109 e4 performance

[Redroach]

ata = at
1 atm = 1,0332 ata

[Crumpp]

No it doesn't but it does give info on conversions.

By all means point that out.....


http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...formanceT.html

[Al Schlageter]

Unless the French installed there own manifold boost pressure instrument in the 109, the boost pressure used would be conversions of the German manifold boost instrument installed in all 109s, ie ata to mmHg.

[Crumpp]

12/16/39 - Finishing the aicraft setup - roundels painting.

12/18/39 - Instruments inspection by the Center`s pilot.

12/19/39 - Equipment verified during flight.
12/20/39 - (flight interrupted due to fog)

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...formanceT.html

They certainly could have used their own measurements. We don't know enough to determine it and any other conclusion is just a guess.

Well, we might not know but we can take the most probable assumption. The chances that they would be wrong would be accordingly small.

Unless some specific clues indicating that the French were using a different transversion from ata to mmHg exist the most probable assumption would be that they used the same.

[Crumpp]

different transversion

Maybe they were not using ata at all. We don't know.

What instruments did they use? They only had a 3% instrument error which is very good.

Most bourdon tube or bellows instruments found in the panel are ~5%.

What is a fact is that the data is not converted to standard conditions.

[Robo.]

Do we know if the E-4 modelled in game has got (or is supposed to have) a DB 601 Aa engine?

The 'French test' is very interesting, but as Crumpp says, somewhat difficult to use for modelling a E-3 for the sim. The instruments are not the biggest problem really - we can still convert it back, we can also convert the whole test to 'standard day'. The issue seems to be the shape of the plane and components replaced / used, oil, glycol etc... The French apparently had a German manual to compare the outcomes with, and although the top speed was matching, there were some problems with overheating and even engine malfunction (not specified though) resulting poor climb rates when compared to the manual. It took them almost 2 minutes longer to climb to 6000m, that's a massive difference. The 50km/h difference Kwiatek pointed out might also have something to do with the overheating problems - rads were really draggy, but the 50km/h difference between fully open and fully close is rather surprising. Mind you that the difference with and without 500kg bomb was exactly the same at comparable power for a E-4/B (E-3/B), see here

Regarding the differnce between 'guaranteed' and real perofmance:



I know that's the V15a, but you get the idea why I think it would be generally unwise to modell the E-4 for CLoD after manufacturer's promises.