[vanir]

I didnt saw speed trials from these document so i really dont know if these is calculated data or tested.

Moreover even if it was data from RL test it is noted that there was used 1.42 Ata for Db601E and 605A which was restricted initialy in serial production ( until IV.1942 for 601 and XI.1943 for 605A).

Also from 2-nd document there is no info about speed of 109 F-4 - 670 km/h - where is point 5 ( info is missing in these page).

Aslo we dont know if these test was with compressibilty correction. There were some German data from speed test for 109 F-4 with these error of not compressibilty correction. There is info at Kurfurst site.

Another fact is that Bf 109 G in 2-nd document was G-1/R2 reconanse version with less take off weight - 2870 kg instead fighter load plane - 3040kg. It is quite logical that without blocked 1.42 Ata and with much less weight it could do much more ( 700 km at 6600m) then standart G-1 or G-2. ( 660 km at 7 km).

These 2 documents also show big difference betwen these 2 109 G verison. 1 documenct says for 109 G 1.42 standart figher load: 700 km/h - 7 km . 2nd document says 109 G1 R2 with 1.42 Ata and much less weight (2870 kg): 700km - 6.6 km ?

I think the point with making accurate FM is get reliable data ( average values from avaliable suorces). You could get reliable data from serial planes and make accurate FM's or you could get data from prototypes or unserial planes but then you make the same OlegTrix as we have actually.


I choose the first option but you could make what you want .

Er...not wanting to get in the middle of this, but you'll find documentation at Kurfurst's site that 1.42ata was cleared operationally twice for the 605A prior to its final clearance in October43. It was cleared initially, then rescinded, then cleared and rescinded again, then finally cleared. So it would seem in the field almost any Gustav prior to Oct43 may or may not be using 1.42ata. At particular times it was very unlikely, other times possible and feasible.


Secondly, why not use your own methodology to make a simple list at this point of the performance of the G-6 and offer it to the modders for consideration, and cite your sources (I know you've been doing this but I'm talking putting it in a prospectus format)?
Instead of arguing finer points on FM development and research you could offer a straight up alternative for consideration.

I myself don't place so much importance on maximum speed capabilities in level flight versus altitude, 20km/h here or there doesn't bother me as much as overall engine management characteristics modelled, such as maximum continuous and climbing condition for actual sustained combat performance. Everything about pilot reports say a clean G-6 was totally contemporary with any Allied fighter in 1943, somehow I don't think they were talking about just an air race at set altitude under test conditions.
So long as my average engagement speeds and power on tap is good for manoeuvres, my cruise performance pretty good, I don't really see where utter perfect precise maximum speed at full throttle height under perfect atmospheric and test conditions make the slightest difference, so long as they're a pretty good approximation (ie. the FTH and rated altitude are accurate, the international rating of the engine is fairly accurate, the maximum continuous performance, etc.). These things tell my plane how good it's going to be in a fight. Speed just tells me if I can run from one, and in most cases coming onto 1944 the answer is no anyway, 'till the new engines appeared.

But for example the stock G-6 feels underpowered through manoeuvres (say compared to the F-4 which feels very powerful through manoeuvres and which pilots called "balanced"). I've got a pilot quote sitting right beside me calling the G-6 overpowered, and blaming half the issues of the G-6 on an engine that was too powerful being put in an airframe which is too light for it, and the wing area and control surface area was unsuitable for too much equipment and stores weight (but it had nothing to do with engine power which apparently was in excess if anything).
I dunno, I read what people who flew them say, I get in my virtual cockpit and I just don't see it. You make the conclusions.

For me it's about the handling of the aircraft, for accurate FMing. Fine tune the level speed capabilities to whatever, they don't concern me.



plus I'm going to add.
Oleg's G-6 plainly exaggerates a very simplistic rendition given by basic commercial publications claiming "the G-6 was too heavy and lost performance" but this is given without context. Any amount of research will show the G-6 airframe to remain comparatively light and streamlined and the DB605A was enough to provide increased performance even with the increased take off weight over the F series.
But what the severe issue was fitment of external stores and heavy equipment and this didn't affect for example the climb performance of the a/c but its inherent stability for reasons of wing area and particularly control surface area.
It was the stability and handling of the G-6 which was more affected by its weight than its engine performance, and this was most pronounced when the combination of external drop tank and cannon gondolas were fitted, again not for the loss of speed but the loss of handling.

Keep in mind when a pilot says "heavy" he is not talking like a car driver, "heavy" doesn't mean acceleration or climb rate or speed capabilities, it means it takes both hands on the stick to make a power on turn, and there's not enough lift and control forces for the take off weight.
And again the quote I have calling it heavy specifically relates to Reich Defence fitment of gondolas and drop tanks (squadron leaders had WGr21 instead, everyone else the mentioned stores). That was what he said made it heavy.

But I think people can be simple sometimes, and if they read something which is widely published, no matter how dumbed down it is they want to believe it at its word and make arguments for/against on this basis, instead of independent enquiry (ie. from a neutral perspective which first discounts its own premise, so as not to be presumptuous).

Let's put it this way, I've figured out some very interesting points and been supported by authors and engineers on them, things rarely known or noticed. Here's a way of starting an argument that works, "let's assume I'm wrong too, or in part, or everything is misunderstood. What are some other explanations." With this one little premise I've gotten myself into an entirely new field of understanding how aircraft really work. It's been totally fascinating, and cleared up a lot of what appeared contradictions otherwise.
And when I finally figured out the issue, it's like a load off. You slap your forehead and walk around with a smile