Originally posted by Neil Stirling1
Hello Crump, I found were the page you posted comes from its here,
http://www.bf109.com/manuals.html
This is an aircraft maintenance manual.
http://www.bf109.com/acrobat/bf109ehighgerman.pdfThe above manual for DB 601A notes the use
of 1.45ata 'Erhohte Kurzleistung' power - for 1 min
Further it notes 1.35ata 'Kurzlesitung' - for 5 min
on PDF page 11.
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1120078013_109eemergency.jpgThe creator of that page notes for the manual :
"This is an original 100-page Luftwaffe Bf 109E manual
(from 1939)."Despite the evidence, Neil Stirling and Mike Williams deny that any boost higher than 1.3ata was used until mid 1942 (by when Emils long disappeared...).
I wonder if they have any proof of 1.3ata being the maximum allowed power or they just, automatically assume the worst figures for LW fighters, and best figures for RAF fighter.
So far it looks they have a mid-42 manual that lists it, and they assume that it was never used before. Such rationale would not be applied to RAF aircraft, of course.
On the MW/NS page, they of course compare the Emil on 1.3ata 'Erhohte dauerluistung' or 'increased continous' power..
no comment.They picked to two slowest tests of a prototype Emil, and the curve from the Kennblatt and cruise power - despite there is many other tests with better performance - they simply dismiss all of those.
Here`s one of them. It`s from the instructions of a Yugoslavian Bf 109E-3 .
They also simply dismiss Swiss, French and Soviet flight tests.
They refuse to show performance data with DB 601N, the best engine fitted to Emils before the Battle of Britain, with 20% more power and improved supercharger.
Mike Williams and Neil Stirling are comparing RAF aircraft at the highest boost ever used with LW running on the lowest boost ever used.
In their articles, admittedly with revisionist goal agains the avaiable literature, they compare :
109E on 1.3ata, maximum was 1.45ata, no DB 601N powered versions..
109F - oh that`s missing, I wonder why
109G - 1.3 ata, maximum was 1.42ata
109K - 1.8ata (curves for heavy fighter version too), maximum was 1.98ata
Always the worst data they can find.
Not only that, but there are worst cases of purposeful manipulation, ie. if you look at the Emil article, Mike and Neil are compared the Merlin and the DB 601A. Altough the literature is full of notes about the better altitude performance of the DB engine, they 'revised' the fact, and used rammed power figures for the Merlin (rammed power increases engine output above rated altitude because of the high-speed motion of the plane), and
static output (ie. no ram) for the DB engine, to convince the crowd all those books were lying.
The part I don`t understand, the reason of this bigot zealotry and using of the lowest tools to push forward the agenda.
