Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey
With Kurfurst's track record I take anything he publishes with a large pinch of salt.
|
Well its a good thing then that it was Messerschmitt AG that published these papers, so you can trust them with your life for authenticy.
Anyone wishing to check the original Me 109E specs paper should check here - there is not much to add except that this is the official performance guaranteed by manufacturer within +/- 5% in speed (ie. 475 - 525 km/h at SL) and +/- 8% in climb.
http://www.2shared.com/document/-XYw...chreibung.html
This tended to be an average of performance - any plane that did not meet the above specs within tolerance was rejected by the LW's quality control group, abbreviated BAL.
Here is how the speed scatter works - the following is a test result compilation of thirteen 109G machines tested at ERLA producer. The thick line in the middle is the nominal (guaranteed) speed performance at altitude, the two other thinner lines are the +/- 3% tolerance on speed. The small dots are the speeds achieved by individual planes. The box is the nominal performance - 660 km/h at 7000m. Most flew quite close, but there were three that didnt match the specs and were rejected, while three were a bit faster than the nominal. The thick box is the median of the non-rejected planes. A small note that the speed runs were flown with the radiators 120 mm open, whereas nominal speed was understood with 50mm open radiators, so the tested planes should be a bit slower than the nominal speed anyway (more drag in tested condition than in standard condition).
http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_...catter_web.jpg