![]() |
|
|||||||
| 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
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
http://kurfurst.org/#Emil It is need to read it carefully. I found for sure that German tested serial 109 E with Db601A at 1.3 Ata (990 PS) reached at the deck 467 km/h. ( radiator 1/4 open) So with emergency 1-minut power at 1.4 Ata (1100 PS) 109 E would be even faster - about 15-20 km/h faster ----> so about 485 km/h at the deck (1/4 radiator open) According to German manual for 109 E with Db601Aa at 1.45 Ata (1175 PS) it reached at the deck 500 km/h ( probably radiator closed looking at other 109 test like French and British also looking at climb times). Of course it would be very short time to keep that speed beacause 1.4(601A)/1.45Ata(601Aa) could be keep only for 1-minute. Also 1.3/1.35 Ata was allowed only for 5-minutes. Other test - French and British cofirmed German manual claims that 109 E could reach 570 km/h at 5.0km but with closed radiators - position of radiators could change speed of these planes at about 20-30 km/h depend of altitude. For comparision Spitfire MK1 at +6 1/2 lbs (1/2 hour limit) reached at deck 455 km/h (283 mph) but with emergency +12 lbs (5-minutes limit) it reached 505 km/h. Last edited by Kwiatek; 02-13-2012 at 10:03 AM. |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Regards Varrattu
__________________
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit Intel Core i7-8700K CPU @ 3.70GHz 2x4gb DDR3-1600 GeForce GTX 970 4095 MB Logitech G35 Headset Logitech G940 Flight System (fw 1.42) Mad Catz Strike7 Keyboard Headtracker DIY 6DOF & OpenTrack 2.3.10 |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...chreibung.html Here is data for V15a - German prototype of 109 E with Db601 http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...15a_blatt6.jpg Here is for German test of 109 E-3 Db601A at 1.3 Ata (1/4 radiator open) http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...MP16feb39.html |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are you taking the spitfireperformance.com site with a pinch of salt, too? Cause that webmaster is under similar suspicions (spit-polishing the Spitfire's halo by posting selected data).
Every coin has two sides. |
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Depends who is suspicious doesn't it?
I'm happy to go with results data from wartime testing though, I don't think you'll get more believable than that, and if that is still something we cannot believe to be true then forget any progress in WW2 flight simming forever. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Problem is too many people take such websites and the tests they publish as eternal truth and ignore that circumstances have to be taken into consideration. I, personally, take any website with a pinch of salt because you never know who made it and what motives that person has. I mean it's so damn easy to leave out data that doesn't fit an agenda ...
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Anyone wishing to check the original Me 109E specs paper should check here - there is not much to add except that this is the official performance guaranteed by manufacturer within +/- 5% in speed (ie. 475 - 525 km/h at SL) and +/- 8% in climb. http://www.2shared.com/document/-XYw...chreibung.html This tended to be an average of performance - any plane that did not meet the above specs within tolerance was rejected by the LW's quality control group, abbreviated BAL. Here is how the speed scatter works - the following is a test result compilation of thirteen 109G machines tested at ERLA producer. The thick line in the middle is the nominal (guaranteed) speed performance at altitude, the two other thinner lines are the +/- 3% tolerance on speed. The small dots are the speeds achieved by individual planes. The box is the nominal performance - 660 km/h at 7000m. Most flew quite close, but there were three that didnt match the specs and were rejected, while three were a bit faster than the nominal. The thick box is the median of the non-rejected planes. A small note that the speed runs were flown with the radiators 120 mm open, whereas nominal speed was understood with 50mm open radiators, so the tested planes should be a bit slower than the nominal speed anyway (more drag in tested condition than in standard condition). http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_...catter_web.jpg
__________________
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
Last edited by Kurfürst; 02-13-2012 at 07:39 PM. |
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Regards Varrattu
__________________
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit Intel Core i7-8700K CPU @ 3.70GHz 2x4gb DDR3-1600 GeForce GTX 970 4095 MB Logitech G35 Headset Logitech G940 Flight System (fw 1.42) Mad Catz Strike7 Keyboard Headtracker DIY 6DOF & OpenTrack 2.3.10 |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Anyway, you can buy the full version at http://www.luftfahrt-archiv-hafner.de/. I do not have it, but they list it as for Bf 109E. Its a bit like arguing that a British doc from 1940 mentioning "Spitfire" is unconvcing, because it does not say Spitfire I.
__________________
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
Last edited by Kurfürst; 02-15-2012 at 08:58 AM. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|