Originally posted by gripen
So far no one has come up with the evidence that the high altitude values in that report are from the flight tests.
[/B]
Oh Gripen, guys who have the report say it is a flight tests, they can even name the serial no. of the plane it was done with... that`s something by anyone`s standards... what do you have on the contrary? Flight tests at lower boost, on well worn airplanes, which have their prop blades holed, their thermostat stuck in open positin, and the tailwheel fixed in a down position when it was retractable? And you are surprised those are slower...?
The problem with that Rechlin paper is that the speeds at high altitude appear to be calculated; claimed FTH is 6,4km while the speed values indicate about 7000m. [/B]
"Appear to be"? How is that?
As for the Rechlin`s flight test papers, there`s NO disagreement. These contain both a curve (which also show ca.6.5km FTH), and a speed table. The table goes in 1000m intervals, as usual with these, but there`s absolutely no indication that 7km is the FTH. It`s just where the fastest speed is listed, the next 1km step over 6000m.
The russian data has very same problem, in both cases the values are not logical if compared with real tested data for 1,3 ata 2600rpm.
gripen [/B]
Expect that it comes in very good agreement with other _flight tests_ of 109F-4 done by rechlin. I expect the 109G-1 to be slightly faster than the F-4 with it`s better high alt prop, slightly more powerful engine (both at 1.42ata), and essentially equal drag characteristics. In fact, the rechlin flight tests of the F-4 at 1.42ata also underline the Rechlin numbers for the G-1 at 1.3ata, considering the DB 601E at 1.42ata was comparable to the 605A at 1.3ata.
Angus&Crumpp,
I have done this excell table some time ago with quite a few a/c loaded into it`s database. That`s from where the nifty graphs come from.
You can see things very well in it btw, how they evolved...
I have a part of the Spit I and II report/test by Rechlin, not all of it, but it contains perf results, dimensions, weight distribution etc. Too bad there`s so much fewer of these papers from the German archieves than what we have from English tests from the PRO.. happily mail them over to Angus or you, along with the xls if requested and of course I am interested in 109 stuff as well.
executor@index.hu, as you all know.
As for Mk IXs, Nashwan/Hop claims only some 350 were made in 1942 and Q1 of 1943 (vs. ca 3000+ 109Gs...add ca1500 F-4s made, quite comparable to 109G`s performance)... now if I compare that to the fact that 800+ produced MkXIVs by the end of 1944 were not enough for more than 5-6 squadrons, ca. 80-100 planes in service... then pennypocket numbers are the words you want to use. I wonder how many were exactly built in 1943, but all secondary references say the Mk Vs still making up the bulk of the force, at least 50% if not more. I have seen pilots flying MkVs still in 1944 ! Based on that, I seriously doubt the MkIX would make it`s presence felt until 1944 or very late 1944. There`s some pattern in this, while technically RAF/LW fighters were very close, the RAF was always more slow to deploy the new ones onto the battlefield.
Happy christmas to all !
