.

[Crumpp]

the 250 IAS is for sea level, it drops over altitude.

Of course it does. This was another 100 page argument with folks on this forum. It changes with density altitude.

the Bf109T

Those are the same as the Bf-109E Flugzeug-Handbuch.

[Al Schlageter]

250mph IAS at 50 ft is not the same as 250mph IAS at 10,000ft?

[von Brühl]

No, they aren't the same speeds. At 250IAS@50ft, you're pretty close to really going 250, at 10000ft, you're closer to 300mph.

[Crumpp]

This was another 100 page argument with folks on this forum.

above

[robtek]

And don't you forget, german plane = km/h NOT mph!