[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Holtzauge

I do read German and therefore I know the difference between what was flown and what was projected for the V15 prototype: "Blatt 6" shows about 485 Km/h for the FLOWN 1.3 ata value and the ESTMATED 500 Km/h value for "Geschwindigkeiten bei Garantierter Motorlesitung" 1.35 ata as a dashed line. So who is being dishonest now?

That's not really a question, it is still you (and you are doing it rather poorly as usual), so continue translating, maybe you are better at that - its funny you have not translated the first part isn't it.

2. Stoppflug.

Ergebnis: Erflogene Geschwindigkeit 493 km/h, auf Normaltag und Garantieleistung umgerechnete Geschwindigkeit 498 km/h im 0 m. Umrechnung siehe Blatt 5.

For those who do not wish to bother much with Holtzeuge's incoherent lies, here's the deal (as noted by the report clearly):

The aircraft (V15a), identical in all to series production E-1 flew low altitude speed trials on a four way track. The engine was bench tested as well (actually the ONLY test I am aware was this through), as was found to develop 45 PS less, and developed only 1.31ata in fligth instead of 1.35. Calibration flights were also made.

The 'raw' data collected (493 km/h at 0 m) was then converted for standard conditions: German Standard day atmospheric conditions, and normal engine power. The result was 498 km/h at 0m. The methods are clearly visible at the end of the report.

This is of course entirely normal, almost all Spitfire etc. tests for example do the same thing: correct the figures to normal boost ratings, and adjust for (British) Standard Day conditions. Otherwise, they would be useless for comparison...

Holtzeuge claim is basically because the flight tested data was converted (as usual) to standard conditions it needs to be dismissed because it's an 'estimate.'

Concerning the French test it looks like very few data points and none at SL as I can tell so your claim that this supports the 500 Km/h seems a stretch.

So HoHuns and my calculations are for "a different engine" and can be discounted as "estimates"?

Well they ARE estimates and they are for a different engine and different boost...

Quite interesting that this method of calculation works well with the Spitfire and also mirrors 466-475 km/h Rechlin test results for the Me109E SERIES aircraft no?

Nope, your calculations are not interesting at all.

I see you added some Spitfire data now. I assume it's safe to bet that this is the absolute rock bottom worst data you were able to find on the Spit, right?

Oh, not so finnicky about 'marketing brocheres' any longer, are we?