Speed graphs for Spitfire and Hurricane

[Buchon]

Originally Posted by Osprey

28mph is a lot of speed.

28mph is a lot of speed, yes, but that´s with Boost.

The performance line posted by B6 is the base performance line, meaning without Boost.

If you make a base performance line with the performance of Boost line then you will have a aircraft with the Boost on all the time, and that´s obviously unrealistic.

You should make the base line performance and then model a Boost behavior that provides the performance of Boost performance line.

And that mean model a high altitude, overheating and damage behavior for Boost too, that´s not easy but they are on it.

I´m full for historic accuracy and for the correct Boost implementation, of course.

[Osprey]

I love how Kurfurst posts data with 'calculated' and 'estimate' figures but no actual flight tests. This would be fair enough but for the fact that it's the opposite stance he takes when dealing with RAF data.

Just thought I'd throw that out there before people start to actually believe this guy, just in case you aren't aware of his reputation.

Originally Posted by Buchon

28mph is a lot of speed, yes, but that´s with Boost.

The performance line posted by B6 is the base performance line, meaning without Boost.

If you make a base performance line with the performance of Boost line then you will have a aircraft with the Boost on all the time, and that´s obviously unrealistic.

You should make the base line performance and then model a Boost behavior that provides the performance of Boost performance line.

And that mean model a high altitude, overheating and damage behavior for Boost too, that´s not easy but they are on it.

I´m full for historic accuracy and for the correct Boost implementation, of course.

At present the 12lbs boost is simply not modeled, so even applying it is not possible. Nobody here is suggesting that 12lbs needs to be available for unlimited times, but for the historically accurate times. Please see bug 174 in my sig......and vote for it

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Osprey

I love how Kurfurst posts data with 'calculated' and 'estimate' figures but no actual flight tests. This would be fair enough but for the fact that it's the opposite stance he takes when dealing with RAF data.

Just thought I'd throw that out there before people start to actually believe this guy, just in case you aren't aware of his reputation.

Most know German data for test of serial production 109 E-1/E-3 claimed for 1.3 Ata (5-minutes emergency power) with 1/4 radiator open: 467-475 km/h.





And serial Swiss 109 E-3 corensponded very well with German charts above:



Hmm even with US test ( 290 mph at the deck)




So for serial 109 E-1/ E-3 speed at the deck for 1.3 Ata (5 minut emergency power) should be between 467-475 km/h

So i think 500 km/h would be really absolutly limit for serial 109 E version - if so it could be do at 1.45 Ata (1-minut emergency power) and radiator close for very short time ( below 1 minut).

Actually we will have it in incoming beta patch.

But looking at British fighters speed polars in beta patch there is not acurrate speed drop at lower alts even for 6 1/2 lbs power settings. Not mention there is lack of +12 lbs emergency boost which was significant adventage in low alts fights.

I read 303 Sqn pilots combat raports from Battle of Britain day's when they wrote about using +12 lbs boost in their Hurricanes MK1. It really make a difference at low alts fights.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Most know German data for test of serial production 109 E-1/E-3 claimed for 1.3 Ata (5-minutes emergency power) with 1/4 radiator open: 467-475 km/h.

Unfortunately, no. The papers you have posted clearly state that the results were not adjusted to the nominal engine outputs. They are not performance test but comparison flights with various installations (guns present/not present, slats sealed/unsealed).

And in all likelyhood, they are all done using the high altitude blower (FS gear in English terms) for the trial.

The flight test results. I see a trend here. The three test you have posted we know that they were done at a lower boost setting, with the results not having been corrected to guaranteed engine outputs, and we do not know if, during the tests, they used MS or FS gear.

We do know however that they all match the results obtained in the most detailed test, that was corrected for guaranteed output, and when during the trials the the supercharger in FS gear.

WNr. 1774
485 km/h at 1.31 ata at MS gear (uncorrected for guaranteed engine output)
497 km/h at 1.35 ata at MS gear (corrected for guaranteed engine output)
460 km/h at 1.31 ata at FS gear (uncorrected for guaranteed engine output)
470 km/h at 1.35 ata at FS gear(corrected for guaranteed engine output)


WNr. 1792
464 km/h at 1.30 ata at ? gear (uncorrected for guaranteed engine output)

WNr. 1791
474 km/h at 1.30 ata at ? gear (uncorrected for guaranteed engine output)

In short, it just the usual Mike Williams BS.

