14.04.2010, 14:49
thanks i found the PDF, and the graphs. Where did you get those from? Naca? there's no reference material in your pdf.
Now, i guess what i'm trying to get at is the graph must have more information, perhaps translated details that explain more about the plane, the propellers used, ata rating, supercharger, etc.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html
Doesn't mike make the same reference to these tests. In fact, he even provides translated material. If you read starting the middle of the page where he shows the charts for the late spit and 109k.
He says the K never used 1.98 ata in service but that it was proposed and tested as we see here. 1.8 was used operationally.
"Unfortunately, flight trials of Me 109 Ks appear not to exist. The following Me 109 K curves were produced by Messerschmitt's Project Bureau at Oberammergau. While the curves are rather simplistic estimates (the effect of the hydraulic coupled supercharger being absent for example), they should give some idea of potential, however, they should be treated with reserve. "
And how much better would the presence of a hydraulic coupled supercharger be over the one used in the test?
I think your realism rating has too large a margin of error to make any significant conclusion.
To fill the gaps, Ace, i think you might need to read into some pilot accounts or other means, not only test data using experimental propellers and engine ratings that may have never been used in service.
Its difficult to mesh the methods of science with the historical data, you are always gonna have error. As is the case with many German aircraft, there is not sufficient test or trial data to make unadjusted conclusions from.
There is no reason to think your realism rating of the 109k is more or less accurate than the games, at least with the data you've provided.
I guess i need to see more than one graph and one chart, with out some of the obscurities mentioned by mike williams. He says that information doesnt exist.
Bill
Now, i guess what i'm trying to get at is the graph must have more information, perhaps translated details that explain more about the plane, the propellers used, ata rating, supercharger, etc.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html
Doesn't mike make the same reference to these tests. In fact, he even provides translated material. If you read starting the middle of the page where he shows the charts for the late spit and 109k.
He says the K never used 1.98 ata in service but that it was proposed and tested as we see here. 1.8 was used operationally.
"Unfortunately, flight trials of Me 109 Ks appear not to exist. The following Me 109 K curves were produced by Messerschmitt's Project Bureau at Oberammergau. While the curves are rather simplistic estimates (the effect of the hydraulic coupled supercharger being absent for example), they should give some idea of potential, however, they should be treated with reserve. "
And how much better would the presence of a hydraulic coupled supercharger be over the one used in the test?
I think your realism rating has too large a margin of error to make any significant conclusion.
To fill the gaps, Ace, i think you might need to read into some pilot accounts or other means, not only test data using experimental propellers and engine ratings that may have never been used in service.
Its difficult to mesh the methods of science with the historical data, you are always gonna have error. As is the case with many German aircraft, there is not sufficient test or trial data to make unadjusted conclusions from.
There is no reason to think your realism rating of the 109k is more or less accurate than the games, at least with the data you've provided.
I guess i need to see more than one graph and one chart, with out some of the obscurities mentioned by mike williams. He says that information doesnt exist.
Bill