Bug 174 on 12lbs boost. Review please.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Purple line is with WEP. Форсаж (Forsazh) translates roughly to "boost". Без Форсаж (Bez forsazh) translates to "without boost" therefore grey line is without WEP.

It depends on how 1C interpreted 'WEP'. Is it referring to the 5-min 'Vollast/Kurzleistung' (1.35/2400) or the 1 min 'erhoehte Kurzleistung'?

In the former case, if the 1C WEP is equivalent to the historical 5-min rating, 500 km/h on the deck is correct and historically accurate result.

If however they understand WEP as the equivalent of the historical 1-min rating, there is a rather mixed situation: you can indeed reach the historical top speed, but as Banks have noted, by using a rating that was historically prescribed to special takeoffs.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

It depends on how 1C interpreted 'WEP'. Is it referring to the 5-min 'Vollast/Kurzleistung' (1.35/2400) or the 1 min 'erhoehte Kurzleistung'?

In the former case, if the 1C WEP is equivalent to the historical 5-min rating, 500 km/h on the deck is correct and historically accurate result.

If however they understand WEP as the equivalent of the historical 1-min rating, there is a rather mixed situation: you can indeed reach the historical top speed, but as Banks have noted, by using a rating that was historically prescribed to special takeoffs.

Sadly I think getting that answer out of them might be difficult. The "afterburner" function in-game ( ) doesn't last anywhere close to 5 minutes, so I would guess they're interpreting it as the 1-minute "increased short-term performance".

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Sadly I think getting that answer out of them might be difficult. The "afterburner" function in-game ( ) doesn't last anywhere close to 5 minutes, so I would guess they're interpreting it as the 1-minute "increased short-term performance".

It is easly readable on ATA guage where it show after WEP button - 1.45 Ata power - so 1 minut take off power.

Moreover most know German and other county test for serial 109 E planes are very close and showed 467 km/h at deck for 1.3 Ata power ( 5 minute emergency power). So for 1.35 Ata it should be just little faster - a few kph.

Kurfurst think that 109 E was such fast like 109 F-2 but if he belives that Emil has similar speed like more aerodynamical cleaning plane with better enginehe is really not serious man for me

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Moreover most know German and other county test for serial 109 E planes are very close and showed 467 km/h at deck for 1.3 Ata power ( 5 minute emergency power). So for 1.35 Ata it should be just little faster - a few kph.

I have already explained that the test you have showned are undoubtedfully showing only Hoehenlader performance (ie. for our English friends using FS gear - that was optimized for high altitudes - for all altitudes, and it will naturally show lower results at low altitude.)

Kurfurst think

Correction: Messerscmitt AG thinks that, based on flight test results. And it was so certain about that contracted for about 4000 planes at around 50 000 Reichsmarks each, all reaching 500 km/h at +/- 5% tolerance. That means that Messerschmitt AG would loose about 50 000 Reichsmarks on each 109E that did not reach at least 475 km/h, the absolute minimum. The one the French tested reached about 485 iirc, albeit at only 1.3ata.

that 109 E was such fast like 109 F-2 but if he belives that Emil has similar speed like more aerodynamical cleaning plane with better enginehe is really not serious man for me

The 109E was not as fast as the F-2, the F-2 was rated iirc around 515 kph, the E-1/3/7 at 500 kph. The major difference is not only the engine, or the aerodynamics, but also the propeller. The Emil had a very different propeller one with larger diameter, and had distinctly different propeller effiency than one mounted on the F-2. Even between later G-14 and G-14/AS (different propellers) there was about 10 km/h difference in favour of the G-14 with a low-medium altitude propeller at low altitudes, despite both aircraft having exactly the same amount of power available - 1800 PS.

As for the 109F's aerodynamically more favourable shape, yes it was but it seems its rather overrated. Much of the higher top speed came from the fact that the 601N fitted to the F-2 had much much better altitude output than the 601Aa in the Emils. My studies indicate that the aerodynamic improvements amounted alone for about 15-20 km/h top speed (which is BTW excellent for an aerodynamic improvement)increase, the other 20-25 km/h was entirely down to the increased engine outputs and as noted, the new propeller.

It's hardly a unique situation anyway, the early Spit Vs were much slower than Spit Is at low altitudes, early Spit IXs were again slower than the latest (uprated boost) Spit Vs at lower altitudes etc. High altitude performance was more important for everyone, and propellers can't be just as good in both dense air (low altitude) and thing air (high altitude).

But you know what write a letter to MBB and tell them that you do not like their precedessor's 1940 specs at all.