J-347
464 km at 1.35? (detail not given) ata at ? gear

Hmm even with US test ( 290 mph at the deck)

Can we see the testing details of the airframes? What Werknummer, airframe condition, what boost was used, were the radiator flaps open or closed etc...?

All I can see is that they did no actual testing below 10 000 feet / 3000 m.

So for serial 109 E-1/ E-3 speed at the deck for 1.3 Ata (5 minut emergency power) should be between 467-475 km/h

Yes. When operating the high altitude blower (FS gear) near SL, which occured in some tests, but never in real operations.

Serial 109 E-1/ E-3 speed at the deck for 1.35 Ata was 500 km/h. Don't argue with me, argue with Willy Messerschmitt who sold these planes and guaranteed in the contract that each and every one of them will do within 5% tolerance of 500 km/h.

So i think 500 km/h would be really absolutly limit for serial 109 E version - if so it could be do at 1.45 Ata (1-minut emergency power) and radiator close for very short time ( below 1 minut).

No, 500 km/h is the official specification for the serial produced Bf 109E.

My source, which I already posted, says the 109E could do 497 km/h at 1.35ata, with 1/4 open radiators, without overheating.

I'd like to see your source which contradicts that.

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

The papers you have posted clearly state that the results were not adjusted to the nominal engine outputs. They are not performance test but comparison flights with various installations (guns present/not present, slats sealed/unsealed).

Where you find it that there is lower engine outputs???

In these documents - German documents there is clearly 1.3 Ata and 1/4 radiator open. And these is serial production planes.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

And in all likelyhood, they are all done using the high altitude blower (FS gear in English terms) for the trial.


The flight test results. I see a trend here. The three test you have posted we know that they were done at a lower boost setting, with the results not having been corrected to guaranteed engine outputs, and we do not know if, during the tests, they used MS or FS gear.

From where you get these about MS or FS gear??? 109 E had hydraulic supercharger which surly was not used in V15 prototype nothing more.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Serial 109 E-1/ E-3 speed at the deck for 1.35 Ata was 500 km/h. Don't argue with me, argue with Willy Messerschmitt who sold these planes and guaranteed in the contract that each and every one of them will do within 5% tolerance of 500 km/h.



No, 500 km/h is the official specification for the serial produced Bf 109E.

I would really like to see your speed charts for SERIAL 109 E which confirm these beacuse until now i didnt saw any. But for contatry i saw many which show 467-475 km/h not more.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

My source, which I already posted, says the 109E could do 497 km/h at 1.35ata, with 1/4 open radiators, without overheating.

For prototype 109 V15 yes with no hydraulic supercharger. But next serial production 109 E tests speed didnt copy these.

Moreover other county (Swiss, French, US) speed test for serial 109 E confirmed German test for serial planes.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I'd like to see your source which contradicts that.

You alreay saw it page before. German documents from test speed for SERIAL planes not from one prototype and german prospect.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Where you find it that there is lower engine outputs???

It says there, right in the documents you have posted. Please translate, for all.

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

In these documents - German documents there is clearly 1.3 Ata and 1/4 radiator open. And these is serial production planes.

Actually, none of them are serial production planes. The two planes you have posted are pre-production planes for a batch of 14. And they are exactly identical to WNr. 1774.

From where you get these about MS or FS gear???

It says right there, Bodenlader, Hohenlader. MS gear, FS gear.

109 E had hydraulic supercharger which surly was not used in V15 prototype nothing more.

Source please.

BTW some G-6s tested at Rechlin show the same pattern. The 109s hydraulic supercharger could operate in MS or FS gear, if it is set so.

I would really like to see your speed charts for SERIAL 109 E which confirm these beacuse until now i didnt saw any.

Here, again:



And this is the official specification for 109E, guaranteed within +/- 5% by the manufacturer.

But for contatry i saw many which show 467-475 km/h not more.

