109 e4 performance

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Regarding V15a performance in these test it didnt have variable-speed hydraulic supercharger control and of course it was a prototype plane ( in most cases prototypes reach better performacne then serial production planes)

Nice job Kwiatek, just to remind you that the V15a was identical to series E-1 and it has had some problems to reach the guaranteed power output and the difference in PS had to be calculated, hence the staggered line. In this case the prototype certainly performed worse... As for the supercharger, that's just as you wrote, the V15a had the same supercharger also, but the test was commited without it on purpose (as per the test description).

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Swiss 109 E-3 reached 464 km/h with original prop and from German test we got 467 km/h.

The French test was very accurate as for the top speed, also in the same ballpark. That's for the E-3 with 601A and 9-11081A, at 1.3 ata, 0m. What was the rad setting? Also 1/4 open?

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Robo.

Nice job Kwiatek, just to remind you that the V15a was identical to series E-1 and it has had some problems to reach the guaranteed power output and the difference in PS had to be calculated, hence the staggered line. In this case the prototype certainly performed worse... As for the supercharger, that's just as you wrote, the V15a had the same supercharger also, but the test was commited without it on purpose (as per the test description).

I wonder how supercharger control - variable hydraulic speed or 2 postion could affect on performacne. Surly speed curve for hydraulic is smooth without power lost between gears but other hand it could casue some lost.

In V15a chart black thick line speed was made at 1.31 Ata power output - it reached 485 km/h with radiator 1/4 open. Still we need to remember that these is prototype NOT A SERIAL PLANE with different supercharger control.

Later German test show that standart 109 E-3 with Db601A at 1.3 Ata 2400 RPM reached 467 km/h at deck with also 1/4 radiator open.

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...MP16feb39.html

So i think speed for 109 E-3 with 1-minute emergency power depend of radiator settings ( 1/4 open or close) and type of engine Db601 A or DB601Aa was in range 485-500 km/h.

[Kwiatek]

TomcatVIP for Hurricane MK1 i found 2 charts:





The second at 12 lbs line looks more reliable to me also.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

I wonder how supercharger control - variable hydraulic speed or 2 postion could affect on performacne. Surly speed curve for hydraulic is smooth without power lost between gears but other hand it could casue some lost.

That's not what I wrote . I said the V15a's engine was lacking 45PS (nothing to do with the supercharger) and the actual curve had to be calculated for guaranteed engine output. A different supercharger control would only make a difference between 2200 and 4800m, not down on the deck. The only problems mentioned (except major issue with the engine performance) was lack of manifold exhaust covers and rough finish of the engine cover.

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

So i think speed for 109 E-3 with 1-minute emergency power depend of radiator settings ( 1/4 open or close) and type of engine Db601 A or DB601Aa was in range 485-500 km/h.

And I agree. The Aa should behave slightly different down low and the EN rating was different, too. That's why I am asking if we really have (or suppose to have) a Aa 601 or A version.

Can you guys put a chart together with exact information (all rated ata settings, rpm, rad setting...) for both DB 601A and DB 601Aa with aproximate guestimated max TAS at the sea level?

[Kwiatek]

[Robo.]

I got the ratings, what I wanted was your opinion what the max TAS at 0m shoud be for each engine for each rating (Hoechst - Kurz- und Dauerleistung) - that would be very helpful.

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Robo.

I got the ratings, what I wanted was your opinion what the max TAS at 0m shoud be for each engine for each rating (Hoechst - Kurz- und Dauerleistung) - that would be very helpful.

I think if we agree that standart 109 E-3 with Db601A at 1.3 Ata 2400 RPM 1/4 radiator open reach 467 km/h at deck ( from German test) it is sure that speed could be calculated for other power setting and also for Db601 Aa with high probability.

[JG53Frankyboy]

at least he
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=23921
is talking about that both engine variants are programmed, speaking available, in CoD. How 'accurate' and wich 109E has wich variant in game.....smart people have to look in the code i guess

[Crumpp]

It's not a promise it's a contract. I.e. if the aircraft doesn't meet the specifications laid out in the contract then the RLM does not accept the aircraft and it goes back to the factory.

I thought this would be a pretty straight forward idea?

Absolutely.

It is a legal binding document that the customer does not have to pay for the aircraft if it does not reach the stated performance. There is no guessing required. Once more as already stated, both Mtt and the Luftwaffe confirmed that performance before that aircraft left the factory.

