Spit/109 sea level speed comparisons in 1.08 beta patch

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

So does this US trial of captured Bf 109E. Does it have "two fixed speeds instead hydraulic clutch"?

Yes, but this one clearly doesn't make 500kmph on the deck (290mph or 464kmph) and has a maximum speed of 340mph (544kmph). That's about 15mph slower than the Spitfire top end and only 6 or so kmph faster than the Spitfire on the deck running at only 6.25lbs of boost. In fact, 290 mph is only slightly faster @ sea level than a Hurricane I @ 12lbs + 3000rpm.
Now, I'm not suggesting that the gap in speed between the Spitfire and 109 is that large, but it's certainly wildly different from your chart. Given that you stated that the prototype you quote is unchanged from the production E-1, how can you account for this discrepancy?

The trouble is, there's this whole 'big lie' about the 109 advantages on the Spitfire (you perpetuate it, that the 109 can out climb, out dive, out speed, out gun and out turn the Spitfire) Some of these are true or course, but not all like you indicate.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Yes, but this one clearly doesn't make 500kmph on the deck (290mph or 464kmph) and has a maximum speed of 340mph (544kmph).

Nope, its just another 109 that has it's hydraulic supercharger set up to give fixed gear ratios. All it needs is to disable the second oil pump in the hydraulic clutch to get a fixed low gear, and then to set the second oil pump in the hydraulic clutch to get a fixed high gear (at minimum slip). Looking at the other testing papers, it was commonly done to reduce the margin of error in the measurements.

BTW if you look at the paper carefully you will see that no low level speed measurement was made, the lowest actual data point measured in low gear was 336 mph at 12k feet. Anything below was simply extrapolated (and obviously with a large margin of error, given the very few points available for extrapolation)

That's about 15mph slower than the Spitfire top end and only 6 or so kmph faster than the Spitfire on the deck running at only 6.25lbs of boost. In fact, 290 mph is only slightly faster @ sea level than a Hurricane I @ 12lbs + 3000rpm.
Now, I'm not suggesting that the gap in speed between the Spitfire and 109 is that large, but it's certainly wildly different from your chart. Given that you stated that the prototype you quote is unchanged from the production E-1, how can you account for this discrepancy?

Well for one we have absolutely no idea about the testing conditions. Without these, it's rather pointless to compare different tests. The aircraft does show very different results from the rest, which can mean the testing conditions may have been different, the airframe or engine was subpar and so on. What "109" is this anyway?

The trouble is, there's this whole 'big lie' about the 109 advantages on the Spitfire (you perpetuate it, that the 109 can out climb, out dive, out speed, out gun and out turn the Spitfire) Some of these are true or course, but not all like you indicate.

I don't perpetuate that. Especially, since much of this data, for example climb rates are missing for both aircraft.