We have already discussed this. The tests you have posted are probably done in FS gear, which yields less performance than MS gear near SL.

For prototype 109 V15 yes with no hydraulic supercharger.

Source for no hydraulic supercharger please.

But next serial production 109 E tests speed didnt copy these.

Especially as there was never any DB 601 w/o a hydraulic supercharger..

Moreover other county (Swiss, French, US) speed test for serial 109 E confirmed German test for serial planes.

We have discussed this. The Swiss trials, though no details are available, are comparing various propeller designs, and are again likely at FS gear.

The French tests actually closely agree with the nominal specs, the French themselves state it so.

The US test, of which's conditions we know absolutely nothing, did not test SL speed at all - they did not measure speed below 12 000 feet - there's no data point there marked... it's just a rough extrapolation. Oh, and just for the record, the US tests also seem to have measured both FS gear and MS gear. They measured ca. 335 mph at 12 000 feet (540 kph at 3657 m), that's pretty much the same the Germans measured in FS gear on WNr 1174 / V15a.

I am curious why you did not post the testing details though. Testing details are very important, an open radiator can chop off 50 km/h from top speed, for example.

You alreay saw it page before. German documents from test speed for SERIAL planes not from one prototype and german prospect.

Oh. You mean the papers which are not corrected for guaranteed engine outputs, are likely done at the less optimal FS instead of MS gear, and were never meant to measure the absolute performance of serial produced aircraft but relative speed difference of various installations, and was not done on serial production aircraft if that's so important for you.

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

It says there, right in the documents you have posted. Please translate, for all.

I translated there is not information about confirmed lower power output but only about correct mainfold pressure, temperature and not guarantee engine power - nothing more. No info about lower power output.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

It says right there, Bodenlader, Hohenlader. MS gear, FS gear.

Exacly that why it looks that V15 prototype didnt used variable hydraulic supercharget but only 2 position one. With variable supercharger speed polars will be much more smooth.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Source please.

Please - Your own site:

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...w_109V15a.html

" It appears that variable-speed hydraulic supercharger control was either not present or not engaged in the tests (ie. testing seperately with both supercharger gears) : low-altitude and high-altitude supercharger speeds were engaged at a given boost pressure, therefore the curves do not show the characteristic shape of the DB power curve - this would result in a more smooth,curved transition and improved in performance between the supercharger`s two critical altitudes (ca between 2200 and 4800m) in level flight."

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Here, again:

Again for prototype V15 and German prospect not FOR SERIAL PRODUCTION plane. Nothing knew. I would like to see such speeds for serial planes.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

We have already discussed this. The tests you have posted are probably done in FS gear, which yields less performance than MS gear near SL.

Suorce? I dont see any information about these.

As we know serial production 109 E had variable hydraulic supercharger so how and for what would like to disable MS gear????

Maby Germans, Frenchs, Swiss and Americans made phone call and decided to blocked MS gear in their 109 for test?

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

We have discussed this. The Swiss trials, though no details are available, are comparing various propeller designs, and are again likely at FS gear.

Again totally bulshit for me and not confirmed anywhere.

[Kurfürst]

Life must have treated you so unfairly, Osprey.

[Osprey]

I doubted your data based on biased approach between allied and axis over many posts of yours, you don't like this one bit although it's a logical deduction to make, quite normal.

From what I can see is that you have a projected graph that you made yourself from your own calculations vs multiple graphs which come from actual air tests from both allied and axis during the time. But it doesn't fit with your dreams so you shoot the messenger. We've been here before haven't we.......

[Kurfürst]

Well and I only doubt your mental and psychological well-being since I have observed a fracture between reality and your posts, and also a well-developed paranoia and tendency to believe/make up conspiracy theories in many posts of yours, you don't like this one bit although it's a logical deduction to make, quite normal.

So there's really no reason to complain. You express your opinion, I express mine in return. Isn't that how friendships are born?

From what I can see is that you have a projected graph that you made yourself from your own calculations vs multiple graphs which come from actual air tests from both allied and axis during the time.

Oh, really, is that so. Would you kindly point me to this 'projected graph I made myself', please?