Using a prototype, Bf-109EV15a from 1938 with a new type engine at the time, DB-601A. A new type engine that Daimler Benz is saying does not reach its rated power yet but will in the near future.

Bf-109EV15a is for a fact not representative of a front line fighter two years later.

It certainly is not proof of any form of "optimistic" manufacturer's performance.

The Aa should behave slightly different down low and the EN rating was different, too.

There is a lot of debate in some very knowledgeable circles about the engine used. It was either a DB-601A1 or a DB-601Aa as the DB-601A was never an 1100hp engine.

The 5 minute rating is either 1.3ata (DB-601A1) or 1.35ata (DB-601Aa).

Crumpp, give up, mate, obstinance trumps knowledge every time!

We will give him a chance. I make mistakes, especially when I rush or am not all that interested. I also think robo is trying to learn.

This particular debate over Bf-109E WNr 1304 has been ongoing for years among a much more knowledgeable crowd, no offense meant to the IL2 Sturmovik players.

Even lining up the original Baumeister Datum for WNr 1304 has not solved the issue. It was built at a time when both engines were being delivered to Mtt. Without the engine Werknummer, we may never know.

Crumpp your calculation of 492 km/h is spot on, nice one!

It is not accurate without the pressure data.

Although the top speed figures are within limits, what do you think about the radiator drag and overall climb performance (see my previous post?) Hard to explain...

I don't see anything wrong with the radiator drag. It seems typical for a liquid cooled engine installation.

The climb performance is also typical for a colder than standard day. They did get better climb results than Mtt but their climb power settings appear off. Their rpm is high, which makes a difference and so is their manifold pressure.

All of that is secondary to the fact they performed the climbs on a colder than standard day.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Absolutely.

It is a legal binding document that the customer does not have to pay for the aircraft if it does not reach the stated performance. There is no guessing required. Once more as already stated, both Mtt and the Luftwaffe confirmed that performance before that aircraft left the factory.

Of course. No one ever stated in this thread that any Emil accepted by the LW has failed to meet the specifations agreed in the contract. What I dared to say was that the tolerance was rather generous at 50km/h, and we can not assume automatically that the actual performance of Aa Emils was always 500km/h. I suggested certain variability to be modelled (for all aircraft obviously). Please read properly.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Bf-109EV15a is for a fact not representative of a front line fighter two years later.

Just what I said, engine not quite ready + small important flaws in finish and lack of manifold exhaust covers. The test is interesting in certain aspect but no one ever suggested modelling the ingame A-1 Emils according to the charts.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

There is a lot of debate in some very knowledgeable circles about the engine used. It was either a DB-601A1 or a DB-601Aa as the DB-601A was never an 1100hp engine.

The 5 minute rating is either 1.3ata (DB-601A1) or 1.35ata (DB-601Aa).

I know this and it has nothing to do with what I wrote. I was simply asking how do you think the Emils with both A-1 and Aa should be modelled in game including the limits of the ratings. (Especially regarding the top speed at the sea level to start with). My reply was to Kwiatek simply to point out at different character of A-1 and Aa engine, because he did not make any difference between these 2 in his original post.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

We will give him a chance. I make mistakes, especially when I rush or am not all that interested. I also think robo is trying to learn.

Yes you did quite a lot of mistakes, mainly due to the fact you don't read properly what the others have to say and you somehow assumed that everyone except you doesn't know anything. You're learning, too dude, that's OK.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It is not accurate without the pressure data.

It is good enough given the information available. My point was that the value seems to be reasonable for the sim imho.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

I don't see anything wrong with the radiator drag. It seems typical for a liquid cooled engine installation.

That's right, but it is clear the French had some cooling issues and at one attempt, there was (unspecified) engine malfunction. All I said is that this test is a bit dodgy, too, just like V15a. The 50km/h difference is some 5-10km/h too big when compared to other test. I believe this is due to different ata setting during the two flights being compared at 5000m.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The climb performance is also typical for a colder than standard day. They did get better climb results than Mtt but their climb power settings appear off. Their rpm is high, which makes a difference and so is their manifold pressure.

They got worse climb results.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

All of that is secondary to the fact they performed the climbs on a colder than standard day.

And yet, they were overheating, perhaps those higher RPM and different components and coolant as mentioned in the notes. Who knows... But one is for certain - 1304 just as V15a test is interesting and informative, but not really usable.

So can you please say what do you think the top speed for both engines with all 3 rated MFP/RPM from the above chart would be? In your opinion?