Spit/109 sea level speed comparisons in 1.08 beta patch

[Holtzauge]

Originally Posted by MiG-3U

The French test shows about 494kmh at about 550m and and power chart gives about 1010ps at 550m, these values give 482kmh at sealevel with 990ps.

The outliers, like the sealevel speed in the V15a test, are usually caused by measurement errors. And given the fact that speeds match better with other tests at high altitude, it is probable that something is not right in the V15A measurements (error can be anything; failing device, typing error, calibration problem etc.).

Yes, the 498 Km/h SL figure for the V15s prototype does not make sense if you assume that the circa 570 Km/h figure at altitude is correct. I have simulated a number of different aircraft and usually it is enough with one data point with both power and speed and then you can with good correlation to historical data work out the others if you have the power/alt curve. This has worked for me on the Fw190A&D, Spitfire 1,5&9, P-51, P-47, Me109F, G and K etc and using the same principle yields around 475 not 500 Km/h at SL for the Me109E.

I also agree that unless some new data on series aircraft emerges that changes the matter, I'm going to stick with the 475 Km/h figure since I'm more inclined to believe the Rechlin reports on actual production aircraft for tuning my model rather than trusting some prototype data or a figure from a Baubeschribung from "circa 1939".

Finaly, Seeing Kurfurst's has been actively promoting the 500 Km/h story I never expected to convince him. My sole purpose with posting my chart was to provide an alternative analysis and in the end it's up to the readers what data they think is more credible and knowing the majority of users want historical not agenda driven performance I can only hope 1C will not be duped.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Holtzauge

I'm more inclined to believe the Rechlin reports on actual production aircraft

Pity we have not seen any.

Originally Posted by Holtzauge

My sole purpose with posting my chart was to provide an alternative analysis and in the end it's up to the readers what data they think is more credible

A home made chart of which's maker even refuses to share the base data vs. properly flight tested, calibrated, corrected and guaranteed flight test data.

It is going to be a tough call I bet.

[Holtzauge]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Pity we have not seen any.



A home made chart of which's maker even refuses to share the base data vs. properly flight tested, calibrated, corrected and guaranteed flight test data.

It is going to be a tough call I bet.

Yes, seeing the sniping is coming from someone with a documented history of always taking the inside envelope of any allied data and the outside envelope of any Me109 data I'm sure it will be a close call.

Over and out.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

vs. properly flight tested, calibrated, corrected and guaranteed flight test data. (of a prototype)

It is going to be a tough call I bet.

yep, it is.

by the way, isn't it peaceful here at the moment, shame its going to end soon......

[Glider]

Does anyone know the differences between the V15 and production E-3. I assume that 20mm guns, armour plate, self sealing fuel tanks, bullet resistant glass, were not included. Did the Germans install additional equipment to the 109 similar to Spit 1's compared to the Spit prototype, such as different radios, IFF, emergency equipment, bulges to accomodate the 20mm. All these things presumably would have impacted the performance to some degree.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Pity we have not seen any.

None from Kurfurst either, but we do have the power curves from the 109E handbook which give 470 km/h at sea level, which is far more realistic than the treasured 493 km/h.