Spit/109 sea level speed comparisons in 1.08 beta patch

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

In fact we all do, except for you.

No actually. I have mentioned this twice and you just ignored it.

I have some good news for you though. 1946 HSFX patch 15 just fixed the Hurricane I and Spitfire I FM's to the speeds we talk about here. They are bang on the RAE tests using 12lbs. Fantastic news don't you think? ! I am interested in the link you are referring to for the 109 too because I think the 109E in HSFX may be too slow, but I want a proper flight test, not some calculation which Willie cooked his books in order to win a big fat order from his pal Hitler.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by pstyle

Hi kufurst, any chance you can link me to the records of the 109e maintaining 500kph in level flight at sealevel. Sorry if you've posted this before. Ta.

Edit; sorry I see you never stated sea level. My mistake. Unless SL means sea level, and not STRAIGHT Line?

Originally Posted by Osprey

I am interested in the link you are referring to for the 109 too because I think the 109E in HSFX may be too slow, but I want a proper flight test,

Here it is. It is as proper as a flight test can get. In fact, its the most detailed performance test I have seen so far. http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...w_109V15a.html

Of particular interest, translated from the paper.

Condition of the airframe :

The surface was painted after the serial production standard. The engine cowling was still rough, exhaust manifolds (DB-type, made at BFW) were lacking top cover. 2 Cowl- and wing-MGs were installed. Antenna wire. Undercarriage retracted, tailwheel out. For air intake, see the reports drawings.

Radiator cooler flaps were 1/4 open. Coolant temperature observed as constant 90 degrees Celsius.
Oil cooler flaps were closed. Oil temperature observed as 62/82 degrees Celsius.'

Speed was measured on the four-way flight track in Haunstetten. Altiude trials were performed near Augsburg airfield.

Measured speed for 0 m was 493 kph at 1,33ata. The engine was measured on test bench, and was found to develop 45 PS less than the guaranteed nominal output at 1,35 ata, so the flight results were corrected (see Blatt 5 for calculations) to the nominal engine ratings and German Standard day : 498 km/h at 0 m (CINA) at 1.35ata..

Originally Posted by Osprey

I have some good news for you though. 1946 HSFX patch 15 just fixed the Hurricane I and Spitfire I FM's to the speeds we talk about here. They are bang on the RAE tests using 12lbs. Fantastic news don't you think? !

It is, actually. Given that the complete lack of + 12 lbs tests, the likely farce but not unreasonable RAE "test" paper is the only source the FM modellers can use.

not some calculation which Willie cooked his books in order to win a big fat order from his pal Hitler.

You see the problem with this kind of thought is that after Willie would have won that big fat order, he would also have to deliver some 4000 aircraft and each will be tested by the German Air Ministry for specs. If they are not capable being withing plus/minus five percent of the figures Willie promised, Willie won't get a single Pfenning, which doesn't sound like a very good deal.

[JtD]

Regarding level speed performance of the 109, a question raised by I think MiG-3U puzzled me, maybe you have a good explanation, I'm at a loss for now: How come the 109E is faster than the 109F at less power, if you accept the 498 km/h for the 109E at 990ish hp from the V15 test and the 495 km/h for the 109F at 1065ish hp from the 109F Kennblatt?

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by JtD

Regarding level speed performance of the 109, a question raised by I think MiG-3U puzzled me, maybe you have a good explanation, I'm at a loss for now: How come the 109E is faster than the 109F at less power, if you accept the 498 km/h for the 109E at 990ish hp from the V15 test and the 495 km/h for the 109F at 1065ish hp from the 109F Kennblatt?

I could be wrong but I think he was being sarcastic in order to question Kurfursts 498kmph figures. Glider confused me too since he dissected MiG3U's post as if it were in support of Kurfurst, when it wasn't.

[Bounder!]

Originally Posted by JtD

Regarding level speed performance of the 109, a question raised by I think MiG-3U puzzled me, maybe you have a good explanation, I'm at a loss for now: How come the 109E is faster than the 109F at less power, if you accept the 498 km/h for the 109E at 990ish hp from the V15 test and the 495 km/h for the 109F at 1065ish hp from the 109F Kennblatt?

Just a stab, Kurfürst is probably the man for this question but looking up the weight of the 109e and 109f and it appears the later is heavier when loaded which might help account for the lack of speed increase over the emil?

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by JtD

Regarding level speed performance of the 109, a question raised by I think MiG-3U puzzled me, maybe you have a good explanation, I'm at a loss for now: How come the 109E is faster than the 109F at less power, if you accept the 498 km/h for the 109E at 990ish hp from the V15 test and the 495 km/h for the 109F at 1065ish hp from the 109F Kennblatt?

Its difficult to say how much it is on the 109F Kennblatt because the Kennblatt's figures are with the original ratings of the 601N at 495/515 (1.42/1.3, which were reduced to 1.25). In short the 495ish figure is for 1.3ata.

My best guess is that there was a major difference between the Emil and Friedrich propellers (also according to the propeller effiency curves I have seen), the latter was of smaller diameter and almost certainly meant for high altitudes, and probably less efficient in denser air, hence the relative stagnation of speed near SL. The Friedrich would be probably faster with a different prop.

But all of this is not so extraordinary or a surprise since the same can be noted when it comes to the Mark I / Mark V / Mark IX Spitfires's evolution. Hell the Mark I. at +12 is supposedly faster at SL than the Mark IX at +15 boost, how come..?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

But all of this is not so extraordinary or a surprise since the same can be noted when it comes to the Mark I / Mark V / Mark IX Spitfires's evolution. Hell the Mark I. at +12 is supposedly faster at SL than the Mark IX at +15 boost, how come..?

Lack of documentation for this claim noted. Still waiting for data proving the 109E had less drag than the Spitfire I.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Lack of documentation for this claim noted. Still waiting for data proving the 109E had less drag than the Spitfire I.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Lack of documentation for this claim noted.

Also noted

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Still waiting for data proving the 109E had less drag than the Spitfire I.

Yes that would be something to see!

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Here it is. It is as proper as a flight test can get. In fact, its the most detailed performance test I have seen so far. http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...w_109V15a.html

Hmmm, this isn't an original document, it's some html from your website. All of the RAE stuff and other docs are originals (except the 12lbs which is measured in test then calculated/translated/projected onto the graph)

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

You see the problem with this kind of thought is that after Willie would have won that big fat order, he would also have to deliver some 4000 aircraft and each will be tested by the German Air Ministry for specs. If they are not capable being withing plus/minus five percent of the figures Willie promised, Willie won't get a single Pfenning, which doesn't sound like a very good deal.

Don't be silly Kurfurst. Willy is an old pal of Goering and a few keys of Colombian marching powder and some bonus wraps he'd have been on the hotline to Herr Hitler. We've all seen how Oscar Schindler did it.