Hmm Hitchnoodles data is really strange BUT they show also some nice details. I assume that he was very glad to get some data together for his book, but didnīt look carefully enough to the data to interpret them correctly.
Good information is f.e that he gives 1475hp for takeoff power (first row), and later for max. emergency speed at ground level 1440hp (530-1440-0) - here you can see the RAM effect which reduces the power below critical altitude a bit. The same can be observed for the BMW 801, 1800hp takeoff power, and 1730 for high speed low level flight.
Iīm only wondering myself why the G6-R2 is listed as a reconaissance fighter. Afaik the R2 is equipped with a bombrack to carry 4*50kg bombs. Reconaissance aircraft usually were equipped with GM-1 and not with MW-50.
The given chart has also similarities with the chart of a 190, but it isnīt from the 190. But if you look at the F1/F2 table and compare it to the chart of the F-Model, you can easily see that his charts not always have to represent exactly the table. Just compare the climbrate (20.5 <> 18. ) or the power (1175 <> 1250 (dotted line in the original))
Or why does the climbrate of the F4 does drop down to 17.0 compared to 20.5 of the F1 and F2 according to the table?? It had 150hp more power, and was only slightly heavier.
In the G6-R2-table he mentions 6.6km as critical altitude for combat speed, but in the Graph the critical altitude is 6.0km
I have the impression he didnīt even know about the supercharger system of the DB605 and tried to bring the collected data into a form he was used to from allied engines.
In my eyes he is the typcial historian: Very good in collecting data, in digging in achives, but whenever they have to interpret technical data correctly they fail quite often. Nowarra is such an example on german side.
Anyway, itīs the first time iīve seen a speed number for a G6 with MW-50. If it was really a R2 with a bombrack, then 560km/h seems to be realistic. When it it official geramn data, then at least noone can claim that german exagerrated their aircraft performace claims
. Iīve also read statements that pilots reached 590km/h near ground with ASM engines (factory fresh aircraft)
Remarkable is imo the different trend of the G4 curves (climb and speed). Wheras in the speed chart the bulge is near ground, and the straight increase near critical altitude, the style of the climb rate curve is inversed. Straight increase near ground, above the (inverted) bulge. The finnsih top speed charts corresponds much nicer with the G4-climb rate chart. But this maybe depends only on the artist who draws a continious line through few test data points.
A certain bias is definitly existent in the russian charts. Itīs interesting to see that the combat power curves of the russian aircraft most often hit EXACTLY the emergency power curves above critical altitude, or after switching into the 2nd. gear (La-series). This is for flight test data very unlikly and imo a good indication that the data is based on theoretical calculations with ideal engine power charts.
And of course most pictures have a russian fighter as fastest fighter near ground included. Most pictures publish only combat power for the german planes. Most pictures neglect MW-50 (190D, too!). And when a P-51 and K-4 would be as fast as the La-7 from other charts (where it does 615km/h), they throw in a La-7 what does suddenly 630km/h near ground... (The 206 prototype ehh?)
Iīm also wondering myself why they publish the 109E-3 speed data though the climbdata makes it evident that it suffered from engine troubles near ground (climb and combat power, supercharger not working correctly?).
With MW50 injection, the DB605 provides higher power, and the "bulge" in the speed graph moves to an altitude just above sea level so it's no longer recognizable. The Russian Me 109K-4 graph above shows that.
Exactly Hohun. With 1800hp, the clutch slip disappeared already in 0,9km, with 2000hp in 0,4km. And this is the proof that the G-10 reached the often claimed 685km/h WITHOUT Mw-50, only with 1550hp. butch2k, maybe you can post the picture with the speed of the G-10 too? (btw butch2k, i havenīt seen pic 1-2, 9-15 and over 17 so far, but iīm very interested to see them - can you scan them and publish them too somewhere? thx).
About the A-5, here is an official source (The A-5 was actually faster than a A-8)
If you compare it to the russian test data, you can come to the conclusion that they used only continuous power. The poor climbrate is also indicating this.
niklas
