Spit/109 sea level speed comparisons in 1.08 beta patch

[MiG-3U]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Of course there it is.

Please post.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I call BS on this. Got any sources for these claims?

V15 chart on your site shows clearly two speed supercharger and text sites höhen and bodenlader, power value in the calculation is 1018ps vs 990ps for Db601A.

All at your site including 109F kenblat.

[Kurfürst]

[QUOTE=MiG-3U;463981]Please post.

Here.

Flight test.



Guranteed specs.



I would like to see similiar detailed specs for the Spitfire. At +12 lbs boost. Calibration curves, engine bench test, detailed description of airframe conditions and temperature conditions.

None such exists...

V15 chart on your site shows clearly two speed supercharger

Nope.

and text sites höhen and bodenlader,

Yes. And?

power value in the calculation is 1018ps vs 990ps for Db601A.

And have the DB 601Aa (not the DB 601A) in the sim, which had 1045 PS (1175 PS WEP) anyway. So the tested example had to reached 498 kph at 1018 PS. We have an 1045 PS variant. Are you saying that it should be even faster..?

Now, care to tell me, that regardless of the supercharger design, that what is wrong with the test, since the plane has about the same power our plane in the sim has.

All at your site.

Nope.

I also have similiar curves for G-14, G-6, G-1 etc. on my site. It only shows that the DB 60x supercharger could be run at will at fixed speeds as well. It's no witchcraft, all that is needed to override the barometric control of the hydraulic coupling. Which they did often during these tests, see some of the G-6 and G-14 tests:

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...44_trials.html

Besides the actual supercharger operation is completely irrelevant. We KNOW for a fact that the plane had 951 PS in high speed flight (about 50-60 PS down on power) and reached 493 kph with it (which they calculated to be good for 498 kph at the nominal rating of 996 PS). Any other 109 in similar configuration with the same power should reach the same of course.

[MiG-3U]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Here.

Flight test.

That is a flight test ofa prototype doing 485kmh, non standard engine and 500kmh is a calculation based on non standard power.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Guranteed specs.

Not a test, more like a selling brochure.

But we have multiple tests results around 470kmh.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Yes. And?

That means two speed supercharger, no need for large oil cooler needed for the hydraulic clutch, less drag.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

And have the DB 601Aa (not the DB 601A) in the sim, which had 1045 PS (1175 PS WEP) anyway. So the tested example had to reached 498 kph at 1018 PS. We have an 1045 PS variant. Are you saying that it should be even faster...

I can't find a 1C source stating that, please show me.

Besides 601A and Aa power settings are obviously different, 5min power fth is lower for Aa which means higher than 1.3ata.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I also have similiar curves for G-14, G-6, G-1 etc..

Nonsense curves and not relevant for this discussion, the rest is just your speculations.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by MiG-3U

That is a flight test ofa prototype doing 485kmh, non standard engine and 500kmh is a calculation based on non standard power.

Wrong on all accounts.

Not a test, more like a selling brochure.

And with the specs laid down within being guaranteed within +/- 5% by the manufacturer of the product.

But we have multiple tests results around 470kmh.

Really. And what power, what supercharger settings, what airframe conditions?

That means two speed supercharger, no need for large oil cooler needed for the hydraulic clutch, less drag.

Speculation.

I can't find a 1C source stating that, please show me.

Look at the source files - or the fact that we a 5-min boost pressure of 1.35 ata...

Nonsense curves and not relevant for this discussion, the rest is just your speculations.

And one more scratch on the tail...

[MiG-3U]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Wrong on all accounts.

These are just facts.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

And with the specs laid down within being guaranteed within +/- 5% by the manufacturer of the product.

Manufacturer's quaranteed performance is not a test data and not relevent.

You were asked real test data for 500kmh and none has been posted.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Really. And what power, what supercharger settings, what airframe conditions?

Not specified but these are real tests of the real series planes.

Still, these match well with 109F speed 495kmh for 1.3ata, 500 kmh for 109E at same power or at 1.35ata is unlogical.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Speculation.

Yes in small degree, but much less speculation than assume series engine like you do.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Look at the source files - or the fact that we a 5-min boost pressure of 1.35 ata...

Hm... in game test data is showing 475kmh which is actually slightly faster than swiss tests but acceptable.

Good work 1C, you are able to see behind speculations.

Edit: The point is that if you put doubt on various data on Spitfire at +12lbs, as you did, you should be just as critical in the case of the 109 data. Otherwise a reader gets impression of double standards.

No anykind of polemics, sarcasm, arrogance nor all those little annoyances intended. Leaving this discussion for next 5 days.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by MiG-3U

These are just facts.

Nope, this is just your opinion and has nothing to do with any test report's contents.

Originally Posted by MiG-3U

Manufacturer's quaranteed performance is not a test data and not relevent.

Unfortunately it is test data and it is relevant. Unless you want to dream up specifications.

Originally Posted by MiG-3U

You were asked real test data for 500kmh and none has been posted.

Oh they were, you just happen to ignore them.

Not specified but these are real tests of the real series planes.

In unknown conditions..

Still, these match well with 109F speed 495kmh for 1.3ata, 500 kmh for 109E at same power or at 1.35ata is unlogical.

Oh but an 500+ kph Spitfire I as fast as the 109F *IS* logical, riiiiight?

Yes in small degree, but much less speculation than assume series engine like you do.

Thank you for admitting that your remark about supposed two speed superchargers was just speculation.

As for my my "assumptions" about the engine, here is what the test report has to say about it:

Motor: DB 601 A, serial number 140.

Quite clear cut is it not?

Hm... in game test data is showing 475kmh which is actually slightly faster than swiss tests but acceptable.

Good work 1C, you are able to see behind speculations.

They did see through speculations, that's why the final patch is going to fix the SL speed of the 109E to its historical 500 kph-ish value.

Edit: The point is that if you put doubt on various data on Spitfire at +12lbs, as you did, you should be just as critical in the case of the 109 data.

I see. Your position is, if I got it right, that a completely unreferenced graph, without any details showing 6 1/4 boost performance, on which somebody draw up ex post facto his wishful estimates on +12 and even a fantasy +16 boosted level speed performance with a pencil, for the Mark I. Spitfire has the same credibility as the most detailed test on the 109E, which contains engine bench test data, airframe conditions data, calibration curves, and has been appropriately corrected for German Standard Day conditions.

I respectfully disagree with your assessment.

Otherwise a reader gets impression of double standards.

Indeed they might get this idea. Statements like "Manufacturer's quaranteed performance is not relevent" may lead to such conclusions.