[ACE-OF-ACES]

thanks i found the PDF, and the graphs.

Your welcome

Where did you get those from? Naca? there's no reference material in your pdf.

No not NACA

Note they are writen in German

As to ware, probally the same guy Kurfurst got them from

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.

Sounds good

Let me know what you find out

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. "

In short he says what I said in the pdf summary

i.e. that these (Bf109K-4 1.8ata) values are calcualted estimates of performance

And how much better would the presence of a hydraulic coupled supercharger be over the one used in the test?

Or worse!

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.

Been there done that years ago

It is a rabbit hole that produces no fruit

On that note

So many people