Analysis of real life 109E performance for CloD

[pstyle]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Guys,

Airplanes also work as any other machine. They require break in periods, have an area where their performance will peak, and they lose performance if the engine/airframe is abused or aged.

exactly.
Just look at an F1 team
Two drivers (team mates) can be in just about as identical car as possible, both on the same track, under the same weather conditions. Yet you get all sorts of different performance, because so many other factors influence the system.

[5./JG27.Farber]

You might find German engines are run in at the factory. As for the rest of your post Crump, exactly! - With these aircraft being captured they are not going to be clean crisp factory models either. Their going to be thrashed work horses proberbly in poor condition due to shortages and desperate actions..

[camber]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

You might find German engines are run in at the factory. As for the rest of your post Crump, exactly! - With these aircraft being captured they are not going to be clean crisp factory models either. Their going to be thrashed work horses proberbly in poor condition due to shortages and desperate actions..

I agree. Except for the navigation error guys, imagine going on the reciprocal compass bearing, landing, quietly shutting everything down then looking up at the armed people around the plane.

But to clarify, you are quite right that comparing captured a/c tests against the official Me compliance tests (and going for captured) would be inappropriate. However the original thread post doesn't make that argument..it notes that what captured data there is agrees with two Messerchmitt tests and a Swiss export model, except for a Russian test which is very slow on the deck. Kurfurst has presented reasonable arguement against these tests..I don't necessarily agree but they are valid technical arguements.

My question to you would be, given the keys to CloD, what would you set the 109E performance to be? Within the 109 guaranteed spec, that +/-5% makes a difference with the close match between Spit and 109. And we don't have a lot of variants to work with here.

There is not many actual tests, what would really clinch the issue is the RLM compliance data for the 109E (which we don't have as far as I know). This is the equivalent of RAF RAE data, i.e taken not by the manufacturer but the (hopefully skeptical) client. 109G tolerance tests appear to show the pass (to service)/fail (back to the factory) performance being evaluated only for max speed (not sea level). The average top speed at altitude is a little under the average spec speed but still easily passing, which seems rather plausible.

So my current position (based on thread discussion above) is that the most appropriate (typical, historical) performance for 109Es if we must go with a single cloned aircraft in the simulation is low (but pass) spec at sea level and about average spec at height.

But despite this if you really gave me the keys to the Clod FMs, I would actually use the Messerchmitt guaranteed data. I would then set Spit I performance to RAE data, and with +12psi, which should give a nicely balanced Spit vs 109 matchup even on the deck. Single cloned aircraft are pretty unhistorical anyway, better to balance the simulation (once you are within the zone historical and aircraft-aircraft imprecision). People often hate the concept of balance, but what to do once you are within the historical imprecision zone, and you are giving everyone on each side exactly the same aircraft?

Cheers, camber

[robtek]

I believe the variable of the pilots is enough to simulate the factory tolerances.

Especially if wrong engine management gives feelable results, or engine temperatures acting more to the load of the engine instead of rpm.

If one is flying by the book he should have a fine performing machine, if one is riding rough he should have a short living advantage followed by a lame ride.