Friday Update, February 10, 2012

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Varrattu

The value 500 km/h is presumably taken from a Yugoslavian translation of one BF109. I cannot find any German Document with such data.

Regards Varrattu

Here is link to some data from manual:

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

Here is data for V15a - German prototype of 109 E with Db601

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...15a_blatt6.jpg

Here is for German test of 109 E-3 Db601A at 1.3 Ata (1/4 radiator open)

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

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Here is link to some data from manual:

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

Here is data for V15a - German prototype of 109 E with Db601

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...15a_blatt6.jpg

Here is for German test of 109 E-3 Db601A at 1.3 Ata (1/4 radiator open)

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

With Kurfurst's track record I take anything he publishes with a large pinch of salt.

[csThor]

Are you taking the spitfireperformance.com site with a pinch of salt, too? Cause that webmaster is under similar suspicions (spit-polishing the Spitfire's halo by posting selected data).

Every coin has two sides.

[Osprey]

Depends who is suspicious doesn't it?

I'm happy to go with results data from wartime testing though, I don't think you'll get more believable than that, and if that is still something we cannot believe to be true then forget any progress in WW2 flight simming forever.

[csThor]

Problem is too many people take such websites and the tests they publish as eternal truth and ignore that circumstances have to be taken into consideration. I, personally, take any website with a pinch of salt because you never know who made it and what motives that person has. I mean it's so damn easy to leave out data that doesn't fit an agenda ...

[Al Schlageter]

So very true about the Hungarian's site.

[csThor]

Careful or we're going to fall into a "topic pit" which we wouldn't want. Okay?

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by csThor

Problem is too many people take such websites and the tests they publish as eternal truth and ignore that circumstances have to be taken into consideration. I, personally, take any website with a pinch of salt because you never know who made it and what motives that person has. I mean it's so damn easy to leave out data that doesn't fit an agenda ...

Agreed 100%

Even when the whole report is provided (read not just the cherry picked data) little things can be missed that can make a big difference in the results. Things like ballest to simulate ammo loads, fuel loads, fuel type, carb jetting, etc just to name a few.

Therefore when the website does not provide the whole report for review, these little things will surly be missed

[Kurfürst]

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

[Varrattu]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

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.

The document does not include any statement indicating that the datas are from a Bf109E. I am not convinced that this is the Bf109E as it went into serial production.

Regards Varrattu